Kill Newt's Chances of Winning the Republican Nomination for President of the US

[oxcoug]

I'm much more anti-Newt than I am pro-Romney. I'm fine with Romney losing the general, but I can't stand the possibility of him losing the primary to Newt.

You can ignore Triple, he has a way of lashing out when he senses a big thread wave coming that he doesn't know how to ride.

[Pelado]

This is a bit harsh:

Santorum was asked about his aggressive intervention in the tragic case of Terri Schiavo, the Floridian whose husband wanted to honor her wish to be disconnected from life support. You could almost see the thought bubble over Newt Gingrich’s head when the topic turned to a helpless woman in a hospital bed: “Obviously, you divorce her.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-in-tampa.html

[CJF]

I'm much more anti-Newt than I am pro-Romney. I'm fine with Romney losing the general, but I can't stand the possibility of him losing the primary to Newt.

This is me also.

[oxcoug]

Krautahmmer: Obama has a new BFF in Newt.


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...estroying-gop/

[LA Ute]

Krautahmmer: Obama has a new BFF in Newt.


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...estroying-gop/

The good stuff from the piece:

Then came the twist. Then came the most remarkable political surprise since the 2010 midterm: The struggling Democratic class-war narrative is suddenly given life and legitimacy by … Republicans! Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry make the case that private equity as practiced by Romney’s Bain Capital is nothing more than vulture capitalism looting companies and sucking them dry while casually destroying the lives of workers.

Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO nods approvingly. Michael Moore wonders aloud whether Gingrich has stolen his staff. The assault on Bain/Romney instantly turns Obama’s class-war campaign from partisan attack into universal complaint.

Suddenly Romney’s wealth, practices and taxes take centre stage. And why not? If leading Republicans are denouncing rapacious capitalism that enriches the 1 percent while impoverishing everyone else, should this not be the paramount issue in a campaign occurring at a time of economic distress?

Now, economic inequality is an important issue, but the idea that it is the cause of America’s current economic troubles is absurd. Yet, in a stroke, the Republicans have succeeded in turning a Democratic talking point — a last-ditch attempt to salvage re-election by distracting from their record — into a central focus of the nation’s political discourse.

How quickly has the zeitgeist changed? Wednesday, the Republican House reconvened to reject Obama’s planned $1.2 trillion debt-ceiling increase. (Lacking Senate concurrence, the debt ceiling will be raised nonetheless.) No one noticed. It made page A16 of The New York Times. All eyes are on South Carolina and Romney’s taxes.

This is no mainstream media conspiracy. This is the GOP maneuvering itself right onto Obama terrain.

The president is a very smart man. But if he wins in November, that won’t be the reason. It will be luck. He could not have chosen more self-destructive adversaries

[Flystripper]

This is a bit harsh:



http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-in-tampa.html

but not untrue

[LA Ute]

National Review says "No Newt:"

There is much more to general elections than debates, and there is much more to the presidency than giving speeches. On an intellectual level Gingrich knows this, but he has little experience either in contesting elections with large numbers of voters of varying views or in running large organizations. Romney has executive experience, unlike Gingrich or Santorum, and in past elections voters have seemed to value that experience. But at least Santorum, like Romney, has been elected to statewide office before, and like Romney has shown himself able to reach beyond the Republican base in doing so. Santorum’s record in this regard beats Romney’s, since Santorum won statewide in Pennsylvania twice. Only Gingrich has never been elected to office from anything larger than a congressional district; only Gingrich has never had to reach beyond the Republican base vote to win an election.

Gingrich has been a nationally known figure for a long time: when the economy was booming and when it has been in a slump; when Republicans were on top and when the public disliked them; when the national mood was sunny and when it was sour. Amid all the tumult of the last 18 years there has been this constant: Gingrich has never been popular. Polls have never shown more than 43 percent of the public viewing him favorably at any point in his career. Gingrich backers say that he is inspiring. What he mostly seems to inspire is opposition.

It should go without saying that Gingrich also offers more material than the other candidates for Democrats to drive his numbers in the wrong direction. Any Republican nominee will draw criticism for being too biased toward the rich. Not every Republican nominee will be attacked for cruelty in his personal life.

None of these candidates can be guaranteed to beat Obama (or run a successful White House), and under the right circumstances any of them could. For Republicans to choose Gingrich, though, would be a gamble, with everything from the Supreme Court to Obamacare to our nation’s alliances riding on the outcome.

[oxcoug]

FT's Rachman - Obama v Romney is the debate America needs. Go w/ Newt if you're just interested in some fun theater.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c42ea...#axzz1kO4UDFTw

[byu71]

but not untrue

Yea, but also interesting how someone like Begala compares the two praising the Elder Romney.

Begala would be part of the clan that roasted Romney senior. I fine it interesting each nite some democratic strategist gets asked his opinion on the Republican primary. Anyone really not think they have some kind of agenda when giving their answers.

The best is when they bring on Debbie Wasserman-Shitlz. It is like fingernails accross the chalkboard and I can only last a few paragraphs.

[oxcoug]

Destroy Newt, Politico killshot:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71903.html

New details from Newt Gingrich’s $35,000-a-year contract with Freddie Mac show that the Republican hopeful wasn’t just a boardroom consultant, but served as a high-profile booster for the beleaguered organization. He even gave a rallying speech to dozens of the group’s political action committee donors in the spring of 2007.

Shortly after the “rah, rah” speech, as one source described it, Gingrich gave an interview for the Freddie Mac website, where he supported the group’s model at length. The interview is no longer on Freddie’s site.

[LA Ute]

Rich Lowry: "Newt is less lovable and more roguish than Bill Clinton." Ouch.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ton-rich-lowry

Only one other politician in America could have played the victim card so expertly when confronted by the story of a wronged woman. Only one other politician would have thrown out so many obfuscating “facts,” or turned his lavish anger on and off so quickly. Only one other politician would have dared hope to turn such an embarrassing imbroglio to his advantage. If he was watching the debate somewhere, Bill Clinton must have chuckled in admiration and thought, “Well played, my friend. Well played.”

Newt is the Republican Clinton — shameless, needy, hopelessly egotistical. The two former adversaries and tentative partners have largely the same set of faults and talents. They are self-indulgent, prone to disregard rules inconvenient to them, and consumed by ambition. They are glib, knowledgeable, and imaginative. They are baby boomers who hadn’t fully grown up even when they occupied two of the most powerful offices in the land.

[oxcoug]

Calling engineers:

New details from Newt Gingrich’s $35,000-a-year contract with Freddie Mac show that the Republican hopeful wasn’t just a boardroom consultant, but served as a high-profile booster for the beleaguered organization. He even gave a rallying speech to dozens of the group’s political action committee donors in the spring of 2007.

Shortly after the “rah, rah” speech, as one source described it, Gingrich gave an interview for the Freddie Mac website, where he supported the group’s model at length. The interview is no longer on Freddie’s site.

How do we get that interview? It's gotta be accessible via the Way Back project or some such, no? Ted? JL?

[LA Ute]

From the Christian Broadcasting Network's chief political correspondent:

Exclusive: Gingrich to Evangelicals: My Past Weaknesses Make Me 'More Normal'

Some may scratch their heads wondering how and why Newt Gingrich could be resonating with a wide swath of evangelicals but it’s a fact. That was proven to be true in South Carolina and if he wins in Florida it will be in large part to evangelicals who are working tirelessly behind the scenes to spread the good word about Newt. There will be a big pastor conference call this week and many more evangelical-type events including some church appearances.

If you want to understand specifically why many evangelicals are flocking to Newt (excuse the pun), read my detailed analysis here.

[Goatnapper'96]

From the Christian Broadcasting Network's chief political correspondent:

Exclusive: Gingrich to Evangelicals: My Past Weaknesses Make Me 'More Normal'

I don't plan to vote for him in either the primary or the general, but he is the best pure politician we have had since Bill Clinton.

I think he has no chance to be elected but if he did my guess is his desire to be successful would force him, similar to Clinton, to work with the other side and govern. That is something we have not had for many years.

[oxcoug]

I don't plan to vote for him in either the primary or the general, but he is the best pure politician we have had since Bill Clinton.

I think he has no chance to be elected but if he did my guess is his desire to be successful would force him, similar to Clinton, to work with the other side and govern. That is something we have not had for many years.

It wasn't Bill's "desire to be successful" that forced him that direction - it was the unholy ass-stomping that he suffered in 1994 followed by a internal battle won by the DLC types who crafted a strategic push to co-opt the center-right (one of my company's primary advisers was one of the three guys who authored that push and he likes to talk about it now - a lot).

So I guess a "desire to live another day/term" and a "desire to be successful" might come from the same place, but Clinton's move to the right began with the survival impulse.