It looks like Newt could have a big win tonight and the ingredients remind me a little of New Hampshire in 2000: McCain bonded with New Hampshire on the basis of his performance in town hall meetings that were rollicking affairs–combative, different, and fun; Newt has done a version of the same thing in the debates. McCain benefited from a complacent frontrunner; Newt has as well. The size of McCain’s win stunned everyone; we’ll see if Newt achieves the same thing tonight, but it’s certainly possible. McCain’s win was ultimately blunted in the next state, which wasn’t as naturally favorable to him; in that respect, the Romney campaign has to hope that Florida 2012 is to Newt what South Carolina 2000 was to McCain.
Perhaps. My greatest concern is that Ron Paul is to 2012 as Ralph Nader was to 2000. This would be very, very, very bad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRon Paul doesn't need to run 3rd party - if Newt & Mitt are going to divvy up delegates, and Paul gets to go strong in the West, then nobody will get a majority of delegates, and Ron Paul will be a lot less like Ralph Nadar, and a lot more like the Free Democratic Party of Germany: Do not pass go, do not form a government, without the assent of the classically liberal remnant for freedom!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy do Newt fans get so excited over him winning the nomination? He's toxic. His negatives are through the roof. He'll never win a general and could cost the repubs. the house too. And you're happy with this?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
Can Newt go all the say. I have a problem with Newt and other women: His endorsement of Dede Scozzafava and his cuddling on the couch with Pelosi.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe couch isn't as problematic to me as his attack on Mitt's free market activities. With socialistic class warfare like that, who needs the Democrats?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI made a parody xtranormal video about this here: External Link
The Dede affair .. and other like it are what most worry me about Newt.
He can be quite a RINO at times, when he is looking for the Rs instead of what the Rs are doing.
But this is not his main nature. Just something that he is open to. We have to remember that when he did have the reigns of government, he reformed welfare, blocked hillarycare, lowered taxes, and balance the budget for 4 straight years. Sure, he has plenty of ideas and says some things that make you wince ... but when he actually ACTS, he has shown himself to be quite conservative.
Compare that to Romney when he held power .. and only for one term (don't think he won more than once). Romney at his most conservative = Gingrich when he is behaving as a RINO.
Compare that to Obama .. who has been very successful in dismantling this nation.
I'll take the least good-looking fellow. The one who'll stand up to the current President and not allow the media to spew leftist training without some argument.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
What is the problem with Rick Santorum? I think Dan Collins has a big part of the answer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not voting for any Big Government Hack who thinks his state's preference for taking away individual liberty in the labor market justifies his voting to keep many Americans in the bondage of closed shop unionism; who bloats the Dept of Education that Reagan wanted to rid American classrooms of having to appease; or putting up with his mockery of individual "personal autonomy" as some greedy, selfish act!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll vote 3rd party before I vote for Santorum, and if that wing of the party is placated -- in a year when the priorities need to be getting our fiscal house in order -- then maybe it won't be my party anymore.
The punditry here drives me crazy--it's all about wanting a story. We all knew months ago that Iowa would be a tie that weeded out some candidates, that New Jersey would go to Romney, and that the South (particularly South Carolina) would be much harder for Romney. There are only two questions: who's the opposition (Newt or Santorum) and will Romney really implode enough to squander his sizable overall lead (a setback in one state simply doesn't count)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore likely Goldwater 1964. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLowery appears to be just another sour grapes type of establishment chucklehead. South Carolina has been touted up till last night as the state that picks nominees. Now that your boy Romney has lost....by a huge margin...it is not so important. It´s almost juvenile.
You refer to Romney as a ¨complacent front-runner.¨ Are you serious????? He out spent Gingrich 2 to 1 in SC. He campaigned hard. He, above even Ron Paul, launched massive personal attacks campaigns against Gingrich. He has spent tens of millions of dollars already for little result. Same as in 2008 where he spent tens of millions of his own money for less delegates than Mike Huckabee. How conveniently forgetful your memory is. How pitiful your rationale.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI fail to see any similarity between the milk-toast campaign McCain ran against Obama and the way Newt has been attacking Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt’s strange that Gingrich would be compared to McCain when the two are very different in so many ways. If I recall, when McCain was running for the presidency his performance as well as his campaign was far too lackluster. It’s as if his heart wasn't in it, no fire in the belly, just going for the ride until it was all over, reminiscent of Bob Dole, if anyone remembers that. McCain failed to stir the crowd or get any of us emotionally committed. Is it any wonder why Sarah Palin is so popular? He was letting her do most of the work, with that said; we all know the end results. As for Newt Gingrich, he emits a deep passion that seems to connect with everyone as he speaks. He seems to articulate incisively what's at stake in this election and generates solicitude almost to the point of anxiety if this country gets four more years of Obama. It’s not just his intellect, but his mannerism that gets everyone's attention. Whether one likes him or not one thing is certain, this man is clearly a leader. I can't remember any one candidate Republican or Democrat, in a debate, whose handling of the moderators left all others speechless and change course in tone out of fear and respect. In the beginning, Perry and Paul were the one's I was rooting for but unfortunately, Perry's debating skills left much to be desired and perception is everything. Alas, he failed to impress which is a darn shame because Texas is by far the most prosperous of all the states and having been governor of Texas for 10 years tells you Perry is mastering something others aren’t and would have done wonders for our economy. As for Paul, I love his ideas for the economy as well as his social values, but his foreign policy is deeply concerning. Romney seems promising but he fails to connect and his responses like all the rest excluding Gingrich and Paul are template and lack vigor. I’m not so sure if he can make his case against Obama which would distinguish him completely from that opponent, where everyone can say, “So that’s the difference.” As for Santorum, I think in a couple of more years he will probably be a force to be reckoned with, although at present, he doesn't seem to generate the same kind of authority Newt, Romney, and Paul exhibit. This leaves us now with Newt, who in my opinion is far better able to floor Obama in a debate and expose him in public for what he truly is, a socialist with communist leanings. Make no mistake, Newt does have his baggage but in fairness, an impressive resume of accomplishments. As for baggage’s, let’s not forget, so does Obama which the media in its attempt to protect him have purposely kept them from public display. I'm sure Newt is anxiously awaiting the opportunity to expose them in a debate as the moderators attempt to unfold his. Peggy Noonan wrote it best, "He is a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, "Watch this!" Unpredictable and controversial, sure but wasn't Churchill?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn closing I must add that while we should critique all of them, let’s not be overly critical to the point where we damage the chances of electability for the winner of the republican primaries, after all, any of them is a far better choice than what we currently have in office.
It’s strange that Gingrich would be compared to McCain when the two are very different in so many ways. If I recall, when McCain was running for the presidency his performance as well as his campaign was far too lackluster. It’s as if his heart wasn't in it, no fire in the belly, just going for the ride until it was all over, reminiscent of Bob Dole, if anyone remembers that. McCain failed to stir the crowd or get any of us emotionally committed. Is it any wonder why Sarah Palin is so popular? He was letting her do most of the work, with that said; we all know the end results. As for Newt Gingrich, he emits a deep passion that seems to connect with everyone as he speaks. He seems to articulate incisively what's at stake in this election and generates solicitude almost to the point of anxiety if this country gets four more years of Obama. It’s not just his intellect, but his mannerism that gets everyone's attention. Whether one likes him or not one thing is certain, this man is clearly a leader. I can't remember any one candidate Republican or Democrat, in a debate, whose handling of the moderators left all others speechless and change course in tone out of fear and respect. In the beginning, Perry and Paul were the one's I was rooting for but unfortunately, Perry's debating skills left much to be desired and perception is everything. Alas, he failed to impress which is a darn shame because Texas is by far the most prosperous of all the states and having been governor of Texas for 10 years tells you Perry is mastering something others aren’t and would have done wonders for our economy. As for Paul, I love his ideas for the economy as well as his social values, but his foreign policy is deeply concerning. Romney seems promising but he fails to connect and his responses like all the rest excluding Gingrich and Paul are template and lack vigor. I’m not so sure if he can make his case against Obama which would distinguish him completely from that opponent, where everyone can say, “So that’s the difference.” As for Santorum, I think in a couple of more years he will probably be a force to be reckoned with, although at present, he doesn't seem to generate the same kind of authority Newt, Romney, and Paul exhibit. This leaves us now with Newt, who in my opinion is far better able to floor Obama in a debate and expose him in public for what he truly is, a socialist with communist leanings. Make no mistake, Newt does have his baggage but in fairness, an impressive resume of accomplishments. As for baggage’s, let’s not forget, so does Obama which the media in its attempt to protect him have purposely kept them from public display. I'm sure Newt is anxiously awaiting the opportunity to expose them in a debate as the moderators attempt to unfold his. Peggy Noonan wrote it best, "He is a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, "Watch this!" Unpredictable and controversial, sure but wasn't Churchill?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn closing I must add that while we should critique all of them, let’s not be overly critical to the point where we damage the chances of electability for the winner of the republican primaries, after all, any of them is a far better choice than what we currently have in office.
While it is always good to look at historical patterns, you also have to look at current reality. IMO, equating this primary contest to any in the past is akin to changing probability theory. Each coin flip/primary is a unique event and cannot be correlated to any past event.
Newt is not McCain. McCain was not Romney. Romney was not Huck........ The Country is also in a much more tenous position than it was four years ago. There was no Tea Party. There was no OWS. Today is not 2008.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree the context - issues, political environment, and players - has changed over the last 4 years; however, the whole world hasn't changed. The existence of 3 distinct pillars of Republicanism - "national greatness" hawks, social conservatives (including abortion single-issue voters), and economic conservatives - retains, even if their relative political influence may have fluctuated. The primary still faces the challenges of choosing a nominee that can balance these concerns in a way that holds the coalition together and attracts the necessary amount of independents.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow this relates to your point is that there are different strategies to this task, and candidates use different pillars as their bases for starting, powering, and launching their campaign. So, you're right, Romney is not Huckabee (by a longshot!), but comparisons of McCain and Romney are based on perceived ideological position relative to the current base. It is precisely because of the changing landscape that the person who 3-4 years ago was the conservative alternative to the McCain of McCain-Feingold is now the moderate candidate.
Likewise, Santorum is not Huckabee, but I think it's clear they're both launching (and surviving) thanks to the social conservative pillar, and their strategy is to unite the pillars by strengthening their appeal to the first two, while minimally appealing to economic conservatives and taking away libertarians seat at the table. Conversely, Paul of 2012 is the Paul of 2008, but he's also the federalist Fred Thompson with a budget-slaying independence outreach program. He reaches out to the social conservatives - though without pandering - by respecting their private choices, and would marginalize the hawks.
Mitt hopes the social conservatives and libertarians will come along and keep quiet so he can bring in the moderates from the cold with a Hawk-EconCon coalition, and amidst this crowded field, Newt is still trying to figure out what coalition will launch him. Credit where it's due, he found it in South Carolina for that state: pander on class warfare, tell the economic conservatives he'll give the Occupiers janitorial jobs so they don't come after the middle 40%, be the hawk he genuinely is, and tell the social conservatives in Clintonian fashion "I feel your pain", but not be as cantankerous about it as the unelectable Santorum.
I think Jennifer Rubin has it correctly that if Newt is the nominee, we are in deep trouble:
The voters in their infinite wisdom have just given a huge boost to perhaps the only GOP candidate who could shift the spotlight from President Obama to himself, alienate virtually all independent voters, lose more than 40 states and put the House majority in jeopardy.
If conservatism becomes a movement of anti-media bashing and hyperbolic rhetoric, it will cease to be a force in American politics. And if it is led by an egomaniac whose personal advancement takes precedence over any principle, the GOP will be (correctly) mocked.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNational Review is drifting to RINO Land. Rich Lousy has go to go. If Goldwater or Reagan were running today, he would no doubt be writing trash on how they cannot win. I'm sure he and the management want to grow NR by making it gray and bland (Hey, Jennefer Rubin and David Brooks, is it better now?) Check out Brent Bozell saying that his uncle, WFB would be apalled.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe key to winning in 2012 is to get ALL Republican behind the nominee, Newt or Mitt and deliver a Conservative, Economy Building, Energy Building, Government Shrinking message to the American People.
Yes, there are mush minded voters who know nothing who will vote for Obama or against ANY Republican nominee. They are not the problem. The problem is the ignorant, "middle of the road" numbskull who can not THINK.
The Election is going to be clear - Vote for Obama's Socialist-Marxist Agenda or Vote for Jobs, Free Markets and Smaller Government.
I hate the negative columns of Rich Lowery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEasy to shop history to fit a new narrative. Why NH in 2000. Or is it too uncomfortable to look at SC history where nobody since 1980 has lost there and gone on to win nomination. Romney lost and hed better make some big changes or...if we like history...its not looking good for him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse