When asked about his electability, Newt invoked Ronald Reagan, who was once thought unelectable — his first invocation of Reagan during the debate last night. If Mitt Romney were a yard dog, he might have fired back, “Hey, Newt, whose record are you running on — yours or Ronald Reagan’s?”
Mitt Romney is not a yard dog. But he did a damned good job at the debate anyway, turning in a winning performance after his abysmal one in South Carolina. He laid several gloves on Newt, and Newt — who wore a nasty facial expression most of the night — knew it. There were some good policy moments, but this show was mostly the Newt–Mitt faceoff to try to determine the outcome in Florida.
While Romney couldn’t get by with a line like “pious baloney,” he was nevertheless effective, persistent, and impressive in painting Gingrich as an “unreliable leader” (the theme of Romney’s new ad campaign), twice noting that Gingrich had left the House “in disgrace.” Romney also scored when he pointed out that the just-released contract for one of the years Gingrich was paid by Freddie Mac was negotiated by the lobbying department — and that the word “historian” was nowhere to be found in that document. Romney said that Newt may claim Freddie was paying him for his historical insights, but “I call it influence-peddling.”
When Gingrich, in response to a question about his advocacy of the Medicare prescription-drugs plan, tried to deflect the question by portraying himself as a citizen crusader, Romney punctured him by noting that he was being paid for his citizen’s advocacy by pharmaceutical companies.
“I’m not going to spend this evening chasing down Mr. Romney’s misinformation,” Gingrich said lamely, referring viewers to a website, the default position for trapped politicians. Still, sometimes, it is sheer joy watching Newt take a question, turn it around, and frame an answer. When, for example, NBC’s Brian Williams asked him whether the American people had the stomach for war with Iran, Gingrich replied that the American people hadn’t initially had the stomach for the Second World War, or to go after terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 — but we ended up doing what we had to do.
A reckless, pro-Newt mantra these days is, “But wouldn’t you pay a million dollars to watch Newt debate Obama?” Yeah, you might have a hell of a night, but you wouldn’t like yourself much in the morning.
Romney went on and on with the attacks. He looked so exited that he was able to use the lines taught to him by Michelle bachman's debate caoch. It got old very fast. I was so happy when they finally moved on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow about NRO's reckless anti-newt mania?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy congratulations to Old Fan for being able to ditch the pseudonym and post on the main blog here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeconded. Do we really need The Corner crowding out actual commentary with this bought-and-pair-for cheerleading? And I mean for every candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou know, I was going to go off on the delusional nature of this post, but this says it all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is a bit of historical revisionism in Newt's record of being a Reagan Conservative, during most of his career he fancied himself a "Rockefeller Republican" it is funny how he said in the debate that he supported Goldwater in 1964, that is interesting as he was state chairman for Rockefeller... Drudge has this link up External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMs. Hays,
Why do so many modern conservatives seem to think we need a "yard dog" to espouse our values? What happened to having the leadership skills to be be both genteel and forceful with one's opponents? It seems that we are setting a false distinction in this age of increasing coarseness. I do not know if there is a correlation, but it appears that as we see more and more adult men who never wore the uniform, we see an increase in "yard dog" bravado and antics and that the candidates and pundits with no military background are often the most eager to shoot someone else's gun.
God bless, Dan Hoffman
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe revisionism is coming from Mitt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRead this from Jeffry Lord on The American Spectator for a witness account of Newt's role during the Regan years:
External Link
The revisionism is coming from Mitt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRead this from Jeffry Lord on The American Spectator for a witness account of Newt's role during the Regan years:
External Link
IOW a whole lot of the pot calling the kettle black. For example how much influence does a disgraced former Speaker forced to resign have to peddle? And if consulting decision-makers about strategic spending/investment is so bad what exactly was Mitt doing all those years in the private sector anyway? Neither of these guys help themselves when this is the main line of attack.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQ: "how much influence does a disgraced former Speaker forced to resign have to peddle?"
A: As much as anybody is willing to pay for. In this case about $1.6M of "influence."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf only Mitt were thought unelectable because he was too conservative...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe might but he'll have to stand for something soon. We are 10 months from the general election. Romney has been running for 5 years. Yet, still he doesn't stand for anything. The only thing we know for sure is he won't disavow Romneycare, won't really explain why it is good even though it costs more and provides less and why it is different than it's national offspring, Obamacare. He's shown no passion for turning the country around. He's been unwilling to offer a vigorous defense of capitalism as the way to keep America prosperous.
So, Yes, He Can, but will he?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith Romney you are talking about someone who has never had a single major conservative policy victory in his entire life. Not one. In fact, his major policies were all liberal: Assault weapons ban, getting Planned Parenthood written into law, and nascent Obamacare. With Gingrich, you're talking about someone with an imperfect past who still has several conservative policy victories: Welfare reform, balanced budgets, and defeating HillaryCare, to name a few. All of these with a Democrat in the White House.
For goodness sake, Romney started his political career distancing himself from Reagan in a debate with Chappaquidick Ted.
The syllogism from the GOP Old Guard seems to be something like this: Voters want a perfect conservative. Newt Gingrich isn't a perfect conservative. Therefore, we must nominate a Massachusetts liberal. This is a transparent non sequitir that brings much of the establishment's motive under severe question. Just how foolish do you establishment types think we rubes in fly-over country are?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt wouldn't have been a good idea for Mitt to reference Ronald Reagan's record at all, given his repudiation of Reagan when he ran against Ted Kennedy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, perhaps he should've just said, "The era of Reagan is over." Oh, waitaminnit -- someone already beat him to that one. (And it sent Limbaugh -- the Newt lovers' mouthpiece -- into a tizzy for several days on end, IIRC.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDrudge is best buds with ROMNEY'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER,. he did the same type of top line stories against Mccain. What has Rom done to support conservatism? He had a family and worked. I quess I am the true champion of conservatism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs much fun as it is to watch Newt and how great he is at debates. He's not a good candidate for the general, with his penchant for upsetting both Right and Left and his huge unfavorability rating. Not to mention he's a crummy leader, shown by being ousted by his own party. Plus, we forget that Obama doesn't have to agree to any debates at all, think the MSM will call him out on it? Ha! Obama didn't agree to townhall style meetings with McCain, and there were only three 90 minute debates in the last cycle. Newt won't win the general on debates, it's folly to think otherwise.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs Romney a "reliable" leader? His record in Mass, suggest not, at least to conservatives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is incredible to read this website. They are so in the tank for Romney its disgusting.
The party leaders have coalesced around Romney. They figured that Obama will win a 2nd term no matter what. So they have chosen Romney to lose graciously to Obama because they feel if they do, they have a better chance of recapturing the Senate and holding the House.
The GOP establishment wants to control how the money is spent, they really do not care about winning the White House. They want their boy to lose to on Obama. And because the voters are not falling in line with this plan they are panicking....
To the Establishment. I am so so soooo sorry with not falling inline with this plan to allow the marxist to have nother 4 years. I for one am willing to fight for the White House and it appears, as much as I hate to say it, because I don't like him as a person, but Newt is the only one with any serious fight in him to actually try and win the White House.
You will not win the White House treating him with kid gloves.... Has anyone heard Romney really hit the president hard yet? I haven't.. its weak weak weak.
Santorum is more like a puppy dog when he need a junkyard pitbull.... advantage again, Newt.
Ron Paul, well, come on, those newsletters killed any chance of winning the general against the first black president.(Not that its fair, but it only matters the narative the media puts out, ask Herman Cain how that works)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse