Althouse: "The Mitt Romney campaign is making an immediate shift in tactics..."

December 6, 2011

"The Mitt Romney campaign is making an immediate shift in tactics..."

"... a move that is necessary because, as one Republican close the campaign put it, 'What they are doing now isn’t working.'"

84 comments:

Anonymous said...: There is no question in my mind that Gingrich was behind the oppo hit on Cain. And then Cain allegedly endorsed him. What a fool.; 12/6/11, 10:04 PM
Mark O said...: Mitt's becoming a Southern Baptist. And, he has promised to gesticulate wildly and with abandon.; 12/6/11, 10:07 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Maybe Mitt could say, "Eff, Obama!" and shoot a machine gun in the air. Grab onto the TV crowd.; 12/6/11, 10:11 PM
Right is right! said...: Romney is the Ford to Obama's Carter in this race. We need a Reagan.; 12/6/11, 10:25 PM
Andy said...: I feel bad for Romney. He clearly wants nothing more in the world than to be President and has debased himself over and over again and demonstrated his total lack of principles to try to secure the nomination, and yet the Republican base continues to hate him.

Falling behind in early primary states to the group of clowns running against must by humiliating.; 12/6/11, 10:26 PM
Right is right! said...: I will vote third party before I vote for big government Republican Romney.; 12/6/11, 10:29 PM
coketown said...: It seems that the Romney campaign's strategy was to let the national stage-newcomers surge in the polls and then shrink away from the subsequent exposure. Until now, no GOP candidate could withstand intense scrutiny, and Romney knew that.

The problem with Gingrich is that his dirty laundry has been aired. Continuously. Since 1998. Anyone supporting him at this point is fully aware of his odious baggage, and they don't care. Romney's hands-off approach won't work with a political veteran.

Maybe Mitt could say, "Eff, Obama!" and shoot a machine gun in the air.

Well, "Adios, mofo" did give Rick Perry a small bounce.; 12/6/11, 10:30 PM
edutcher said...: I don't know that his tactics haven't worked. He's got it down to a 2 man race, now he's going to make the case for him vs Newt.

Sounds like standard stuff.

Andy R. said...

Falling behind in early primary states to the group of clowns running against must by humiliating.

Hatman must really feel worse, knowing any of them could beat GodZero.

Seven Machos said...

There is no question in my mind that Gingrich was behind the oppo hit on Cain. And then Cain allegedly endorsed him. What a fool.

Seven's usual attempts at appearing to know what he's talking about aside, when exactly did Herman endorse anyone?; 12/6/11, 10:37 PM
cassandra lite said...: First question to Mitt on Fox Sunday: "Governor Romney, what about the Dingell-Norwood bill?"; 12/6/11, 10:37 PM
Wince said...: I don't think Romney should base his strategy against Gingrich.

Gingrich's strength among Republicans is what they expect he can do to Obama in a one-on-one debate.

What Romney has to is demonstrate how he can run against Obama and win.; 12/6/11, 10:38 PM
Once written, twice... said...: As a very liberal Democrat I view a Romney-Obama match up as a win-win. In my heart I would prefer Obama to win. But intellectually I know that it might take a Romney to enact universal healthcare and climate change legislation.; 12/6/11, 10:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Ed -- Althouse linked to an article about it here the other day. As someone who knows what he is talking about, I am providing this information to you as a public service.

Look into it.; 12/6/11, 10:42 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: The funny thing is that Gingrich isn't really any more conservative than Romney - he just does a better job of using the media as his whipping boy.

Probably the best thing Romney can do is just sit back and wait for Gingrich to self-destruct. Newt's tendency to be a know it all and talk when he hould just shut up is what'll bring him down.; 12/6/11, 10:43 PM
Anonymous said...: The funny thing is that Gingrich isn't really any more conservative than Romney

Gingrich actually is less conservative than Romney. Thus, for example, his support of exactly Obamacare. Thus, his chiding of Paul Ryan for daring to argue that the massive welfare systems we have in this country must be changed, quickly, or we will face dire consequences.

Moreover, Gingrich can't actually govern. Witness his utter defeats to Clinton in every battle that Clinton chose to fight. NAFTA? Welfare reform? Clinton campaigned on those things and wanted them.

But you starry-eyed conservatives just move along -- from Palin to Cain to Gingrich. Fighting is important. Fighting. Winning doesn't really matter.; 12/6/11, 10:47 PM
edutcher said...: Seven Machos said...

Ed -- Althouse linked to an article about it here the other day. As someone who knows what he is talking about, I am providing this information to you as a public service.

Look into it.

Seven might want to actually look at the article, rather than looking into it. As of yesterday, no endorsement. The article was about a rumor.

Besides, I thought Seven was sure it was Perry who started the rumors.

Or was it Milton?; 12/6/11, 10:47 PM
Anonymous said...: If there is no endorsement, then Cain isn't a fool. Perry does not stand to gain from starry-eyed conservatives such as you, Ed, realizing that some flavor of the month is not a serious candidate -- or not a candidate at all.; 12/6/11, 10:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Incidentally, Ed, you've got quite a bit of nerve coming here questioning my vast knowledge after your paeans to Cain and your assurances that he will fight to the end.

I guess the end was early December 2011, huh?; 12/6/11, 10:52 PM
Right is right! said...: Gingrich was the architect Of the Conservative revolution in the 1990s that cemented President Reagan's gains in place. Romney was the author of Romneycare. See the difference?; 12/6/11, 10:52 PM
Right is right! said...: Why does Seven Machos hate conservatives?; 12/6/11, 10:57 PM
Right is right! said...: Romney is Gerald Ford without the grace.; 12/6/11, 10:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Gingrich was the architect Of the Conservative revolution in the 1990s that cemented President Reagan's gains in place.

Oh please, dude. Are you 18? If you were a sentient political person from 1994 to 2000, you hated Bill Clinton. You know it. I know it. The world knows it. (I hated him then, too, only realizing later that he was a fine president by any objective standard.)

Why did you hate Clinton? Was it because he was busy signing laws that cemented the Reagan Revolution in place? Really? Come on, dude. Get over yourself.

Also, I love conservatives. I even like Gingrich. But what I don't like are presidential candidates who don't stand any chance whatsoever of beating Obama. So I am strongly against Gingrich's candidacy, as I was against Cain's. As I am against Bachmann's.

Get it?; 12/6/11, 11:01 PM
garage mahal said...: As a very liberal Democrat I view a Romney-Obama match up as a win-win. In my heart I would prefer Obama to win. But intellectually I know that it might take a Romney to enact universal healthcare and climate change legislation.

Same here. As a Madison/San Francisco liberal Democrat, Romney to me would be pragmatic and work with Democrats like a Pelosi, or a Reid, to forge deals. Deep down Romney doesn't seem like a far right conservative fire breather on abortion, GLBT equality, climate change, healthcare etc, and probably would want to send moderates to the Supreme Court.

This far left liberal wouldn't mind at all if Romney was President. Maybe even "get more done"?; 12/6/11, 11:03 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: Gingrich actually is less conservative than Romney.

Well, I think that's going too far. They're both moderate Republicans and if one is actually more conservative than the other, it's by a trivial margin.

Sure, Gingrich endorsed the individual mandate, but Romney actually passed Romneycare in Massachussets. You could go on and on in this vein, they're two peas in a pod.

Ironically, the fact that Gingrich was demonized by the MSM as a right-wing nut while he was speaker is probably what is giving GOP primary voters the impression that he is a more conservative alternative to Romney.; 12/6/11, 11:03 PM
Real American said...: it's the dog food, not the marketing.; 12/6/11, 11:07 PM
Cedarford said...: Dane County Taxpayer said...
I will vote third party before I vote for big government Republican Romney.

Translated:

1. Unless you give me a 100% litmus test passing conservative true believer,
I prefer Obama in office.
2. If we are 'lucky' enough to get a 100% litmus test true believer, I know such a person is unelectable and means another 4 years of Obama.
But we can chortle through all of Obama's 2nd term saying we extreme right wingers shure done sent 'em a message!; 12/6/11, 11:08 PM
Cedarford said...: Dane County Taxpayer said...
I will vote third party before I vote for big government Republican Romney.

Translated:

1. Unless you give me a 100% litmus test passing conservative true believer,
I prefer Obama in office.
2. If we are 'lucky' enough to get a 100% litmus test true believer, I know such a person is unelectable and means another 4 years of Obama.
But we can chortle through all of Obama's 2nd term saying we extreme right wingers shure done sent 'em a message!; 12/6/11, 11:09 PM
Right is right! said...: Seven Machos thinking that Clinton was a "fine" president tells you everything you need to know. Also, at this point in 1979 people like Seven Machos were claiming that Reagan was "unelectable" hence we had to settle for H.W. Bush or Ford.; 12/6/11, 11:10 PM
Right is right! said...: Cedarfold I know that Gingrich is not a perfect conservative, but he is sure the hell not a Rockefeller big government Republican like Mitt Romney!; 12/6/11, 11:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Maguro -- Here's my thing about Romneycare: it was popular and it is popular in a liberal state. Also, Romney faced a Democratic legislature. It's good that he crafted something with the opposition, not bad.

Also, I believe strongly that people should be able to make decisions as locally as possible. So, for example, if Berkeley wants single-payer and shortages, go for it. I encourage that.; 12/6/11, 11:17 PM
Anonymous said...: I was seven years old in 1979.; 12/6/11, 11:17 PM
Right is right! said...: Seven Machos will want Romney to craft socialist legislation with Pelosi and Reid. I say No Thanks!; 12/6/11, 11:21 PM
Cedarford said...: Maguro - "Sure, Gingrich endorsed the individual mandate, but Romney actually passed Romneycare in Massachussets."

You have to govern according to the wishes of your constituents. And different states have entirely different expectations of governors. Romney gave his state Romney care and it is popular there. Newt wanted the Federal government to shove the mandate on everyone in the country because the Feds are paying for the free riders.
Chris Christie would not be a governor of Texas with his gun control and liberal abortion law positions, and Perry would be DOA if he arrived in NJ trying to give them Texas values. And the Goddess Palin wildly popular for shaking down the disliked oil companies in Alaska and getting more money kicked into the State Fund - nwould be an unacceptable governor to voters in a Free Market loving state like S Carolina.; 12/6/11, 11:22 PM
Right is right! said...: Seven Machos is either a liberal tool or a fool.; 12/6/11, 11:23 PM
garage mahal said...: Gingrich seems way too divisive. Romney has proven he can work with Democrats before. Can you see Gingrich working with Democrats to cement common sense climate change and gun control legislation?; 12/6/11, 11:28 PM
rcommal said...: The countdown is on for the Iowa caucuses (untimely and annoyingly early). Decisions, decisions. Participate, don't participate. Will it matter? Should it matter? Ought I take pics this time (and then: to share them or not)?; 12/6/11, 11:29 PM
rcommal said...: Maybe Mitt could say, "Eff, Obama!" and shoot a machine gun in the air. Grab onto the TV crowd.

Nah. It'd only be seen as X-TREME flipping.; 12/6/11, 11:30 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: Can you see Gingrich working with Democrats to cement common sense climate change and gun control legislation?

Yes, I'm picturing Gingrich on a couch with Nancy Pelosi.

It gets worse from there.; 12/6/11, 11:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Just like Reagan crafted socialist legislation with O'Neill. Exactly.; 12/6/11, 11:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Garage -- Stop making me look bad here. Say something ridiculous.; 12/6/11, 11:39 PM
gadfly said...: Yeah - Integrity; that's the ticket.

Integrity spelled R-O-M-N-E-Y-C-A-R-E, which;

• cost the Bay State 18,313 jobs;

• drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion;

• slowed the growth of disposable income per person by $376; and

• reduced investment in Massachusetts by $25.06 million.; 12/6/11, 11:41 PM
Right is right! said...: A RINO like Seven Machos can only win by lying about President Reagan and tearing him down.; 12/6/11, 11:47 PM
garage mahal said...: Garage -- Stop making me look bad here. Say something ridiculous.

When asked if he flip flops, Romney said, "Yes and no".

Just shows you he isn't wedded to any one side of an issue and can change his mind at any given time.; 12/6/11, 11:48 PM
Anonymous said...: I stand athwart climate change legislation. Gun control legislation is blatantly unconstitutional under several recent Supreme Court and appellate cases.; 12/6/11, 11:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Are you suggesting that Reagan didn't compromise with O'Neill? That this is not true?

Child, please. The Democratic majority in the House when Reagan was president was ginormous.; 12/6/11, 11:50 PM
bagoh20 said...: The pain of Presidential elections for conservatives is that the only way to win is to surrender in the primary. The only prize attainable is no prize at all - a victory in name only. The rejection of Obama may be as good as it gets. Still better than the alternative.; 12/6/11, 11:51 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Dane County Taxpayer wrote: Romney is the Ford to Obama's Carter in this race. We need a Reagan.

No, Romney is the Kerry to Obama's Bush.; 12/6/11, 11:52 PM
bagoh20 said...: I'm betting Michelle has a landing strip.; 12/6/11, 11:55 PM
rcommal said...: Peter Hoh:

Given that, who do you think will be the Republican nominee, and how do you expect that nominee will do? Among those not in the race for the nomination, whom do you most miss (who do you most wish were in the race, either still or who had entered to begin with)?; 12/7/11, 12:00 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Yeah, I knew someone was going to go there. I just thought it would be the other Peter.; 12/7/11, 12:01 AM
Peter Hoh said...: I think the GOP nomination is very much up in the air. The establishment wants Romney, but the base is balking. Gingrich is polling well in the first 4 states. If he can turn that into victories, I think it will be hard for Romney to come back.

I am fairly confident that Obama would trounce Gingrich. It won't be a Mondale-like landslide, but it won't be a close contest.

I believe that Romney can beat Obama.

I believe that the race thus far has hurt Romney, who was hoping to have this locked up by now. He's had to run right, and that may make it hard for him to return to the center for the general election. And like McCain, he risks losing some of the GOP base if he runs too much to the middle.; 12/7/11, 12:08 AM
rcommal said...: The pain of Presidential elections for conservatives is that the only way to win is to surrender in the primary.

Well, I'd say first focus on the hyper-local, the local, the county and the specific state. Move on from there to representatives and senators from the specific state to the requisite national bodies. Capturing the presidency as supposedly some sort of singular and profound course to force change ought to be seen as an antithetical goal to [at least small government] conservatism in in the first place, even if such a thing were to be practical, much less efficacious--which it isn't. I think people here pretty much forget that, all too caught up in executive symbolism and tribal lines-drawing as they are.; 12/7/11, 12:15 AM
Anonymous said...: There are plenty of great conservatives out there who are not running. Jeb Bush. Mitch Daniels.

Or are those guys too liberal, too?

What some conservatives want, Bag, is a conservatism pure as a driven snow. It ain't going to happen.

Also, Gingrich cannot win. This is the unassailable point that these certain conservatives -- like poor Dane County guy -- never bother with. How is it, dudes, that Gingrich is going to get the electoral votes?; 12/7/11, 12:17 AM
Peter Hoh said...: As for who I wish had entered the race, I remain convinced that Daniels was the most capable executive of the bunch who dipped their toes in the water and decided not to run.

I wish that Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer had been given a chance to participate in a couple of the debates.

While I understand the appeal of Ryan and Christie, I'm not sure that either was ready to take the national stage. They leave this process looking good because they didn't step into the spotlight.

I wonder what would have happened had Pawlenty not dropped out. Would he have had his turn as a front-runner?

I suspect not. He was not perceived as a fighter, and the base wants someone who can bloody Obama's nose.; 12/7/11, 12:30 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Seven, anyone who wants a candidate "pure as the driven snow" could not possibly pick Gingrich.

Newt's appeal is that he seems like the kind of guy who can really stick it to Obama. That's what the base values over a pure conservative track record.; 12/7/11, 12:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Peter -- I agree with virtually everything you have said here tonight except the part about Romney being Kerry. I don't get that at all.

Also, executives are not fighters. That is not the nature of the job, and it's not the way to get elected to the job. I honestly don't get the conservative zeitgeist here. Opinion Journal today discussed it trenchantly today. But I remain flummoxed.; 12/7/11, 12:33 AM
Titus said...: As all Mass residents, and the overwhelming republican primary voters know, Mitt is completely and totally an opportunist who has no core values or convictions. He just wants to be president really really bad, and has lots of money to blow.

He even said in one debate his real name is Mitt..actually it's not.

But who cares?

You should read what the conservative Union Leader in New Hampshire and Boston Herald say about him and they know him really well.

He has essentially changed his view on every issue. Some within the past weeks.

He is lame, cold, boring, out of touch and kind of gross.

I heard some Frank Luntz wingnut focus group on Mitt and they essentially hate him and don't trust him as far as they can throw him.

He should just step aside. A republican from Mass..really people? Is that how desperate you have become?

Just wait to the evangelicals see the video tape of him whooping it up with all the fags at a gay bar. That will go over real well.

No one likes him and those that do do so with reservations.

The good news is Dan Quayle endorsed him today which speaks volumes.

Lastly, he takes the cheese off his pizza before he eats it and that just aint going to fly.; 12/7/11, 12:45 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Romney is as wooden as Kerry, but he's been coached better. Romney has almost figured out how to lose the patrician air.

Romney's inability to answer re. the union question in Ohio was one moment that made him look as wishy-washy as Kerry.; 12/7/11, 12:48 AM
Titus said...: His social interactions with "normal" people are totally fucked up.

What is up with that?

There was a scene at some New Hampshire diner where we was talking to these old hags and it was just insulting. He pretended that one of him "goosed" him and was so fucking retarded.

Good Lord that man is a walking disaster.; 12/7/11, 12:51 AM
rcommal said...: Thanks, Peter (and also to 7M).; 12/7/11, 12:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Titus -- We Republicans are left picking the credited answer on a standardized test here.

I don't think anyone is thrilled about Romney. He has massive flaws. He's not a very good answer. It's just that all the other available candidates suck much more.; 12/7/11, 1:01 AM
rcommal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/7/11, 1:06 AM
rcommal said...: Yes, Titus, but at least he would pet the Rare Clumbers with genuine affection, even especially after he'd had to hose down the shit off the family station-wagon as a result of deciding to transport them strapped atop the vehicle as he zoomed down, what was it, I-95?--en route to a family-vacation destination or whatnot. And people think the man has no balls and is just full of compassion.

Am I catching your drift, dear Titus? Or at least one of them, as they float by?

Tits! Not to mention clouds.

; ); 12/7/11, 1:08 AM
rcommal said...: Never forget: After hosing down the vehicle, he continued the trip as planned and originally organized, so the story goes.

wv: dricar

Screw those who complain about wv references. Sometimes they're too rich NOT to reference.; 12/7/11, 1:13 AM
rcommal said...: A RINO like Seven Machos can only win by lying about President Reagan and tearing him down.

You can repeat that until the end of time, but it won't change the fact that Reagan himself wouldn't be the preferred choice of the conservative base in Republican caucuses and primaries now, in real time. No. He. Would. Not. Be.

You ought to be honest about that, if only in tribute to Ronald Reagan, a man fundamentally comfortable with looking at himself in the mirror each morning. Unflinchingly.; 12/7/11, 1:30 AM
rhhardin said...: I don't mind a personally repulsive President, so Gingrich is an okay possibility.

Disabling the media narrative is his big plus. He has one-liners that do the trick.

Today's soap opera news should be an entertainment choice, not a political choice.; 12/7/11, 6:07 AM
Sue D'Nhym said...: but he is sure the hell not a Rockefeller big government Republican like Mitt Romney!

Actually, that is a pretty dang good description of Gingrich. Quoting:

"What stands out about Romney and Gingrich, to me, is that they have in common a very unusual profile for a Republican politician. Both of them are fundamentally moderates: Very wonky Rockefeller Republicans who moved to the right over time as their party moved right and maybe as events persuaded them to move right, and they both still very much exhibit the technocratic countenance of the Rockefeller Republican—a program for every problem."; 12/7/11, 6:50 AM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...
"Incidentally, Ed, you've got quite a bit of nerve coming here questioning my vast knowledge after your paeans to Cain and your assurances that he will fight to the end. "

Vast knowledge? HAHAHAHAHA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIf0GwaAyI8; 12/7/11, 7:10 AM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...
"Titus -- We Republicans are left picking the credited answer on a standardized test here"

You're not a "Republican". You're an internet operative of the Usurper.; 12/7/11, 7:12 AM
edutcher said...: Seven Machos said...

Incidentally, Ed, you've got quite a bit of nerve coming here questioning my vast knowledge after your paeans to Cain and your assurances that he will fight to the end.

As always, Seven's "vast knowledge" is of the "legend in his own mind" variety, and, IIRC, those were exhortations, not assurances.

Seven seems to refit reality to accommodate his delusions of adequacy.

PS I think we have proof Hatman, Seven, and mccullough are the same; only the headgear changes.; 12/7/11, 7:25 AM
Anonymous said...: They can shift tactics all they want; Obama is going to win in a walk.; 12/7/11, 7:50 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I'm fine with Mitt since he actually understands economics unlike the current dolt.

The main focus will be the economy. Climate hoax legislation will have to wait.; 12/7/11, 8:05 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: Next time a reporter asks Mitt an ignorant question, Mitt could punch the reporter in the teeth. He could moon the MSNBC press van. He could show up to a press conference, shake up a can of beer, and spray all the journalists with it. People like theatrics.; 12/7/11, 8:14 AM
Christopher in MA said...: "Romney has proven he can work with Democrats before."

Exactly why I will never vote for him. In Garage's world, "working with Democrats" means making coy little "no, no, no!" noises before kneeling down and strapping on the kneepads. It means being a spineless collaborator.

Go ahead, Seven, tell me - exactly what will Romney do to even slow down the growth of this corrupt cuttlefish of a government? What departments will he close? What budgets will he zero out? What will he actually do?

I find it fascinating that everyone who hasn't lived in Massachusetts thinks that Romney has even one bedrock conservative principle which he won't abandon. As a businessman - when he has his own money on the line - he can take tough stands. As a politician spending other people's money, he has a record of sniveling and begging for pardon the moment a Democrat looks cross-eyed at him.

Hell, maybe Mittens will beat the SCOAMF. Perhaps we'll even get a conservative majority in Congress. But I predict that after four years of a Romney administration, we'll still be in the same financial shithole we're in now and not a single government agency will have been defunded or eliminated.

But our doom will be compentently managed by a nice-looking fellow with good hair. At least you'll have that.; 12/7/11, 8:15 AM
Mick said...: Obama is not stupid (it takes brains to Usurp the Presidency). His purpose is to institutute Cloward/Piven to crash the American Economy, Political system, and Constitution in order for the NWO Central Banker Technocrats to de facto take over.; 12/7/11, 8:17 AM
Seeing Red said...: He's as arrogant as Obama. Can't admit he was wrong. It would go a long way to say I'm sorry, ObamneyCare doesn't work we will try a different way and we really should look into the science of Man-Made Global Warming, I'm not so sure it's settled. It's been handled poorly, look at how the science of neutrinos was handled, open and above-board for all too see.; 12/7/11, 8:18 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: He's as arrogant as Obama. Can't admit he was wrong.

Gingrich?; 12/7/11, 8:20 AM
John henry said...: I can just imagine Romney looking at the polls and saying "I can't believe I am losing to these two guys!" (Paul and Gingrich"

It is his turn, folks. Romney deserves the nomination. He's Mitt Freaking Romney, for Heaven's sake.

What is so hard to understand about that?

What is the matter with you people out there? You have to vote for him.

It's his turn.

John Henry; 12/7/11, 8:38 AM
Paco Wové said...: Between Gingrich and Romney, you get to pick between two establishment pseudo-conservatives, both of whom will continue the U.S. on the disastrous course of the last 2 decades or so. The only reason to favor either of them over Obama is that at least they will pick a different group of cronies to shower government largesse upon, thereby spreading the wealth a little. An maybe the foreign policy won't be quite as bad.

But Newt winning the general election? Not seeing it. Romney? Not sure I see that either. Come Nov. 2012, people are going to have a choice: new crap or old crap. Why take a chance with new crap? (Putting myself into the mind of Joe Sixpack Voter here, not necessarily presenting my own argument.); 12/7/11, 8:44 AM
John henry said...: Perhaps it is time to support a *real* Republican.

You know, one who believes in things like:

Smaller govt
Less intrusive govt
Protection from govt
The Constitution
Strong defense
Sound money
Balanced budgets
Reduced spending

And so on...

There is only one person currently in the race who believes in that stuff.

You know, that guy who's name can't be mentioned.

It looks like the good folks in Iowa may be gearing up to do the right thing.

We can hope for change. We might get it.

John Henry
Proud Liberal!; 12/7/11, 8:44 AM
John henry said...: Is Newt even a real candidate?

A few months ago everyone was saying that he was not really serious about running and was only doing it to boost his speaking and consulting fees.

Will he precipitate some meltdown to give himself an excuse to withdraw? Perhaps leak some damaging stuff to the NY Times so that they can pillory his. That will let him ever after claim that he was done in by the poisonous press. Should be good for some pity points.

Will Newt even make the race in Iowa?

If he doesn't, where does that leave Romney? Will he wind up #2 behind Paul?

Or will he just wind up as #2 (in the schoolyard sense). Many, including me, think he is already.

John Henry
Proud Liberal!; 12/7/11, 8:51 AM
kristinintexas said...: Capturing the presidency as supposedly some sort of singular and profound course to force change ought to be seen as an antithetical goal to [at least small government] conservatism in in the first place, even if such a thing were to be practical, much less efficacious--which it isn't.

Very well said.; 12/7/11, 8:55 AM
Brian Brown said...: “We are going to have the candidate of food stamps, the finest food stamp president in the American history in Barack Obama and we are going to have a candidate of paychecks.”

-Newt

I suspect his rise in the polls is because of statements like this. It doesn't seem as if Romney takes the same approach...; 12/7/11, 9:25 AM
Jenny said...: What is he doing? He's been MIA the whole campaign so far as I'm concerned. IMO it's not his turn. If he's the only name left on the ballot for the primary, I'm writing in someone else's name; 12/7/11, 9:45 AM
mccullough said...: Jay,

The food-stamp President line is pretty double edged. Put aside if it looks like he's picking on people who are having a hard time and lost their job through no fault of their own.

The number of people on food stamps dropped significantly during Clinton's presidency, both pre and post Newt as speaker. They started going up again during W.'s presidency and have continued during Obama's.

Newt Gingrich's candidacy is going to produce nostalgia for Bill Clinton, not support for Newt Gingrich. And Bill Clinton knows it, which is why he wants Gingrich to be the nominee.; 12/7/11, 12:07 PM