Nah, just kidding. This guy seriously needs an attitude adjustment. I'm amazed that the woman in the video was able to keep her composure the way she was. Take a listen if you want to risk your head exploding:
Background
From Your Friendly State Run Media:
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Pelosi Doesn't Have Much of a Poker Face, Despite all That Expression Freezing Botox of Hers...
So now that Newt has apparently become a threat to the plans of our newly elected King Barack The First (and, one hopes, only), that Nancy McBotox Pelosi has decided it's time to take off the kid gloves and get down to the nitty gritty of dirty pool politics. Or not. A while back, just after Newt announced he was running, if memory serves, Nance said point blank that she has "something" on Newt that will "insure he will never be president." Some of my readers might remember Newt's first response to this, when Gingrich called it an "early Christmas gift" due to its being a flagrant disregard and violation of the House Rules of Conduct. I don't know the House rules by heart, but in my view, any one who uses dirty tricks for the sake of taking down someone who disagrees with you belongs in the "I"m a scumbag" category of humanity. I think we all know that the leader of the most ethical congress in American history belongs quite nicely in that little niche, don't we?
Below is the video of Pelosi putting out her supposed carrot, hoping that gullible GOP voters will take the bait and abandon Newt in droves on the word of someone who never seems to be able to ttop smiling like the Joker on a Meth high. You, loyal readers, be the judge and tell me: Is Newt really in trouble or is Pelosi just whistling past the graveyard in an attempt at making things seem safe and sound for Democrats come Super Tuesday?
For my part, I say she's bluffing, and she has a major tell. Note in the first few seconds that all she says, in kind of a manic sounding voice, in my opinion, is that "it's not going to happen." How does she know? Nance here thought the Democrats would keep control of the House in 2010, if I'm not mistaken. In short, I'm thinking she's more wrong here than a Lousianna fortune teller. And apparently so does Newt:
Below is the video of Pelosi putting out her supposed carrot, hoping that gullible GOP voters will take the bait and abandon Newt in droves on the word of someone who never seems to be able to ttop smiling like the Joker on a Meth high. You, loyal readers, be the judge and tell me: Is Newt really in trouble or is Pelosi just whistling past the graveyard in an attempt at making things seem safe and sound for Democrats come Super Tuesday?
For my part, I say she's bluffing, and she has a major tell. Note in the first few seconds that all she says, in kind of a manic sounding voice, in my opinion, is that "it's not going to happen." How does she know? Nance here thought the Democrats would keep control of the House in 2010, if I'm not mistaken. In short, I'm thinking she's more wrong here than a Lousianna fortune teller. And apparently so does Newt:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Let the Anti-Newt Barrage Continue
Let me just begin by saying I have about as much trust for the media as a housefly does for a frog. This statement can only be reinforced by the recent development being touted by Matt Drudge and Hotair, and I'm sure there are several dozen other media outlets piping it on their propaganda speakers as well.
I'm speaking of course, of Newt's supposed threat to back out of the rest of the debates if the audience is not allowed to cheer. Let me be clear here. In the video wherein Newt actually addresses the point of the moderators asking that the audience hold their applause until commercial breaks, Newt does not say anything about quitting. What he said was that he didn't appreciate and would not condone such acts by media moderators. A perfectly reasonable response, in my view, given Newt's tendency not to beat around the bush about such things. Unfortunately his choice of words and the pandering of the media outlets to the Stop Newt campaign have taken this theme and run with it. It remains to be seen if any of this will affect the outcome of Florida's primary. Romney appears to have, in a last ditch effort to regain his lead among Sunshine State voters, given this meme more than a little airtime himself. Via Legal Insurrection:
Here’s how CNS transcribed the segment (h/t Gateway Pundit):
I'm speaking of course, of Newt's supposed threat to back out of the rest of the debates if the audience is not allowed to cheer. Let me be clear here. In the video wherein Newt actually addresses the point of the moderators asking that the audience hold their applause until commercial breaks, Newt does not say anything about quitting. What he said was that he didn't appreciate and would not condone such acts by media moderators. A perfectly reasonable response, in my view, given Newt's tendency not to beat around the bush about such things. Unfortunately his choice of words and the pandering of the media outlets to the Stop Newt campaign have taken this theme and run with it. It remains to be seen if any of this will affect the outcome of Florida's primary. Romney appears to have, in a last ditch effort to regain his lead among Sunshine State voters, given this meme more than a little airtime himself. Via Legal Insurrection:
Here’s how CNS transcribed the segment (h/t Gateway Pundit):
“And we’re going to serve notice on future debates, we won’t (mumble), we’re just not going to allow that to happen. That’s wrong. The media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to. It was almost silly.”
The claim that Newt threatened to pull out of future debates, at least if this video is the proof, is a fabrication of The NY Times being hyped by Drudge.
To the contrary, if I were Newt and the network set such rules, I’d show up and in my opening announce that the audience does not need to obey the network, and invite the others on stage to join him. Is there any candidate who would not go along?
I have to agree with that sentiment. I haven't yet watched the debate, but all reports I've heard so far are Newt has lost said debate because of apparently falling into a bit of a trap regarding disclosure. More on that as I learn of it.
To end, here's my boy Newt's stance on an issue I thought long dead: The Ground Zero Mosque:
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Tortoise and the Hare: Is Romney's new Status as a Giant With Clay Feet due to Early Overconfidence?
So soon after South Carolina, Romney, whose nomination was once thought inevitable, is now beginning to crumble due to his lackluster performance in which he flubbed the chance to come clean about his tax returns in addition to giving an overall decidedly ho-hum performance, especially when compared to Newt Gingrich and his confident lambasting of John King and the media in general, as well as his far more confident display of his record while serving as Speaker of the House. Santorum made a decent showing, even if it was too little too late to go on the offense for him, at least in my view.
Regardless, it would seem that everyone and their brother has decided that Romney is now in a less than tenable position regarding his campaign, as if that wasn't obvious by the stomping Newt gave him last week. Still, it would seem that the only ones who don't yet know that Newt has pulled ahead is the Romney campaign themselves. Or perhaps they do know it, since Romney has now been backed into a corner and forced to actually commit to the Florida debates, something he had initially declined to do while he was so far ahead. To be perfectly honest, in this climate now, Romney has to enter damage control mode immediately, and entering into the debates is the most immediate way, aside from an ad blitz that will likely hit Florida in the coming days, as well as is concession speech, in which he needled Newt without actually mentioning him by name.
The question of whether or not this will help is certainly in doubt. Mitt had a big lead in Florida prior to SC, but now things seem to have turned around, if this article is any indication. Though even with the prep work Romney has done to shore up his defenses and prepare to go on the attack in the Sunshine State, this particular political junkie believes that it might not be enough. Then again, Newt could have another moment where he squanders his momentum. Call me optimistic, but I don't think that'll happen. Newt is a man who learns from his mistakes, as far as I can tell, and I think he's learned well from this one.
Still, Mitt has an uphill battle ahead of him now whereas before it seemed to be a lock. Even now on Twitter, the first pre-debate polls have been released and it's not looking good for the governor. Gingrich appears to be enjoying a nine point lead. It appears that Mittens may have to take off the kid gloves if he has a hope of winning back the senior citizen/retiree demographic.
Regardless, it would seem that everyone and their brother has decided that Romney is now in a less than tenable position regarding his campaign, as if that wasn't obvious by the stomping Newt gave him last week. Still, it would seem that the only ones who don't yet know that Newt has pulled ahead is the Romney campaign themselves. Or perhaps they do know it, since Romney has now been backed into a corner and forced to actually commit to the Florida debates, something he had initially declined to do while he was so far ahead. To be perfectly honest, in this climate now, Romney has to enter damage control mode immediately, and entering into the debates is the most immediate way, aside from an ad blitz that will likely hit Florida in the coming days, as well as is concession speech, in which he needled Newt without actually mentioning him by name.
The question of whether or not this will help is certainly in doubt. Mitt had a big lead in Florida prior to SC, but now things seem to have turned around, if this article is any indication. Though even with the prep work Romney has done to shore up his defenses and prepare to go on the attack in the Sunshine State, this particular political junkie believes that it might not be enough. Then again, Newt could have another moment where he squanders his momentum. Call me optimistic, but I don't think that'll happen. Newt is a man who learns from his mistakes, as far as I can tell, and I think he's learned well from this one.
Still, Mitt has an uphill battle ahead of him now whereas before it seemed to be a lock. Even now on Twitter, the first pre-debate polls have been released and it's not looking good for the governor. Gingrich appears to be enjoying a nine point lead. It appears that Mittens may have to take off the kid gloves if he has a hope of winning back the senior citizen/retiree demographic.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Newt Wins South Carolina! What's Next for the Former Speaker?
Well, the results are in boys and girls. It looks like Newt has carried South Carolina, according to Twitter, Hot Air, FiveThirtyEight and CBS News. All are different mediums, but they all say the same thing. Newt has won the day. We now, interestingly enough, have a three way tie between three candidates in as many states. Santorum won Iowa, Romney won New Hampshire, and now Newt has won SC after the pundits and talking heads continued to squawk about how Romney would be the inevitable nominee and we should all just bend over and take it like good little sheep. Well, the pundits all showed just how much they knew about who is and is not electable. After an early muck up in Iowa, it seems Newt has the momentum he needs to really give Romney a run for his money.
What's interesting is watching the different takes on what it means now that Newt has won. The next stop of course is Florida, where until recently Romney had an insurmountable lead against his now chief rival. FiveThirtyEight holds that things will be much more difficult for the former Governor than they were before, since the poll data that determined Romney's lead was factoring in a possible Gingrich defeat in the Palmetto State.
CBS News, on the other hand, shies away from predicting the future and simply states the facts. Newt won, end of story. Probably a good idea since no one really knows what will happen with Newt now that he's in a position to go all the way.
Hot Air appears to have liveblogged the entire event, with regular updates leading all the way up to Newt's victory. Allahpundit comments on Twitter that Newt won over most every demographic in the state, most of whom were for Romney up until debate night. Apparently someone doesn't think much of scoring a come from behind victory based on two debates, calling us the U.S. of American Idol.
Romney's boys appear to have seen the writing on the wall early, if this photo is any indication. Tough luck, guys.
Here's the actual exit poll information via New York Times for all those interested.
And that's the skinny, boys and girls. And next on the list? Florida. Onward and upward. If Newt pulls a win there, perhaps it'll be the first time since Reagan's inauguration that it will well and truly be "morning in America". What better place to usher in a new Conservative dawn than the Sunshine State, I ask you?
What's interesting is watching the different takes on what it means now that Newt has won. The next stop of course is Florida, where until recently Romney had an insurmountable lead against his now chief rival. FiveThirtyEight holds that things will be much more difficult for the former Governor than they were before, since the poll data that determined Romney's lead was factoring in a possible Gingrich defeat in the Palmetto State.
CBS News, on the other hand, shies away from predicting the future and simply states the facts. Newt won, end of story. Probably a good idea since no one really knows what will happen with Newt now that he's in a position to go all the way.
Hot Air appears to have liveblogged the entire event, with regular updates leading all the way up to Newt's victory. Allahpundit comments on Twitter that Newt won over most every demographic in the state, most of whom were for Romney up until debate night. Apparently someone doesn't think much of scoring a come from behind victory based on two debates, calling us the U.S. of American Idol.
Romney's boys appear to have seen the writing on the wall early, if this photo is any indication. Tough luck, guys.
Here's the actual exit poll information via New York Times for all those interested.
And that's the skinny, boys and girls. And next on the list? Florida. Onward and upward. If Newt pulls a win there, perhaps it'll be the first time since Reagan's inauguration that it will well and truly be "morning in America". What better place to usher in a new Conservative dawn than the Sunshine State, I ask you?
Mitt Romney Collapsing in SC?
So much for the inevitable rise and election of Mitt Romney. If indications in South Carolina are any indication, Mitt seems to be a giant whose clay feet have at last been revealed, and are beginning to suffer being chipped away little by little as Newt rises to overtake him. The Other McCain has more. Check it out.
Thursday's Debate: An Analysis of South Carolina one Candidate at a Time
I'm two days late with this, but that's only because as of this writing, I have literally just finished watching my TiVoed recording of the South Carolina debate between the remaining candidates.
We began the primary season with seven candidates. A Minnesota Congresswoman, a CEO, a former Speaker of the House, a former Governor, a current Congressman, and a former Senator. Now,with the developments happening as they have, we have been reduced to four. Herman Cain was ousted after sexual harassment charges proved he didn't have what it took to stand against the smear machine that attacks all candidates that go through this process. Michelle Bachmann shot herself in the foot with her Gardasil comments, but was really taken out of the running when Rick Perry came in blustering about how he was the ideal "Not Romney".
Now we are left with four: The Speaker, the Senator, the Congressman, and the former Governor. Each of these has, whether through luck or skill, has proven that they have staying power of some kind or another. As regular readers know, I've thrown my support, meager as it is, behind Newt Gingrich in the event of losing both Bachmann and Cain. Each of the candidates in the SC debate gave a strong showing, in my opinion. Even Ron Paul, who normally comes off as naive on foreign policy, seems to have gained some footing this time around, though that may have largely been due to the fact that the moderator, John King of CNN, stuck mostly to domestic policy questions with Paul, where admittedly he shines, but more on him later.
First, let's start with what was clearly the highlight of the debate, Newt's utter lambasting of John King for bringing up the recent interview ABCInformer held with his ex-wife Marrianne. I posted the video of the exchange in my last post, and have to admit that every time I see it, I get a tingle. Now, don't go comparing me to Chris Matthews or anything. I'm well aware of Newt's foibles, but when any politician does what he did there, standing up against the unmitigated gall of the MSM to bring personal information to bear in a presidential debate against a conservative contender for president while at the same time actively protecting Barack Obama from so much as the slightest bit of honest criticism about his record. Many are saying that that response won Newt the debate, and I was initially inclined to agree with them until I realized I was letting my support for Newt blind me to the other candidates' responses to the questions being asked.
Governor Romney did well for himself, though there were some awkward moments when the question of tax returns came up. When asked point blank by King whether or not he would release the returns, he said specifically "when my taxes are done for this year, then I'll release them." This was after a bit of wishy-washy flip-flop sounds coming out of his mouth as he attempted to dodge the issue. Makes me wonder why he's waiting. Could he have something to hide? Or does he just not want to deal with the hassle of filing taxes while he's running for the highest office in the land? I don't know, and only time can answer that riddle.
Rick Santorum FINALLY went on the offense in the debate, blasting the other candidates on all things from tax policy to abortion. His strongest argument, I believe, was when he spoke out as the only "truly pro-life" candidate in the race. This, I think, was Santorum finally flashing his social conservative cred in the hopes of getting the same kind of support he had in Iowa. It may or may not work, but if it doesn't Santorum will have to reconsider his run for the White House and back either Gingrich or Romney. But what does that mean, "truly pro-life"? Does it mean that he's the only one who's worked towards protecting unborn children while working in Washington? I don't know. Newt is pro-life as well, but Santorum, in perceiving a weak spot, tried to hit Gingrich in the chink in his armor and, I believe missed the mark. Just because Newt made a few decisions not in line with what Santorum sees as pro-life doesn't mean Newt cares any less about the unborn. Whether this will hurt Santorum or not remains to be seen, but the news buzz around the net and blogs suggests that the race may be all but over for the former Senator. Personally, I'll wait for the results to actually come in before I make that prediction.
Romney seemed less like the flip-flopper everyone says he is and largely remained consistent with his responses to King's questions, as well as the other candidate's challenges. Baine Capital didn't directly come up to rear its ugly head, which was fortunate for Romney, and when King asked about his economic views, Romney answered. After hearing him speak, I think Mitt, from an economic standpoint, would be a decent president. The major problem I have with his tendency to change his mind. Governor Romney did well for himself overall, though there were some awkward moments when the question of tax returns came up. When asked point blank by King whether or not he would release the returns, he said specifically "when my taxes are done for this year, then I'll release them." This was after a bit of wishy-washy flip-flop sounds coming out of his mouth as he attempted to dodge the issue. Makes me wonder why he's waiting. Could he have something to hide? Or does he just not want to deal with the hassle of filing taxes while he's running for the highest office in the land? I don't know, and only time can answer that riddle.
Consistency is Mitt's main weakness, and remains so, which explains why his support has stayed steady rather than rising or falling significantly during his run for the nomination. People appear too reluctant to swing his way, and as such, have gravitated towards the other three candidates in more or less equal portions. To that end, our next stop: Texas.
Specifically Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has a reputation as a staunch Constitutionalist, and it is well deserved. The man reportedly has never voted to raise congressional pay, never voted for an unbalanced budget, and has voted consistently in line with his views all through his time in Washington. Domestically, he's everything you could want in a presidential candidate, from his desire to return us to the gold standard to his ideas on cutting back on foreign aid and to as he put it "stop subsidizing" other countries by using our military to defend them when they should be defending themselves. All in all decent ideas that have merit. But where Paul falls short is foreign policy. In dealing with other countries, Paul specifically stated in the last debate that we needed a "Golden Rule" premise when dealing with countries like Iran. This is the kind of foreign policy that will likely get more Americans killed than anything else, since just because we leave other countries alone, it doesn't mean they're going to leave us alone.
Finally, we come to Newt Gingrich and his performance. While trying to remain objective, I do still believe that Newt won the debate, and reminded me a bit of old footage of Ronald Reagan talking to the press. The main difference was in tone of voice. While Reagan would talk OVER the press and deflect unwanted questions with a well placed joke, Newt made it clear that he was most certainly not going to take any of King's guff, and brought the hammer down on the issue immediately.. You've all probably already seen the footage, so I won't go into it here, but I found that Newt's tone for the entire exercise was set by that one exchange. A lot of people deride Newt for his boastful attitude, but name me one candidate that had a backbone and DIDN'T sound (at least a little) like an arrogant gasbag. Even Reagan had those moments, most notably when he walked away from the table in Iceland when the Soviets tried to use diplomacy to kill SDI. Or how about this little gem from his speech at the Berlin Wall? A bit arrogant of him to call out Gorby like that, no? Well, to some it certainly was. That doesn't mean Reagan was a bad president. In fact I argue that it made him a better one, since whatever arrogance he possessed likely helped him in his decisions to walk away from the table and tell the Soviets to "tear down this wall".
Sorry about that. Got a bit off topic.
Back to Newt's debate performance: He did well, long story short. His answers were clear and concise. He defended his record with the steel spine a president needs, and he stood by previous statements he made. That, in my view, is why I'm declaring Newt the winner. He proved that he can stand the heat, and that's what we're going to need. Someone who's been through the fire before with a proven record of success.
Way to go, Newt. Way to go.
We began the primary season with seven candidates. A Minnesota Congresswoman, a CEO, a former Speaker of the House, a former Governor, a current Congressman, and a former Senator. Now,with the developments happening as they have, we have been reduced to four. Herman Cain was ousted after sexual harassment charges proved he didn't have what it took to stand against the smear machine that attacks all candidates that go through this process. Michelle Bachmann shot herself in the foot with her Gardasil comments, but was really taken out of the running when Rick Perry came in blustering about how he was the ideal "Not Romney".
Now we are left with four: The Speaker, the Senator, the Congressman, and the former Governor. Each of these has, whether through luck or skill, has proven that they have staying power of some kind or another. As regular readers know, I've thrown my support, meager as it is, behind Newt Gingrich in the event of losing both Bachmann and Cain. Each of the candidates in the SC debate gave a strong showing, in my opinion. Even Ron Paul, who normally comes off as naive on foreign policy, seems to have gained some footing this time around, though that may have largely been due to the fact that the moderator, John King of CNN, stuck mostly to domestic policy questions with Paul, where admittedly he shines, but more on him later.
First, let's start with what was clearly the highlight of the debate, Newt's utter lambasting of John King for bringing up the recent interview ABCInformer held with his ex-wife Marrianne. I posted the video of the exchange in my last post, and have to admit that every time I see it, I get a tingle. Now, don't go comparing me to Chris Matthews or anything. I'm well aware of Newt's foibles, but when any politician does what he did there, standing up against the unmitigated gall of the MSM to bring personal information to bear in a presidential debate against a conservative contender for president while at the same time actively protecting Barack Obama from so much as the slightest bit of honest criticism about his record. Many are saying that that response won Newt the debate, and I was initially inclined to agree with them until I realized I was letting my support for Newt blind me to the other candidates' responses to the questions being asked.
Governor Romney did well for himself, though there were some awkward moments when the question of tax returns came up. When asked point blank by King whether or not he would release the returns, he said specifically "when my taxes are done for this year, then I'll release them." This was after a bit of wishy-washy flip-flop sounds coming out of his mouth as he attempted to dodge the issue. Makes me wonder why he's waiting. Could he have something to hide? Or does he just not want to deal with the hassle of filing taxes while he's running for the highest office in the land? I don't know, and only time can answer that riddle.
Rick Santorum FINALLY went on the offense in the debate, blasting the other candidates on all things from tax policy to abortion. His strongest argument, I believe, was when he spoke out as the only "truly pro-life" candidate in the race. This, I think, was Santorum finally flashing his social conservative cred in the hopes of getting the same kind of support he had in Iowa. It may or may not work, but if it doesn't Santorum will have to reconsider his run for the White House and back either Gingrich or Romney. But what does that mean, "truly pro-life"? Does it mean that he's the only one who's worked towards protecting unborn children while working in Washington? I don't know. Newt is pro-life as well, but Santorum, in perceiving a weak spot, tried to hit Gingrich in the chink in his armor and, I believe missed the mark. Just because Newt made a few decisions not in line with what Santorum sees as pro-life doesn't mean Newt cares any less about the unborn. Whether this will hurt Santorum or not remains to be seen, but the news buzz around the net and blogs suggests that the race may be all but over for the former Senator. Personally, I'll wait for the results to actually come in before I make that prediction.
Romney seemed less like the flip-flopper everyone says he is and largely remained consistent with his responses to King's questions, as well as the other candidate's challenges. Baine Capital didn't directly come up to rear its ugly head, which was fortunate for Romney, and when King asked about his economic views, Romney answered. After hearing him speak, I think Mitt, from an economic standpoint, would be a decent president. The major problem I have with his tendency to change his mind. Governor Romney did well for himself overall, though there were some awkward moments when the question of tax returns came up. When asked point blank by King whether or not he would release the returns, he said specifically "when my taxes are done for this year, then I'll release them." This was after a bit of wishy-washy flip-flop sounds coming out of his mouth as he attempted to dodge the issue. Makes me wonder why he's waiting. Could he have something to hide? Or does he just not want to deal with the hassle of filing taxes while he's running for the highest office in the land? I don't know, and only time can answer that riddle.
Consistency is Mitt's main weakness, and remains so, which explains why his support has stayed steady rather than rising or falling significantly during his run for the nomination. People appear too reluctant to swing his way, and as such, have gravitated towards the other three candidates in more or less equal portions. To that end, our next stop: Texas.
Specifically Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has a reputation as a staunch Constitutionalist, and it is well deserved. The man reportedly has never voted to raise congressional pay, never voted for an unbalanced budget, and has voted consistently in line with his views all through his time in Washington. Domestically, he's everything you could want in a presidential candidate, from his desire to return us to the gold standard to his ideas on cutting back on foreign aid and to as he put it "stop subsidizing" other countries by using our military to defend them when they should be defending themselves. All in all decent ideas that have merit. But where Paul falls short is foreign policy. In dealing with other countries, Paul specifically stated in the last debate that we needed a "Golden Rule" premise when dealing with countries like Iran. This is the kind of foreign policy that will likely get more Americans killed than anything else, since just because we leave other countries alone, it doesn't mean they're going to leave us alone.
Finally, we come to Newt Gingrich and his performance. While trying to remain objective, I do still believe that Newt won the debate, and reminded me a bit of old footage of Ronald Reagan talking to the press. The main difference was in tone of voice. While Reagan would talk OVER the press and deflect unwanted questions with a well placed joke, Newt made it clear that he was most certainly not going to take any of King's guff, and brought the hammer down on the issue immediately.. You've all probably already seen the footage, so I won't go into it here, but I found that Newt's tone for the entire exercise was set by that one exchange. A lot of people deride Newt for his boastful attitude, but name me one candidate that had a backbone and DIDN'T sound (at least a little) like an arrogant gasbag. Even Reagan had those moments, most notably when he walked away from the table in Iceland when the Soviets tried to use diplomacy to kill SDI. Or how about this little gem from his speech at the Berlin Wall? A bit arrogant of him to call out Gorby like that, no? Well, to some it certainly was. That doesn't mean Reagan was a bad president. In fact I argue that it made him a better one, since whatever arrogance he possessed likely helped him in his decisions to walk away from the table and tell the Soviets to "tear down this wall".
Sorry about that. Got a bit off topic.
Back to Newt's debate performance: He did well, long story short. His answers were clear and concise. He defended his record with the steel spine a president needs, and he stood by previous statements he made. That, in my view, is why I'm declaring Newt the winner. He proved that he can stand the heat, and that's what we're going to need. Someone who's been through the fire before with a proven record of success.
Way to go, Newt. Way to go.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Conservative Porn at it's Finest: Newt Gingrich Edition
This video, taken from tonight's debate in South Carolina, is without doubt my favorite moment yet of the primary season in general, and of the debate itself as well. Watch Newt utterly DESTROY the moderator from CNN, garnering another standing ovation from the audience similar to the one he got when he lambasted Ron Paul for his naive foreign policy ideas. If Newt keeps this up, he'll sail into the White House on a tidal wave of votes.
Rising From the Ashes: Phoenix Candidate Newt get's Much Needed Boost as Perry Drops Out
Well , boys and girls, the interview that I posted about last night just before going to bed has aired. Via The Hill, a video clip now exists of Marrianne Gingrich telling the interviewer in question that Newt wanted an open marriage so that he could keep Callista on as a mistress while at the same time remaining married to Marrianne. Whether this is true or not, I have no idea, though it doesn't mesh with the story she told in 1999, which Legal Insurrection explains in perfect brevity. I don't particularly care, in truth. My interest in the Gingrich campaign is on his ideas and his record, which more than make him qualified for the highest office in the land. The polls in South Carolina agree with me, given that Newt is now within 3 points of Romney mere days before the primary. I won't go into how the timing of the interview seems more than a little coincidental, but if I start screaming bias everywhere I go, it'll be all I see, and I'll start sounding the way Michelle Bachmann sounded when she doubled down on her Gardasil comments despite having no solid proof as to whether or not it was true. ABC News has the full skinny on the interview, and the clip I mentioned can be read there as well. There's also Newt's response to the interview, a class act, which can be viewed here.
And now that the bad news is out of the way, it's time for a pallet cleanser in the form of several pieces of good news regarding Newt and his campaign. First, we begin with the big ticket item in the news, Perry's dropping out and endorsing Newt, which has been confirmed by Legal Insurrection, Peter Hamby on Twitter, as well as Hot Air. Part of me was surprised at the fact that he didn't fall in line behind those in the Romney camp, but then I realized that he's staked his entire political image on being an anti-Romney. For him to endorse the very person he's been railing against all this time would only be political suicide in all things not having to do with the Oval Office, should he choose to pursue a Senate or House seat in the future. Either way, Perry's endorsement can only help solidify Newt's claim to being the strongest "not Romney" in the race, though the question of how much still remains in doubt. Lastly, Politico reports that the disorganization of the campaign is still with them even to the bitter end, and the exit is proving to be just as rough as the rest of the ride.
In other pro-Newt news, It appears that, according to The Daily Caller, approximately 100 Tea Party leaders from 25 states will coalesce around Newt Gingrich, giving him a more solidified foundation regarding his stance in the eyes of the Tea Party. This will likely, in my view, make up for the fact that Perry, who was only polling six percent in South Carolina, probably won't affect Newt as much as one would hope had he been doing better. Still, good news is good news, and that's what I see here.
And thus stands the current state of the campaign of future President Newton Gingrich. More to come in the days ahead, faithful readers. Stay tuned.
UPDATE: New Rassmussen Poll has Newt taking a narrow lead against Mittens in SC, and provides the real insight as to why Perry dropped out.
UPDATE: New Rassmussen Poll has Newt taking a narrow lead against Mittens in SC, and provides the real insight as to why Perry dropped out.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Opening Old Wounds: Gingrich's ex Dishes on Dirty Laundry we Already Know About
It would seem that democrats and liberals aren't the only one's who don't believe that Newt Gingrich is fit to be President of the United States. As I was milling about the internet in search of more news regarding the primaries and the progress of Newt's campaign, I somehow became lost and found myself on the Huffington Post website. Usually I only go there when I've nowhere else to go for information, but the headline of the piece in question caught my eye, mainly due to it being potentially damaging to Newt's resurgent momentum.
The basic story is this: Newt's second wife, Marrianne, has decided to do an interview with ABC insider about her thoughts on her ex-husband's presidential bid. Reading the piece through, it became apparent to me that Newt could have walked on water, healed the sick, and restored sight to the blind during his campaign and she still would likely have said he had no chance of gaining entrance to the Oval Office. Here are some choice quotes from the article:
"He could have been president," she said. "But when you try and change your history too much, and try and recolor it because you don't like the way it was or you want it to be different to prove something new ... you lose touch with who you really are. You lose your way."
"He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don't have to be connected," Gingrich added, in the Esquire interview. "If you believe that, then yeah, you can run for president."
In the Esquire interview, Marianne also dismisses the conversion to Catholicism during his current, and third, marriage. She said it "has no meaning."
These don't sound like the thoughts of a woman who is out there trying to give an objective opinion on one of the candidates for the Republican nomination. More likely, they're the rantings of an embittered woman still smarting from having been served divorce papers years ago. After all, a jilted ex-wife is hardly the most objective source to go to for information regarding a presidential hopeful, now isn't it? My personal favorite is the part where she says Newt converting to Catholicism "has no meaning". Who exactly is this woman to say that converting to a certain faith has no meaning? To whom does it have no meaning, exactly? To her? to the American people? To Newt himself? She doesn't elaborate so I don't know, but my gut is telling me that in fact Newt being Catholic has no meaning to her. But then, of course it doesn't have any meaning to her. She's not married to him anymore. Why would she even care what religion Newt is unless she just wanted to bring it up to hurt his chances at getting the nomination?
The basic story is this: Newt's second wife, Marrianne, has decided to do an interview with ABC insider about her thoughts on her ex-husband's presidential bid. Reading the piece through, it became apparent to me that Newt could have walked on water, healed the sick, and restored sight to the blind during his campaign and she still would likely have said he had no chance of gaining entrance to the Oval Office. Here are some choice quotes from the article:
"He could have been president," she said. "But when you try and change your history too much, and try and recolor it because you don't like the way it was or you want it to be different to prove something new ... you lose touch with who you really are. You lose your way."
"He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don't have to be connected," Gingrich added, in the Esquire interview. "If you believe that, then yeah, you can run for president."
In the Esquire interview, Marianne also dismisses the conversion to Catholicism during his current, and third, marriage. She said it "has no meaning."
These don't sound like the thoughts of a woman who is out there trying to give an objective opinion on one of the candidates for the Republican nomination. More likely, they're the rantings of an embittered woman still smarting from having been served divorce papers years ago. After all, a jilted ex-wife is hardly the most objective source to go to for information regarding a presidential hopeful, now isn't it? My personal favorite is the part where she says Newt converting to Catholicism "has no meaning". Who exactly is this woman to say that converting to a certain faith has no meaning? To whom does it have no meaning, exactly? To her? to the American people? To Newt himself? She doesn't elaborate so I don't know, but my gut is telling me that in fact Newt being Catholic has no meaning to her. But then, of course it doesn't have any meaning to her. She's not married to him anymore. Why would she even care what religion Newt is unless she just wanted to bring it up to hurt his chances at getting the nomination?
I don't really know what her motives are for certain, but regardless, I doubt that this interview that's going to air before the primary will hurt Newt TOO much. His dirty laundry is already out there for all to see if they spend all of five minutes searching Google. Yes, we know he's been married three times. We know that he had an affair with his current wife before divorcing her and marrying Callista. The bedside divorce aspect of the story (which, unless I'm mistaken, Marriane is the wife he divorced in that narrative) is a myth. Newt did not serve his wife divorce papers as she was dying of cancer, as the narrative goes. I won't go into the actual details because frankly they've been run through the ringer far too much for me to even care about them anymore.
Not to be outdone by a bitter divorcee, the Gingrich sisters have written a letter to ABC explaining the situation as it stands from their point of view, and I can't help but be impressed by the articulate defense they present on their father's behalf. Here's the letter in its entirety:
To: ABC News Leadership
From: Kathy Lubbers, Jackie Cushman
Date: January 18, 2012
The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved. Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events.
Bravo, girls. Bravo.
From: Kathy Lubbers, Jackie Cushman
Date: January 18, 2012
The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved. Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events.
We will not say anything negative about our father’s ex-wife. He has said before, privately and publicly, that he regrets any pain he may have caused in the past to people he loves.
ABC News or other campaigns may want to talk about the past, just days before an important primary election. But Newt is going to talk to the people of South Carolina about the future -- about job creation, lower taxes, and about who can defeat Barack Obama by providing the sharpest contrast to his damaging, extreme liberalism. We are confident this is the conversation the people of South Carolina are interested in having.
Our father is running for President because of his grandchildren -- so they can inherit the America he loves. To do that, President Obama must be defeated. And as the only candidate in the race, including Obama, who has actually helped balance the national budget, create jobs, reform welfare, and cut taxes and spending, Newt felt compelled to run -- to serve his country and safeguard his grandchildren's future.
Bravo, girls. Bravo.
Everyone Deserves a Second Chance
It has come to my attention yet again, dear readers, that Newt Gingrich's campaign is once more on the rise. Another sign of revival from Hot Air speculates that the new resurgence of Newt's campaign after the South Carolina debate two nights ago is in fact real. The stats now put Romney within 3 points of Gingrich in SC, whereas before Romney had a reported 14 point lead just days before the debate. This of course speaks to the power of a good debate performance, and lends credence to Newt's ability to speak over the rhetoric and race baiting questions of the MSM and moderators. If Newt doesn't squander this newly regained momentum, as he did in Iowa, he could give Romney a real run for his money in the months to come. Via Hot Air:
The race for the Republican presidential nomination is now nearly even with Mitt Romney still on top but Newt Gingrich just three points apart.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters nationwide shows Romney with 30% support and Gingrich with 27% of the vote. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, who was running second two weeks ago, has now dropped to 15%.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul captures 13% support from likely primary voters, and Texas Governor Rick Perry remains in last place with four percent (4%). Another four percent (4%) like some other candidate in the race, and seven percent (7%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
But the story in the new numbers, taken Tuesday night, is Gingrich’s jump 11 points from 16% two weeks ago. Romney’s support is essentially unchanged from 29% at that time, while Santorum is down six points from 21%. Paul’s and Perry’s support is also unchanged. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman earned four percent (4%) of the vote at the start of the month but dropped out of the race this week. This suggests that many voters are still looking for an alternative to Romney and currently see Gingrich as that candidate.
I'm reminded, oddly, of the Lady of the Lake just now, of Arthurian Legend. In the stories revolving around Britain's greatest King, Lady Nimue of the Lake is portrayed often as a creature of seemingly random and unexpected behavior, whose moods shift with the ebb and flow of the tides themselves. It appears to this humble blogger that Newt's campaign is doing much the same. One minute Newt is out, the next he's back in. Some will say that this cements the nomination for Romney, but in my view, I believe this only means that the outcome of the race is still in doubt, and thus we should definitely keep our eyes open. With each piece of news like this, all the Newt naysayers out there might have a new song to sing come Election Day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)