Really? I just don't get what some of y'all see. It had little substance to back up the original claim. Sure it had him speaking forcefully about a few issues. None of which prove that he could take on Obama nor win an election over him as stated.
I thought the narrator was awful, the graphics were shoddy, and the clips did nothing to prove the original claim. I understand he used some of the clips that help his surge but none of those help to prove the claim that he can beat Obama.
Do you really think that a fat, old, angry white man is going to sell well next to Obama?
Unfortunately, because Newt is a virtually certain loser in the fall, it is a pretty good ad. This whole schtick about Newt being a great debater turned out to be a stroke of genuis in terms of a primary campaign theme. I think it is erroenous in that: (1) the appeal of Newt's debate style to republican primary voters does not appeal and to some extent turns off independents; (2) it is far less than certain that Newt would "beat" Obama in a debate - Obama on a decent day is about 50 points more likeable than Newt at his best and the media debate judges are going to be highly pro-Obama; and (3) even if Newt clearly beats Obama in a debate, what is the basis to believe that it will move a significant number of voters to a 69 year old unlikeable candidate?
As a final point, Newt's South Carolina debate highlights would not appeal outside the republican voter base - accusing Obama of being the food stamp president and dodging a question about his wife's allegations by attacking the media and as an aside claiming she is a liar. The whole thing is pretty depressing at this point.
Boy, it's rare that I disagree with you, Jonah, but here goes.
It's a good ad on what planet?!
It's a good ad if you're looking to appeal to that segment of the population that lets to howl at the moon intemperately, seeking catharsis for all the frustrations you've felt about three years of progressive rule.
And there are evidently enough of those folks to move the needle in the Republican primary.
But for folks like you to cheer it on by calling it a good ad is irresponsible madness.
This kind of approach -- baying at the moon and shrieking, screaming, self-righeous indignation is nothing but DISASTER for the general election.
And don't tell me that they said that about Reagan too. Newt is no Reagan -- on any dimension. It's highly offensive to even invoke a comparison.
This is a farce.
The R's will lose in a landslide if they pursue the path of self-righeously indignant catharsis over sober prudential hard work.
It's ironic that Newt is riding this wave on the premise that he is the "real conservative".
There is absolutely nothing conservative about rabble rousing and appealing to the worst emotional instincts in a frustrated mob.
Indeed, what Gingrich is doing is profoundly the antithesis of conservatism.
He is appealing to the same people who cost the R's the majority in the Senate in 2010. That cost us Obamacare.
Now those same voters are flocking to Newt's insane incoherent rants.
And that will cost the R's the House, the Senate and the Presidency in 2012.
The Tea Party (which I used to support strongly) will have turned out to be the most destructive force to conservatism, and the most helpful hand to socialist progressivism, in the history of our nation.
He wants to help poor people learn how to get jobs? Condescending as all hell. Just underlines the freedom-based objections to Newt.
A free market belief is that people make their own choices and are best when they take it upon themselves to do something like take a job or learn skills.
A politician's belief is that people don't do anything without the benevolent guidance and leadership of their elected betters.
I'm not voting Romney, but Newt continues to act like a careful plant intended to make Romney seem more palatable. He continues to see everything as an exercise in the government leading the country to greatness. I think we'd all be better off if Newt could be drugged and placed in a virtual reality machine where he got to be Grand Dictator In Perpetuity and also Esteemed Professor of All Human Knowledge. Then we could go on living our lives without delusional politicians who think the only thing wrong with government is that its stupid ideas are too small.
He can't entirely decide if he's a populist rabble-rouser or an academic thesaurus-touter, but as long as everybody thinks he's awesome it doesn't matter.
The previous posters each make half a good point, but completely fail to appreciate the larger picture.
Kansas City makes the best point, by noting that Presidential debates are more about likeability than they are about scoring substantive debate points. This is exactly the answer to Broadway Crawl's complaint. He doesn't seem to understand that Newt is articulating in those clips points that are powerfully popular with Joe Sixpack. As another Corner post noted, belligerently stating a point that people want to hear made IS likeable; in contrast, Romney's milquetoast demeanor excites no one, and does not make a good case for his election.
The milquetoast demeanor is great in an environment in which everyone thinks all is well, and so no one wants to rock the boat. Santorum's attack on Newt's "grandiosity" exploded in his face for essentially the same reason. The obvious question that attack raised in everyone's mind was: "Do I think everything is going well, and we only need little course corrections, or do I think someone needs to yank hard on the wheel?" The answer is obvious, and Santorum was crushed by it.
I didn't think this ad touted his electability. In fact, quite the contrary. It seemed to me that the ad instead touted his debating skills and his willingness to attack the media. That may be appealing to some, but neither has much to do with electability.
