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

[YOhio]

There are virgins here?

That's a very personal question, The Topper. Probably best left for Private Messages, if at all.

[wuapinmon]

I'm not threatened by you. You are a virgin.

[oxcoug]

From a CB poster:

http://www.nationalpolls.com/2012/ob...-gingrich.html

According to current polls, Obama leads Gingrinch 409-101 EV in state by state polling. Granted, these polls are spotty and there is 10 months to the election, but Obama has some numbers that should scare Republicans. If these were to hold up, Republicans would lose the House easily and even lose a Senate seat or two instead of taking it.

Here are some frightening numbers for Republicans (Obama listed first, Gingrinch second)

AZ 45-35
NV 47-35
VA 46-41
NJ 54-27
IA 48-36
GA 41-50
NM 56-39
FL 51-39
PA 52-35
SC 46-42
CO 50-42
CA 55-35
NH 52-40
NY 63-28

[Moliere]

From a CB poster:

Texas is 47 for Obama and 45 for Gingrich.....Wow!

Looks like my vote might help turn Texas blue this year.

[Pelado]

From a CB poster:

At least he wins Georgia.

[Omaha 680]

Texas is 47 for Obama and 45 for Gingrich.....Wow!

Looks like my vote might help turn Texas blue this year.

If a republican candiate puts Texas in play that is all you need to know about his viability. What the hell are we doing?

[Moliere]

If a republican candiate puts Texas in play that is all you need to know about his viability. What the hell are we doing?

Even Santorum is easily winning Texas. Romney would be fine here as well. This is all mind-boggling...

[NorthwestUteFan]

I can't find the video right now, but yesterday of Meet the Press Joe Scarborough tore into Newt and spoke about being '...so fed up with him that we threw him out' back in 1998. He claims Gingrich's surge in popularity is more a function of him being an anti-Mitt than anything else.

Long version here: http://mojoe.msnbc.msn.com/_news/201...meet-the-press

[oxcoug]

What Mitt needs to say:

"Voters need to understand they lost homes, jobs, retirement savings, investment income and all the benefits of a healthy economy because Newt Gingrich accepted money to assist Barney Frank, Barrack Obama and Chris Dodd in sheltering Freddie Mac and blocking reforms that could have averted the worst of the economic crisis. Newt Gingrich sold out American voters in the most fundamental way imaginable. This is corruption of the worst kind - it is the intersection of money and political influence which helped bring down the American economy and it should not be rewarded with even greater political power."

[YOhio]

Ezra Klein brings up one of Newt's big ideas.

Putting individuals who brought more than two ounces of marijuana into the United States to death.

[Jacob]

What Mitt needs to say:

"Voters need to understand they lost homes, jobs, retirement savings, investment income and all the benefits of a healthy economy because Newt Gingrich accepted money to assist Barney Frank, Barrack Obama and Chris Dodd in sheltering Freddie Mac and blocking reforms that could have averted the worst of the economic crisis. Newt Gingrich sold out American voters in the most fundamental way imaginable. This is corruption of the worst kind - it is the intersection of money and political influence which helped bring down the American economy and it should not be rewarded with even greater political power."

Is there any evidence that Newt did such lobbying, other than his salary? I suppose it is possible that he advised them to reform, etc. I don't believe that, but still. now that Freddie and Fannie are owned by the government, can't someone do a FOI request for any and all documents, memos, etc that Newt gave to Freddie as part of his job as "historian?" If no such documents exist, it can be safely assumed that he was nothing more than an influence peddler, a lobbyist. Mitt should put the burden of proof on Newt with something like you wrote. Prove that your were not paid for your influence, etc.

Edit: I don't mean to say that Mitt should be cautious here. He needs to attack. His SuperPAC should put the ad out that Newt was a lobbying who pushed for the regulations that caused the housing collapse and recession, or at least strongly imply such. Mitt and his surrogates should meanwhile be making a similar, though slightly more circumspect attack on the stump and on TV. When Newt complains about it in the debate, you don't say that you can't control your PAC, you turn it on him. We want to know what you were doing for Freddie. Basically, its the same thing Newt and Perry did with the Bain attacks, except Romney won't get any backlash for attacking free enterprise.

waiting for the PAC ads would take too lone. Mitt needs to pounce at the debate.

[venkman]

Newt is alot of things, but he's not a radical leftist under a thin moderate veneer. He won't appoint radical leftist judges to the supreme court that will "fundamentally transform" this country in a way the left can't do with the ballot box. Yes, Newt sucks, but of course he'd be better than Obama.

[LA Ute]

[YOUTUBE]63n6N11mrO4&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]

[Jacob]

Romney is attacking, but needs new writers, or just a little righteous indignation:

“He’s been working for Freddie Mac, heard of those guys? He said he’s been a historian. I would like him to release his records. What was his work product there? What was he doing at Freddie Mac? Because Freddie Mac figures in very prominently in the fact that people in Florida have seen home values go down – it’s time to turn that around!”

"figures very prominently" that's weak

[LA Ute]

Romney is attacking, but needs new writers, or just a little righteous indignation:



"figures very prominently" that's weak

He can't help himself. Looks like this press availability was a better effort:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...tHLQ_blog.html