At Right Wing News. I'm one of the respondents, by the way, and I don't usually answer RWN polls, mainly because I don't have answers to the questions John Hawkins tends to ask. Let me highlight the Gingrichy results:
If you had to pick a 2012 GOP contender today, which of the following candidates would you select?... 1) Newt Gingrich: 39.2% (31 votes)
Romney came in third, with 10 votes. Rick Perry got in at second place with 21.
Do you consider Newt Gingrich to be a conservative?
Yes: 63.6% (49 votes)
No: 36.4% (28 votes)...
Do you consider Mitt Romney to be a conservative?
Yes: 33.3% (26 votes)
No: 66.7% (52 votes)
If you had to choose between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, which candidate would you select?
Mitt Romney: 26.3% (20 votes)
Newt Gingrich: 73.7% (56 votes)
Which candidate do you think would be more likely to beat Barack Obama in 2012?
Mitt Romney: 42.3% (33 votes)
Newt Gingrich: 57.7% (45 votes)
So there you have it. The right-of-center bloggers are gaga for Gingrich.
Posts
124 comments:
The New Newt is communicating very well and seems restrained from wild idea propagation compared to the Old Newt.
His aggressiveness is attracting the partisans. Will it attract the voters later? Maybe if he keeps projecting the jovial Santa Clause Newt.
A) Do you consider yourself to be right-of-center? 'cause I thought you were upset that you had been labeled as "conservative" in that review of law-blogs.
B) Enquiring minds wanna know how you answered those questions.
C) Yes, I meant to spell "Enquiring" like that. :D
Things are a lot more even when you look at whether they think Newt has a prayer of winning.
I may think Ron Paul occasionally says something I agree with, but that doesn't mean I would vote for him!
The respondents do realize that these questions relate to the presidency of the United States, don't they? It might be fun for them to imagine beating Barack Obama, but with victory comes a great deal of responsibility. Which they want to entrust to Newt Gingrich. Other than a willingness to talk back to debate moderators, what has former Minority Whip Gingrich done to distinguish himself as either "conservative" or "presidential"? And is Romneycare really that toxic?
Given Gingrich's background, it's hard to see how anyone could take him seriously as a candidate or as a leader. It's hard to believe that so many reasonably intelligent people have forgotten recent history so it must instead reflect general dissatisfaction with the choices available.
There are a couple of issues (immigration, individual mandate) where Gingrich and Romney are equally bad; but no issues where Romney is actually to the right of Gingrich. And several where Gingrich is to the right of Romney.
Gingrich voted against the Brady Act (gun control). Romney supported it (before he opposed it). Gingrich isn't perfect on the second amendment, but he's better than Romney; and there will be some SCOTUS nominations to be made in the next term.
While Gingrich was battling HillaryCare, at the very same time, Romney was developing Romneycare, which would be used as the inspiration for Obamacare.
Gingrich has always opposed abortion-on-demand; again, Romney was for it before he was against it.
Is Gingrich more electable? Hell yes. He'll humiliate Obama in debates; and apparently, that's really important to one hell of a lot of people, for some reason.
In debates, Romney will refer to Obama as "my friend" and put his hand on Obama's shoulder.
Conservatives are convinced that the problem we have had, have, and will have going forward are overwhelmingly due to a combination of policy from leftists plus moderates. They understandably don't want either at this point.
I concur emphatically. This makes Romney radioactive, and Gingrich just slightly better, but slightly still gets the vote.
We're doooomed!
Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
Surprising results for Newt. The current meme on the right seems to be that he's not very conservative.
That's partly true, if only because he's had so many freakin' ideas and positions, about almost anything.
I go back and forth: Win with Mitt or Lose with Newt? Both options have pros and cons.
"Do you consider yourself to be right-of-center?"
Not me. As for Althouse, who knows? But what is "center" for you, PP?
Is Gingrich more electable? Hell yes. He'll humiliate Obama in debates; and apparently, that's really important to one hell of a lot of people, for some reason.
Hmmm...sounds like a Perry supporter?
I agree Newt could make Obama look like a fool in the debates, but that could be buried under the ads and media talking points regarding the pile of Newt Quotes and Ideas that can be easily exploited by Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself).
This makes Romney radioactive, and Gingrich just slightly better, but slightly still gets the vote.
If this were the ironcload facts on the ground, I would want the slightly better candidate that Obama should be terrified of sharing a debate stage with. Given just how negative the ads are going to be, I think a lot of people are going to weigh votes based on the debates this time around.
The question conservatives are asking themselves is which one of these guys is gonna have the fortitude to stick to the stuff they say now, and not do what they have done before. At least Gingrich has said "I was wrong" about some it. Still not very reassuring.
Politics is like herding cats.
Politics is like herding cats.
Cats that want nothing more than to turn around a swat you.
The media will make Newt look like the antichrist. They will push away a lot of squishy independents who only need a single bad sound bite to change their vote. There are lots of these people.
The worst they can do with Romney is diminish the conservative enthusiasm to show up to vote at all.
Both pretty easy tasks, but Gingrich in the general election would be damned entertaining. You gotta admit that.
Very interesting to see a dozen of those who aren't as sure Gingrich can win, but still prefer him.
For a conservative, there is absolutely nothing to like about Romney beyond the fact that he can win. That is one funky endorsement.
He's at best, a consolation prize.
They're gaga, all right!
It's interesting that the bloggers are mostly for Newt and the pundits are mostly for Mitt.
At NRO, with the exception of Mike Walsh, they're all for Mitt (mostly because he's the last guy standing when they decide they can't accept Newt). Mark Steyn, Ramesh, Jonah Goldberg, etc. Same with Krauty on Fox and Jay Cost at the Weekly Standard. Billy K doesn't much care for Mitt, but you don't get that lovin' feeling in his discussion of Newt either.
WR Mead is also mostly a better Mitt than Newt guy. The pros -- Coburn et al. -- who worked with Newt in the House in the '90s don't seem to want him as president either, while they respect his stengths.
Works for me. This election is too important to take a flier on Newt. A center-right, level headed executive type with experience in successfully running big organizations sounds like just what our half-Dem, half-Rep country needs. Enough with the revolutionary, reset button, reimagine it all from the ground up, hopey-changey stuff. How could any conservative want that? I hope the home team has the sense to get over the Mitt-phobia, and stop swooning for whoever is the current anyone-but-Mitt. You have to choose from the available choices. When there's only two, it doesn't seem all that hard to me.
I consider myself close to the center. If Hawkins includes me in his poll, I might answer if I have answers, which in this case I did.
But I'm not going to reveal my answers, because I don't want to be thought of as a proponent of one of the candidates. I'm not doing endorsements. I like to perceive and analyze and take different angles. I'm not a politico.
interesting.
Gingrich doesn't strike me as a good choice for winning the general election. For the obvious reasons and the extensive records that the opp guys will love.
But it would be an interesting election!
Newt is not capable of managing a pizza parlor, much less the executive branch.
The only sustained and disciplined committment Newt has shown in his adult life is to his own ego.
He quit his Congressional seat the day after re-election to make money off the rent-seekers like Freddie Mac, etc.
The Republicans should either nominate someone who can win the general election or someone who is a principled conservative. Newt is neither.
The right-wing revisionism of some is astonishing.
Gingrich will be able to effectively counter the us/them attack that appears to be the president's strategy for reelection. Obama has chosen to use his pulpit to demonize his enemies and to place blame for the financial disaster squarely at the feet of the so-called one percent. These are, of course, the people the president is counting on to fund his next adventure so he will have to be very careful. Gingrich is very quick on his feet (witness the retort to the overt threat by Pelosi)and has a tongue that is sharp and well pointed. He does not need a prompter or a speech writer to rebut or attack.
In sharp contrast to our president, Gingrich knows how to get things done with the opposition. Some of his early initiatives were done in concert with very liberal Democrats. He likes the process, also in contrast to our president.
Dear God we cannot take another four years of the lay preacher and his fucking hectoring.
So once again the GOP will commit ideological suicide. Why not Christine O'Donnell or Sharon Engle? At least they are better looking than Newt.
People, we have a president who is a disaster. He has to go. Newt and 0 are cut from the same cloth - arrogant intellectual know-it-alls, and voters will see that. For the sake of the country the GOP should either draft Christie or Ryan or swallow Mitt. We need to get 0 out of there.
Romney has had two chances to "Look Presidential."
Maybe that was all you needed to win before cable TV News as partisan entertainment and digital sources of information.
Maybe Newt is what will work today just because he has been smashed up so many times before and survives it all.
Palin proved that fighting Obama actually works. The fear of fighting a Black Presidential candidate is gone.
Romney needs to show his emotions so the American people will feel they can have a relationship with him. But Mitt has never done that.
The right-wing revisionism of some is astonishing.
To know Newt is apparently not to love Newt. Many in the GOP (esp. those who've worked with Newt) are holding their breath that he doesn't get the nomination. For Coburn to go on the air and try to take some wind out of the Good Ship Newt is extremely telling. This is going to get a lot more interesting before the GOP convention. I see a big GOP anti-Newt faction coming to the fore if this continues.
I think Gingrich would be a Republican LBJ.
At NRO, with the exception of Mike Walsh, they're all for Mitt (mostly because he's the last guy standing when they decide they can't accept Newt). Mark Steyn, Ramesh, Jonah Goldberg, etc.
Jonah's wife was on Newt's staff. Jonah is waiting for Newt to implode.
A center-right, level headed executive type with experience in successfully running big organizations sounds like just what our half-Dem, half-Rep country needs.
That's not Newt. Level headed is not how he's described by those who know him well.
Re: Teabaggers er Republicans, everything old is Newt again as in the only Speaker in American history to resign in disgrace, (2) time divorced, ego maniac lobbyist, yada yada yada ~ but, but, but Pelosi, Clinton and Limbaugh like him :-P
Again, how did Obama get soooo damn lucky! Father forgive them for the teabaggers know not what they do ...
So let's recap, shall we: Reps were looking for someone new and exciting who had what it took to dethrone the anti-christ Obama and Newt is winning by default.
Oh the teabagger humanity!
carry on
Eleanor,
LBJ got things done. What would Newt Gingrich get done? None of the Democrats and half of the Republicans in Congress don't like him.
What ideas is Newt offering that could get passed in Congress? Tax reform? Entitlement reform? What are Newt's ideas to get the deficits down? What regulations that he believes are hindering job growth will he repeal and how will he repeal them? What are his ideas on Fannie/Freddie, financial regulation of investment banks, etc.?
Newt is a sophomore with no follow through. He hasn't had the practice. He is not committed or disciplined. He is a blow-hard.
I'm pretty much on board with Richard Dolan and cockagne's take.
There is a lot of ugly stuff going on at the Federal level that goes beyond Obamacare and financials.
Issues like:
a) How do we rein in corrupted regulatory agencies?
b) How do we depoliticize the justice department?
c) How do we fix the budgeting process? It's not just that we're taxing inefficiently and spending way too much; the entire budgeting system is broken.
These issues of effective management and oversite are where Mitt Romney can make a difference. I'm not sure any other candidate, including Obama, has a clue about how to manage a bureaucracy.
The big battles over the budget and entitlements must be won in Congress. The president can set the stage rhetorically. Gingrich could be the man for this. He's held the line on budgets before. But he's also managed to discredit his own position with his ego and unreliability. A low-key operator like Romney could actually get more done, IF there were folks in Congress to the heavy lifting that is outside of the powers of the President to do.
shiloh said...
Re: Teabaggers er Republicans, everything old is Newt again as in the only Speaker in American history to resign in disgrace,
Hilarious.
Your ignorance of Jim Wright is appalling.
In 1988 Wright became the target of an inquiry by the House Ethics Committee. Their report in early 1989 implied that he had used bulk purchases of his book, Reflections of a Public Man, to earn speaking fees in excess of the allowed maximum, and that his wife, Betty, was given a job and perks to avoid the limit on gifts. Faced with an increasing loss of effectiveness, Wright tendered his resignation as Speaker on May 31, 1989, the resignation to become effective on the selection of a successor.[12] He was the first Speaker to resign because of a scandal
Then again, the party you vote for depends on that ignorance.
ok Jay, the only Republican Speaker to resign in disgrace! Happy now?
btw, Wright and Gingrich make quite a pair, eh.
take care
In brainstorming notes unearthed in the 1997 House Ethics investigation of Gingrich, he had scribbled: “Gingrich—primary mission: advocate of civilization, definer of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces.”
-Source.
Dude is a total joke. At this point I think the Democratic establishment is hoping and dreaming he gets the nomination.
Pastafarian: While Gingrich was battling HillaryCare, at the very same time, Romney was developing Romneycare, which would be used as the inspiration for Obamacare.
You might be more convincing if you could get basic facts right.
Gingrich left office in 1999, and the fight over HillaryCare was over before then.
Romney started his term as governor in 2003.
I took the poll too. I ended up in the minority on almost all of it.
OK, truth in advertising - I probably agree more with Perry than anyone else on most issues, so I haven't got that much of a stake in Newt vs Milton, although the trust factor is Milton's big problem.
Hoc dictu, the problem with the people pushing for Newt is that we're not nominating a debater. We're nominating someone to be President. I think Newt would be better than GodZero. Almost anybody would.
But, if debating skill is the criterion, then Milton has been doing quite well on that score and I don't doubt he could take President Intercontinental Railroad to the cleaners, so Newt better have something more up his sleeve.
mccullough said...
Newt is not capable of managing a pizza parlor, much less the executive branch.
I seem to recall he managed budget and welfare reform fairly competently.
LBJ got things done.
All of them bad and one that began to fail almost as soon as it was implemented.
If mccullough/Seven wants to talk about Newt's ego, then, yes, we got to a point where it was all Newt, all the time and a lot of people who know him from those days still carry a grudge.
But he was an effective floor manager and, unlike LBJ, what he managed turned out to be pretty good for the country.
PS Ann was in this poll last time around, IIRC, and, as then, most of them were people nobody ever heard of.
'Gaga for Gingrich' (lol)...I doubt the 'lady' would do it...
Newt is more authentically right than Romney. Newt has waxed poetic on many occasions but when it gets down to the nut cutting, he is conservative.
If we the American people re-elect Obama over Romney or Newt (or any of the remaining Republican candidates except Ron Paul) after we have now had a dose of applied Obama (as opposed to eloquent bullshitter Obama) then we truly deserve what we will get.
Edutcher,
Gingrich got blamed for shutting down the government in 1995 because of his intransigence. That's effective budget management for you. Clinton drove the welfare reform legislation, not Gingrich. Clinton handed Gingrich his ass time after time.
Republicans voted Newt out as speaker after 4 years due to his leadership. He quit his seat that day, the day after he was re-elected to make money off Freddie Mac and other rent seekers. That is Newt's "private sector" experience.
Newt's candidacy is making people nostalgic for Clinton.
Clinton drove the welfare reform legislation, not Gingrich.
This is, of course, why Hillary begrudgingly admitted after a few years that there had been "some successes" with welfare reform. Thanks for clearing that up.
Oh, jeez...
Newt Gingrich indicated Wednesday that he would unilaterally "replace" Syrian President Bashar al-Assad because he is running a "bad dictatorship."
Scott M,
Is your comment supposed to be evidence of something? I didn't realize welfare reform was enacted over Hillary Clinton's veto.
Clinton, with the help from Repubs in both houses, at least put the brakes on the growth of government, at least until W. and the Republicans in Congress started doubling the size of government and Obama and the Democrats started doubling it again.
I'd be happy to have Clinton back with Paul Ryan (that "right wing social engineer") as speaker. Something good would then get accomplished.
mccullough said...
Edutcher,
Gingrich got blamed for shutting down the government in 1995 because of his intransigence. That's effective budget management for you. Clinton drove the welfare reform legislation, not Gingrich.
No, the government shut down because Willie wanted to spend and Newt made the kind of stand people are wishing had been made in the last 3 years. That Newt made himself the face of the Republicans in Congress was used against him by the Establishment Media, shilling for Willie.
In fact, Willie still brags about the imaginary budget surplus that came out of Newt's budget reforms.
Clinton handed Gingrich his ass time after time.
Wrong again. Willie had to be dragged, kicking and screaming into signing the budget and welfare reform bills for which he later took credit, particularly after he threatened to veto them and Newt assured him that he had the votes to override.
That's when Willie had to assure the Lefties, "Ah am relevant".
Republicans voted Newt out as speaker after 4 years due to his leadership. He quit his seat that day, the day after he was re-elected to make money off Freddie Mac and other rent seekers. That is Newt's "private sector" experience.
No, Republicans voted him out because he had become politically toxic after the phony charges trumped up by David Obey led to a censure vote. The media, doing everything it could to focus attention away from the real scandals perpetrated by Willie and the Hildabeast, played it up as big as they could.
Newt's candidacy is making people nostalgic for Clinton.
Of course they are.
That's why Willie's idea for a Constitutional amendment to allow a 2 term President to run for another term as long as it isn't consecutive with the other two has been on the tips of everyone's tongue.
I can see why mccullough/Seven's favorite Republicans are Jeb Bush and Daniels.
Granted that Newt is aggressive. He can just as easily attack friends as foes. As a result he ends up with few friends.
But we are hiring a candidate to aggressively attack Obama's alternate universe shielded by the media from being exposed.
Newt will expose Obama easily. Romney will keep trying to look Presidential.
I will accept Newt's style for this season. We need to win 2012 or its over.
Newt graduated from the College where a skeleton is the mascot. It may have warped his mind like it did mine.
So I say quit finding the fault in Newt's style. If you cared about that, then you would have kept Cain.
Clinton drove the welfare reform legislation, not Gingrich
Is that why Clinton veteod it twice? Is that why there was no Welfare reform legislation the first two years of the Clinton Presidency?
I'm not a big believer in Newt (and no, Newt didn't drive Welfare reform), but that assertion is silly.
"We need to win 2012 or its over."
You sure about that? Maybe it needs to get worse before it gets better.
These results do not speak well for right-of-center bloggers. GOP voters asked the question who has a better chance of defeating Obama said Romney 38%, Gingrich 22%.
Remember Gingrich is a quitter - the last time he was elected he quit the next day. He is self-indulgent and egotistical.
Gingrich has spoken highly of the early 1900's progressive movement. He has a thousand social engineering ideas he has never followed through on.
His campaign is running really well; it's deep in debt. He didn't register in time for the Missouri primary (straw poll) and may miss the deadline for Ohio today.
Democrats are positively salivating at the prospect of Obama vs Gingrich.
There won't be any Lincoln-Douglas style debates, get it?
The only question at this point is whether GOP voters hate Romney more than Obama and will therefore hand him another 4 years.
I would rather Cain myself but we know what happens when a "niggra" leaves the democrat plantation. And if he was cheatin' on his wife, he was smart enuff to get away with it for decades. That takes a certain amount of hutzpah, and ingenuity.
As far as Mitt and Newt. I don't like either. I like Mitt less than Newt so I would vote for Newt. If Mitt is the choice, I would hold my nose and vote for him. An angry sock monkey would be better than GodZero.
How many more vacation days for the Big O before the elections anyway?
“Gingrich—primary mission: advocate of civilization, definer of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces."
Sounds like a civilization organizer.
Who cares what the consensus is in Peoria or Paris, Texas.
In CA, and other big states Newt has about as much a chance as Reginald Denny did a few years ago.
Edutcher,
Gingrich told the press that one of the reasons the government shut down was because Clinton snubbed him on the flight back from Rabin's funeral.
Gingrich later admitted that saying that was the biggest avoidable mistake he had made as speaker.
Gingrich was the face of the shutdown because if his inability not to say stupid shit.
And Jay, Clinton vetoing it twice showed he was the one handling welfare reform. He ran on welfare reform in 1992 and got it passed before his 1996 re-election. Thanks for proving my point. Clinton was a master politician, just like Reagan, probably even better.
When I was growing up there was such an animal as a liberal Republican.
Edutcher,
Clinton signed the 1993 tax increases, so you have to give him credit for the revenue increases. You apparently don't want to give him any credit on the spending restraint, although he signed those budgets as well.
Since Newt voted against the 1993 tax increases, why should he get more than partial credit for the eventual balanced budget (or close enough to balanced for government work).
Anyway, I didn't know you were for spending restraint since you're such a big fan of Palin, who greatly increased spending in Alaska for the 2.5 years before she quit. Of course she gave the increased revenues to Alaska in the form of checks. So if you're in favor of wealth redistribution, she's your girl.
Cain, Palin, and Newt. Your quite a conservative Edutcher.
Edutcher,
Clinton signed the 1993 tax increases, so you have to give him credit for the revenue increases. You apparently don't want to give him any credit on the spending restraint, although he signed those budgets as well.
Since Newt voted against the 1993 tax increases, why should he get more than partial credit for the eventual balanced budget (or close enough to balanced for government work).
Anyway, I didn't know you were for spending restraint since you're such a big fan of Palin, who greatly increased spending in Alaska for the 2.5 years before she quit. Of course she gave the increased revenues to Alaska in the form of checks. So if you're in favor of wealth redistribution, she's your girl.
Cain, Palin, and Newt. Your quite a conservative Edutcher.
Gingrich--the guy who ushered in de-reg, Enron, themoral majority, dismantling of the New Deal. Yeah he's the guy for those who want to destroy what's left of the federal govt.
And Jay, Clinton vetoing it twice showed he was the one handling welfare reform.
Actually, it shows the Republicans foisted it on him.
He ran on welfare reform in 1992
Not the way it was written.
Oh, and Obama ran against a health insurance mandate. How'd that work out?
Thanks for proving my point.
Your point is false.
Clinton was a master politician, just like Reagan, probably even better.
Is that why Clinton never recevied over 50% of the popular vote?
Since Newt voted against the 1993 tax increases, why should he get more than partial credit for the eventual balanced budget (or close enough to balanced for government work).
Huh?
The budget didn't go into "balance" until after Clinton signed two Cap gains tax cuts.
Stop pretending the Clinton tax hikes balanced the budget.
You're typing silly bullshit here.
J said...
Gingrich--the guy who ushered in de-reg, Enron, themoral majority, dismantling of the New Deal. Yeah he's the guy for those who want to destroy what's left of the federal govt
Byro,
the federal government has grown exponentially since Newt was the speaker.
The federal budget has tripled at a minimum, for example.
You beclown yourself with every post.
I liked this piece in NR.
I don't like Newt but I'll vote for him over BO.
Jay,
I agree the cap tax gains cuts helped as well. So did the 1993 rate hikes. So did the spending restraints. Clinton signed them all. He was the President, he's going to get the credit. What's your point, that Newt Gingrich, who headed one house of Congress, deserves more of the credit? If he was a disciplined politician, and not a pompous fool, he would have got more of the credit.
What's your point, that Newt Gingrich, who headed one house of Congress, deserves more of the credit?
No.
The point is that a) Clinton did not lead on Welfare reform - if he did it would have passed in 1993. It was a Republican bill he signed.
B) The 1993 tax hikes did not balance the budget or lead to balancing the budget. The spending and tax cuts did.
mccullough said...
Edutcher,
Clinton signed the 1993 tax increases, so you have to give him credit for the revenue increases. You apparently don't want to give him any credit on the spending restraint, although he signed those budgets as well.
Revenue increases?? Try again. Start after the big Obama quote and work your way down. Willie's tax increases were a disaster.
Since Newt voted against the 1993 tax increases, why should he get more than partial credit for the eventual balanced budget (or close enough to balanced for government work).
Nope, wrong again. The budget was never balanced. The "surplus" was projected, but ran afoul of DotCom and 9/11, but, if he hadn't pushed for it, it wouldn't have happened.
The lie is giving Willie any credit at all.
Anyway, I didn't know you were for spending restraint since you're such a big fan of Palin, who greatly increased spending in Alaska for the 2.5 years before she quit. Of course she gave the increased revenues to Alaska in the form of checks. So if you're in favor of wealth redistribution, she's your girl.
Cain, Palin, and Newt. Your quite a conservative Edutcher.
No redistribution, but she made some of the largest budget cuts in Alaska history and reduced the capital budget.
mccullough/Seven likes to cherry pick among the facts until he finds what he likes. He likes to find something that says, "He agreed with Liberals here, he's no Conservative", but his taste in politicians runs to Jeb Bush. Do the math.
PS Never called Newt a Conservative. In fact, some things on his record give me serious pause, but I know he did more for this country in the 90s than the former Serial Rapist In Chief and, reservations notwithstanding, would be a better POTUS than GodZero.
As for Herman, I still like his style. He wasn't afraid to stand up and fight, which is what mccullough/Seven hates in a Republican.
Edutcher,
You are a party of one, I'll give you that. Are you saying that if the federal income tax rates were what they were in 1992 (or before the 1990 tax increases?), that there would have been more revenue than under the 1993 rates? I don't even think Laffer takes that position.
As for Palin, inncreased spending is increased spending, who cares about the capital budget, which is one part of it. Overall spending went up tremendously in her 2.5 years. I give Palin a lot of credit for not being a political hack and dishing out money to favored contractors for b.s. projects like her predecessors and most politicians. If only Illinois had a governor like that.
But she spent the money by cutting even bigger checks to Alaskans for living there. Which is fine if you like big government wealth distribution, but if not, then not. There's nothing wrong with being in favor of wealth redistribution, but it is not usually considered a conservative stance.
The deficit has expanded thanks to your pals in BushCo byro-jay. Recall the war you pretended to oppose? You don't want to expose your klan side do you? Most of the time, yr a "liberal" remember.(of course the server reveals all of your cyber-stalking)
Yo, now what/s subluxation again, bipolar disorder AZ-jay?
Gingrich and Gramm brokered de-reg (ie, the repeal of Glass-Steagal act for one) with assistance from Billy Bob Clinton. The teabugs forget that Billy Bob was a good republican most of the time
Jay, Clinton survived Jennifer Flowers et al ie the Reps thought he was DOA er dead in the water at the time to become president. So yea, he was a master politician.
btw, intersting AA's conservative lemmings are longing more and more for the nostalgia days of Clinton lol.
'nuf said!
Newt is not any more conservative than Mitt and way less likely to get elected in the general election than Mitt.
HAHAHAHAHAnewtgingrinchHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA...
you get it...
mccullough said...
Edutcher,
You are a party of one, I'll give you that. Are you saying that if the federal income tax rates were what they were in 1992 (or before the 1990 tax increases?), that there would have been more revenue than under the 1993 rates? I don't even think Laffer takes that position.
Unfortunately for mccullough/Seven, he said revenues went up because of tax increases. As the IRS always notes, tax increases cut revenues.
As for Palin, inncreased spending is increased spending, who cares about the capital budget, which is one part of it. Overall spending went up tremendously in her 2.5 years. I give Palin a lot of credit for not being a political hack and dishing out money to favored contractors for b.s. projects like her predecessors and most politicians. If only Illinois had a governor like that.
But she spent the money by cutting even bigger checks to Alaskans for living there. Which is fine if you like big government wealth distribution, but if not, then not. There's nothing wrong with being in favor of wealth redistribution, but it is not usually considered a conservative stance.
mccullough/Seven, as always, twists things to fit himself. Those checks get cut regardless of who is Governor because of revenue from the pipeline.
As for increase, she had a Democrat legislature that passed a budget. She vetoed parts of it. The sort of thing Reagan wanted to do.
Spendthrift legislatures with a majority have to be dealt with. She did it the best way she could.
This is the old Alinsky game of taking any measure where a Conservative signs onto anything that might be partly to the wishes of the Left in the interest of moving things forward and claiming, like Reagan signing tax increases when it was part of a measure to cut spending in which the Demos reneged after the tax increases were passed, that disqualifies him/her as a Conservative.
This is lying, pure and simple.
It's all fine until his wheels come off.
Edutcher,
Tax increases don't increase tax revenues? Never? I've never heard that before. No one has, not even the IRS. Depending where you are on the Laffer curve, a tax increase could lead to reduced revenue, and vice versa. But almost one thinks that in 1992 or 1993, or even now, that we're on that area of the Laffer curve, even with state income taxes, etc. taken into account.
I don't believe the federal government should exist to set taxes at the optimal rate for generating the most revenue, but given how much people like government spending, conservative liberal, etc., and given how much debt we're in, tax increases are inevitable.
Personally, I'd be happy if the federal government phased out Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and cut back on the rest of the government, but that's not going to happen. And no one is going to be able to fix our problems, the least of all Newt Gingrich, who can't even fix himself.
As to Palin, she hiked taxes on the evil oil companies so she could give more money to Alaskans for having a pulse. I certainly wouldn't expect that she could end the check cutting to residents,and I don't blame her for beating her head against the wall trying to do it, but it's disappointing that she actually increased the wealth distribution by raising oil taxes and touts that as an accomplishment. It's an accomplishment, but not one a conservative should be proud of.
Newt ain't perfect but he is the best candidate that we got. OTOH, Mitt is by far the worst.
I will vote third party before I vote for Big Government Republican Mitt Romney!
mccullough said...
Tax increases don't increase tax revenues? Never? I've never heard that before. No one has, not even the IRS. Depending where you are on the Laffer curve, a tax increase could lead to reduced revenue, and vice versa. But almost one thinks that in 1992 or 1993, or even now, that we're on that area of the Laffer curve, even with state income taxes, etc. taken into account.
Sure, spare me the Alinsky dances from now on.
And, no, revenues go down when taxes are increased. That may be hard for a Lefty to grasp, but that's what the IRS says, largely because people try to conserve their money, and I tend to believe them.
As to Palin, she hiked taxes on the evil oil companies so she could give more money to Alaskans for having a pulse.
She did?
I'll bet the state legislature was surprised.
ABO.
Edutcher,
The IRS says no such thing. No one does, not even Laffer.
And Palin signed into law, after pushing for, Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES), which jacked up the taxes on the state's share of oil profits. Amazingly, these tax increases on the oil companies increased tax revenues (the IRS had no comment on this phenomenon), which were then restributed to residents.
Edutcher, if you're a conservative and not a liberal sock-puppet whose trying to make conservatives look bad with misinformed and silly remarks, you should become better informed.
So what happened when Newt shut down the gummint? Billy hangs around the WH with nothing to do. An intern not much older than his daughter shows him her thong panties.
If Newt had not shut down the government Clinton would have been too busy.
History is strange.
I've decided I can't support Gingrich. He's almost as bombastic and egocentric as the narcissistic yutz who's 'president' right now.
The right-of-center bloggers are gaga for Gingrich.
The right-of-center bloggers are gaga for not-Romney.
Maybe we can elect Romney, but have Newt run the teleprompter. Kind of a Cyrano de Bergerac administration.
J said...
The deficit has expanded thanks to your pals in BushCo byro-jay.
Byro,
you're wrong. When Nancy & Harry took over congress, the deficit was $260 billion.
Here is a story from the Bush days:
Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.
The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.
Thanks for participating.
shiloh said...
Jay, Clinton survived Jennifer Flowers et al ie the Reps thought he was DOA er dead in the water at the time to become president. So yea, he was a master politician
Clinton signed Medicare spending cuts, cap gains tax cuts, and welfare reform.
If Obama did that, he may resurrect his Presidency.
I wasn't disputing that Clinton was a good politician. Only that he is on par with Reagan.
As a far left Madison/San Francisco liberal I wouldn't mind Romney at all as President. Can't figure why a lot of conservatives don't like him.
mccullough said...
Edutcher,
The IRS says no such thing. No one does, not even Laffer.
The IRS does.
And Palin signed into law, after pushing for, Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES), which jacked up the taxes on the state's share of oil profits. Amazingly, these tax increases on the oil companies increased tax revenues (the IRS had no comment on this phenomenon), which were then restributed to residents.
Edutcher, if you're a conservative and not a liberal sock-puppet whose trying to make conservatives look bad with misinformed and silly remarks, you should become better informed.
More lies. ACES was created to help deal with rising risk in drilling. It added to the state budget surplus. The Wall Street Journal liked the idea.
The only sock puppet is mccullough/Seven, an Alinsky con artist who wants to see another four years of Obama.
Althouse said:
I consider myself close to the center.
Ah yes, the "mushy middle" - home of the Moderates. Ayn Rand and Rush Limbaugh had some negative thoughts about Moderates.
She said:
"When people call themselves moderates, ask yourself: “Moderate—about what?” Since the basic question today is freedom versus statism, or individual rights versus government controls, to be a moderate is to advocate a moderate amount of statism, a moderate amount of injustice, a moderate amount of infringement of individual rights. Surely, nobody would call that a virtue."
He said:
"Moderation Is not a substantive belief, Moderation is a tactic. Moderates exist to be SEEN as something rather than existing to BE something."
I don't care who one favors, Gingrich or Romney. That's what primaries are for. Vote for the one you think is best.
But don't get so invested that you wind up sour on the guy who does win if he's not your guy. In the general, only one thing matters...beat Obama. I personally think either Gingrich or Romney can do that, so vote your conscience on who you think is better.
How do the responses to the questions presented show conservative bloggers are "gaga" over Newt? They show they prefer him in a head up comparison to Romney. Hardly the same thing.
The Obama voters will tell you who is who and what is what.
Madison Man: "Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs."
Obama voter.
McCulloh: "Newt is not capable of managing a pizza parlor"
Obama voter.
Shiloh: "the only Speaker in American history to resign in disgrace"
Obama voter.
hatman: "Dude is a total joke."
Obama voter. (If he's old enough to vote).
J: "Newt has about as much a chance as Reginald Denny did a few years ago."
Obama voter.
Garage: "I wouldn't mind Romney at all as President. Can't figure why a lot of conservatives don't like him."
Geez, you can't?
I think a Pelosi endorsement would just about wrap this sucker up for Mittens.
When Newt annoys me--and he does--I say to myself, "maybe Perry" or "maybe Bachmann." What I do not say is that I should vote for the Republican that Garage, J, Hatman and Shiloh all like. And, if I remember correctly, C-4 as well. No thanks.
Apologies to pizza parlor managers.
Seems like you have a pack of right of center bloggers that define themselves in Palinesque fashion.
A candidate may be terrible possible president, and unlectable, lose badly to Obama. But if they dish out some zingers to the right wing rubes adoration, show Our Perfessor is wittier than Their Perfessor in debate - then 4 more years of Obama is worth it...because Newtie thrilled the rubes and "won" two debates against Obama and "shure done sent a message!!" (that Obama would move on from, without heeding).
I guarantee Cain, Palin, and Newt will make a fortune as Fox pundits and booksellers in Obama's 2nd Administration...more than they cleaned up in Obama's 1st 4 years.
And what the 3 will say railing against Obama's next 3-4 Supreme Court nominations. Years of right wing entertainment!!
Gingrich has always opposed abortion-on-demand; again, Romney was for it before he was against it.
Romney espoused pro-choice, never pro-abortion. And, when push came to shove and he was presented with a bill as Governor to sign that advanced the pro-choice/pro-abortion position, that is when he had his epiphany and just couldn't bring himself to sign the bill He has been pro-life since.
I don't consider this a flip flop. I had a similar epiphany, not really having skin in the game as I was trying to get pregnant, but faced with a family member who was considering exercising choice and getting an abortion. All of a sudden, it became very personal and not just a political position. I found there was no way I could ever advocate, let alone understand, a woman killing her own flesh and blood.
Do these right of center bloggers actually know anything about Newt?
Do you consider Mitt Romney to be a conservative?
That was the only question where my answer ended up in the majority.
And, no, revenues go down when taxes are increased.
Okay, let's start with 0% and increase it. Will revenues go up or down?
Some good analysis here:
This is not at all what the cited literature says. It doesn't tell us that marginal tax rates don't matter, but that we haven't been very successful at raising marginal tax rates.
Note: not "very successful" is different than "unsuccessful."
If you had to pick a 2012 GOP contender today, which of the following candidates would you select?
7) Jon Huntsman: 2.5% (2 votes)
6) Rick Santorum: 5.1% (4 votes)
5) Michele Bachmann: 6.3% (5 votes)
4) Ron Paul: 7.6% (6 votes)
3) Mitt Romney: 12.7% (10 votes)
2) Rick Perry: 26.6% (21 votes)
1) Newt Gingrich: 39.2% (31 votes)
That one was interesting. I think different people looked at it differently. Some picked their favorites out of the bunch, taking the question as, "Who would you want to be the successful candidate, if you could choose?" Others, like me, did not even consider candidates who had already flamed out. I took the question more as, "Who do you want to be the nominee given the way things have gone up until now?"
Awkward Dilemma; Awkward Poem
Gaga for Gingrich they ain't
And a word from Mitt would suffice
(Like the word "mistake" of MittCare);
But more stubborn than nice
He proffers them a dare:
Thus Mitt into Newt's corner them paint.
Erik Erickson is rethinking Huntsman:
But if Perry is not ready, I have to say I may have to seriously reconsider saying I’d never, ever, never vote for Jon Huntsman. He is more consistently conservative than either Newt or Romney, more pro-life than either, and a far more competent executive than either.
wv: calista, and I have the screen shot to prove it.
I just read through this thread. I am me and me alone. I am not McCollough and I find it hilarious that Ed resorts to such ridiculous cassertions. Does it make you feel better, dude, if you think that only one person disagrees with you instead of two?
I am still waiting for someone to explain how Gingrich will get anywhere near the electoral votes. You shallow, silly people cannot explain this, because you know it's not possible and you don't care. You just want someone to fight. Fight! That's what's important.
It's so bizarre.
Hopefully, either would beat Barack Obomba, but they're wrong that Newt would be more likely.
If Gingrich doesn't dump the Dept. of Education, the Dept. of Energy, and .....oops (really, anything but defense) within the first 100 days, then he's a one termer too!!
WEHT to Newt's bull dyke half sister? When he was speaker she was treated by the media as the most important person in the world.
Maybe she's the dirt old strega Pelosi is threatening to unleash.
the case against Newt...
Best argument I have heard is from Jennifer Rubin. (Bit of a surprise to hear Mickey Kaus speak--he sounds like Seinfeld's cousin. On the radio he's nicer, warmer, funnier, and maybe 20 IQ points dumber. In print he comes across as mean, cranky, smart, and interesting).
Anyway, Rubin's criticism is that Newt was a vocal opponent of the surge. And of course a lot of people were against the surge (as Mickey points out). But Republicans for the most part backed President Bush on this one. John McCain, for instance, vocally and without hesitation backed the surge. I found this to be one of the more likable aspects of McCain at the time.
Even more recent--like, six months ago--Newt took a very public stance against the Ryan plan. This has to distinguish him from, I don't know, every Republican in the universe.
So what the hell is that about?
One might say that Newt is so egocentric that he has trouble backing anybody else's idea. Bush comes up with a surge, so Newt doesn't like it. Ryan comes up with a plan, so Newt doesn't like it. There are a fair number of academics like this. They are idiosyncratic and love to be contrary, just for the hell of it.
Or, even more damning, you might say that Newt is aggressively taking the poll-tested position. The Iraq war is unpopular, the surge is unpopular, so Newt attacks it. Ryan's plan is unpopular, grandma is going to be tossed off a cliff, so Newt attacks it. This makes him seem empty, vacuous, not conservative at all.
Indeed, if the other candidates were smarter, they would bring up the Ryan plan in the debates. I would like to hear if Newt is still hostile to it (and replace it with what?) A vocal attack on the Ryan plan at this stage would pretty much sink his candidacy for me.
Instead, the other Republicans seem intent on trying to sink him with illegal immigration, which is like #129 on my to do list. The way they avoid Ryan and his plan suggests to me that these other assholes are just as poll-driven and namby pamby as Newt might be.
Maybe he's already backed off his criticism and I missed it? But Ryan's plan is a major (and recent) division between Newt and a lot of his supporters, including me. Our public debt is a huge issue. I want to hear a lot more on this.
I think the bloggers have it right. I think the support for Newt is going to grow much bigger. More and more people are finding out what he is actually proposing.
In his speech in Polk County, Iowa, Newt talks about why he's running -- starting at about 2:04, after introductory thanks et cetera. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQxturElvxI
In this speech, Newt talks about American exceptionalism and what that means; returning government power to the people at the local level; the history of America, his strategy for getting Obama to debate him in the Lincoln-Douglas format of 3 hours, timekeeper only, no moderator; and much more. He talks about the scope of change he thinks it will take to get the country back on track with first principles. He talks about what people did to create the country in the first place, and the sacrifices they made. He talks about his commitment that every single American, from whatever background, should have the opportunity to pursue happiness, which means goodness and virtue, not hedonism and acquisition.
It's worth your time to find out what he's actually proposing.
the case for Mitt...
What is it? Who makes it? Why do you like him? He's empty and vacuous, just like Obama in 2008.
Name one issue where Garage and Seven are on the same side. I can't think of one. Except they both like Mitt Romney.
That's how empty he is. You are able to deceive yourself and say "that's a Republican I can support" or "that's a Republican who can beat Obama." He's so empty you project your dreams onto him. The National Review guys think Romney is to the right of McCain. He is? Garage thinks Romney is next to Obama somewhere. He is?
He is the Republican version of a hope and dream candidate.
Newt and Mitt can both be hit hard on the flip-flop charge. In fact, Newt can be hit harder, on more issues. Successful candidates tend to flip or flop on something. You almost have to, if you want to survive.
Mitt is way beyond flip-floppy. What annoys so much about him is his lack of definition. I disliked this style in Obama, and I can't say I like it any more on the Republican side.
Here is the Romney argument I hear over and over: "Other people will vote for him, so you should too."
It's pathetically insecure to vote on the basis of perceived popularity. Didn't we learn this lesson in junior high? Sure, conform on minor issues like fashion or fads, but since when is the Presidency a minor issue?
If I'm buying a frickin' car, do you think I give a damn what other people are buying? Sell the car. Why should I buy this car?
Mitt Romney: "He's poll-tested."
Mitt Romney: "Built for the American public."
I would not only like to see Obama ejected from the White House, but I would also like to see the fraudulent, empty, vacuous, "he's got good hair," beauty product style of campaign to go out the fucking window.
Sarah Palin was derided for her good looks. She was called a Barbie doll. Who calls Mitt Romney a Ken doll? Other than me? And yet he is utterly vacuous and empty, as Sarah Palin was not.
So this is where we are. Palin is attacked for utterly shallow and superficial reasons, and Romney is celebrated for utterly shallow and superficial reasons.
Palin is unelectable, we are told, and Romney is electable. Thus the key to electability is to shut your mouth, say nothing, kiss some babies, be as empty as possible, please the media and conform, conform, conform.
And certainly there is some truth to this--the Elephant Man isn't getting elected to squat--but it's so vacuous, and nihilistic, and stupid, and craven, that I can't help but despise the argument. But go ahead, PR flacks, and tell us why we should vote for this hair product and not that one.
Our public debt is a huge issue.
Our public debt is the huge issue. It's the only issue that matters.
FYI - what Newt actually said about the Ryan plan. Note the question to which he was responding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsHw92j9P0Q
Newt is responding to the question whether Republicans "ought to buck public opinion" and push through a voucher system for Medicare.
Newt responds that he wants a national conversation about Social Security and Medicare and that he doesn't favor mandates and top-down one-size-fits-all solutions imposed from above.
I'm not saying he doesn't criticize the Ryan plan; but it's largely to the extent that it's another federal fix-all that might be mandated to people without our adequately having explored other options.
The link to the clip is above if you're interested.
Romney was more conservative than McCain in 2008. A conservative arbiter no less than National Review endorsed Romney in 2008. And McCain is more conservative than Gingrich. I'll let you take the logic from there.
Since your case against Gingrich above is so eloquent and compelling, and since Perry is apparently an idiot, and since quite obviously none of the other candidates are any good, I rest my case.
It's a standardized test. Romney is the least crappy answer choice. This is only because all the other answer choices suck with so must verve and gusto.
so to those who prefer gingrich over romney, who among them also supported christine o'donnell over mike castle?
Newt responds that he wants a national conversation
Hmmmm. National conversation. Out of what sewers have we heard that phrase before?
Also, I thought Gingrich was a fighter. How can you be a fighter and hold a national conversation? Or am I behind on the memes from the hothouses?
Gingrich is a hack. He has no constituency other He was not serious about his presidency. He was not serious about running for president until he magically became relevant after a very convenient (for Gingrich) oppo hit brought down the last flavor of the week, Cain.
Gingrich cannot beat Obama, people. It will not happen. If Gingrich is the candidate, we lose. Period.
John Marzan -- EXACTLY!!! And the same shit happened in Nevada.
How many times will Republicans throw up a vainglorious hack and get stomped before stopping the madness?
so to those who prefer gingrich over romney, who among them also supported christine o'donnell over mike castle?
I did. I also supported all the other Tea Party candidates across the board. And I put forth the 2010 election as exhibit one on the rightness of the Tea Party cause. I can only hope that we nominate a candidate who inspires the Tea Party faithful, so that 2012 is a repeat of the magic of 2010. And to pick one or two losses in 2010 as a repudiation of the Tea Party is, ipso facto, short-sighted.
How many times will Republicans throw up a vainglorious hack and get stomped before stopping the madness?
O'Donnell was not a vainglorious hack. She was an inexperienced and bad campaigner. In fact it's absurd to compare O'Donnell to Newt Gingrich on those grounds. He was the Speaker of the House and is a highly effective campaigner.
The "she's a witch" campaign against O'Donnell was insane and silly, but it was also effective as she got no traction as a serious candidate.
The argument for Castle and Romney is entirely pragmatic. Self-proclaimed experts are telling us who can win and who cannot win.
An honest argument for Romney is that he is more moderate than Newt, and is more likely to win independents and liberals and oust Obama.
What's not working is the argument that Romney is to the right of Gingrich. People aren't buying it and the pragmatic people who make that argument are pragmatic to the point of having no principles at all.
At least the Mike Castle supporters had the moral seriousness to avoid saying that he was to the right of Christine O'Donnell.
Again, if Newt Gingrich is such a liberal, how come actual liberals hate him? And if Mitt Romney is such a right-winger, why do actual liberals like him?
Huntsman endorsed Ryan's Medicare plan 6 months ago. Newt calls the plan right wing social engineering. It must be bad for Newt's rent seeking health care clients. But Newt's the conservative and Huntsman's the liberal. Huntsman also wants to eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends and lower the corporate income tax rate. Huntsman successfully governed Utah as a conservative while Newt was out giving history lessons to Freddie Mac. It's a testament to the ignorance of potential voters that blowhard, big government Newt is the front runner this week. Time for them to pay attention.
Again, if Newt Gingrich is such a liberal, how come actual liberals hate him? And if Mitt Romney is such a right-winger, why do actual liberals like him?
You are not the first person to ask this question. It has been answered -- again and again -- in these threads. Opinion Journal had a great piece on the phenomenon, as have many other astute observers.
The answer to your question is that, for some stupid reason, people like you want a fighter. It's the word you use. As I have told you, you do not care to win. You do care for effective leadership. You just fantasize about some fight against Obama -- some mythical win based on fighting.
Now. Please, for the love of God and all that is holy and just, please stop asking this question.
McCullough! Ed thinks you are my sock puppet. Or I am yours. It's not clear to me.
7M,
Apparently Edutcher can't accept that two or more commenters here disagree with him. But he's right that I've been secretly commenting here for 5 years to make sure Obama was elected and is reelected. I've managed to keep Palin out of the race to avoid Obama's sure defeat, got rid of Cain last week, another sure bet against Obama, and now I am taking out Newt Gingrich, Republicans last chance at certain victory. My job is to ensure that Huntsman is the nominee, or at worst Romney. They are RINOs, which means they are the only Republicans Obama can defeat.
Perry is apparently an idiot
Perry is not an idiot. He's a highly effective governor of Texas, one of the largest economies in the world.
He's also (so far) a spectacularly bad campaigner.
I agree with Perry on almost everything. If I vote for Newt Gingrich, it will be a pragmatic vote.
I see a lot of Republicans thinking along the same lines. We are overlooking his 3 marriages, his adultery, his so-called ethics violations. He was wrong to attack the surge, wrong to attack the Ryan plan, and wrong to film a frickin' Global Warming spot with Pelosi.
A vote for Gingrich is a pragmatic vote for a right-winger (who occasionally wanders off the reservation into stupidity) who debates very well, who is in the right on 80-90% of issues, who has a sharp intellect, and who was the Speaker back in the 1990s (a.k.a. when the economy was good).
A vote for Romney is a pragmatic vote for a moderate who is very vague and nice-sounding, who polls well, who is in the right on 60-70% of issues, and who was the governor of Massachusetts back when their economy was the pits.
The argument that Romney is to the right of Gingrich is stupid.
The argument that he is more electable is debatable. I happen to think we're a center-right country, and people to the right of Newt have won before.
I also think the disdain of liberals is a good sign, and hostility from the press is nothing new. So, tentatively, Gingrich is my man. But it is a pragmatic vote. I would rather vote for Perry. I'm having trouble convincing myself that he can win.
Croix -- I will vote for the Republican nominee, and I will be here and elsewhere doing my level best to convince people to join me. I hope you will, too. I particularly cannot stand this silly posturing about not voting instead of voting for some candidate.
That said, I have patiently answered your questions, more than once. Kindly answer mine. Please explain to me how you believe Gingrich can obtain the electoral votes to win.
Saint Croix, I'll spell it out for you. Garage does not like Romney. He's playing a game. He is certain that Obama will do better against Gingrich than against Romney, so he is doing his small part to boost Gingrich by pretending to like Romney.
Perry ruined his campaign with the flub about the three agencies he'd get rid of. And don't bother trying to argue that it's the equivalent of the 57 states flub. Perry had an opportunity to correct himself, and he couldn't.
Please explain to me how you believe Gingrich can obtain the electoral votes to win.
1) Gingrich keeps all the McCain states. (Pretty much a gimme as it's hard to believe that Obama is more popular anywhere in 2012 than 2008).
2) Newt runs the South (picking up Florida, North Carolina and Virginia).
3) Newt wins Ohio and Pennsylvania.
That's 274 electoral votes for the win. I think he'll get more than that, actually.
Latest poll in Ohio.
In your own article, there, chieftain:
Currently undecided voters would make a big difference.
My case is thus rested. I win with a grand slam and a slam dunk. Also a hat trick. Undecideds will choose Obama over Gingrich, and Gingrich will get creamed. This has been my exact argument.
Thank you for playing. Better luck next time.
Post a Comment