-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Military Might, Out of the Wilderness
May 8, 2013 | 115 comments
-
Not Wanting to Write About Nothing Good
April 30, 2013 | 126 comments
-
Perez Abomination Grows
April 23, 2013 | 81 comments
-
Tea Partiers for Freedom
April 16, 2013 | 12 comments
Streetcar Line
The Fallacy of the Master Debater
Staged face-offs will mean little next fall.
Newt Gingrich: Master Debater.
Such seems to be the impression driving the Gingrich boomlet in the Republican presidential contest — as if, by virtue of his supposed debating ability, Gingrich will be the man most likely to defeat Barack Obama next fall.
It’s a myth, on multiple levels, as we shall see.
Yet the power of the Gingrich surge does show, again, a lesson taught well by neo-Nazi David Duke when Duke was ascendant in Louisiana politics two decades ago: When considering a candidate for office, almost right up until they enter the polling booth and sometimes even in the booth itself, most voters rely more on what they see and hear themselves in real time than on facts, history, logic, or learned experience. If a speaker/debater “connects” with them, a lot of voters will actively siphon out all evidence against the speaker, in effect by adopting the “hear no evil” posture of one of the three infamous monkeys. Until powerfully disabused of what they consider a “first-hand” impression (first-hand because they “experienced” it by watching it on TV), many citizens will become the polling equivalent of jury nullifiers, becoming ever more obstinate in their positions. In this case, the position most dear to them is that they want to see somebody stick it to Barack Obama, face to face, and pummel him (politically speaking) into oblivion.
With Duke’s appeal to working-class white Democrats for nearly three solid years, what mattered was how well he parried the attacks from the hated media while making a case for low taxes and welfare reform — and it didn’t matter what they saw reported about his continuing Nazi or Klan ties because they didn’t see it for themselves when he spoke on camera like a more approachable, blow-dried heir to Barry Goldwater. It was only in the last three weeks of his campaign for governor, when TV ads helped push through the message that a Duke governorship would cause businesses (and jobs) to flee Louisiana in droves, that all of the other accumulated evidence against Duke could finally be processed, and result in his landslide defeat.
Something similar is happening with Gingrich and the image of the Master Debater. People see Gingrich handle himself well in eight-way debates (an easy task when no other candidate has even bothered criticizing you all year because you seemed so irrelevant), and they imagine that he’s the one to take the fight to Obama. Suddenly it doesn’t matter that he has always been not only anti-conservative on cap-and-trade, but has lied about what his position was. Suddenly it doesn’t matter that he said the profiteers at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be criminally investigated even though he was one of the profiteers — and that he, again, apparently has been prevaricating about what he did for Freddie. Suddenly it doesn’t matter that he has always been wrong on a health-care mandate, wrong on ethanol for all the years he’s been paid to be wrong on ethanol, wrong on entitlements and on Paul Ryan’s budget, wrong on amnesty for illegal immigrants, wrong as wrong could be on ethical issues and behavior aplenty, wrong on the TARP bailouts, wrong on liberal candidate Dede Scozzafava, wrong in the past on the Fairness Doctrine, wrong on leadership, weak at actual negotiating (actually, “melting”) against Bill Clinton, weak at actually running a government, and about as personally trustworthy as Joe Isuzu: He’s gonna pummel Obama, yesiree, and then all will be well!
Perish the thought.
First, Gingrich isn’t all that good one on one. Clinton made mincemeat of him. Michele Bachmann rocked him on his heels with the mildest of assaults on amnesty. And his own former wife (number two) says he loses his cool when tweaked about personal things like his ample and undisciplined girth. Yeah, he’s great on his feet — until he implodes, at which time he drags everybody on his side down with him.
But that’s not the important part. The important thing is this: Even if Gingrich’s debating invincibility weren’t an utter myth, the notion that debates next fall will be tremendously important is a myth, and a much bigger one. The deal is this: General-election presidential debates rarely make a big difference. What makes a bigger difference is unpaid (establishment) media (Gingrich will get crushed), organization (Gingrich will get crushed), paid media (Obama’s $800 million campaign will crush him), and the voters’ sense of whether they would mind seeing and hearing the candidate on their TV screens for the next four years (not bloody likely, based on the Gingrich persona’s long-established propensity to wear out its welcome and become grating after a few months).
