Althouse: "If I don't win the primary Saturday, we will probably nominate a moderate... And the odds are fairly high he will lose to Obama."

January 18, 2012

"If I don't win the primary Saturday, we will probably nominate a moderate... And the odds are fairly high he will lose to Obama."

Newt Gingrich concocts something of an ultimatum.

82 comments:

Automatic_Wing said...: As if he's not a moderate himself.; 1/18/12, 9:54 AM
Daniel Fielding said...: Newt is an damn ego-maniac, who needs to shut-up and go away!!!!!; 1/18/12, 9:59 AM
Pastafarian said...: Yes, Daniel, we need to support that meek, timid, unassuming major candidate for POTUS.

What was his name again?; 1/18/12, 10:02 AM
David said...: Perhaps true. But Newt is likely to lose too.

Newt is a smart guy. So (presumably) is Obama.

Exhibits A and A1 that "smart" has its limitations.; 1/18/12, 10:05 AM
Robert Cook said...: What a cry-baby...he's throwing a tantrum and blaming the Republican voters if they don't put him in office...it'll be their fault Obama will be re-elected!; 1/18/12, 10:06 AM
traditionalguy said...: Newt is making enemies again faster than usual. But he has a good point.

Romney is the GOP insiders latest reincarnation of the perfect northeastern Governor candidate like the unbeatable Tom Dewey. His image seems just right to them, but his personal appeal to voters will be limited.; 1/18/12, 10:06 AM
Henry said...: "If I do wing the primary Saturday we will probably nominate a fruitloop..."

A moderate Republican is no problem if Congress is fiscally conservative.

If Congress is not, you could nominate the two-headed clone of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan and accomplish nothing.

Congress is where the action is. The advantage of Romney is that he will do nothing to undermine the overall party effort.; 1/18/12, 10:08 AM
Scott M said...: Newt Gingrich concocts something of an ultimatum.

Bullshit. He concocts nothing. His vanity is merely showing through. I wouldn't bet against him in a one-on-one interview with any of the other candidates, Obama, or Biden, but that doesn't make him a good executive.; 1/18/12, 10:09 AM
Dan in Philly said...: I really wish politicians would never talk. Newt might believe what he's saying, he might not, but he has such a huge interest in believing what he's saying I cannot trust his judgement.; 1/18/12, 10:11 AM
edutcher said...: Last I looked, Milton was dead even with GodZero and everybody else was double digits behind.

Granted, you can't trust a lot of polls, but, if a Conservative is going to beat Zero, it doesn't look like it's any of the ones running right now.; 1/18/12, 10:12 AM
Lyssa said...: As if he's not a moderate himself.

This. Newt gives you every bit of Romney's moderation with the added bonus of bad management skills and a tendency to say really stupid things.

Not buying it.; 1/18/12, 10:14 AM
cliff claven said...: VOTE FOR ME OR I'LL KILL THIS PUPPY.; 1/18/12, 10:17 AM
Bender said...: The fact of the matter is that history proves time and again that the "most electable" candidate of conventional wisdom - who invariably is a squishy "moderate" - is actually "not electable" at all.

If Republicans nominate Bob McCain, yes, it will be their fault that Obama gets re-elected.; 1/18/12, 10:18 AM
Bender said...: So, if Newt is the nominee, are you Romney-bots going to vote for him?; 1/18/12, 10:19 AM
Wince said...: Santorum grew testy Tuesday when pressed by The Huffington Post about how he plans to stay in the race for an extended period.

"Why are you guys so fixated on the length?" Santorum asked. "Let's just do me a favor: we'll take this one election at a time, and then I'll talk to you after this election about what we're going to do in the next election."

I have to ask, is the the HuffPo writer Jon Wad, er, Ward, "fixated" on the Santorum's election or his erection?; 1/18/12, 10:20 AM
Tank said...: They are all big gov't, war mongering Repub's, except for Ron "he can't win" Paul.

There are no conservatives.

Buncha moderate/liberals and one libertarian.; 1/18/12, 10:20 AM
Scott M said...: Newt gives you every bit of Romney's moderation with the added bonus of bad management skills and a tendency to say really stupid things.

You forgot his propensity to choose horribly questionable park bench co-sitters.; 1/18/12, 10:20 AM
Pastafarian said...: Last I looked, edutcher, the Houston Astros and Milwaukee Brewers are tied dead-even for their division. When the actual season starts, that's liable to change.

What can happen, exactly, that will make Romney pull out to a lead over Obama? The economy is already shit, and unlikely to actually get worse; people dropping out of the labor pool will cause unemployment to decrease, even though actual employment won't increase.

But with Gingrich vs Obama, there is something that might cause Gingrich to improve his numbers: There is the real possibility that Gingrich will humiliate him in the debates. And that's important: We're not just talking about a horse race here, but a national debate about ideas, and which direction we're going to take.

Gingrich can convince people. Romney can't even convince himself.

Gingrich is a little nutty; we're in a situation here that calls for a little nuttiness. We don't need stay-the-course wouldn't-be-prudent milktoast republicanism. We need someone who knows how to ram shit through congress, and who's bold enough to take the steps necessary, now that we've spent ourselves into oblivion.; 1/18/12, 10:21 AM
damikesc said...: Newt still doesn't get he hit his high when he wasn't spending all of his time blasting Republicans.; 1/18/12, 10:24 AM
edutcher said...: Bender said...

So, if Newt is the nominee, are you Romney-bots going to vote for him?

And your choice?; 1/18/12, 10:24 AM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/18/12, 10:27 AM
Andy said...: Are we laughing at Newt or the party that took him seriously as a candidate for president?; 1/18/12, 10:28 AM
Scott M said...: Are we laughing at Newt or the party that took him seriously as a candidate for president?

Why do things always have to be collectivist with you people?; 1/18/12, 10:32 AM
Brian Brown said...: Andy R. said...
Are we laughing at Newt or the party that took him seriously as a candidate for president?

Actually, we're laughing at Jay Carney's response when asked why Obama's transcripts won't be released.; 1/18/12, 10:34 AM
bgates said...: So (presumably) is Obama.

What's the basis for that presumption?

What has Obama ever said or done that made you sit back and think, "wow, that was really smart"?; 1/18/12, 10:34 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: Gingrich is a little nutty

And a little slutty!; 1/18/12, 10:35 AM
machine said...: Newt did have the best line of the year though chiding the GOP establishment for backing "the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama."

Maybe Mittens will pick Palin as his VP...to ensure another loss...; 1/18/12, 10:37 AM
Andy said...: but, if a Conservative is going to beat Zero, it doesn't look like it's any of the ones running right now.

It's interesting that the Republican party couldn't find a single conservative to run in the primary that would stand a chance against Obama. Where are they all hiding? Why did only the stupid and crazy ones turn out for the primary?

A whole big nationwide party and they have to settle on a moderate whose main appeal is his "electability". Tragic.; 1/18/12, 10:38 AM
Pastafarian said...: Actually, I do kind of like that Paladino guy, but he's not running.

My first choice was Thune. He didn't run.

My next choice was Paul Ryan; didn't run.

Then Perry; he turned out to be dumber than a stump. Then Cain; but it turned out that his brain was frequently overpowered by another organ.

So now I'm left with either Gingrich or Romney. Here's what's likely to happen should Romney win the nomination: He narrowly wins the presidency, the Republicans hold the house and take the slimmest of majorities in the senate; and Romney either cannot or will not do anything to reverse the damage done by Obama.

The economy continues to slide into the abyss; but now, the Republicans get all of the blame.

I've got to tell you, I'm seriously considering voting for Obama, if Romney wins the nomination. I've seen nothing from him that indicates that he wants to make drastic cuts to expenditures and entitlements, or that he'd be able to get them through congress even if he did.

Well, OK, I won't go that far. But only because there will be 3 or 4 SCOTUS appointments in the next term.; 1/18/12, 10:39 AM
Anonymous said...: It's said for self serving reasons, but...

1. He could well be right

2. Newt would be worse, because he adds "widely hated and feared" to the mix.

This makes a better case for nominating Paul, or (in my OWN self serving argument) voting for the Libertarian ticket in November.; 1/18/12, 10:39 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: ".. So, if Newt is the nominee, are you Romney-bots going to vote for him?.."

Nope. I'll find something else to do that day. A choice between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich with BLT isn't much of a choice.; 1/18/12, 10:40 AM
Scott M said...: A whole big nationwide party and they have to settle on a moderate whose main appeal is his "electability". Tragic.

A whole big nationwide party and they had to settle on an inexperienced radical over an experienced, accomplished moderate, simply because his main appeal was his skin color.

I agree, Andy. Tragic.; 1/18/12, 10:41 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Are we laughing at Newt or the party that took him seriously as a candidate for president?.."

Actually I'm still laughing at you and the Democrat party for continuing to take Obama seriously three years after confirming he was the joke candidate he started out as.; 1/18/12, 10:44 AM
Brennan said...: Are the odds that a moderate cannot beat Obama in a general premised on Conservatives staying home because they won't vote for a moderate?; 1/18/12, 10:47 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: So....two primaries and one caucus....and it is over for the rest of the States???

Our opinions don't count?

South Carolina, Iowa and New Hampshire (along with the MSM) get to choose the candidates for the Republican party.

No wonder we are so fu..fu..fu....screwed.; 1/18/12, 10:49 AM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/18/12, 10:50 AM
Brennan said...: What is wrong with Romney exactly if he's winning primaries with ballots cast by Republicans?

Newt doesn't seem to grasp this.

If Republican primary voters are not voting for Newt this would be Newt's fault.; 1/18/12, 10:52 AM
edutcher said...: Andy R. said...

Are we laughing at Newt or the party that took him seriously as a candidate for president?

No, we're just laughing at Hatman.

but, if a Conservative is going to beat Zero, it doesn't look like it's any of the ones running right now.

It's interesting that the Republican party couldn't find a single conservative to run in the primary that would stand a chance against Obama. Where are they all hiding? Why did only the stupid and crazy ones turn out for the primary?

Perry, Bachmann, and Herman are Conservatives.

Two were tried and found wanting. The other had to be slimed.

And the only stupid and crazy one who turned out for the primaries is Hatman.; 1/18/12, 10:54 AM
madAsHell said...: I thought Cleavon Little was the sheriff in Blazing Saddles?; 1/18/12, 10:55 AM
Tank said...: Pastafarian said...

Snip

What can happen, exactly, that will make Romney pull out to a lead over Obama? The economy is already shit, and unlikely to actually get worse; people dropping out of the labor pool will cause unemployment to decrease, even though actual employment won't increase.

What makes you think the economy is unlikely to get worse? Might not happen before the election, but it's probably going to happen. All of the problems continue, no "fix" has been applied, and none will occur before the election.; 1/18/12, 10:56 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: ".. I think Romney (or other moderate) will be hurt by lack of enthusiasm from the TP end of the curve..."

The Tea Party is motivated by fiscal policy moreso than social issues.; 1/18/12, 10:56 AM
Tank said...: Brennan said...

Are the odds that a moderate cannot beat Obama in a general premised on Conservatives staying home because they won't vote for a moderate?

That, plus:

History

Not only will some stay home, they won't donate or work for the candidate (even among family or friends).

If two apparent moderates are running, why switch? The devil you have vs. ....; 1/18/12, 10:59 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: If two apparent moderates are running, why switch?.."

Yet Obama isn't a moderate, or even appears to be. If he still had his Democrat majority, you can bet the farm he'd have gone the full Castro by now.; 1/18/12, 11:06 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Gingrich reverts too easily & too frequently into an arrogant, nasty prick.

He could not get elected IMO.; 1/18/12, 11:09 AM
Cedarford said...: Pasta - "There is the real possibility that Gingrich will humiliate him in the debates. And that's important: We're not just talking about a horse race here, but a national debate about ideas, and which direction we're going to take.

Gingrich can convince people. Romney can't even convince himself.

First, there are likely only going to be two debates, deep into the General election campaign..with one for the VP.
By that time, Newt will be shredded to ribbons over the 300 ethics charges that were documented but Congress never made public. Plus tons of other baggage.
And if Newt is especially witty and shows the cognoscenti he is a "masterdebator", it won't matter if he is still 15-18 points behind Obama...and public reaction will be:

"My, Newt was a really good showman at that debate! Better than the President! Newt touted his latest weekly Great Ideas that he never follows up on..Pity he is bathed in scandal, everyone who knows him says he couldn't manage a 7/11 store, and he is tempermentally unfit to be President."; 1/18/12, 11:15 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Gingrich reverts too easily & too frequently into an arrogant, nasty prick.

I would rather have an arrogant nasty prick in office who would take down the liberal policies that are destroying this country than a Mr. Milquetoast who would just continue the destruction in a slower and more gentlemanly way.

We aren't voting for Mr. Congenialty. We need someone who will get the job done.

If it takes an arrogant prick.....so be it.; 1/18/12, 11:18 AM
Cedarford said...: There is this about Romney and Newt:

The longer people are around Romney, the deeper the respect he gets for his executive and leadership abilities, the higher their respect for his integrity and morality.

The longer people are around Newt and get to know who he really is - the more likely they are to dislike him, lose respect for him through working with him, and more likely to rebel against or walk away from him.; 1/18/12, 11:21 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: DBQ:

I don't disagree with you that we don't need a Milquetoast.

But I fear Newt's solutions will all be about more govt programs and more central planning [hell we can get that from Obama].

Is there any evidence Newt will not go that route? Just listen to him and check his record.; 1/18/12, 11:26 AM
garage mahal said...: Yet Obama isn't a moderate, or even appears to be.

Fresh poll:

One thing that really stands out in this poll is the extent to which Obama has claimed the middle. He's up 68-27 on Romney with moderates. He also leads by 20 points with voters under 45, a group there's been some concern about slippage with, and he has a 66-30 advantage with Hispanics. Link; 1/18/12, 11:30 AM
Cedarford said...: Right now, Romney averages 14 points above Gingrich in SC, 20 points above Gingrich in Florida, 11 points nationally.

Head to head against Obama, Romney is 1 point behind, as Newts "he is a 1%r!!" attacks have started to have some effect on Romneys beating Obama in polls a week back. But Gingrich is now 16-18 points behind Obama head-to-head.; 1/18/12, 11:31 AM
Brian Brown said...: The Obama administration will announce this afternoon it is rejecting a Canadian firm’s application for a permit to build and operate a massive oil pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border, according to sources who have been briefed on the matter.

And that's that.

But remember, Obama is focused on Jobs!; 1/18/12, 11:38 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: But I fear Newt's solutions will all be about more govt programs and more central planning [hell we can get that from Obama].

You know, I really don't think it matters anymore. We are wasting out time on polls and discussions about inconsequential candidates.

We are so far down the rabbit hole that we are never going to be able to get out. It doesn't matter who is President or who is in Congress. We are so screwed that our only hope is to completely dismantle the whole thing and start over.

Perhaps in about 30 years or so. But that is probably optimistic. I think that we are doomed to become a socialist third world country and there isn't anything that anyone is willing to do about it.

Our grandchildren and great granchildren are going to be suffering for the idiocy of our spineless political class and our spineless selfish populace.

They will look back on us, (if they still have the ability to read or free access to information) and curse our stupidity for throwing away the most free and prosperous society that we have ever known.

We might as well get on with the end and elect Obama.; 1/18/12, 11:46 AM
edutcher said...: Insta has a piece noting the failure of Newt's Bain-bashing is bad news for the Demos.

PS garage is going to have to do better than the KosKidz polls.; 1/18/12, 11:48 AM
Brian Brown said...: edutcher said...
Insta has a piece noting the failure of Newt's Bain-bashing is bad news for the Demos.

Obama's newly selected OMB director worked at Bain.; 1/18/12, 11:52 AM
sakredkow said...: In my opinion that kind of pessimism is not one of America's greatest gifts, and it won't lead to our bounty. It's part of the problem.; 1/18/12, 11:52 AM
Known Unknown said...: The Obama administration will announce this afternoon it is rejecting a Canadian firm’s application for a permit to build and operate a massive oil pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border, according to sources who have been briefed on the matter.

Timing is everything!; 1/18/12, 11:57 AM
Tank said...: Hoosier Daddy said...
If two apparent moderates are running, why switch?.."

Yet Obama isn't a moderate, or even appears to be. If he still had his Democrat majority, you can bet the farm he'd have gone the full Castro by now.

To the great majority of people in this country, almost all of whom don't follow politics/economics the way you do, he will present himself as a moderate, and they will buy it.

Don't forget too: 50% of the people are below average. For most of us here at Althouse, we really don't interact much with these people.; 1/18/12, 11:59 AM
sakredkow said...: I believe Obama's a moderate. 50% are below average? Average what?

And they say that the Obama guys are arrogant.; 1/18/12, 12:04 PM
Andy said...: Don't forget too: 50% of the people are below average. For most of us here at Althouse, we really don't interact much with these people.

You're too funny.; 1/18/12, 12:05 PM
Scott M said...: You're too funny.

So are you and your party's tragic embrace of a candidate based on skin color.; 1/18/12, 12:09 PM
Andy said...: So are you and your party's tragic embrace of a candidate based on skin color.

Herman Cain is a Republican.; 1/18/12, 12:11 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: I believe Obama's a moderate. 50% are below average? Average what?

Actually 50% of the people are below the median. They have to be.

Probably more than 50% are below average depending on what you are averaging. Intelligence? Ability to reason? Participation in politics? It all depends.

Obama is in no way a moderate.

I'm not a pessimist. I'm a realist. I can see when something is broken or isn't working. To deny the realtity of the dire situation that the US economy is in an the decay of social and moral values is to be a Pollyanna.

Or in otherwords have your head up your butt and be deluded into thinking that Obama is a moderate.

Unfortunately, most people average or median want to take the Pollyanna route. It is easier. Tra la la.; 1/18/12, 12:12 PM
Quaestor said...: Shawn L. wrote:
This makes a better case for nominating Paul, or (in my OWN self serving argument) voting for the Libertarian ticket in November.

How does casting a symbolic vote which serves the Obama camp advance your self-interest?; 1/18/12, 12:13 PM
sakredkow said...: So are you and your party's tragic embrace of a candidate based on skin color.

The fact of our President's skin color is something for all Americans to be proud of.; 1/18/12, 12:15 PM
Scott M said...: Herman Cain is a Republican.

Lame comeback, even for you. Alan Keyes is black, has tried to run for president, and never managed anywhere near the interest Cain did. Your worldview is lacking, Andy. Please try again.; 1/18/12, 12:15 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: The fact of our President's skin color is something for all Americans to be proud of.

I'd rather be proud of the contents of his character.

Too bad. We can't.; 1/18/12, 12:18 PM
pm317 said...: ultimatum?

Nah, more like blackmail, threat. Kind of thing they did with Obama in 2008 -- if you didn't vote for him, you're a racist. Newt is playing on similar fear.; 1/18/12, 12:18 PM
ic said...: The odds are a 100% that Gingrich will lose to Obama.

Gingrich is repulsive in looks and in deeds.; 1/18/12, 12:19 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: " Herman Cain is a Republican..."

Yes and when it came to light his character was lacking, he lost support.

When it came to light your candidate attended a racist church for 20 years and whose close associates have a penchant for communists, you guys embraced him as your chosen leader.

Says quite a bit about which side holds color over character.; 1/18/12, 12:25 PM
yashu said...: We might as well get on with the end and elect Obama.

I like DBQ too much to say what I think of this statement.

In any case, there aren't enough curse words in my vocabulary to express my feelings adequately.; 1/18/12, 12:26 PM
Tank said...: yashu said...
We might as well get on with the end and elect Obama.

I like DBQ too much to say what I think of this statement.

In any case, there aren't enough curse words in my vocabulary to express my feelings adequately.

Why not do your best, then go back and delete the nasty bits, if that is important to you.

Me, I expect the worst, but perhaps it can still be delayed until after I'm gone.

I'm not eager for chaos.; 1/18/12, 12:46 PM
Anonymous said...: If that's what it takes to get rid of you once and for all, Newt, I guess I can deal with it.; 1/18/12, 12:49 PM
Dante said...: @pastafarian: Agree with your point. We need to significantly rethink America. Romney simply seems to be a book smart nose to the grindstone sort of guy. I want some genius in the white House, kind of like Obama, but going in the right direction. That's Newt.

As Newt has nearly consistently done, he will win the debates. I'm looking forward to Newt putting Obama into corners where he looks foolish. He has the knowledge. Romney, I don't see it.

Plus all the Romney negatives. His Mormonism will be attacked by the press. I recently heard Nancy Pelosi say to "To win a state, you go to the inner cities." How is Romney with his millions going to connect there. And how is Romney going to deal with "Deport them all." Newt has a much better approach. Since the US cast a blind eye to people who have been here 26 years, set up family, etc., I do not see how it is ethical to kick them out, nor how this is going to help Romney in a general election. And of course, there's O'romney care. Let's face it. The 10th amendment (or is it the ninth, the one that says rights not enumerated here are reserved for the states/people), is weak. We have all seen the Constitution trashed for this cause or that cause. He has no credibility as a constitutional constructionist, say like Ron Paul has. Romney, in my view would have a lot tougher road in a general election for these reasons than Newt.

So how about it. Let's take a fair look at Newt. of course, the Newt has some warts, but who doesn't. At least Newt is honest about them, and he also has the capacity to re-evaluate his views based on new data, not on political expediency.

Oh, how I want to see Obama squirm against Newt.; 1/18/12, 1:54 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: It's the DEMS who have to pander to the inner cities to win a state. And this is the first time I have ever agreed with anything Pelosi said.; 1/18/12, 2:26 PM
shiloh said...: newt is correct about losing to Obama as even a blind squirl occasionally finds an acorn.

This probably eliminates newt from v-p consideration. :-P

btw, as I just mentioned at another site, Reps are on their way to nominating (2) flip/flopping moderate RINO's in a row. Three, if you include "compassionate conservative" Bush43 lol.

ie they know they can't win the presidency w/a true conservative!

take care; 1/18/12, 2:27 PM
dbp said...: High odds that we will loose to Obama strikes me as a better deal than zero chance that we will defeat Obama. That is my estimate of the odds with Gingrich as the nominee.; 1/18/12, 2:46 PM
dbp said...: "So, if Newt is the nominee, are you Romney-bots going to vote for him?"

I will vote for whomever is the Republican nominee. Though it is somewhat pointless since I live in Massachusetts.; 1/18/12, 2:53 PM
Tarzan said...: "So, if Newt is the nominee, are you Romney-bots going to vote for him?"

If a stuffed penguin wins the Republican nomination, I will still go out of my way to vote AGAINST Obama. If that means voting for the stuffed penguin, then so be it.

1. Vote FOR X
2. (or) Vote AGAINST Y

'Sitting it out' in disgust, or to 'send a message' or whatever, is nothing more than voting for Obama by default.; 1/18/12, 3:08 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Dante, Newt a genius? Oh, please... that word is not a synomym for "dilettante".; 1/18/12, 3:37 PM
yashu said...: I don't particularly want another perfidious megalomaniac who's a great talker, a know-it-all who's convinced he's a genius, and is all too happy to use deceitful class-warfare rhetoric when (he thinks) it helps him politically.

And who IMO doesn't have a chance in hell of beating Obama (because, forget about ideology-- Newt's character is repulsive, and that's what the non-ideological middle will vote on in the end, when it's that repulsive).

I much prefer someone who's demonstrated serious competence (in the real world, not just academia & politics) and who knows economics & business inside out, in theory and (especially) practice.

And who at least has a chance of beating Obama. Forget class warfare & the allure of populism: IMO, anxious Americans who feel there's no adult at the wheel in the White House-- who feel our ship's being captained as prudently as the Costa Concordia was-- will go for economic competence, even in the guise of (someone unfairly caricatured as) Gordon Gekko. Not that I think that caricature will stick; IMO it won't, beyond the OWS-ers who're going to vote for Obama anyway.

Oh, he's a "moderate"? Oh no, get your crosses & stakes! For god's sake, he was governor of MA, not Texas or Utah. If Romney had been governor of Texas, IMO he would've had at least as conservative a record as Perry.

It won't make a difference whether we get Romney or Obama, so we might as well give up? Please, I'm sorry, but you're crazy. Let's just take today: Romney would not have killed that pipeline. Multiply that decision by thousands.

In any case, whoever it is, I will vote for ABO. Yes, even Newt. Yes, even Tarzan's stuffed penguin. (Only Ron Paul would give me pause.); 1/18/12, 3:57 PM
ricpic said...: The fact that Obama's approval rating never goes higher than the low forties foretells a wipeout election. And that's even if the Republicans put up milquetoast Mitt. The election is going to be about Obama and the pundocracy hasn't the faintest idea of the extent to which Obama is loathed and despised out here in benighted country. The tragedy is that neither Mitt nor Newt will do the radical surgery necessary to save the republic after one of them is elected. That would just be Ron Paul CRAZY!; 1/18/12, 4:40 PM
shiloh said...: "never goes higher than the low forties"

ABC News/Wash Post ~ 1/12 - 1/15 48/48

CBS News/NY Times ~ 1/12 - 1/17 47/45

Rasmussen Reports ~ 1/15 - 1/17 46/52

Oops!

btw, Bush won re-election w/48% job approval.

Bush43 Gallup:

2004 Oct 29-31 ~ 48/47

take care, blessings; 1/18/12, 6:35 PM