Really? I just don't get what some of y'all see. It had little substance to back up the original claim. Sure it had him speaking forcefully about a few issues. None of which prove that he could take on Obama nor win an election over him as stated.
I thought the narrator was awful, the graphics were shoddy, and the clips did nothing to prove the original claim. I understand he used some of the clips that help his surge but none of those help to prove the claim that he can beat Obama.
Do you really think that a fat, old, angry white man is going to sell well next to Obama?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately, because Newt is a virtually certain loser in the fall, it is a pretty good ad. This whole schtick about Newt being a great debater turned out to be a stroke of genuis in terms of a primary campaign theme. I think it is erroenous in that: (1) the appeal of Newt's debate style to republican primary voters does not appeal and to some extent turns off independents; (2) it is far less than certain that Newt would "beat" Obama in a debate - Obama on a decent day is about 50 points more likeable than Newt at his best and the media debate judges are going to be highly pro-Obama; and (3) even if Newt clearly beats Obama in a debate, what is the basis to believe that it will move a significant number of voters to a 69 year old unlikeable candidate?
As a final point, Newt's South Carolina debate highlights would not appeal outside the republican voter base - accusing Obama of being the food stamp president and dodging a question about his wife's allegations by attacking the media and as an aside claiming she is a liar. The whole thing is pretty depressing at this point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoy, it's rare that I disagree with you, Jonah, but here goes.
It's a good ad on what planet?!
It's a good ad if you're looking to appeal to that segment of the population that lets to howl at the moon intemperately, seeking catharsis for all the frustrations you've felt about three years of progressive rule.
And there are evidently enough of those folks to move the needle in the Republican primary.
But for folks like you to cheer it on by calling it a good ad is irresponsible madness.
This kind of approach -- baying at the moon and shrieking, screaming, self-righeous indignation is nothing but DISASTER for the general election.
And don't tell me that they said that about Reagan too. Newt is no Reagan -- on any dimension. It's highly offensive to even invoke a comparison.
This is a farce.
The R's will lose in a landslide if they pursue the path of self-righeously indignant catharsis over sober prudential hard work.
It's ironic that Newt is riding this wave on the premise that he is the "real conservative".
There is absolutely nothing conservative about rabble rousing and appealing to the worst emotional instincts in a frustrated mob.
Indeed, what Gingrich is doing is profoundly the antithesis of conservatism.
He is appealing to the same people who cost the R's the majority in the Senate in 2010. That cost us Obamacare.
Now those same voters are flocking to Newt's insane incoherent rants.
And that will cost the R's the House, the Senate and the Presidency in 2012.
The Tea Party (which I used to support strongly) will have turned out to be the most destructive force to conservatism, and the most helpful hand to socialist progressivism, in the history of our nation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe wants to help poor people learn how to get jobs? Condescending as all hell. Just underlines the freedom-based objections to Newt.
A free market belief is that people make their own choices and are best when they take it upon themselves to do something like take a job or learn skills.
A politician's belief is that people don't do anything without the benevolent guidance and leadership of their elected betters.
I'm not voting Romney, but Newt continues to act like a careful plant intended to make Romney seem more palatable. He continues to see everything as an exercise in the government leading the country to greatness. I think we'd all be better off if Newt could be drugged and placed in a virtual reality machine where he got to be Grand Dictator In Perpetuity and also Esteemed Professor of All Human Knowledge. Then we could go on living our lives without delusional politicians who think the only thing wrong with government is that its stupid ideas are too small.
He can't entirely decide if he's a populist rabble-rouser or an academic thesaurus-touter, but as long as everybody thinks he's awesome it doesn't matter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe previous posters each make half a good point, but completely fail to appreciate the larger picture.
Kansas City makes the best point, by noting that Presidential debates are more about likeability than they are about scoring substantive debate points. This is exactly the answer to Broadway Crawl's complaint. He doesn't seem to understand that Newt is articulating in those clips points that are powerfully popular with Joe Sixpack. As another Corner post noted, belligerently stating a point that people want to hear made IS likeable; in contrast, Romney's milquetoast demeanor excites no one, and does not make a good case for his election.
The milquetoast demeanor is great in an environment in which everyone thinks all is well, and so no one wants to rock the boat. Santorum's attack on Newt's "grandiosity" exploded in his face for essentially the same reason. The obvious question that attack raised in everyone's mind was: "Do I think everything is going well, and we only need little course corrections, or do I think someone needs to yank hard on the wheel?" The answer is obvious, and Santorum was crushed by it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI didn't think this ad touted his electability. In fact, quite the contrary. It seemed to me that the ad instead touted his debating skills and his willingness to attack the media. That may be appealing to some, but neither has much to do with electability.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse