Jonah, Andy, I’m with you guys. Does Newt have an “open marriage” with John King? He gets to slap him around on TV, but after the show he’s all kissy-kissy with him? I’ve sat through too many third-rate nights on Broadway not to recognize the difference between cheap manipulative ersatz indignation and the real thing.
More fool the crowd for rewarding him for it. The Pundette thinks Newt-vs-the-media is one of those Iraq-Iran war neither-of-the-above deals:
Here’s a heads-up for Newt: We don’t have to choose between you and them; we can dislike you both.
While we’re at it, a lot of readers think this post was some sort of pro-Santorum pitch. Not at all. I’m merely pointing out that he was damaged by the inability of the fools running the Iowa caucus to conduct the first meaningful vote in the presidential process in a timely and efficient way. Please note my final point: Nowhere else in the civilized world does it take so long to count so few votes, while losing so many along the way. Iowans should be cringing with embarrassment.
In a broader sense, the primary season seems oddly out of sync with the times. Chastised by Laura Ingraham for his characteristically tepid message on the economy, Mitt responded: “Do you have a better one, Laura?” There’s a campaign slogan if ever I heard one: “Romney 2012. Do You Have A Better One?”
If in November the incumbent manages to see off his challenger, I would imagine an Obama second term would start where the non-recess recess appointments left off – with an ever more brazen contempt for the legal niceties that will drive a coach and horses through the Constitution. Historians will look back mystified at a contest between Mitt’s soporific trimming and Newt’s histrionic showboating. Obama means it. Do they?
Media are in the tank for Gingrich - not because they want him to be president or because they think he will be an easier opponent for Obama but because they want the campaign to continue - look at the ratings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy first thought with the Iowa fumble was that they are too close to Minnesota where we watched Norm Coleman lose as the Repubs outfumbled the Dems.
Exactly--you know they're in the tank for Newt because they just tried to utterly destroy him with that interview with his ex....oh....wait a minute......
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLaura Ingram, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, etc. get a thrill up their legs because Newt has a style very much like them, hence why they so embraced Trump as well. Mitt is forever being chided by them for his style being timid so Laura whining about this is par for the course.
Mitt Romney will never ever be a radio talk show barker taking on the media. To him, it’s a losing battle and he’s right (see Sarah Palin for the best example). Mitt is never going to call Obama names either, which chaps their ass as well. It is what it is.
Mitt will defend strongly against the DNC/OWS/MSM complex though in his own way….see here:
External Link
I thought Romney was the most presidential in the debate last night (and wow…is he handsome, very Don Draper looking!)
The way Mitt defends free-enterprise is one of the most important skill Republicans will need in the general election and he does it with passion and intelligence every.single.time he opens his mouth! I loved that he strongly defended his own free-enterprise success too.
His tax return response of releasing them all at once was a fine answer. This whole line of attack on him is silly. Mitt Romney, who as Jay Nordlinger says, has an over eagerness in his nature; does anyone, other than hardcore Romney haters, really believe that someone like him is a tax cheat? I doubt it.
Mitt Romney embodies that Jimmy Stewart (stammers and all) do-goodness era when men could be seen walking little old ladies across the street for safety or putting a coat over a puddle for a woman to walk over.
Mitt Romney has never been nor will ever be a Gordon Gekko evil money grubbing person DNC/OWS/MSM (and Michael Moore...cough....I mean Newt Gingrich) strain themselves to portray him as.
Mitt’s best moment last night was his answer to “what would you do over if given the chance”: With humor and grace he conceded to Santorum’s win in Iowa, told Americans why Obama isn’t a good president without making him the boogeyman (an extremely important trait and he does it with aplomb) and then reconciled the heated rhetoric of the campaign trail saying anyone on the stage would make a better POTUS.
Brilliant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't care for Limbaugh and the other members of the chattering class, but their candidate was Michelle Bachmann, and it speaks volumes that she was one of the first to bow out.
Mitt has the same problem his dad had: he cannot explain himself on key issues.
You are talking to a GOP electorate who just finished watching George W. Bush get treated like the last piñata at a fat kids convention for more than 8 years. Yes, he looked presidential (whatever the hell that subjective attribute means) and ended up having his message altered by those opposed to him so much, that he began talking their lines by rote. Throw in McCain, who could explain things better than Mitt, but still acted timidly during the beginning of the financial mess, and you see manifested in this election cycle a preferment of someone who's not a nice guy.
In politics in this day and age it may be best having a do nothing Congress. The founders didn't want an efficient government, and Obama's first two years in office should highlight that danger. We don't need nice guys; we need stinkers. Someone whose gonna clean out all those agencies and czars and do so with aplomb.
No, this isn't an endorsement for Gingrich; but the party has had its fill of nice guys like Mitt.
Mitt's won New Hampshire, a state decidedly progressive. He lost Iowa after spending five years and millions of dollars in a state that thought Bachmann was pretty.
Mitt didn't connect.
Mitt is currently losing South Carolina. He had a huge lead there two weeks ago; it vanished during the debates, and has now turned into a deficit, if one reads the polls correctly or takes them at face value. Mitt doesn't connect. And all the "explaining" on your (and NR's) part isn't going to wash that away. He's been running for this office too long; he's been vetted; he's been analyzed.
End result: he's a cold shower in January. Outside. In a snowstorm.
Mitt may still win the nomination. I don't put any faith in a party or ideology that chucks its principles and tosses in for the likes of a Bush, or a McCain. But if Mitt does win, he will get his clock cleaned by people who have all the traits you despise in Gingrich only they'll be working for the dipstick in the White House, and they've already shown they can polish a bag of manure pretty well into looking presidential.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI watched the debate several hours after it was on (I was busy during the time the debate was on). I have to confess that I have a thing against rowdy crowds in general, but they are not fit for a presidential debate, it's one of the things that about Ron Paul supporters, now all the candidates' supporters are acting like Ron Paul supporters.
As for the ex-wife question, I thought John King was doing him a favor in the way he brought it up. And I don't know how he could have possibly ignored the 800 pound gorilla in the room, having it come up first so Newt could clear the air is the best thing Newt could hope for. All this feigning outrage that it was brought up is non-sense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseoops, I skipped a few words
...it's one of the things that annoys me about Ron Paul supporters...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"He gets to slap him around on TV, but after the show he’s all kissy-kissy with him?"
Don't you pundits do that all the time? Call out someone on this or that and then are friendly when interviewing or on a panel with them?
For me that was the good thing about Reagan. He would disagree passionately with political opponents and press evaluations and positions but be personally gracious and friendly. No Nixon's enemies list for him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt attacking the press is something I'll never get tired of, even it is "cheap, manipulative, and ersatz".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOK, but by being false he hurts the cause. In his contrived moment of outrage Newt blasted King not simply for bringing up the issue of his divorce, but doing so as part of the left wing media conspiracy to assist President Obama. His turn to collegiality casts doubt not only on his own indignation but also on the sincerity of his claims of liberal bias.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich, as evidenced by both his personal and political life, is a fantastic manipulator. It's unsurprising he was in the thespian club in high school.
Anyone who depends on his word to outlast specific circumstances is a fool.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGet over it Mark. We aren't considering letting our daughter marry him. We want to know if he will protect and defend the Constitution and act in the best interests of the country. That you cavill against the only federal budget balancer running and defend the healthcare socialist is beyond bizarre.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow did I know you'd pile on? Psychic I guess. Either that or you're becoming predictable.
You say that the "primary season seems oddly out of sync with the times".
Do you not even see that pundits like you & your publication are wildly out of sync with the people? So desperate are we that we're willing to take another look at Newt Gingrich because we literally crave someone who will at least occasionally fight on our behalf.
But bash away if it makes you feel superior, we did not choose this field but we seem stuck with it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo I take it people expected Newt to shun John King? Or maybe punch him? He put King down and then was magnanimus and an adult.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince Richard brought up Ron Paul (overlooked, for the most part, again); has anyone happened to notice that he's the only genuine, sincere, and consistent candidate in the bunch. And before you go slamming his ideas on foreign policy, consider the words of Ben Franklin - “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSaying Newt hit it out of the park is like saying Bill Maher hits it out of the park when he attacks Palin in front of his audience. Newt was preaching to the choir and he got his ovation, big deal. If you watch it objectively, he basically repeated the same answer 3 times. It was not a great response by any measure and the issue is not going away.
Newt's defenders claim he has repented and is sorry for his past moral failings. He sure could have fooled me with that response. He is arrogant as ever. The audience were a national embarrassment as well. None of these rants are going to work in the general election. Axelrod will have no problem painting Newt as the has-been, angry loser that he is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo they mean it? They haven't been practicing their "patty-cake, patty-cake" routine for off Broadway. The Road to the White House is nothing if not paved with hi-jinks and hilarity ensues. From Ames to Zanzibar this zany duo are famous for ad-libbing and rapid fire dialogue. A pairing destined for debate franchise success. Who could resist Newt's ham performance? In fact, Newt and Mitt made me feel right at home, like watching a Bob Hope and Bing Crosby road picture. Bob/Newt hamming it up to the camera for the audience vs. Bing/Mitt with all the best lines that money can buy. (Even money on Mitt releasing an autotune music video to his stump stylized readings of America the Beautiful before all is said and done, no?) Clearly, Ron Paul needs a rewrite for he kept losing the plot. However, Santorum saved the day with informative detail and holding them accountable for "playing footsies" with those Main Twins, Senators Snowe and Collins on the road to $15 trillion in debt over curvacious, faithful Dorothy Lamour. I lost count of how many curve balls Santorum pitched because no one could connect; the clear winner. The Santorum campaign plays a mean game of Moneyball.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt for press secretary. Romney for president.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMitt for press secretary. Romney for president.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI feel for you, Mark. You don't like Gingrich. A lot of people who like you (in South Carolina and beyond) also like Newt--including the knuckle-dragging right wingers in that audience who you slam now but usually stand up for.
If South Carolina voters go for Newt, will you reevaluate? Or just call them bitter Bible and gun-clingers?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, I would love to see Newt chew and spit out Obama in the debates, but otherwise he is and will continue to be a disaster. There is just no way he can win the general, and frankly (to borrow his word), no way that he should. Obama will further wreck the country if reelected. Newt would wreck it too, just in a different way. The result will be the same.
Anyway, I have to ditto Mark on his comments about Romney on Ingraham's show yesterday. It was just painful to hear. It was awful. He was testy and tense with Laura, and once again got all weird when the subject of his taxes and the economy came up. I still support him only because the other choices are even worse. I am at the point of despair and I think the only solution is a brokered convention.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse