January 24, 2012

Romney vs. Gingrich at last night's debate.





Effective?

38 comments:

shiloh said...

The problem w/both mittens and Newt is that they are open books and most conservatives have made up their minds re: their shortcomings.

The only question is which one wins by default and can the Rep establishment/hierarchy stop Newt from getting the nomination if mittens totally implodes.

Of course, one could say that they have both already imploded as regards to independents, who will decide the general election.

Andy R. said...

You'ld think that a close comparison would benefit Romney since Republicans are doing everything they can to prevent Newt from getting the nomination including speculating about fantasy candidates entering the race because they know Newt would be a total disaster and drag down the party.

But!

You'ld think that a close comparison would benefit Newt since Republicans are doing everything they can to prevent Romney from getting the nomination including speculating about fantasy candidates entering the race because they know Romney would be a total disaster and drag down the party.

shiloh said...

Andy

Exactly! :) Return to sender lol.

I ♥ Willard said...

Willard is tall. Presidential candidates need to be tall.

chickenlittle said...

Mitt Romney would never ever dare speak like that to or about Obama. He's afraid to. If he ever has--show me.

That's why I think Romney will lose if nominated.

tim in vermont said...

The one who has imploded with independents is BHO.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/19/us-usa-campaign-obama-poll-idUSTRE80I0B620120119

"Obama losing luster with independent voters:"

chickenlittle said...

So yes, Althouse--absent any evidence that Romney is prepared to take on Obama like that--your link was effective at turning me off to Romney.

chickenlittle said...

I mean, this election will be for naught if no one dares to take on Obama under these circumstances.

(BTW, what's up having to retype the wv twice every time, no matter how caerfully typed?)

shiloh said...

"Obama losing luster with independent voters:"

Deflection aside, from the same link:

Nearly 7 in 10 Republican voters said they want more choices.

And Newt has 26/60 favorability nationwide.

As always, presidential elections come down to choices, just ask President Kerry.

Writ Small said...

I think Newt has a point about the crowd. At that moment before the pause - when Newt looks like he's trying to work out the plot to Inception - someone from the SC crowd probably would have booed Romney. Newt would have drawn energy from that show of support and laid the smack on Romney more convincingly. Absent any support, he was surprisingly cowed. No cheering audiences in the matchups against Obama, I'm sorry to say.

gadfly said...

Forget effective. The real prize of $1.6 Million is available to anyone with information that blows Gingrich away for being a Freddie-Fannie lobbyist.

Just spill the beans to Willard Mitt. Since I am ineligible to win because I "know nothing", I will take the attitude that if a prize is collected I will never vote for Mitt.

edutcher said...

Regarding the first video, you can make some shades of gray.

Only 1 of the charges leveled by the Demos was deemed valid and he was vindicated by the IRS a couple of years later. My impression at the time was that he lost the Speakership because he had become so radioactive and was disliked as much as anything else.

The second video, though, is where Milton hits him hard.

"You could have done something, said something", is where Newt's vulnerable. McCain, Dubya, Kay Hutchison, and others tried to stop the credit meltdown. Newt took the money. It's almost like people in Germany (yeah, Godwin alert), particularly since he's speaking to people who had pensions, homes, jobs wiped out in '08.

That's the point Romney needs to make.

chickenlittle said...

Mitt Romney would never ever dare speak like that to or about Obama. He's afraid to. If he ever has--show me.

Not sure they've ever conversed.

We're usually on the same page, chick, but I have to be a bit skeptical. Milton's last name isn't Bush.

You may be right, but I can't see him coming all this way to give up.

PS shiloh runs from the fact Zero is hemorrhaging supporting.

That ain't deflection. That's the truth.

tim in vermont said...

"Of course, one could say that they have both already imploded as regards to independents," - Shilo

"The one who has imploded with independents is BHO." - Me

"Deflection aside," - Shilo

Whatever.

bagoh20 said...

Effective? Yes, very. Newt looked helpless and guilty, but worst of all it's obviously all true. That's the problem - rhetoric is worthless against well known facts, especially when someone says them right in your face.

chickenlittle said...

