America hates Newt Gingrich [Reader Post]


Beating Barack Obama and ending the damage he can do to this country is one of the most important tasks facing this country. Much to my chagrin, many of my fellow conservatives are all to willing to do Obama’s bidding in taking down Mitt Romney. What does that leave?

Newt Gingrich?

America hates Newt Gingrich

Unlike Mitt Romney, who occasionally beats President Obama in general election poll match ups, Newt Gingrich trails far behind President Obama in every survey. But just how bad are Gingrich’s unfavorable among the general public compared to Obama and Romney?

Not every poll releases their full results, so here are the most recent favorability results I could find for Obama, Romney, and Newt.

Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29

CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32

PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34

America does not love Romney, but boy do they hate Newt.

Electability is the key here. None of us is going to find our ideal candidate. But Newt Gingrich is NOT going to be President. Not ever. He is not temperamentally suited to be President. Between his global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi his reference to Paul Ryan’s plans as “social engineering” shows that he shoots off his mouth without thinking and does alarmingly stupid things.

Gingrich could be a real force for a campaign but he is never going to be President. He is too polarizing. He is too widely disliked.

Supporting Gingrich is supporting Barack Obama. This isn’t about what I want. This is about reality.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Curt: Thanks! What’s the “simpleimage” icon do?

 Mata is saying she’d rather lose with a Conservative than win with a RINO..

 Dr.J. and Conservs. like Coulter want badly to beat BHO and believe Romney can do it and Gingrich cannot..

 Unemployment is coming down albeit slowly. Stock market (leading indicator) is booming and R.E. market (lagging indicator) sucks.Mixed signals.Economy must improve from here for BHO re-election. Jury is out One thing is certain..For what it’s worth,BHO will always score higher on likeability quotient than Newt.

rich wheeler, have you got any idea what blowback would come someone’s way if they said they *didn’t* like Obama personally?

Does the term “racist” come to mind?

Pray tell, when a pollster calls as asks, “do you find Obama likeable”, what brave soul is going to risk that?

I don’t know Obama personally, so I can’t say he’s likeable on a personal level. I can say that, after three years and his unmitigated arrogance demonstrated with the nose up in speeches and observations of the masses, that I don’t like what I see of him at all… politically, or a leader. And if he’s like that on a personal levels, he’s one snot of an elitist.

On the other hand, I find Newt’s sense of humor delightful, and his mind intriguing… even when I disagree with him. I cannot say the same for Mittens (who’s kind of a dweeb…), or Obama. Santorum is a bit stiff for my tastes, but I find him more engaging than the aforementioned two.

So other than snap judgments by those responding to polls… and likely intimidated if it’s about a black man… what the heck does likeability mean if he’s busy thwarting any economic improvement, as you have pointed out yourself.


unemployement is coming down, albeit slowing

…. because the labor force is shrinking, albeit slowly.

stock market (leading indicator) is booming

…stock market (NOT a leading indicator in these times) is indeed booming, which has most investors scratching their heads as why the idiots have decided that Europe’s problems will not affect the US economy.

R.E. market (lagging indicator) sucks

Sure does… don’t see much long term “hope and change” on the horizon either. Once prices stabilize, rates go up, prices come down, and we start on round two of toxic assets, short sales and foreclosures.


YOU SAID;  BHO will score better in liKEability than  NEWT’



I say I want to win with a Conservative and not loose with a RINO again

Geez, Mata, you might make a convert out of me yet…



drj… LOL! But be patient, grasshopper. Tomorrow’s another day, and this is no usual election… rather like 1980. Just buckle your seatbelt… it’s gonna be a bumpy ride (H/T to Bette Davis) And don’t stare at the polls, because you will lose your mind.

Gaffa,  check this out:'s_Conference_Room_aboard_Air_Force_One.jpg

What do you think this is for?  25 hours to take care of the people’s business and Clinton wasn’t interested in cooperating so Gingrich and Dole wrote it up without him.

Mata I disagree that race would have bearing on likeability factor. Would it play a role if people asked about Al Sharpton or Bill Cosby Farakham or Denzel Washington?

I think BHO gives great speeches,is very likeable and not at all condescending. I find Newt volotile and very condescending.Other than his intelligence I find nothing about him to be likeable.

That’s what makes a horserace. BTW  Have you seen War Horse  MAGNIFICENT MOVIE  Go Pats

@Richard Wheeler:I think BHO gives great speeches,is very likeable and not at all condescending

You are kidding right?  He is the most condescending politician I have ever known.




and HE was very likeable and well liked by a big crowd, who still like him like us, that’s why they trye the trick on him.




don’t forget it’s early in time, anything can happen,   optimist is better serve than fear and negative projection,,




he was condescending when he close the KEYSTONE PROJECT TO PLEASE THE GREEN GROUPS,




He is not called the WON for nothing

 Stix  Is he called  “The WON” because he keeps winning?

@Richard Wheeler:  LOL

He is called the WON becaise he would not listen to the Republicans and said.”get over it I won”

He is an arrogant ass

@Richard Wheeler: You said:

Unemployment is coming down albeit slowly.


Mata is right, the labor force is shrinking because people are giving up and not looking for work.

@Richard Wheeler: Still getting used to this new plug in. Here is the rest of what I wanted to post in the above comment.

@Richard Wheeler: You said:

I think BHO gives great speeches,is very likeable and not at all condescending.

Of course you don’t. You believe in the class warfare crap that he spews on a constant basis.

@Richard Wheeler: The ACTUAL unemployment numbers:


just like RW, , believe in warfare crap that he spew on constant basis,



hi,  yes

and he always put the blame on the other side, never took the blame, he started with blame BUSH,

AND HIS MINIONS repeated his words, still do. they will when he is defeated. also’



 Class warfare  When I listen to Gingrich intimating poor and lower middle class would rather have welfare checks or unemployment checks than paychecks and they lack a work ethic. That’s class warfare

 Personally I believe in a fair tax system.If an income tax exists people making millions should pay a higher rate than those making $60,000.Class warfare??

Stix  He did win. Bush said basically the same thing after 04 win,”Got capital to spend”

rich wheeler: Class warfare When I listen to Gingrich intimating poor and lower middle class would rather have welfare checks or unemployment checks than paychecks and they lack a work ethic. That’s class warfare

I see you have to use the word “intimating” because, of course, Newt has never said that. But that is what you hear.

That, rich, seems to be a personal problem… yours.

. Mata  That’s what alot of people hear when Newt speaks.

 IMO  Your claim that Obama is formenting class warfare  is equally subjective and in the ears of the listener.

rich wheeler: Contrary to prevailing local opinions, I suspect that Obama would much prefer to run against Newt Gingrich. Romney actually represents a potentially electable opponent.

Then you’re not alone in your hypersensitivity, based on dumb impressions. What can I say except the herd mentality runs strong amongst the gullible.

Your claim that Obama is formenting class warfare is equally subjective and in the ears of the listener.

Not when you listen to his very explicit words, that leave nothing … and I do mean nothing… to the imagination.

You “perceive” Newt’s words while Obama’s are quite overt, direct and unmasked.

@Richard Wheeler: You said:

Class warfare When I listen to Gingrich intimating poor and lower middle class would rather have welfare checks or unemployment checks than paychecks and they lack a work ethic. That’s class warfare

Except that isn’t what he said.

Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works, so they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday
I’ve been talking a little bit about the importance of work,” Gingrich said, “particularly as it relates to people who are in areas where there are public housing where there are relatively few people who go to work.”

At one point, Gingrich turned the tables on the reporters and asked them a question. He wanted to know, “How many of you earned some money doing something before you were 10 years old, whether it was cutting grass or babysitting or something?” – Source

On the food stamp vs paycheck issue:

Gingrich told a town hall meeting at a senior center in Plymouth, N.H., that if the NAACP invites him to its annual convention this year, he’d go there and talk about “why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.”

He also said he’d pitch a new Social Security program aimed at helping young people, particularly African-American males, who he said get the smallest return on Social Security. Source

Now, you were saying, Rich?

 Mata  Do you believe Obama would rather run against Mitt than Newt. IF I was the type to throw insults I’d call that uninformed and gullible. But since I’m an Officer and a Genlleman by Act of Congrees I’ll simply suggest you are 

    Semper Fi

Of course Obama wants to run against Mittens, rich. If you haven’t figured it out yet, allow me to point out two most obvious points:

1: Obama set up Mittens in the SOTU with the Buffett/secretary/tax the rich scenario. He needs Mittens badly to portray as everything he detests. i.e class warfare, portraying the opposition as the evil rich capitalist pig who makes $20 mil a year, and only pays 15% in taxes. But unlike Buffett, he is not sufficiently “repentant” for his wealth and taxes.

2: Pelosi has resurfaced and regurgitated her prior “threat” about Newt to CNN’s Anderson Cooper, saying “I know things”. And then falling silent.

Now think about the obvious, rich… if they wanted to have an easy win, and had an October surprise piece of dirt on a nominee Newt, why expose it now? Why not keep your trap shut, let the GOP nominate him and take him out easily in October?

Why? Because there is no dirt, and they desperately need Romney. Get with the program, guy…. they’ve got to clear the path for Romney by removing Newt.

Newt nailed Pelosi within 24 hours with her last little threat, pointing out that all the documents about the ethics investigation has been released for years… and if she has any intention of releasing privileged or classified personal information, she’s in violation of federal law. Her lawyer had to come on board and bail her big mouth out.

This regurgitation of Pelosi’s threats just came in the news today… a serious panic move after Newt’s win in SC, his surge past Romney in Florida (lots of delegates there…), and his rise in both the national polls and the match up polls.

Gotta love the smell of desperation in the air….

@Richard Wheeler: Really? Subjective?

Either it divides us or it doesn’t.

Obama –

Even as he was decrying “class warfare,” Obama was practicing it, contended Crossroads spokesman Jonathan Collegio, pointing to this sentence: “Either we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in taxes, or we’re going to have to ask seniors to pay more for Medicare.” – Source

Its bad economics even if, in the finest tradition of Saul Alinsky, it might work politically. By focusing on “the rich”—which he defines as millionaires and billionaires in his speeches even while his tax proposals count them as anyone who makes more than $200,000 per year—he is trying to pit one group of Americans against another, saying it is right and just and moral to push the spending burden off on other people. If this isn’t class warfare then what is? – Source

Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success.
After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.
Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class – things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and social security. – (That he has the nerve to even talk about slow job growth and deficits is amazing and it shows how stupid he thinks Americans are)
And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk. – Obama’s Osawatomie Speech

Now let’s look at some of Reagan’s quotes and look at the difference:

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government”—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they’ve had almost 30 years of it—shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
Then there’s the fairy tale born of political demagoguery that the tax structure imposes unfairly on the low earner with loopholes designed for the more affluent. Well, again the truth. At 23,000 dollars of earnings you become one of that exclusive band of 10 percent of the earners in America; and that 10 percent pays 50 percent of the income tax but only takes 5 percent of all the deductions — the so-called “loopholes” that are allowed by law. The other 95 percent are taken by the 90 percent of earners below $23,000 who pay the other half of the tax.

The numbers are dated, but the concept is timeless.

 MATA says  “There is no dirt on Newt” He has accumulated so much dirt already why bother to pile on more.

 I say let the primary play out.. I’m lovin it !!  Get a winner and then  Let the games begin.

@Richard Wheeler, that is the quintessential dodge of facts, in order to advance BS and propaganda.

All of Newt’s “dirt”… you know, ethics charges that weren’t, contracts with the GSE’s that were released for scrutiny, are old news.

All you have left is political fear mongering and implied bluffs as threats. And you’re not very good at it.

Newt Gingrich has won me over as the most formidable opponent for Barack Obama and as the best of the remaining GOP field of candidates.

Let’s compare and contrast Romney with Gingrich:

Romney: All the advantages. 6 year continuous effort to run for the Presidency.  Huge funding. Most endorsements. Biggest, most professional staff. etc. But he has run a bungled, disorganized campaign.  He has no political instincts. The latest totally dumb thing he said was to claim that his background made him more qualified to be President than Obama, because he (Romney) ran Bain Capital, ran the Olympics, and governed Massachusetts. This is allegedly much better than Obama’s experience as a community organizer and junior Senator.  Somehow, Romney forgot to note that, in addition to the above, Obama has had a very relevant line of work over the past 3 years (and ongoing).  Obama’s current relevant job experience does trump Romney’s.

Obama ran his own campaign flawlessly.  Romney, as noted, couldn’t take advantage of all of his many resources and has run a bungling, amateurish campaign, which has always been creating openings for his opponents and has always been too late in responding to changing conditions on the ground.

Gingrich: He has frankly blown me away.  I’ve never seen such a masterful political tour de force in my life as a political junkie.  He’s had no resources. No staff. No money. A ton of pre-existing baggage (it’s more than illusory, Mata), but Newt has “Newtralized” all of it; even turned some of it into an asset.

Being President is nothing at all like running Bain Capital or running the Olympics. You don’t get to call your shots.  You don’t get to create the conditions on the ground.  You’ve got to be the greatest politician in the land, to be a successful President in the world of 2012.  And Gingrich just might be the best politician in the land.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

hi,  you represent many liberals unhappy with OBAMA organisation, and the economie is not the way it should be,

so the many deceived  liberals will go more for NEWT than for ROMNEY, BECAUSE NEWT represent more the many people with more or less money  with difficulty to make it to the end of the month, without cutting a few dinners to make sure they meet  the projected budget, at the end of the month , ROMNEY AND OBAMA ARE IN THE RICH ONE




Mata, I thought the same thing when I saw Nancy “Stretch” Pelosi – [shout out to Mark Levin 😉 ] – tell John King that she “knows something.” The Chicago far left political machine is already on damage control, and Newt has only won a single state.
Larry, I concur with most of your assessment, except for touting Obama’s experience. He has had none. Being a back bench state Senator and a back bench US Senator is all he has and it is less than zero. I think Cain put it best when he said that Obama couldn’t even run one of his Godfather restaurants.





but when they are deposed many stories  will  be said about them while they where supppose to served  the PEOPLE

the same threat will be like a boomerang, hitting her in her most secrets

bye ‘Gingrich: He has frankly blown me away. I’ve never seen such a masterful political tour de force in my life as a political junkie. He’s had no resources. No staff. No money.’

Not entirely true. We don’t know what his Q4 fundraising was (FEC filing won’t be available for another week or so) but just based on how much Perry got after his rise in the polls I’d be surprised if Gingrich didn’t get on the close order of $10 million in that timeframe. And quite likely another $5 million in January. And a good thing for him, too, because no matter how formidable you are personally you still need millions of dollars to run a national campaign.
I’m also curious what causes you to say that Romney has run a ‘bungled, disorganized campaign’. He’s not the one who failed to get on the ballot in Virginia, is he? I think you need to separate his personal foot-in-mouth blunders from the organizational business. On that front I believe Romney is still ahead of Newt. Of course, the thing is that personal organizational skills shouldn’t really matter that much – a lot of that stuff by rights is the campaign manager’s responsibility. Given adequate fundraising and a good hire the candidate shouldn’t have to be spending any time on ballot access issues. And yet somehow it still seems to come up.
Finally… winning one state after a couple of consecutive fourth place finishes is an impressive comeback, but this *is* his backyard. Would it be a tour de force for Romney to win Nevada (where 10% of the Republicans are Mormon)? I’m unconvinced.

I am a staunch republican who will NEVER vote for Gingrich.  If he’s the nominee, I will go to the polls and vote a straight republican ticket, and NOT vote for president.  How incredibly pathetic and sad.  There’s no room in my world for a smug, narcissist who hides behind his thesaurus and divides people.  We already have that guy in the White House.  Draft Mitch Daniels NOW!!

Michell Smith

yes, his transcript ,  address to the NATION, was extraordinary ,  was in he a CANDIDATE at the very beginning of

call, and he didn’t stay long,  I had thought he would have done good, he is very well like, and from what I read his address yesterday, he has the stuff, but would he come back? is it too late/




@bbartlog and… INRE Newt’s campaign coffers and organization, compared to Romney’s.

bbart, I think you may miss what Larry was saying. Newt’s been declared politically dead several times now. His entire staff walked out on him last summer. So his organization had to be revamped, his donations were not hot and heavy, and yet he still was “the comeback” guy… against all those odds. And that’s not even including the Romney Superpac ads and and media/establishment assaults in the press. Naturally, with his debate performances and rising numbers, he’s going to get more campaign backers and donations.

Compare that rocky start with Romney, who’s virtually been campaigning for six years straight, tons of cash, the establishment and GOP media behind him fully – just ready to have him sign on the dotted line as the candidate – and *still* he’s a 25 percenter with gaffes that can rival Biden’s.

Larry, INRE that “baggage” which you say is more than “illusionary”. There’s only three major luggage pieces that everyone hiccups over Gingrich. The ethics charges, Freddie/Fannie and his personal life and marriages.

The ethics charges are little different than the political assault of false charges that was leveled against Palin when she was named VEEP nominee. The actuality of guilt is a lie, and the perception of guilt that so many want to keep alive to take him down again is simply another example of sleazy politics. And like Palin, both parties are engaging in the lie food fest.

It seems that trial-by-media and the mere presence of accusations actually trumps genuine innocence. The Republicans were reprehensible in not backing the Speaker during these times, and simply wanting to make it go away with a showboat vote and hefty fine… none of which was actually warranted.

Byron York has a no nonsense and direct take on those days.

INRE Fannie/Freddie. There are laws and lines not to be crossed. And any genuine “lobbying” by Gingrich would result in serious scrutiny for disclosures and tax laws. That’s not the case, and only the Congressional newbie Newt haters, who are on Romney’s bandwagon, are laying the claim that Newt lobbied them personally. The problem with that is neither of them were on committees that were relevant to the GSEs, therefore Newt would have no need to “lobby” them even if he *were* a lobbyist.

Romney’s clever enough to know that Newt didn’t lobby, which is why he’s carefully changing his terminology to “influence peddler” to cover his arse. Again, it’s a tired replay of making enough false charges in the media against someone to get the public to believe it’s true… tho it’s not.

As far as Newt’s personal life, it is what it is. It’s not hidden. Divorce is not uncommon. Affairs of powerful pols are not unusual and, in fact, we had a POTUS who did that in the WH, using the Oval Office as his favorite place for a tryst.

So I would disagree . The “baggage” is nothing but illusional. It only becomes “real” simply because of the continued misrepresentation and lies as a campaign attack. And it’s rather sad that lies and sleazy behavior are justified, simply because they continue to repeat them. I would think that all of us are tired of such nonsense when there are documents online for the full investigation, the IRS 74 pg report exonerating Newt’s organization, and Newt’s contract with the GSEs available for review as well. If the man is trying to hide something, he’s certainly doing a bad job at it.


Bees, you may be enthralled with Mitch Daniels, but he’s been the Romney back up establishment guy, ready to be foisted on the voters, for some time now. There’s a petition running around to draft him as a candidate.

I actually find the desperation of the GOP to find a nominee that sews up the nomination in just two or three primaries extremely offensive. They want to pick the candidate, instead of the voters. I guess they haven’t noticed that their own approval ratings are so low, that none of us trust their judgment.

Voters need to participate in their primaries and caucuses, and we don’t need any new anointed ones offered up. This is the candidate of us, not the “party” head honchos. It’s our choice, not theirs. If there is a close count by summer/convention time, that’s another story. But I find it objectionable that the GOP would attempt to keep throwing people in line, simply because they don’t like who the people are favoring at the moment and want to shorten the game before the rest of the states have spoken.

Daniels has a good record thus far, and sure has been around the political block more than a few times…. working as assistants/interns/chief of staff/desk jockey in the OMB, etc etc. With the exception of 2008, when the state went for Obama over McCain, it’s has a pretty solid history of being a Republican state. It’s not like the guy has a great deal of experience as the top dog in a hostile environment there. After the decades of being a bureaucrat, his first elected office position was in 2004, for the Indiana Governor. He did well, and still has that office. But as I said, it’s generally a red state.

I don’t think Daniels has the personality or charisma to gather all the voters to him and him only. And that’s what it would take. Certainly, he’s more acceptable than Romney or Paul. But leaving aside Ron Paul’s young vote, a three-way choice between Santorum, Newt and Daniels wouldn’t result in everyone dropping their reasons for the other two just to follow Daniels. He is no Palin when it comes to inspiration.

And personally, I think Obama will make mincemeat of him during the general debates as well.

Larry W: You’ve got to be the greatest politician in the land, to be a successful President in the world of 2012. And Gingrich just might be the best politician in the land.

ya know, Larry, it’s hard to tell if you’re dripping sarcasm here. But since you are aware of the limited resources, changing and limited staff, plus the full frontal assault on Newt by peers and foes alike over all this time – and he’s stills standing strong – you actually are genuine in your praise.

What’s ironic is that a large degree of the mid 90s Republicans hated Newt because they saw him as caving into compromise. Thus they like to say he’s no conservative, when his voting record says entirely the opposite.

How odd they don’t look back at the iconic presidency of Reagan, and remember that he was a master at compromise – while not abandoning his base principles. That’s why things got accomplished. Newt actually did the same in the mid 90s, when he got a House controlled by Dems for four decades to move to the right, and extracted a tax cut out of them.

But I’m under the impression you already gave away that “greatest politician” award to Obama in the past. Don’t you think he’ll be crushed now that Newt appears more skilled than he in your eyes? LOL…

You’re totally missing the point. He’s a smug, arrogant, lying, whiney little bitch that hides behind his thesaurus and is perceived as having great debating skills while doing nothing more than attacking the questioner when he can’t supply the answer. This morning he pretends to attack Romney on his “stock in Fannie and Freddie” when he knows goddamn good and well they are bonds as part of a mutual fund that were placed in a blind trust. Gingrich knows it’s a false charge. Vote for this asshole if you want to, but he’s no better than the lying narcissist already destroying the country.

Go NEWT 2012….

Can we please stop pretending that voters are intelligent? Most voters don’t know how many branches of government there are. President Handout offers enough free stuff, he’ll be re-elected. Gingrich would be a laughable alternative.

And, while we’re at it, do I really have to look at that plastic, Barbie Doll, bobblehead standing next to him through the entire primary season?

@Donald Bly: I hope he goes, too. Right back to K Street where he can’t do any more damage.

Michelle…. perhaps the voters you hang out with are stupid… but the ones I hang out with are smart… they support Newt and understand that the crap being leveled at him is bullshit politics. We’re smart enough to dig deep and get the facts for ourselves rather than listening to the GOP establishment and lame stream media.

Yeah, right… you sound really smart. Why don’t you look at my name again. Game. Set. Match on the intelligent voter debate.

So… a typo is how you gauge intelligence…. lol… I can understand why you feel Newt is smug and arrogant… he’s got brains.. and knows it… and the smart voters out here know it too… it’s just the dumbasses that haven’t figured it out yet… game, set, match.

@Mitchell Smith:

Do you think Romney is?

You also confuse voter ignorance with stupidity. Glass houses…

Hi Mata (#146): I very seldom try to use sarcasm; in truth, I’m not very good at it. I meant what I wrote about Gingrich. I greatly admire his competence as a politician. He’s made some big political mistakes in his earlier career, but he’s learned from them and his talent is huge.

He got pilloried by the GOP establishment for the anti-Bain super-pac ad. If that sort of thing had come from an Obama super-pac, everyone in the GOP would have been united in condemnation. As it was, a great many in the GOP condemned it. It looked like a losing move, in the beginning, but it played a role in a much bigger thing, which was the income tax release. Now, in his heart of hearts, Newt doesn’t think there’s anything at all wrong in Mitt getting 20 mil a year on passive investments and paying only 15% tax, but he’s trying to put together his own little in-house GOP coalition and there are a lot of blue collar Republicans who look at that and look at Mitt and think that Mitt is just out of touch. So it was a calculated political move. They had to think a couple of moves ahead on that one. Yes, if we put put that anti-Bain attack ad, we are going to alienate the establishment and the fiscal conservative/socially moderate part of the party, but we weren’t getting support from them anyway. So we take a hit on that and it helps us peel off maybe 7% to add to our coalition. Stuff like that is what he’s doing, and it’s brilliant.

The last two debates were brilliant, as well. His performance in S.C. was jaw dropping — attacking the media and turning a huge negative into a positive. Everyone expected that he’d come out hot and lathered in FL as well, but he sensed that the mood was different (because of the way Williams was keeping a lid on the crowd). He knew at once that, were he bombastic, he’d play into the hands of those who want to portray him as an out of control loose cannon. So he conceded some debate points to Romney, but built up some capital for himself as someone who is in control of himself.

He has an instinct, now, for making the best possible play in each situation. I’m enormously impressed.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Larry Newt was always the great pol. Evidence his leading the Repub. House takeover and the brilliant “Contract with America” Unfortunately he crossed swords with the best pol of our generation “Slick Willy” and it seemed,very quickly vanished.
HE’S BACK He’s honed his already substantial political Skills in ways you so accurately described.Staid,blue blood Romney is no match.
HIS PROBLEM Warming up and ready to go another STRONG, very smooth adversary who rivals (doesn’t surpass) Clinton. Barrack Hussein Obama—-NEWT VS HUSSEIN for POTUS ?? only in AMERICA.
Two great pols go at it for the big prize 15 rounds.It would equaL the Ali-Frazier battles the Red Sox Yankees. DARE I SAY LINCOLN DOUGLAS.

Bring it on and may the best POL WIN.

Well, rich… that is a colorful visual. You’re a little late on the Lincoln-Douglas analogy. Newt already promised that if Obama planned on limiting debates, he’d follow him around, Lincoln-Douglas style.

Hi Rich, Wonderfully colorful analysis. Agree.

Go Pats (agree there, also)


You’re catching on, Larry. It was only comment #63 above, when you were saying that Newt’s “hot headed” act wasn’t going to play. What you didn’t acknowledge was the multi-dimensions of Newt. He is one astute guy, and well versed in the political history of this country. And oddly enough, he was hated for being a compromiser where Reagan was praised for the same trait.

I saw his cool in the FL debate. There are times for fire, and others not so much. He could afford to take the high road there. I do look forward to the next one coming up (CNN tomorrow)

Mitchell Smith, there’s a fine line between debate and worthless and petulant insults. There’s also a fine line between responding to different debate points, and spamming.

I’d say that you’ve crossed that line on both. Geez… for a Daniels supporter, you’re making the usual Ron Paul spammers look good.

I’d like to say I’m just breathlessly hanging on, waiting for your next empty of substance, single sentence, Neanderthal response… but nope. But maybe you can improve, eh?

You Gingrich people have been so snowed by this faux intelligence it’s hysterical. A Gingrich nomination GUARANTEES four more years of Obama, and you’ll have yourselves to thank.

Right on cue @Mitchell Smith:

Wow. Seems the new Daniels supporter is not only rude, in-eloquent, but also suffers from delusions of omnipotence in his seer abilities….

I suppose the obvious begs to be noted. That unless we have the ability to see parallel universes about who *would* have won – ala the liberal style of political fear mongering constantly uses – such assertations should merely be dismissed as the sign of a desperate mind.

@MataHarley: I actually like Daniels, but he is not running.