Newt Implodes As Santorum Surges

Loading

And Newt goes boom!

Newt Gingrich voiced enthusiasm for Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care law when it was passed five years ago, the same plan he has been denouncing over the past few months as he campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination.

“The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system,” said an April 2006 newsletter published by Gingrich’s former consulting company, the Center for Health Transformation.

The two-page “Newt Notes” analysis, found online by The Wall Street Journal even though it no longer appears on the center’s website, continued, “We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100 percent insurance coverage for all Americans.”

And it now appears, as many of us feared; it is ObamaLite’s race to lose:

…While his position in the national horse race matchup is far from decisive—at this writing the RealClearPolitics average of the national polls shows Newt Gingrich with a slight lead—Romney dominates in all of the structural categories that typically correspond with victory. He has a huge money advantage—with more than $14 million in cash on hand as of the last report mandated by the Federal Election Commission (and that does not include the financial assistance he has received from “SuperPacs” that operate freely on his behalf). This financial edge gives Romney the ability to flood the early states with television advertisements and employ plenty of professional staffers to manage his ground game. Romney also has a runaway lead in the race for endorsements by Republican officeholders; while these move few voters, they reinforce Romney’s institutional advantages, giving him greater access to well-heeled donors as well as on-the-ground campaign intelligence.

Jay Cost further writes that the “not Romney” camp isn’t as huge as many believe it to be:

That said, the conventional wisdom about Romney’s candidacy—that there is a huge “not Romney” bloc of GOP voters out there—is massively overstated. Romney’s favorable rating among prospective Republican primary voters is quite high, upwards of 60 percent, and the latest CNN poll of GOP voters shows that 80 percent of Republicans either support him now or would consider supporting him at some point; this is a larger number than that of any of his major competitors. Yet the theory about a “not Romney” bloc has some merit; what is particularly noteworthy about his numbers is that a relatively large proportion of the GOP electorate—between 40 and 50 percent—believe he will eventually be the nominee, but his actual support tends to be about half that size. So, if there is no vehement “not Romney” faction of Republicans, there is at least a group of GOP voters who are hesitant for some reason.

So is that pretty much it? Every other candidate has gone boom and any candidate that we really wanted to see…a Palin, Ryan, Christie or Jeb Bush never even stepped into the ring.

So it will be Romney

Or will it?

With 45 percent of Iowa Republican voters undecided and a roller-coaster ride about to come to a screeching stop next Tuesday with the GOP caucuses, it may be Rick Santorum’s turn to take the final ascent and surprise the political class by … doing better than expected?

Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, has been touted as the sleeper candidate by none other than 2008 Iowa caucuses winner Mike Huckabee. He has relentlessly campaigned in the state, hitting all 99 counties and moving his family out there. He has held 350 campaign events in the past year.

He has received key endorsements from well-known social conservatives in the state, and has had solid performances at each of the debates. And he’s running an old-school style campaign that Iowa voters expect in the retail-style politics of the Hawkeye State.

The man whose at the back of the polling pack — despite recent buzz giving him a late boost — is taking nothing for granted but has nothing to lose.

“My feeling is when you’re sitting last, if you can do better than that, that’s good,” he told Fox News.

Santorum said he’s got 1,000 caucus representatives in a contest with about 1,700 caucus locations. He acknowledges that means no official representative to make his case at each of the locations, but at “almost all of them, and no other campaign is going to have someone there who’s going to get up and speak on our behalf.”

Santorum, who claims organization and message will make the difference, is also banking on a divide and conquer strategy.

“There’s really three primaries going on here,” Santorum said. “Ron Paul has his own primary, the libertarian primary. And (Newt) Gingrich and (Mitt) Romney are sort of the establishment primary. And I think there are three who are vying for the conservative mantle to go up against the Gingrich-Romney duo. And I think that I’m going to be the one coming out Iowa with that mantle.

“And if we can do that, then we’re off to the races here, and conservatives around the country, just like they’re doing here in Iowa, are going to start rallying around our campaign,” he said.

Dick Morris believes he is surging:

All along, the Tea Party voters have yet to unite behind a single candidate. They still aren’t united, but in Iowa, there is evidence that Rick Santorum may be surging ahead.

In the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) telephone poll of 23,000 supporters nationally, Newt led with 31% of the vote, followed by Bachmann at 28%, Romney at 20% and Santorum with a surprising 16%.

But on the ground in Iowa, where it counts, Gingrich has gone through a gauntlet of $10 million of negative TV ads sponsored by Romney, Paul, and the others. Without funds to defend himself, he has seen his vote share drop. Ron Paul’s has risen, Bachmann’s has fallen, and Santorum has increased quickly.

There has always been a sort of mini-primary among the Tea Party followers among Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, and Santorum – the candidates they find acceptable. Gingrich’s and Bachmann’s drop, Cain’s withdrawal, and Perry’s stagnation all contrast sharply with Santorum’s surge.

The former Pennsylvania Senator has been the also ran in the field, the Rodney (I get no respect) Dangerfield of the Republican primaries. But with the lack of poll numbers has come a lack of scrutiny. These days the spotlight can get too hot very quickly. Santorum, whose conservative record is as solid as they come, is benefiting from the fall of Gingrich in a way Bachmann seems unable to do.

And:

“[Santorum] is the one candidate in the race who hasn’t caught his wave yet,” says Vander Plaats, who served as Mike Huckabee’s 2008 Iowa campaign chairman and now heads the Family Leader, a coalition of socially conservative groups. “We believe he’s going to catch his wave. And we believe he’s the one candidate who can withstand the scrutiny of being on top.”

It may very well be time to visit Santorum, his record and what he stands for. Just a quick search over the past few days of newsbits led me to his thinking on the 2nd Amendment and the importance of getting solid conservative justices on the bench:

More specifically, the former Pennsylvania senator warned that reelecting President Obama next fall could weaken gun rights. He cited the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the 2008 Heller case that struck down portions of the District of Columbia’s strict gun control laws.

“If you read the dissent in Heller, no gun owner should feel comfortable this is a secure constitutional right according to this Supreme Court, and that’s why we need a good, strong Republican conservative who understands what it means to appoint and confirm solid judges and justices,” Santorum said.

I like his foreign policy:

But Santorum’s seriousness rebounds to his credit when it comes to foreign policy. The former third-ranking Republican in the Senate has spent a lot of time thinking about America’s role in the world. And during the debates, he’s been a hawk’s hawk, sparring with Ron Paul over the Iranian threat. “I think Michele Bachmann understates how dangerous Ron Paul would be,” says Santorum. “Many conservatives would fear literally for their safety if Ron Paul would get in there to work with liberal Democrats to gut the Defense Department, to pull back every forward-deployed troop all over the world.”

He’s certainly worth a second look it appears. The question is….can he go toe to toe with ObamaLite?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
48 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Santorum cannot win the general election. Gingrich can.

He can beat Obama. There is a clear line between the two. The line between Newt and Mr. O is fuzzy on several items.

Some people are afraid Santorum will run off the independants and moderates.

If you take the Candidate Match Game over at USAToday you learn very quickly why Rick Santorum is rising in polls.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game
It is a fun game, very enlightening.
I couldn’t believe how Obama consistently got ziltch while my lead three switched about depending on how I weighted the issues.

What the Fox article quoted in the “And Newt goes boom!” segment does is really skew what it is Newt said and what he did NOT say.
Listen to his words.
(Or read them)
He never says he agrees with HOW we get the country to a 100% participation rate.
Newt doesn’t even agree that the Mass. plan will work….in Mass!
Newt was critical of the Mass plan because it was a BIG GOVERNMENT solution, which he felt was doomed, like all other big gov’t ”solutions.”

Don’t want to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal to read the commentary?

Here is the full text of Gingrich’s April 2006 commentary on Romneycare:

The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.

We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. Individuals without coverage often do not receive quality medical attention on par with those who do have insurance. We also believe strongly that personal responsibility is vital to creating a 21st Century Intelligent Health System. Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers.

The Romney plan attempts to bring everyone into the system. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle, but the details are crucial when it comes to the structure of this plan.

Under the new bill, Massachusetts residents earning more than 300% of the federal poverty level (approximately $30,000 for an individual) will not be eligible for any subsidies. State House officials had originally promised that there would be new plans available at about $200 a month, but industry experts are now predicting that the cheapest plan will likely cost at least $325 a month. This estimate totals about $4000 per year, or about 1/5 of a $30,000 annual take-home income.

While in theory the plan should be affordable if the whole state contributes to the cost, the reality is that Massachusetts has an exhaustive list of health coverage regulations prohibiting insurers from offering more basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles. (This is yet another reminder that America must establish a cross-state insurance market that gives individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans in states other than their own.)

In our estimation, Massachusetts residents earning little more than $30,000 a year are in jeopardy of being priced out of the system. In the event that this occurs, Governor Romney will be in grave danger of repeating the mistakes of his predecessor, Mike Dukakis, whose 1988 health plan was hailed as a save-all but eventually collapsed when poorly-devised payment structures created a malaise of unfulfilled promises. We propose that a more realistic approach might be to limit the mandate to those individuals earning upwards of $54,000 per year.

While the Commonwealth’s plan will naturally endure tremendous scrutiny from those who assert that the law will not work as intended, Massachusetts leaders are to be commended for this bipartisan proposal to tackle the enormous challenge of finding real solutions for creating a sustainable health system. I hope that Massachusetts’ initiative to provide affordable, quality health insurance for all continues to ignite even more debate around the subject of how to best address our nation’s uninsured crisis and the critical problems within the health system at large.

I cannot see anything fuzzy about the difference between Gingrich and Obama. Gingrich balanced the budget and reduced the size of government. Gingrich worked to reduce taxes. Gingrich reformed welfare, for the benefit of those who drew it. Show me any Obama position which comes close. The only think fuzzy here Sid is your thinking. How many elections has Gingrich lost compared to Santorum or Romney? Answer: none.

The sooner you guys get behind Romney, the better the GOP chances in 2012. Romney will nominate conservative judges; Obama won’t. Obama will cut defense more than Romney. Romney will sign the bill repealing ObamaCare; Obama will veto it.

At some point, you need to view things with a modicum of pragmatism. Santorum won’t beat Obama; Romney probably will. Santorum is no Reagan. Reagan wasn’t an angry man. Most Americans, including independents who decide elections, don’t like angry men. Obama got elected in 2008 not because he supported national health insurance, but because he wasn’t an angry man and voters thought he’d be a consensus builder. No one will ever mistake Santorum for a consensus builder.

This is the grave of Mike O’Day
Who died maintaining his right of way.
His mind was clear. His will was strong.
But he’s just as dead as if he’d been wrong.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Larry a phone booth could beat Obama. When it’s down to the final two, it will be more about not re electing Obama than who his running mate is, save for maybe Ron Paul. If intrade would put Santorium into play, I’d buy the stock for several reasons: dirt cheap, I believe he CAN win, Mark Levin is behind him ( which will trickle down to most if not all of the “non establishment” talk radio endorsements), and, he was always my first choice. I even predicted that he might be the “Iowa Surprise.”

No surpise, all of the big money (on intrade and otherwise), is on Romney.

As to your suggestions Larry, I”ve already decided if the R’s can’t nominate a real conservative, it’s all over, and I’m out. My last straw for them was the payroll tax. At least for me, this race is as much against the left/progrsssives, the republican establishment, as it is voting Obama out of power. They are all one in the same, some just more phony than others. Up until this year, I always looked at politics as not perfect candidates, but those who would do the least amount of harm. Now I believe there is no difference, so we may as well just get it all over with and not prolong the agony of what’s to come.

Unlike most, I do believe our problems are all rooted in social issues and no politician is going to save us. My one and last hope is in the American People, not dupped by junk TV and talking heads, still with enough integrity and love of country who get the importance of having America led by a real conservative who respects and lives the values of our founding fathers.

Personally I consider Santorium the most important person in the race. Why? Because he is exposing the hypocrisy of the right that needs to be exposed. We already know that the R establishmnet is anything but conservative, the only questions that still needs to be answered, which will be in Iowa, is if America is still conservative.

If the answer is no, then, as I said, I’m out, and will not waste any more of my valuable time debating or even caring about American Politics. We’ll get what we derserve, and like many humbled countries before us, will have to learn the hard lessons through our pain.

45% of all the jobs created in the entire US in the last 2 years have been created in TX under Governor Perry’s policies of low taxes, low regulation, and tort reform.

TX has gained 4 Congressional seats during Perry’s tenure as governor. Businesses and jobs are pouring into TX.

If you want a proven leader with a record of job creation and a record of choosing strict constructionist judges and a record of military service, You will vote for Rick Perry.

Rick Perry is a winner. He has been re-elected governor 3 times. He has never lost a race and he has been down and counted out before.

Hi Patricia, By any measure, America is a much more conservative country than it was in the period of the 1930s to 1990s. By most measures, Barack Obama has been a more conservative President than Richard Nixon or even Dwight Eisenhower. And yet we are in danger of becoming a “humbled country?” And the last straw was the Senate voting 90-10 on the payroll tax deal? An eminently sensible compromise, in the tradition of the United States, which goes back to the Constitution itself?

Consensus and compromise is the very essence of a functional democracy. It’s the way that the USA has always worked. A minority can sometimes impose its shrill will on the nation, by virtue of reckless games of chicken, which has been the modus operandi of certain Congresses, for brief periods of time, but this never lasts, nor should it. The people don’t reward this at the ballot box.

As far as your assessment of the certain defeatability of Barack Obama, what are you seeing in the polls that is eluding the rest of the media punditry?

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Hi Tercel (#8), We’ve debated Perry’s record here, in the past. – Larry W/HB

What does it say about a candidate who can’t even get 10,000 signatures of support?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8979537/Newt-Gingrich-aide-compares-Virginia-failure-to-Pearl-Harbor.html

@GaffaUK:

That the GOP (Good ‘ol boys) establishment is very strong, and that the amount of candidates dilutes the amout of signatures. It will be a totally different ballgame when it’s down to 2.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Larry I can’t rehash this with you again. But if you think that we are more conservative than in 1950, that’s certainly your right to think so. For now, let’s just keep it to social conservatism, which is what Santorium has the courage to run on and, as I’ve stated many times over, IMO, it’s our new “non conservative” social standards that have gotten us into so much trouble.

As for Santorium being “angry”, ?????? Where did that come from, the same place as the “hate” speech for using the word “pathetic?” I’m not trying to be snarky, just totally not getting it.

@GaffaUK: I thought that the issue is that, while only 119,000 people voted Republican in VA’s last primary, just last month VA changed its requirement to make the ballot from 10,000 signatures to 15,000.
Seems an excessively high proportion of all voters when you consider how few voters even bother in the primary in VA.
But Texas Gov. Rick Perry today filed suit in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the constitutional validity of the Virginia statute which regulates access to the ballot by presidential candidates and limits the rights of voters to vote for the candidate of their choice. To review the filing…… http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/12/Perry-VA-Ballot-Access.pdf.

No Speaker of the House ever used (and encouraged the use of) words like “pathetic” to describe the mainstream opposition Party until Gingrich. If you are saying that the USA is not as socially conservative as it was in the 1950s, of course I’ll agree with you, but if you think that the answer to this is to elect a strident social conservative as President, I’d ask you what you expect such a person to do, besides appointing conservative judges, which Romney would be certain to do. You supported Gingrich over Romney, yet Romney (and even Obama) has a far better life’s record when it comes to walking the walk of family values. You may think that Gingrich has now sought and found redemption, but there are news stories from people in Gingrich’s past today, who are appalled that he is, in their words, lying about his past – IN THE PRESENT TENSE, AS IN, LYING TODAY ABOUT HIS PAST – all for political gain. This does not seem to me to be the behavior of someone truly redeemed.

You blame changing social mores on politics. But changing social mores are a worldwide phenomenon. I regret these changes as much as you do — they affect not only my own life, but also the lives of my children, and I was appalled by the behavior of the classmates of my children, from middle school onward — but the answer does not come from the political arena.

If the founders had intended for the USA to be a Christian Nation, it would have been written into the Constitution (or, at least, the Federalist Papers), along with everything else. The founders did not intend for the nation to be run by the tenets of any religion. It was to be (and still is) a nation of democratic laws. The morality of the nation is entirely outside of the political sphere.

To me a “conservative” is one who favors small government, as opposed to one who favors posting the Ten Commandments in public places and government intervention regarding the placement of feeding tubes.

Consensus and compromise is the very essence of a functional democracy. It’s the way that the USA has always worked.”

How do you compromise slavery or abortion? Is the future debt on our children and grand children not up for compromise? What part of government we can do without? Can government policy inflate our savings? How much money should you be allowed to make? What is compomise in your opionion?


Is Ron Paul part of the good old boys network? funny you mention 2 when that’s the number of candidates who were able to get over 10,000 legit signatures.

@Nan G

I believe 15,000 is the recommended whereas 10,000 is the minimum. Apparently Gringrich’s ‘organisation’ only started collecting signatures last month.

http://businessdm.com/newt-perry-fail-to-qualify-for-virginia-primary-ballot/

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Larry you clearly are misrepresenting my viewpoints. I thought I made it more than clear that religion belongs NO WHERE in government, albeit is NECESSARY (or some non-religious adherence to the goldren rule/commandments) if a socity is to survive. That is exactly what our founding fathers also believed.

I also don’t blame the decline of social mores on politics (politics are the consequence). I blame it on Godlessness/secularism.

Nor do I think a socially conservative president is going to “change” the culture, only that by electing one, at least it would gives me some hope that this country still sees value in social conservatism. And let’s face it, we don’t need to have a theocracy to appreicate that a good man with good values is leading the free world.

As for Newt, I reamain on the fence. I just don’t know, only hold out that IF he is truly reformed, it would be a shame to miss it.

Lastly, this isn’t so much about you but since you brought up family values again, that’s another big scam of the GOP. You don’t do this, but I am so sick of everyone thinking they are Ronald Reagan. For what it’s worth, Reagan had a HORRIBLE family life, except for Nancy whom I believe he truly loved with all of his heart and soul. His daughter Patti didn’t even keep his name, and I believe she even posed for playboy, not something a any loving daughter would do a man/father like Reagan even if he wasn’t a US President. On that same note, his son Ron could not have been or continue to be against all that he stood for in politics and religion. Lastly, Reagan was divorced when it was really taboo to do so. My point of it all, that despite what appears to be a trainwreck of family life, Reagan was the greatest president of my lifetime, but certainly not because of “family values.” I don’t think “family values” has much at all to do with great leadership, at least in terms of ones own family life. I don’t doubt for a minute that Reagan believed all the right stuff about family values, but needless to say, for whatever reason(s), he certainly didn’t have a model family life by any stretch.

Lastly,

To me a “conservative” is one who favors small government, as opposed to one who favors posting the Ten Commandments in public places and government intervention regarding the placement of feeding tubes.

Indeed a true conservative favors small government, one that would have no need to have that government intervene to kill a loving daughter against the wishes of her parents, an act that would that would be unthinkable to anyone of Judeo/Christain values, upon which our country was founded.

@GaffaUK: It says that the VA GOP changed the rules in mid stream.

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=111621&mid=56418

Larry: No Speaker of the House ever used (and encouraged the use of) words like “pathetic” to describe the mainstream opposition Party until Gingrich.

Ya know, Larry… we were having this conversation over on another thread when I pointed out to you that the civility of politics today differs little from the past.. and in fact isn’t as bad as it’s been at some times in the past.

You, of course, never responded to my comment (most especially when I brought up the smearing of Goldwater by LBJ, a sitting POTUS) and dashed over here to make that same “pathetic” claim.. LOL

Well, since I only leveled a BB gun shot over your bow on that thread, and you didn’t stick around for the main battle, here’s a bit more ammo that should shoot down your absurdly naive “unprecedented” claim about Newt’s use of the word “pathetic”. An Annenberg study on civility in Congress from 1935-2011.

There’s always a degree of testiness when one party ends up losing control of one or both chambers. and those times were exactly the eras of the highest degree of incivility. Of course, since the Dems maintained control of both chambers for the majority of these 76 years, they really take their losses hard since I swear they feel entitled to majority power without an election.

But both parties have been guilty of incivility that resulted in some confrontation or take down of their words. I assure you, use of the word “pathetic” doesn’t rise to that standard… Newt was, in fact, the targeted person of many of those “taking down” comments during his time in Congress because of the way that other members decided to treat him during the ethics investigation.

An analysis of demands to take down words and resulting words ruled out of order from 1935 to 2011 suggests that incivility was higher in the period from 1935 to 1951 than in the period from 1980 to 1998, that the interim was relatively quiet, and that unparliamentary outbreaks peaked in 1946 and 1995. Each of those times corresponds roughly to a change in control in the House to the party not controlling the White House. By these measures (words taken down that go to a ruling and resulting words out of order), the first session of the 104th Congress was less civil than its immediate predecessors. Importantly, in the second session of the 104th the House had returned to its historic norm.

An analysis of the instances of words taken down reveals that some situations are more likely to produce incivility than others. These include those mentioned above—a change in control of Congress that creates a divided government—as well as incidents in which the minority feels abused or the majority obstructed, the House is involved in a high-stakes, highly charged ongoing debate on an issue central to an upcoming election, and occasions when a Member in a leadership position is being investigated on ethics charges.

I will also add that the use of such a word in Congress, about the opposition, whether on the floor, or in front of cameras, pales when compared to the way that both Pelosi and Reid spoke of Bush in the past decade alone. Funny, I don’t see you being upset at the hateful and partisan rhetoric that your boy in the WH is spewing against the GOP on the campaign trail, and at his Rose Garden free TV campaign time either.

So we have two realities here.

First: Even Pelosi and Reid’s low comments about Bush in the past, or Obama’s particularly hateful rhetoric about the GOP today, do not rise to the level of “taking down” discipline. Thus the “pathetic” argument you repeatedly are supplying as strange and undocumented propaganda here is genuinely… well… pathetic because it’s so mild in it’s context.

Second: this fixation you have of hyping up the word “pathetic” to abnormal and unreal levels show me you’ve got a hypersensitivity meter that’s seriously out of alignment, and is overly tainted by your politics. I might also add you are clueless about Congress, how they operate and how they tend to police their own internally, and instead tend to rely on your emotions as an inaccurate gauge of history.

Maybe you can convince others to get their knickers in a twist, like you, about something so inconsequential. But you’re really going to have to find a dumbed down audience that isn’t here.

You want Romney… we get it. Heaven knows it’s an Obama and O’faithful dream (a union label you’re still wearing on your sleeve..). Since they agree on healthcare, there will be little to say about it.

And since Obama’s only got smoke and mirrors, unicorns and crystal balls for an economic strategy, Romney is the perfect target, being rich, white and an evil biz exec. Romney is the perfect patsy for his class warfare campaign strategy.

If I remember rightly, it’s still the Republican party choice… not yours or your party’s. So forgive me if I tend to view your friendly advice as to who conservatives should rally ’round little more than a Trojan horse.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:

No Speaker of the House ever used (and encouraged the use of) words like “pathetic” to describe the mainstream opposition Party until Gingrich.

I guess you weren’t paying attention in the 1980s, then?

[Tip] O’Neill at odds with President Ronald Reagan

O’Neill was a leading opponent of the Reagan administration’s domestic and defense policies. Following the 1980 election, with the U.S. Senate in Republican hands, O’Neill became the leader of the congressional opposition. O’Neill called Reagan the most ignorant man who had ever occupied the White House.

I’m sorry, what was that you were saying? Um, I meant:

OMG!!! Gingrich called Clinton and the Democrats pathetic??!! Oh no, say it ain’t so!

/sarcasm off
.
.

antics, the rules of civility also apply to the sitting POTUS. That would be a “taking down” moment for sure. O’Neill has another zinger..

In 1984 a Member (O’Neill / May 15, 1984) is ruled out of order for saying “My personal opinion is this: You deliberately stood in that well before an empty House and challenged these people, and you challenged their Americanism, and it is the lowest thing I have ever seen in my 32 years in Congress.”

He was ruled out of order as part of that taking down discipline. Henry Waxman is another who tends to stick his foot in his mouth a lot.

@Patricia: Larry you clearly are misrepresenting my viewpoints.

He does that a lot, Patricia. Not sure if it’s intentional, or if he skims instead of reading, and fills in the blanks with preconceived notions instead. But it tends to get frustrating after repeating yourself a gazillion times…

Santorum simply doesn’t have enough time to catch Romney. Suppose everything goes as well as you could hope for him: he surges in Iowa and ties for second, then takes third in NH (I don’t think he can do better there, even with momentum… bad state for him). Maybe Bachmann drops and even endorses him. Now he has a whole month or two to capitalize on his newfound popularity and use the cash to somehow get organized for a score of primaries and caucuses. He could win some closed primary states but all the while Romney would be racking up delegates in Maine, Nevada, Montana etc., and there is no way he loses California to Santorum.
I said it before here somewhere, but: if you don’t have the support of the establishment, you need to build your own army. That takes time and money. In this case, the establishment fell in behind Romney, who had *already* built up his own organization (I guess he was worried Christie would run or something else would stop the GOP from helping him). So any challenger is already up against something resembling a double-strength campaign organization.
Romney is effectively unbeatable under any realistic assumptions. If Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry (optionally also others of course, but they are the important ones in this case) dropped out tomorrow and all endorsed Gingrich, then it might be close (and I still think Romney would win). And that won’t happen.

To address several recent comments:

First, the comparisons between Gingrich, O’Neil, and Lyndon Johnson are odious. During the heat of political campaigns, the rhetoric in American politics has frequently gone over the top, all the way back to Jefferson v Adams. But, when the election is over, the norm has been to develop a functional government, in which both parties work to do the job of the people.

There have always been passionate moments in governance. There have always been hot blooded Irishman like Tip O’Neil and excitable matrons like Pelosi, who, in the heat of battle, make injudicious comments.

But Newt Gingrich introduced something entirely new — a deliberate attempt to get his entire GOP caucus in lock step to systematically characterize not one person but rather the entire Democratic Party opposition in not merely unflattering terms (e.g. “ignorant”) but also in flagrantly unpatriotic and even traitorous terms, intentionally using the most unflattering, fighting words available. This was official policy, straight from the Speaker’s Office, directed at the entire GOP caucus. There is, to my knowledge, no precedent for this in American political history and, coupled with the Clinton impeachment which followed, set the tone which has resulted in the most dysfunctional and voter-despised congress in American history.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/12/16/v-print/2853325/gingrichs-old-habits-die-hard.html

Joe Scarborough, a former House Republican from Florida who served under Gingrich, said he’s seen enough of Newt to conclude that he hasn’t changed.

“He’s a bad person when it comes to demonizing opponents,” Scarborough said on his MSNBC “Morning Joe” program last week. “When Newt Gingrich calls good people like (Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen) Sebelius, compares her to Josef Stalin, a guy who killed 30 million people, and when that’s the norm for Newt, it’s not a nice person.”

Gingrich, through his oratory, didn’t invent the coarse, dysfunctional strain of politics that currently afflicts Washington, but he may have perfected the formula, observers say.

“He’s made a unique contribution as far as language goes, and he’s set the standard for rhetorical excess,” said John Pitney Jr., an American politics professor at Claremont McKenna College in southern California. “He’s always had a penchant for overstatement …He tends to cast the conflict in apocalyptic terms. Then there’s the GOPAC list.”

In 1996, Gingrich, with the help of political consultant/pollster Frank Luntz, issued a memo to Republican candidates through the GOP political action committee offering tips on how to “speak like Newt.”

The memo offered some of Gingrich’s favorite words and phrases to describe opponents: “radical,” “bizarre,” “sick,” “pathetic,” “corrupt,” “cheat,” and “anti” – as in anti-flag, anti-family, anti-child or anti-jobs.

See also:

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-09/will-newt-s-way-with-words-erase-our-memory-commentary-by-jonathan-alter

Neither Tip O’Neil nor Nancy Pelosi, at their personal nastiest, ever attempted to institute a program which called for the comprehensive and consistent demonization of the opposition party in this fashion by their entire caucus, as a matter of routine policy.

With regard to compromise over issues like abortion, that’s a straw man. This doesn’t apply to the most important functions of legislative government, which are the tax and spend issues.

With regard to me misquoting Patricia, it’s because I still don’t understand her point. She mourns the decline in societal morality. So do I. She mourns the decline of the family. So do I. But she puts the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of people who vote for Democrats (and this whole dispute began with her charge that Democrats are behind some sort of nascent effort to promote incest in America). For proof of her position, she cites the Democratic Party platforms, which have allegedly been supportive of “immoral” positions, such as abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage.

My reply to this is to point out that no one is pro-abortion, but different people have different views as to the degree to which the government should be permitted to compel women to carry a fertilized egg to the point of a full term live birth of a baby. Also to point out that stem cell research is supported by 62% of the voting public and opposed by only 30% and it is beyond presumptuous to claim that the 30% in opposition are somehow more moral than the 62% in favor. Finally, these alleged Democratic Party planks have nothing at all to do with the increased divorce rate (every bit as high among evangelical Protestant conservatives and Roman Catholics as among secular humanists and higher in some polls) or with mothers dressing their 10 year old daughters to resemble sluts or for high Nielsen ratings for anti-family values television shows and high box office for horrible movies.

With regard to Mata’s charge that I sometimes just skim over long comments, get only the “flavor,” while missing important details, and then fire off a response which is unfair to the commenter, because I didn’t give the commenter the courtesy of carefully reading the entire comment, I do admit that this has been occasionally true, and I am sorry for this. My one political New Year’s resolution will be to refrain from offering a rejoinder to a F/A comment, unless I have first actually read the entire comment.

Happy New Year, in case I do not reappear until then.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: First, the comparisons between Gingrich, O’Neil, and Lyndon Johnson are odious. During the heat of political campaigns, the rhetoric in American politics has frequently gone over the top, all the way back to Jefferson v Adams. But, when the election is over, the norm has been to develop a functional government, in which both parties work to do the job of the people.

oiyveeeee, Larry. Are we discussing civility, as you yourself brought up? Or are we discussing “working together”, which is an entirely different debate altogether. When you move the mission, you need to tell the drunks where you moved it to. In other words, if you want to shift the debate from right field to left, let’s not waste time and go there to start with.

As far as civility, if you bothered to read the Annenberg study, you’d know that the incivility.. your original subject… was not the highest during the Newt speakership years, nor was he the most vile culprit. Nor did the incivility… which is actually dwarfed by the civility in statistics of “taking down” language… carry on over long periods of time.

So please spare me as Joe Scarborough, a D erroneously wearing the R tag behind his name, as the quintessential moderator of civility. I’ll take the Annenberg more in depth parsing of that as more true. It’s not based on political emotions, but the records of self policing in the body.

Now, as to the second new debate – working together? That is exactly what Newt did during the 90s…much to the chagrin of many in the House. And apparently, what so many touted as accomplishments of the House in the 90s is no longer valid, judging by their distaste of Newt today. So be it.

However the “working together” is extremely problematic these days. It was easier to close the gap of political philosophy before than it is now simply because we have crossed some points of no return in spending. There is no way we can sustain this economy going forward without serious entitlement reform because that is the single largest drain on the nation’s purse. If one party (yours) refuses to accept any entitlement reform, or even IRS reform offered, there is simply no where to go. About all any opposition party can do is attempt to put the brakes on the damage your party continues to reap with their own stubborn clinging to ponzi scheme programs (yes, I see the “steam” pouring from your ears using those words… LOL) that are killing us.

Unfortunately, the GOP isn’t much good at putting on the brakes either.

To attempt to get two opposites for a solution together is about as possible as you liking a Mercedes, and me a Chris Craft yacht, and assuming we can purchase a boat with wheels as the cure. They are simply incompatible preferences as a transport solution, with very little in between to work with. (or maybe going back to horseback? heh) Until the Dems actually come to the conclusion that entitlement programs are a problem, we can’t solve the problem with this choice of membership in Congress. I’m all for throwing all the bums out, and replacing them with new ones that aren’t career opportunists.

With regard to Mata’s charge that I sometimes just skim over long comments, get only the “flavor,” while missing important details, and then fire off a response which is unfair to the commenter, because I didn’t give the commenter the courtesy of carefully reading the entire comment, I do admit that this has been occasionally true, and I am sorry for this.

Thank you for accepting this as a possible explanation for some of your come backs, Larry. I know you’re a busy guy, and I suspected you skimmed to get the crust of it, but ignored the meat below. Then again, I also know you do love to stir the pot, and kick up some of those crusty burnt bits at the bottom of the pan too. LOL

Happy New Year! And may this be the year that you not only have the cancer breakthru, but that you get the funding to get it on the road.

Hi Mata (#25). You are right about Gingrich having been vastly more open to bipartisan compromise than the present GOP leadership. I don’t want to misquote you, but you seem to support the Tea Party “no compromise” strategy. I don’t think that this is consistent with a functional democracy and is not even consistent with the Constitutional government envisioned and put into place by the nation’s founders.