We're usually on the same page, chick,..

Indeed we usually are, edutcher. But Romney's complete "silent finger" to the Tea Party still puts me off. The Tea Party isn't going away (despite what the Sullivanists say); I get the feeling that after tonight's SOTU address, republicans and especially independents, are going to insist that Romney begin speaking more against POTUS's effrontery.

We shall see.

Over and out.

JohnJ said...

“Mitt Romney would never ever dare speak like that to or about Obama.”

I’m not so sure.

I certainly could envision a Romney-esque style putdown along the lines of: “With all due respect, Mr. President, you’re simply in over your head when it comes to the economy.”

Could happen.

shiloh said...

"Whatever."

Again, from your link:

"In 2008, Obama won support from 52 percent of independent voters, compared with 44 percent who supported Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

Among all voters, 38 percent view Obama favorably, 45 percent unfavorably and 17 percent have no opinion, the survey showed. Voters were evenly divided in a matchup between Obama and Romney, but Obama fared better against other Republican candidates"

After the 1988 Dem convention, Dukakis had a (17) pt. lead. He lost to Bush41 by 8 pts.

Again, the general election starts after Labor Day ~ stay tuned ...

edutcher said...

chickenlittle said...

We're usually on the same page, chick,..

Indeed we usually are, edutcher. But Romney's complete "silent finger" to the Tea Party still puts me off. The Tea Party isn't going away (despite what the Sullivanists say); I get the feeling that after tonight's SOTU address, republicans and especially independents, are going to insist that Romney begin speaking more against POTUS's effrontery.


As to the Tea Party not going anywhere, I agree.

As to the second point, your lips to God's ears, my friend.

tim in vermont said...

Yeah, he won independents last time around, we know, that is why his position with them is described as "worse" than it was, not "the same" or "better."

But keep on with your denial, it is sort of funny.

Bender said...

"Newt took the money"
________________

So how much of a profit did the financier Romney make in 2008-09 while the economy was crashing because of the financial industry and people were losing their jobs and homes??

Romney releases his totally irrelevant 2010 tax returns, but refuses to release the very relevant 2008 and 2009 returns.

And, by the way, if Gingrich had been a lobbyist for Fannie Mae, don't you think that you'd be able to find even ONE member of Congress to say, "yeah, I remember Newt coming to ask me to support this or vote on that for Fannie Mae" (which is what lobbying is)? And yet, there is not even that ONE person who has come forth to say that.

Wally Kalbacken said...

The problem is that Mitt went to Harvard Law School (and has an MBA from their business school) so he knows very well that the gross revenue under the contract, which was with Gingrich's firm - does not equal Newt's personal compensation.

Many of the Romney ads (some from the Romney campaign, some from pro-Romney super-PAC's) that are running here in Florida state that "Gingrich took $1.6M from Fannie Mae", as if it was theft, or as if a check for $1.6M was written to "Newt Gingrich", when in fact the contracts were with an organization founded by and headed by Newt, but which, OBTW, had dozens of employees, offices and expenses. Newt later states that he was paid approximately $35,000/year under that contract. There is basically no there there, but Romney, smart enough and well-educated enough to know better, is really engaging in distortion, and frankly, is sounding rather desperate. He's not going to win Florida.

traditionalguy said...

Mitt is a talented liar, and he has no other visible skill set other than making himself rich.

Newt is like Peter Falk's Detective Columbo weaving his way around the Romney Campaign's IEDs made from lies and proclaiming the True Conservative platform, as Rush Limbaugh recently noticed.

The only question seems to be whether, like the Peter Falk actor, the versatile Newt has played other characters in other movies before.

Romney's I am a rich and righteous Mormon schtick seems a narrower role and his only acting skill...and we all know that a Reagan Populous has to be a great actor.

MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...

Krauthammer, who is not a Newt fanboy, explained why the "Newt resigned in disgrace" meme is wrong tonight on O'Reilly. Newt made the same argument during the debate, but it wasn't shown in the clip you provided.

Showing one side of the debate without showing the rebuttal from the other side, and then asking if it is effective is nonsensical and silly.

Writ Small said...

I appreciate that Romney's attack is from the Right. Supposing that Newt is the ultimate GOP nominee, there is no way that Team Obama will use that clip against Newt.

Freddie Mac paid out substantially more money to Democrats than Republicans. Democrats like Barney Frank were, after all, its biggest boosters. Obama focusing on the unseemly government organizations that had a hand in the housing debacle could cause serious collateral damage to Democrats.

Unfortunately, Newt was not so careful with his attacks on Bain. He and Perry have legitimized the whole 99% OWS class warfare angle Obama and his media pals have been pushing.

Phil 3:14 said...

Yes, it was effective.

The second video sounded like Mitt going through the verbal warning as part of the due process heading toward termination.

I'm surprised Newt didn't follow up his "just like you did with McCain" with "you're a bully....and you're MEAN!!"

Phil 3:14 said...

Newt is like Peter Falk's Detective Columbo

Seriously!!

Dante said...

Ann,

In answer to your question, you showed only half the exchange, so it's rather hard to say how effective the attacks were from that perspective. Second, even had you, Newt was not on his game. I suspect he had a big exchange with Ron Paul, and it was weighing on his mind as he assimilated Ron Paul's perspective.

What you showed: Romney sounds like my wife when I tell her she could have done something better. I hear about things I did poorly 15 years ago. That's how it starts out, and it becomes a torrent of shortcomings over the years. If she is really mad, I become the reason for all the woes in our household. It's a litany of complaints strung together by only one thing, the desire to not deal with the issue.

Effective? It may be worth five points. Will it work on Obama? Not a chance. If that's the best Mitt has, we need a tiger, not a Mitt Kitten.

I have to ask everyone why Nancy Pelosi is coming forward now and saying Newt is unelectable, because she knows something about Newt. Let's grant she is right. Is she colossally stupid? If Newt is unelectable, then she should want him, desire him, hope for him, to be the Republican candidate. She would not do anything to detract from him being the candidate, yet she is. She knows full well electability is the number one consideration for conservatives, and she is putting her weight on the opposite. Unless the witch really sees herself for what she is, the only conclusion I can draw is she is trying desperately to NOT have him be the republican nominee.

The recent Gallup poll shows why. Gingrich and Romney are at the same point with being able to take down obama.

GALLUP:

OBAMA 50% NEWT 48%
OBAMA 50% ROMNEY 48%

Face it, the Democrats want Romney. They love Romney. Who knows, maybe they wouldn't even be unhappy if Romney were elected. He is Obama lite.

You want a real change? You want someone smart enough to figure out how to bet rid of Obamacare. You need someone smart enough to use the same tactics as the Democrats. That's Gingrich.

Priscilla said...

Newt really is very transparent in his dissembling.

R. Chatt said...

Newt has more panache than Romney, especially in debates when the crowd is urging Newt on while Romney seems constrained. Sure, Newt's blustery personality trait is compelling, even somewhat sexy, but I don't think that's what people ultimately want in a president. Didn't we already have a macho cowboy president? That wasn't so great after all.

While Romney may appear "diffident" he is in fact capable of being a cut throat business executive. So he's obviously not a "weak" guy and has the $$$ to prove it. Gingrich has made money influence peddling, writing books and giving speeches -- not so impressive.

Obama, a smart guy, has had to depend on the conflicting advice of "economic advisers" without the benefit of any real world business experience of his own. When you think about those economic advisers advising Obama, he's had to mediate between leftist academics with theories they want to prove versus wall streeters who want to improve their own bottom line. And Obama is "deciding" between the two and his own political needs?
see: Ryan Lizza, The Obama Memos,
The making of a post-post-partisan Presidency.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza

I'd say Romney has it all over Gingrich and Obama in the argument of who might know more about how to turn the economy around.

R. Chatt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
R. Chatt said...

http://alturl.com/buk6z

Bender said...

While Romney may appear "diffident" he is in fact capable of being a cut throat business executive. So he's obviously not a "weak" guy and has the $$$ to prove it.

The pro-Romney crowd likes to portray him as some super-nice guy, but in truth, it is becoming more apparent that he is just passive-aggressive, with some condescending tendencies thrown in, like Obama.

Writ Small said...

Krauthammer, who is not a Newt fanboy, explained why the "Newt resigned in disgrace" meme is wrong tonight on O'Reilly.

If Newt didn't "resign in disgrace," then what did he resign in? Triumph? What word should we use?

Writ Small said...

Three Democrats in US history have been re-elected: Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Clinton. You could make a case for the seventh President Andrew Jackson, but the Democratic party didn't exist when he was first elected.

Just think. If Obama wins, Gingrich will have personally had a hand in half of the reelections of Democratic presidents in history. That's in addition to his being the only Speaker of the House in US history to resign in whatever it was that he resigned in.

Lawyer Mom said...

Defeat, @Writ Small. He resigned in DEFEAT. Watch the Krauthammer clip. Read Byron York's piece. There was nothing disgraceful about it.

JCELEPHANT said...

I was a volunteer for Mitt in 1994. I saw first hand how when he gets cornered he will say ANYTHING to get a victory. He went on and on how 'shocked' he was that Newt would attack his Bain record the way he did.

This is the same guy who claimed he was an independent during Reagan/Bush and did not want to return to Reagan/Bush when Kennedy was pounding him.

Dante said...

Writ:

Change makes people angry, no doubt. Gingrich did a lot, and in order to do a lot in a polarized environment is to step on toes everywhere. Newt did that. He made real changes.

I hear all the time about crack-pot unstable Newt, but yet he has a 98% conservative voting record. Let's see what crazy things he got through.

Newt didn't resign in disgrace. He resigned because people hated him for his pompousness and success. I'm willing to put up with that. In fact, I think it is refreshing Newt is open about his faults. I really like one exchange that went something like this:

Newt to a college class "You should not trust politicians to work in your best interests."
College Student: "Does that include you?"
Newt: Yes.

Writ Small said...

@Dante

This may not be taken seriously given my recent offensive on Newt, but I do have affection for the guy.

I've been a talk radio guy for years and Newt is one of my favorite guests. Back when I had an hour commute in New Jersey I listened to a lot of Hannity and therefore a lot of Newt.

I remember the evening of 9/11 when I was angrily telling people we had to invade Afghanistan and destroy the Taliban, I had family members giving me worried looks. Then Newt came on the TV and made - far better than me - the exact same pitch.

I will support Newt if he is our man.

These arguments are all played out, and I'm saying nothing new, but as great a presenter of ideas as Newt is, the media will be absolutely relentless in his destruction. I know this in my bones because I've watched them do it already. Yes, Newt resigned in defeat - utter defeat at the hands of his followers and at the hands of the press skilled at magnifying his weaknesses.

The country is at a critical point. ObamaCare hasn't kicked in because we're doing this crazy thing where we pay for X years before the benefits begin. This was the great con job that allowed the OMB to score it as not the financial disaster it is. If Obama gets a second term, those benefits will begin to be paid out and the country is done. We're Europe on the slow train of decline in all but name. It is critical to get a guy in there to put a stop to that and restore fiscal order - to right the financial ship of state.

My view is the best guy to perform that financial correction is Romney. It isn't that Gingrich wouldn't try and maybe succeed. He would. It's that Gingrich would never get the chance. The media will brutalize him.

The allure of Newt is the allure of the blog commenter. Here's a guy who is going to dazzle the country with his brilliance and bring everyone to his side. But just as in the blogosphere, it never works out as planned. Your brilliant point is parried, and few minds - if any - are ever really changed. The reality is that winning the presidency is not in the art of the devastating rejoinder, but it is a game of appealing to moderates - presenting a safe, sober and if possible, yes likeable alternative.

Newt is a great man, but the stakes are way too high to risk letting Obama finish what he's started.