After my analysis of the field last night concerning the GOP field of potential nominees, I've come to the conclusion that Newt Gingrich may in fact have gotten the resurgence he's needed since his disastrous attack on Mitt Romney concerning Baine Capital. Specifically I'm speaking of the recent debate he had with the other GOP hopefuls. From reports on Twitter and Fox News, as well as The Other McCain, it looks as though Newt's campaign has been given a much-needed shot in the arm by his performance in the debate. I, as a Gingrich supporter, and more than a little relieved at the possibility that Newt's campaign has been revived, given that he, in my view, is the most Reaganesque candidate we've had since the Gipper himself was on the national stage. The South Carolina debates last night, as I've heard second hand from the above sources, Newt garnered a standing ovation after he called out Ron Paul for his "Golden Rule" national security nonsense. That alone is something to take notice of, since there hasn't been a standing ovation at any debate since Ronald Reagan's performance in New Hampshire in 1980.
Honestly, though, if his debate performance is any indication, Ron Paul has killed his campaign chances due to the fact that he simply has no understanding of just how much (or for that matter, the real reason why) the Middle East despises us. He continually cites, in his speeches on the Senate Floor and now on the campaign trail, that we bring it on ourselves through our occupation of the Middle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Now I'll be fair and say that Paul is a man of his convictions, and opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts from the beginning, as he continues to do so now, but that doesn't excuse his getting facts completely wrong. First off, the "occupation" that he rails against is one that was conducted at the invitation of the then-King of Saudi Arabia. I just watched the seven minute video via Hot Air's site that detailed Paul's response to Brett Baer's question regarding the congressman's complaints over the Bin Laden raid, and Lord Almighty, he makes virtually no sense at all. Not only that he sounded like a whiner when Brett completely destroys him with further follow up questions, resorting to Paul becoming little more than a stammering idiot. Why do people follow this man?
Gingrich, on the other hand, simply destroys Paul's argument with a simple statement: "Osama bin Laden was not a Chinese dissident." He then goes on to say, using Andrew Jackson as an example, that the best way to deal with our enemies is to kill them. Simple common sense from the former Speaker. Gotta love it. It's for that reason and that reason alone that I continue to support Gingrich over the RINO favorite Mitt Romney or the socially conservative Rick Santorum. To be perfectly fair, Paul did regain some footing when he mentioned that we needed to quit the wars we're in and bring the troops home, but it not the thunderous ovation that Gingrich received for dressing him down mere minutes before that, nor does it make up entirely for the nonsensical rambling he'd engaged in previously.
That being said, my previous warnings not to count Newt out of the race appear to be proving valid. When the former speaker talks turkey and lays out the facts, he's dead on. What he needs to do from this point on to win the nomination is, in my opinion, to stop the personal attacks, run against Obama rather than against Romney, and continue to provide the American people with an alternative to the current empty suit we have in the White House.
Honestly, though, if his debate performance is any indication, Ron Paul has killed his campaign chances due to the fact that he simply has no understanding of just how much (or for that matter, the real reason why) the Middle East despises us. He continually cites, in his speeches on the Senate Floor and now on the campaign trail, that we bring it on ourselves through our occupation of the Middle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Now I'll be fair and say that Paul is a man of his convictions, and opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts from the beginning, as he continues to do so now, but that doesn't excuse his getting facts completely wrong. First off, the "occupation" that he rails against is one that was conducted at the invitation of the then-King of Saudi Arabia. I just watched the seven minute video via Hot Air's site that detailed Paul's response to Brett Baer's question regarding the congressman's complaints over the Bin Laden raid, and Lord Almighty, he makes virtually no sense at all. Not only that he sounded like a whiner when Brett completely destroys him with further follow up questions, resorting to Paul becoming little more than a stammering idiot. Why do people follow this man?
Gingrich, on the other hand, simply destroys Paul's argument with a simple statement: "Osama bin Laden was not a Chinese dissident." He then goes on to say, using Andrew Jackson as an example, that the best way to deal with our enemies is to kill them. Simple common sense from the former Speaker. Gotta love it. It's for that reason and that reason alone that I continue to support Gingrich over the RINO favorite Mitt Romney or the socially conservative Rick Santorum. To be perfectly fair, Paul did regain some footing when he mentioned that we needed to quit the wars we're in and bring the troops home, but it not the thunderous ovation that Gingrich received for dressing him down mere minutes before that, nor does it make up entirely for the nonsensical rambling he'd engaged in previously.
That being said, my previous warnings not to count Newt out of the race appear to be proving valid. When the former speaker talks turkey and lays out the facts, he's dead on. What he needs to do from this point on to win the nomination is, in my opinion, to stop the personal attacks, run against Obama rather than against Romney, and continue to provide the American people with an alternative to the current empty suit we have in the White House.
No comments:
Post a Comment