As others have mentioned, I thought Gingrich had two very bad answers. He suggested that he left Congress to start businesses or some such. That’s nonsense and everyone knows it. He left the speakership and Congress on bad terms and he should be comfortable simply acknowledging that as painlessly as possible while touting his many real accomplishments.
Second, his stuff about not being a lobbyist of any sort is just silly. Why else bring in a lawyer to explain to him how to avoid the label? You could see it on his face that he regretted bringing that up the moment he said it. Look, Freddie Mac hired Newt Gingrich for a reason. It wasn’t as an historian. They wanted his name on the shingle for a reason.
I disagree with my friend Hugh Hewitt about how much damage Newt did to himself however. If NBC’s post-debate discussion is any indication, the press is more fascinated with feeding on Romney and his tax returns than they are on Newt and his “historical consulting.” The press has sated itself on Gingrich many times, Romney is still more exotic fare.
You must have missed the memo. NBC and the left-wing media are secretly dreading a Gingrich nomination. They're paying more attention to Mitt because he is the easiest to destroy - or something like that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePeople in the know make money by being in the know. What's so crooked about it? You think every used car salesman conducts a sale over a bible? Get real.Imagine Dick Morris running for office.
*captcha =hairy eyeball.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGuess what Jonah. You are the media too. Why not do your part and tell the truth, rather than feed the bias against Romney?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Shingle: does not mean what you think it means. And I'm not referring to the construction material used in roofing and siding.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJonah, you are just going to have to get over your Newty crush. His negative poll numbers are too high for him to ever be President. Women especially don't like him.
Even if Republicans are stupid enough to nominate him, one thing is 100% guaranteed...Newt will never be President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI disagree. Just by the way they were speaking during that exchange, Newt came out on top. Romney was stuttering and hyperventilating while he was taking it to Newt. Gingrich came back with very calm, very measured answers. Then Romney changed subjects to Medicare Part D, which gave Gingrich a chance to tack to the middle with the older Florida voters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sorry, but I saw that as a win win for Newt.
The liberal media also has a stake in wanting Newt to be the republican nominee, which should be obvious. My concern also is that if any democrats can vote in any of these republican primaries they will all vote for Newt, just as in 2004 when it was in the republicans interest to see howard dean as the democratic nominee.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think there are two reasons the media wants Newt as nominee. Most obviously, he's a weaker opponent in the general with high negatives and zero indy appeal. The other reason is he makes for better television/copy than the bland Mitt Romney.
I think more Republicans are coming to the same conclusion I am: That with Paul looking more likely to run as a third-party candidate in November given his debate performances, Obama will win the election no matter who the Republican nominee is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHugh is right that this is Romney's night, but not because it was some great victory but because Newt's momentum seemed to stall. We will see how this plays out over the next few days of polling, but I will guess there will be a narrowing of polls. The problem is voters know both Newt and Mitt are flawed candidates. Of course, most of us (at least around here) think Barack Obama if far worse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt laid off tonight to avoid the image of being "always angry", a stereotype the MSM is eager to impose. It was Iowa redux. Having looked gentle for the night, he'll be ready for a more vigorous encounter on Thursday; one Floridians will remember!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNBC's complete incompetence should disqualify them from ever hosting a debate again - even for local school board. Terry Schiavo? Really?
But their avoidance of the Gingrich revelations - we now know that his contract with Freddie Mac was drawn up with their Chief Historian, so his story checks out - wait I've been handed a bulletin, apparently the contract was with the Chief LOBBYIST instead, meaning Newt is lying through his teeth - NBC concentrates on destroying Romney while he's weak, saving the take-down of Gingrich for Obama so he can look strong.
The guy is looking you dead in the eye and lying. He thinks you are too stupid to figure it out because he is a fundamentally transformative figure in American politics, just ask any employee he's bent over his desk.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe purpose of these debates is to avoid any discussion of the real issues of the day (ie flak for Obama), while serving as mini campaign commercials for future Obama ad buys. In this, the debates are very effective.
If you are a Democrat, that is.
People like Brian Williams have no idea the storm that is going to swamp their boat in 2012. It is going to make the 2010 "wave" election look like low tide. And it almost won't matter who the GOP nominee is.
The gag order placed on the crowd will not hold in November.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, Newt is going to destroy Obama in the debates, huh?
Can you imagine 21 hours of Newt saying "I'm not even going to respond to President Obama's attack, check my website?"
He can't even handle Mitt. Unless, Mitt plays dead and lets him get away with grandiose lies, distortions, and avoidance tactics. Last night Mitt called Newt out just as Obama will do. We saw that Newt can't take the heat. Conversely, Romney did very well for most of the debates under constant attack in getting his message out and bringing all topics home to Obama's failures. Time rethink the anti-group-think, group-think.
The fact is: anyone who will tell the truth about Newt will destroy him. As Mitt did lastnight on a variety of character and behavior issues which correlate around the word disgrace when discussing Newt Gingrich. These include his affairs, his double-dealing, and his ability to compartmentalize and parse on a Clintonian level.
I guess it depends on what your definition of lobbying is, Mitt. Seriously? Republicans will stand for that? This one won't.
HOT-N-READY FTW!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSometimes you've really gotta question the thinking.
On the one hand, we're told that Newt is persona non grata in DC, that his actions, attitude, temper and sleaziness have turned off everyone who worked with him.
Then we're told that someone hired him to lobby for them because he is New Gingrich, and he has such influence.
These two things don't work together. It can be one, or the other, not both.
Likewise, we're told that first point, along with the information that Newt's former collegues support Mitt--and then we're told that Newt is the 'establishment candidate'.
But if the establishment hates him, and supports Mitt, wouldn't that make Mitt the establishment candidate?
To accept the arguments against Newt, one must be an adept at doublethink. If one is a true adept at doublethink, one is likely an adherent of some form of ingsoc. Given that Mitt uses the euphemism 'progressive' to describe himself, the idea is not that far fetched.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt really isn't so complicated: Newt polarizes people. I'm down here at the South Pole.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Newt polarizes people"
And Romney doesn't? Everyone in the race has rabid opposition in the party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Look, Freddie Mac hired Newt Gingrich for a reason. It wasn’t as an historian. They wanted his name on the shingle for a reason."
This is not a defense of Newt, but an observation on the DC culture: Fannie/Freddy had just about everyone in political Washington "on the shingle" in the 90's and 00's. That was their basic business strategy. They were the ultimate rent-seekers, and they nearly brought down the world economy.
That they and the political "oversight" chairs are not in jail is a testament to just how corrupt the whole deal was.
As for Newt resigning in disgrace, he did what GOP politicians always do after a political embarrassment, he resigned. In contrast, Nancy Pelosi orchestrated the most historic beat-down of her party in modern political times...and remains in Congress as Majority Leader.
"Disgrace", it seems, is a relative term. As Rush likes to say, failure is a resume enhancer for Democrats...the more humiliating, the better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse