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

[RobinFinderson]

Gingrich "mistakenly" awarded an "entrepreneur of the year" designation to a Dallas Strip Club owner. They have given him a lifetime membership.

Newt =

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.c...fetime-me.html

New Romney ad: What does Pelosi no?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...er=rss&emc=rss

Pretty brutal.

While I totally agree that Mitt is the superior candidate over Newt, you are bringing some weak sauce to the table today.

[YOhio]

Mitt is going for the jugular. I know Newt is a bastard and all that, but I think this is a bit too nasty.

[Green Monstah]

Gingrich "mistakenly" awarded an "entrepreneur of the year" designation to a Dallas Strip Club owner. They have given him a lifetime membership.

Newt =

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.c...fetime-me.html

Don't be so harsh. Gingrich has a personal stake in this guy's venture: Cinnamon the pole goddess just may be Mrs. Gingrich #4 someday.

[Green Monstah]

Mitt is going for the jugular. I know Newt is a bastard and all that, but I think this is a bit too nasty.

I tend to agree with you here. Save it for the debates.

[Moliere]

Mitt is going for the jugular. I know Newt is a bastard and all that, but I think this is a bit too nasty.

That's a borderline personal attack, but in all honesty Newt should be hung out to dry for the Fannie/Freddie stuff, ethics violations, 3 decades in Washington, etc.

Newt is running as the anti-establishment, TEA Party loving, capitalist and his record absolutely contradicts that. IMO, his public record is free game. There's nothing in that flyer that goes after his personal life.

[Green Monstah]

That's a borderline personal attack, but in all honesty Newt should be hung out to dry for the Fannie/Freddie stuff, ethics violations, 3 decades in Washington, etc.

Newt is running as the anti-establishment, TEA Party loving, capitalist and his record absolutely contradicts that. IMO, his public record is free game. There's nothing in that flyer that goes after his personal life.

I don't get the "no personal attacks" line, esp. after Newt's antics during Lewinsky-gate. It's not just screwing around, it's dumping older women for younger, more attractive spouses at times when they became critically ill (and in the last instance whilst lambasting the President for an illicit affair).

That speaks to his honesty and character. To an extent, I'm glad everyone is staying above that level for now, but I by no means think it's irrelevant or unfair to bring up the fact that Newt's a philanderer and a sleaze at home.

[Moliere]

I don't get the "no personal attacks" line, esp. after Newt's antics during Lewinsky-gate. It's not just screwing around, it's dumping older women for younger, more attractive spouses at times when they became critically ill (and in the last instance whilst lambasting the President for an illicit affair).

That speaks to his honesty and character. To an extent, I'm glad everyone is staying above that level for now, but I by no means think it's irrelevant or unfair to bring up the fact that Newt's a philanderer and a sleaze at home.

I think it's unprofessional for a candidate to bring it up regardless of how bad it looks. That's why other sources leak that crap. If Mitt came out with a pamphlet hitting him with all those personal items I'd consider that a low blow and unprofessional. However, I have no issue with it being discussed, just not coming from the top or near the top. If it really is an issue, which it is here, it'll get discussed and will impact the candidate.

But as for John King and other commentators to ask about it, sure they can given Newt's history with Clinton and such. I just don't want it coming from the other candidates.

[oxcoug]

Mitt is going for the jugular. I know Newt is a bastard and all that, but I think this is a bit too nasty.

The cheapest thing abt this ad is the way is the way it showcases Newt's grotesquely sprawling chin w/ an implied contrast to Mitt's jaw of chiseled granite.

[falafel]

I think it's unprofessional for a candidate to bring it up regardless of how bad it looks. That's why other sources leak that crap. If Mitt came out with a pamphlet hitting him with all those personal items I'd consider that a low blow and unprofessional. However, I have no issue with it being discussed, just not coming from the top or near the top. If it really is an issue, which it is here, it'll get discussed and will impact the candidate.

But as for John King and other commentators to ask about it, sure they can given Newt's history with Clinton and such. I just don't want it coming from the other candidates.

What's the difference? Especially if its getting "leaked" at the direction of a candidate? .

Personally, I see nothing wrong with Romney bringing it up. It goes directly to Newt's character and honesty, things which Newt himself has put in issue.

[il Padrino Ute]

Mitt is going for the jugular. I know Newt is a bastard and all that, but I think this is a bit too nasty.

Why? Is there anything inaccurate in those ads?

[TripletDaddy]

What's the difference? Especially if its getting "leaked" at the direction of a candidate? .

Personally, I see nothing wrong with Romney bringing it up. It goes directly to Newt's character and honesty, things which Newt himself has put in issue.

lol.

dont pretend like you did well in Evidence class.

[Moliere]

What's the difference? Especially if its getting "leaked" at the direction of a candidate? .

Personally, I see nothing wrong with Romney bringing it up. It goes directly to Newt's character and honesty, things which Newt himself has put in issue.

The only difference is perception. But I guess there could be two different cases to analyze. In Newt's case, sure Romney's camp could bring up the stuff that is known and to which Newt acknowledges. That can still be seen as a low blow and Romney would be better off having fringe groups (Super PACs) bring it up.

When it comes to unsubstantiated rumors (Newt asking for an open marriage) it shouldn't be brought up at all by Romney's camp. Instead, it is the medias responsibility to bring that up and filter out the facts/truth. If truth is found then Romney's camp can start to talk about it, but I just wouldn't see Romney beign the one saying "you asked for an open marriage" and not having it hurt him.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

If South Carolina didn't happen, then Mitt wouldn't have to be doing this. However, just like I wish my Senior Prom tux from Gingiss didn't happen but did, so did South Carolina to Mitt.

The Ricci Lake debates were what swung the momentum to Newt. Romney was just trying to hold serve and expected to easily win South Carolina. Two things happened: 1) Newt all of a sudden was the anti-establishment guy speaking truth to power (the media); and 2) Romney looked like a wimp in comparison by not sticking up for himself -- people thought he would lack the resolve to go after Obama in the general, in other words he looked like the exact opposite to Newt at that point.

These sometimes nasty attacks serve a dual purpose -- take Newt down a few notches and also make Romney look like a fighter, someone who will go after Obama. It seems to be working. Three polls have come out today that are incredibly consistent. Romney is ahead by 8,8 and 7 in them and the percentages are almost exactly the same. Of course it could all go overboard. The first page with the Jennifer Rubin quote goes too far, while the second page is much more effective.

[beefytee]

The Ricci Lake debates were what swung the momentum to Newt.

I hear that tonight's debate is back to the "Ricci Lake" format with the audience voicing their feelings as much as they want.

[Goatnapper'96]

If South Carolina didn't happen, then Mitt wouldn't have to be doing this. However, just like I wish my Senior Prom tux from Gingiss didn't happen but did, so did South Carolina to Mitt.

The Ricci Lake debates were what swung the momentum to Newt. Romney was just trying to hold serve and expected to easily win South Carolina. Two things happened: 1) Newt all of a sudden was the anti-establishment guy speaking truth to power (the media); and 2) Romney looked like a wimp in comparison by not sticking up for himself -- people thought he would lack the resolve to go after Obama in the general, in other words he looked like the exact opposite to Newt at that point.

These sometimes nasty attacks serve a dual purpose -- take Newt down a few notches and also make Romney look like a fighter, someone who will go after Obama. It seems to be working. Three polls have come out today that are incredibly consistent. Romney is ahead by 8,8 and 7 in them and the percentages are almost exactly the same. Of course it could all go overboard. The first page with the Jennifer Rubin quote goes too far, while the second page is much more effective.

Also the Southern Evangelical mistrust of mormon Mitt. Florida is important because it is more of an indicator for the non-Southern states. If Newt sticks around he might get Georgia and perhaps Tennessee on Super Tuesday, but if Mitt wins Florida it will be a Mitt sweep of all primaries and caucauses leading to an emphatic win on Big Tuesday.

But Mitt needs to continue to lamblast Newt through Florida and then go back to hammering Obama.