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/27/144319863/congress-really-is-as-bad-as-you-think-scholars-say

Thanks for the good wishes.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Oh yes… INRE that heinous GOPAC memo of 1996. Let’s skip the “reporter’s” parsing of the memo, implanting their own interpretation, and go to the memo direct, shall we?

It was designed to help those on the campaign trail to use key phrases to differentiate themselves from their opponents who use similar phrases and language – aka “throw granny off the cliff”, or “tax cuts for the rich”, or “big oil”, or “big business” or “executives”, or “wall street (expressed with an accompanying sneer), etal.

You see, prior to that, the Dems had controlled both chambers of Congress for four decades, winning election after election sucessfully wielding their own particular brand of demonization. The GOP had to learn to think like the opposition, so they needed to be taught the impact of simple words the electorate would relate to. So a list of both positive and negative words were provided in order to express contrasts using more powerful language.

This is hardly a new invention, nor one that was utilized exclusively by the GOP.

The memo that is supposed to be so damning in question? Here’s the full text below. Strikes me as much ado about nothing… especially when you consider the historic behavior of the opposition politicians in history.

Language: A Key Mechanism of Control
Newt Gingrich’s 1996 GOPAC memo

As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that “language matters.” In the video “We are a Majority,” Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: “I wish I could speak like Newt.”

That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.

This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.

While the list could be the size of the latest “College Edition” dictionary, we have attempted to keep it small enough to be readily useful yet large enough to be broadly functional. The list is divided into two sections: Optimistic Positive Governing words and phrases to help describe your vision for the future of your community (your message) and Contrasting words to help you clearly define the policies and record of your opponent and the Democratic party.

Please let us know if you have any other suggestions or additions. We would also like to know how you use the list. Call us at GOPAC or write with your suggestions and comments. We may include them in the next tape mailing so that others can benefit from your knowledge and experience.

Optimistic Positive Governing Words

Use the list below to help define your campaign and your vision of public service. These words can help give extra power to your message. In addition, these words help develop the positive side of the contrast you should create with your opponent, giving your community something to vote for!

active(ly)
activist
building
candid(ly)
care(ing)
challenge
change
children
choice/choose
citizen
commitment
common sense
compete
confident
conflict
control
courage
crusade
debate
dream
duty
eliminate good-time in prison
empower(ment)
fair
family
freedom
hard work
help
humane
incentive
initiative
lead
learn
legacy
liberty
light
listen
mobilize
moral
movement
opportunity
passionate
peace
pioneer
precious
premise
preserve
principle(d)
pristine
pro- (issue): flag, children, environment, reform
prosperity
protect
proud/pride
provide
reform
rights
share
strength
success
tough
truth
unique
vision
we/us/our

Contrasting Words

Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.

abuse of power
anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs
betray
bizarre
bosses
bureaucracy
cheat
coercion
“compassion” is not enough
collapse(ing)
consequences
corrupt
corruption
criminal rights
crisis
cynicism
decay
deeper
destroy
destructive
devour
disgrace
endanger
excuses
failure (fail)
greed
hypocrisy
ideological
impose
incompetent
insecure
insensitive
intolerant
liberal
lie
limit(s)
machine
mandate(s)
obsolete
pathetic
patronage
permissive attitude
pessimistic
punish (poor …)
radical
red tape
self-serving
selfish
sensationalists
shallow
shame
sick
spend(ing)
stagnation
status quo
steal
taxes
they/them
threaten
traitors
unionized
urgent (cy)
waste
welfare

Now, if you go back thru history, you will find the majority of these words, and more, utilized by the Democrat Party as well. I’d say that generally, they wrote the book on negative campaigning… they just never sent a copy of it to the GOP. So they had to write their own. A particularly ugly slogan was from FDR himself in 1940… “Better a third term than a third-rater” That’s an interesting type of demonization of his opponent, Wendell Willkie. Of course, I still think that’s more benevolent than LBJs sleazy campaigning against Goldwater.

Then there was Dem Grover Clevelands 1884 election against Blaine, using the negative slogan “Blaine! Blaine! Continental liar from the state of Maine!”

In 1976, “Bozo and the pineapple” was used against Ford and Dole by Jimmah Carter…

In 1972, George McGovern was penning this little ditty…“Nixon + Spiro = Zero”

The Democrat election bumber stickers and gadgets 2004, courtesy of the Kerry camp, included “Impeach Bush, torture Cheney” Sorta puts “pathetic” in context, eh?

In 2008, there was the unofficial slogan by Obama and his buds, “Elect Gidget & the Geezer “ Charming… Here’s another paraphernalia found in the Obama/Biden Democrat stores – “Incontinence meets incompetence”

After 40 years of Democrat rule, and creation of the entitlement programs that are sinking us today, I’d say this little memo came 40 years too late.

Hi Mata,

After 40 years of Democrat rule, and creation of the entitlement programs that are sinking us today, I’d say this little memo came 40 years too late.

Funny thing. Post-WWII, the debt:GDP ratio stood at about 1.25. Through all those decades of spending on the Federal Hwy System, Marshall Plan, GI Bill, Great Society, Vietnam War, etc. that ratio got paid down to 0.32. Then came the Reagan tax cuts (which would have had an even worse effect, had they not been mitigated by a steep increase in the regressive Social Security taxes) and the debt:GDP zoomed back upwards. There wasn’t some massive acceleration in entitlement spending during the 1980s — what there was were the tax cuts with resulting revenue loss.

We have argued, are arguing, and will continue to argue regarding the degree to which fiscal problems are relating to entitlements (and Social Security has not added one dime to the national debt and has, in fact, contributed literally trillions of dollars to the positive side of the government ledger), but the position of the GOP (ostensibly endorsed by you) that the problem is ENTIRELY a spending problem and is not in any way attributable to injudicious tax cuts of the past 30 years is standing in the way of the sorts of common sense compromise solutions which have been recommended by all of the various non-partisan or bi-partisan panels which have tackled the issue. And systematic attempts at verbal demonization do not contribute to a solution.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Larry, post WWII, the population’s demand on entitlement programs hadn’t hit full force. Silly analogy, don’t you think?

Their flaw in constructing such programs as SS and Medicare is they never took into account that the young would not be able to pay the way for the aging. But that’s what happens when you design programs around seizing cash for those who aren’t eligible for the entitlement today to pay for those currently receiving the entitlement. It’s success, just like a ponzi scheme, depends on the bottom part of the pyramid always remaining larger than the peak.

And you’d better be looking up some stats that weigh the interest paid on the money borrowed from the SS Trust fund for general revenue spending against the “pathetic” interest yielded on the treasuries. Just ain’t so… which is why they’ve had to start selling some treasuries in the past few years to keep up with the beneficiary payout. SS is, and remains, an accounting fiscal shell game.

I agree that systematic attempts at verbal “demonization” don’t help much. But I suggest that you look to those who have mastered that technique first – your party – and clean up your house first.

BTW, I added a few little charming slogans to the comment above for you to ponder, while attempting to blame Newt as the architect of dirty politics.

Oh yes… just to comment on the original topic of this… the theoretical and premature announcement of Newt’s political death and the theoretical surge of Santorum…. only a couple problems with that. The math and the polls.

The RCP round up of all the polls shows a weak surge to possibly 4th or 5th place. Then again, it might be a tie for 4th place with Perry, or a tie for 5th place with Bachmann. All depends on which poll… or the averages of all… you want to consider.

The RCP averaging of the polls conducted up to Dec 27th still has Newt almost 4 points ahead of Santorum, and Paul/Romney in almost a dead heat for the 1st position. Perry’s up 2 points over Santorum, who’s in a statistical dead heat average with Bachmann.

Considering the negative scrutiny being placed on Newt and Paul right now, while Mittens is canonized and Santorum is almost completely out of the headlines, I’d that both Newt and Paul are still giving Romney a run for his money under the most adverse of conditions.

So the push for Romney goes on… with Powerline’s John Hindraker jumping on the official Romney bandwagon, saying the “goal of the Republican Party is to win in 2012”, and not to advance conservative ideals.

??? What is the point of a conservative movement, supporting a party, if they are not the ones to advance the movement’s ideals? Or is this one too complicated for those desperate to win not matter who is at the helm?

Then there’s two already Romney’ites, who are attempting to portray Newt as a “lobbyist” for Medicare D. That would be the Idaho Gov, Butch Otter, and GOP House member Jeff Flake. Flake is running his own campaign for the 2012 Senate race, after breaking his original promises of no more than two terms at least one term ago. LOL

Of course the problem with their portrayal of Newt, the lobbyist, is just who was Newt’s supposed paying client? The GSEs sure aren’t going to be lobbying for Medicare Part D, and isn’t that supposed to be Newt’s crime? They seem to think Newt came and talked to the group on behalf of the WH, but is that lobbying? Is not an executive administration allowed to ask a former Congressman to speak with peers about an issue, unpaid, without it being twisted into some sort of nefarious deed?

Of course not… and ethics oversight agrees. But since Newt is, despite the negative press, still nipping at Romney’s heels (along with Paul), the two Romney endorsers are trying to give the lobbyist accusation some legs… albeit weak ones. Everyone knows that Paul will self-destruct, even if he did win Iowa. So it’s not worth spending too much time on him.

As for Santorum… he’s hinging his entire future on Iowa. If says that if he doesn’t show well, he’s out the door as a candidate. Whether he has to be, as he says “dead last”, or even just somewhere near the bottom remains to be seen. But he couldn’t get his volunteers to make the 10K signatures in VA, falling about 1000 short. He’d have to finish up more than 2nd or 3rd to last before that’s going to help his support in other states.

As I’ve said before, I think he’s a good man. Just unable to inspire, apparently. These days, it seems you need to be a rock star personality, independently wealthy, or extremely controversial to get any attention as a POTUS potential.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

With regard to me misquoting Patricia, it’s because I still don’t understand her point. She mourns the decline in societal morality. So do I. She mourns the decline of the family. So do I. But she puts the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of people who vote for Democrats (and this whole dispute began with her charge that Democrats are behind some sort of nascent effort to promote incest in America). For proof of her position, she cites the Democratic Party platforms, which have allegedly been supportive of “immoral” positions, such as abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage.

Larry, it must be that “skimming” again, but do you need me to go back and dig out that I clearly said that BOTH sides are at fault? Yes, I did site the dem platform of having “immoral” positions in abortion, stem cell research (embryonic only), and gay marriage. Here’s that “what is is” again. FYI, all ARE immoral based on Christian teaching.

If that isn’t bad enough, you continue with rationalizations in the next paragraph, making my point that when we get away from core Judeo/Christian Values, we can simply do semantic gymnastics and make it all feel good. The fact that 62% of the public doesn’t see the immorality IS the problem, and my point Larry. Moving from bad to worse, invoke Catholics, like there are really any left beyond a remnant in this country who live what the faith teaches. Who do think elected Obama?

Once again Larry, that IS my point; most of America, regardless of what they call themselves, are moral relativists.

My reply to this is to point out that no one is pro-abortion, but different people have different views as to the degree to which the government should be permitted to compel women to carry a fertilized egg to the point of a full term live birth of a baby. Also to point out that stem cell research is supported by 62% of the voting public and opposed by only 30% and it is beyond presumptuous to claim that the 30% in opposition are somehow more moral than the 62% in favor. Finally, these alleged Democratic Party planks have nothing at all to do with the increased divorce rate (every bit as high among evangelical Protestant conservatives and Roman Catholics as among secular humanists and higher in some polls) or with mothers dressing their 10 year old daughters to resemble sluts or for high Nielsen ratings for anti-family values television shows and high box office for horrible movies.

Agree with your overall assessment of the situation, Mata. I’m surprised Perry didn’t rebound a little more – he put out a lot of TV ads and apparently didn’t get much mileage out of them. Also surprised Paul didn’t drop some after he started getting some more serious negative coverage. I was expecting his negatives to go through the roof, just as Gingrich and Romney’s have – both are now underwater in Iowa, i.e. more likely caucus voters have negative than positive impressions of them. But Paul is still at 53/40 positive/negative. Odd.
As for Santorum, even if he won Iowa, he’d end up like Huckabee. He doesn’t have a nationwide organization and it’s too late to build one.

So why do you guys think that Mitch Daniels didn’t run? He’s close to the perfect GOP candidate, all things considered?

I think that the strongest candidate, from among those running, would be Huntsman, in terms of electability. Romney is 2nd. Both could defeat Obama. I think that Obama would win going away, against anyone else.

Daniels would have thumped Obama.

– LW/HB

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Why don’t a lot of good people run Larry? Maybe ask Herman Cain or Sarah Palin’s family.

I do like Huntsman for a lot of reasons. If he only didn’t believe in man made global warming, I might have taken him seriously. And for those who think looks matter in electing a president, at least IMO, Huntsman wins by a longshot; very handsome guy and presidential looking.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:

But Newt Gingrich introduced something entirely new — a deliberate attempt to get his entire GOP caucus in lock step to systematically characterize not one person but rather the entire Democratic Party opposition in not merely unflattering terms (e.g. “ignorant”) but also in flagrantly unpatriotic and even traitorous terms, intentionally using the most unflattering, fighting words available.

And the Democrats NEVER do this?? Are you kidding?

On Tuesday, Senator Charles Schumer convened a media conference call of Democratic senators, in order to talk about the budget negotiations. Moments before the call was to start, Schumer briefed the other senators on the talking points they should be using. But the phone line for the call was already open and reporters heard Schumer’s instructions, word for word: “I always use the word extreme,” Schumer said, describing Republican House Speaker John Boehner. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.” Once the call began in earnest, Schumer’s colleagues did exactly as instructed, repeatedly referring to Boehner and his allies as “extreme” or “extremist.” – Source

You said:

But, when the election is over, the norm has been to develop a functional government, in which both parties work to do the job of the people.

There have always been passionate moments in governance. There have always been hot blooded Irishman like Tip O’Neil and excitable matrons like Pelosi, who, in the heat of battle, make injudicious comments.

Tell me how O’Neill calling Reagan the most ignorant man to ever be President is somehow less crass, less confrontational, less “injudicious” than what Gingrich said or did?

Is it that when you have a D after your name, it makes whatever you say okay?

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:

So why do you guys think that Mitch Daniels didn’t run? He’s close to the perfect GOP candidate, all things considered?

I think that the strongest candidate, from among those running, would be Huntsman, in terms of electability. Romney is 2nd. Both could defeat Obama. I think that Obama would win going away, against anyone else.

Daniels would have thumped Obama.

I’m sorry Larry, but this shows just how clueless you really are. Daniels believes in AGW, helped to greatly expand the role and scope of the Dept. of Ed., and he is in favor of deep defense cuts. How in the blue hell can you call him “close to the perfect GOP candidate?”

Huntsman a conservative?? ROFLMAO!!

Jon Huntsman is a Liberal

There is a reason most liberals I know have said they’d vote for Jon Huntsman, and it’s a big one: Even before working with President Obama (a man he called “a remarkable leader”), he was pretty liberal.

During his time as Utah’s governor, Huntsman demanded federal cap and trade laws in relations to his support for man-made global warming theories, gave illegal immigrants the right to drive in his state and enjoy in-state college tuition, and approved of the federal 2008 bailout.

As a candidate for president, it doesn’t get much better.

In addition to sending Mother Jones and Huffington Post cooing after each debate, and receiving a glowing endorsement from Michael Moore, he refuses to play the game he’d have to play to win in 2012, instead batting around his Republican opponents on generally conservative issues, including the Creationism debate.

The media sure knows how to pick ’em. – Source

What the media doesn’t want to admit or even to let it get out in the public mainstream, but if we had a true, strong willed, well spoken conservative, we would see another landslide against Obama like we did in 1980 and 1984 against Carter and Mondale.

We have a spate of pretty good candidates, but there isn’t one “Reagan” among them. But then Reagan did set the bar pretty friggin’ high. Hard to compete with him and his record.

Only in the eyes of a far lefty like yourself Larry, does someone like Huntsman or Daniels or Romney look good.

Santorum “the hardest working pol in iowa” is benefitting from the vote of Christian evangelicals.This powerful block that gave Huckabee the win in 08 has gone Cain to Gingrich to Santorum.Like Huck it won’t translate into national strength. Gingrich is wounded but should rebound in S.C. and Fla. making it a long and grueling (dare I say mean spirited) 2 man race for the nom.
Paul’s anti-establishment message keeps him 3rd and heard.
Bachmann out after Iowa. Perry will spend fortunes for naught.
Dems greatest fear is a Romney/Rubio ticket.
Longshot Draft Sarah.

I became aware of an interesting Iowa/poll fact yesterday.

Iowa has more cell phone only users than any state (as in no landlines). Since all polls are done only on landlines, the polls are not reflecting an accurate mean, and we might all be in for a big “Iowa Surprise.”

@Patricia: You’re misinformed, Patricia. I see the same supposed factoid (that pollsters are so boneheaded that they only call landlines) again and again, often from Ron Paul supporters who want to claim that the youth vote is somehow being undercounted in the polls.
In reality any reputable pollster these days uses random digit dialing, which should give a fair sample of both cellphones and landlines. I suppose the Amish will still be undercounted :-P. There are criticisms that can be made of their methodology, but ‘they only call landlines’ is not one of them.

Watching these poll results, and attempting to construct any trend… other that the lineup ain’t what most of us hoped for… is like watching the a bobble head doll on the dash. As you can see with today’s round up at RCP, they are all over the place.

Rasmussen’s IA Republican Caucus results today have Romney at 23, Paul at 22, Santorum at 16 and Newt at 13.

Insider Advantage’s Republica Caucus results today have Romney, Paul and Newt in a three way tie at 17 each, and Santorum at 11

The PPP poll for NH’s primary has Romney at 36, Paul at 21, Newt at 13 and Santorum at 3

Gallup’s Republican Prez nomination has Romney at 27, Newt at 23, Paul at 11 and Santorum with 4

And that’s only today. Yesterday was something different, with Paul/Romney within 2 points of each other, and Santorum/Newt with 2 points of each other.

I don’t know about any of you, but all these bobble head doll results are getting me motion sickness… LOL There’s only one “poll” that will count, and that take’s place next Tuesday. And then, that’s only Iowa, who’s not gotten it right the past 3 out of 5 elections.

So other than that being Santorum’s moment of truth, as to whether he wants to stay in the race, I’d say the only thing we know is that no one has captured the hearts of of the voters yet, but they’re still looking at anyone but Romney if possible.

@Patricia: You’re misinformed, Patricia. I see the same supposed factoid (that pollsters are so boneheaded that they only call landlines) again and again, often from Ron Paul supporters who want to claim that the youth vote is somehow being undercounted in the polls.
In reality any reputable pollster these days uses random digit dialing, which should give a fair sample of both cellphones and landlines. I suppose the Amish will still be undercounted :-P. There are criticisms that can be made of their methodology, but ‘they only call landlines’ is not one of them.

@bbartlog:

If you say so BB. I thought it was illegal to call cellphones. FWIW, I only have a cellphone and I get absolutely ZERO calls from anyone outside of business or personal.

@MataHarley:

FYI Mata, Michael Medved is predicting a Santorum win. He gave the reasons on his show today.

@Patricia: On further digging it looks like I’m the misinformed one. My apologies, Patricia. The top survey companies do try to work around the cell phone issue by getting reasonable-sized samples of different demographics, but contrary to what I said above they *don’t* do random-digit dialing (because it would have to be done manually to be legal).

@bbartlog:

Thanks for the clarification BB. This still means, owing to the fact that Iowa has more cell phone only users than any other state, there are a lot of “unpolled” folks out there. Factor in as Mata points out, that the results are all over the map, including the big block of cell phone only users, and Iowa just might be the biggest surprise to everyone, including Ron Paul!

As more and more go to cell phone only use, this may make polling for the most part, pretty worthless, save for making political cell phone calls legal, which isn’t likely to happen anytime soon.