But let’s consider this subject completely apart from Gingrich. The key question is, will strong debate performances make a decisive difference in next fall’s campaign?
Easy answer: No.
Only one general-election presidential debate truly appeared to be decisive — and, for that matter, only one primary-season debate had a similar effect, too. Both were won by Ronald Reagan, who was unique. In Nashua, N.H., in 1980, he waxed Poppy Bush and won a landslide because of it. Against Jimmy Carter that fall, he entered the lone debate one week before Election Day in a dead heat in the polls and ended up winning by a landslide. But that was Reagan. People liked him, in heartfelt ways, and had been liking him for 45 years. They couldn’t help liking him. And they trusted, at a deep level, that he meant what he said, because he spent 25 years saying the same things — rather than mandating-or-non-mandating, cap-and-trading or non-cap-trading, as political winds and personal financial payoffs shifted.
But other than Reagan, nobody has ever swung large voting blocs — not just in the Gallup polls, but in the voting booths — on the strength of debate performances. Sure, John F. Kennedy arguably gained a small margin over Dick Nixon among those who watched their debate rather than listened on the radio, but all that accomplished was getting him close enough to lose if it weren’t for his ability to steal the election in Illinois and Texas.
Sure, G.W. Bush gained an ever-so-slight edge over Al Gore when he coolly let Gore come off as overbearing and mendacious in the last of their debates — but again, only at the margins, and not enough to avoid a five-week Florida recounting nightmare.
Bush v. Kerry? Nothing decisive. Obama v. McCain? Nothing decisive. Reagan v. Mondale? Some great lines, but Reagan led by landslide margins regardless. Clinton v. elder Bush? Well, Bush did look at his watch, but that election was decided by the timings (plural) of Ross Perot’s entrances into and exits from the race. Clinton v. Dole? No difference. And while Gerald Ford certainly hurt himself by claiming Eastern Europe wasn’t Soviet-dominated, he was trying to recover from a 32-point deficit anyway: The debate hardly told the tale.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (208) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/07/the-fallacy-of-the-master-deba
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
aware| 12.7.11 @ 6:53AM
"Newt Gingrich: Master Debater." HA!
More like Master megalomaniac. He may look green now but the chameleon will look red when immersed in natural element of the Statist in Mordor on the Potomac.
Jack in Wi| 12.7.11 @ 7:05AM
Very true aware. Gingrich would get minimal support from disaffected Democrats, independents, and the young. This hasbeen is long past his buy sell date. I really believe that if Gingrich were the nominee he would get less then 20% of the vote. There certainly would be a 3rd party and that would get more votes, in my opinion. Frankly I think at least 1/3 of the Republican base would either stay home or vote for the 3rd party.
emo| 12.8.11 @ 6:31PM
I think youre describing what will happen if Romney becomes the nominee
benny havens| 12.7.11 @ 9:48AM
Ok Mr. Hillyer, you’ve made your point. However, I didn’t appreciate the parallelism with David Duke. You could have chosen some other political character possessing the traits of “he doesn’t appear who he really is”. Gingrich is a lot of things, carries a lot of “baggage” but I don’t believe he is a racist as Duke. I didn’t need any TV ads to explain that to me who Duke was or Barack Obama was.
So obviously you will not vote for him. Let’s see should it be Rick Santorum? The consummate word merchant politician. You want a blue suit; he’ll turn on a blue light. And has about as much executive experience as the present occupier of the White House.
Or should it be Mit, the Hollywood hairdresser? He is so convinced that what he is saying is the right thing, he nods his head as he speaks.
How about Ron Paul? You won’t find him signing executive orders. He is a strict constitutionalist. Let’s see if he can abolish the FED and other pet peeves with his political capital.
Then there is Jon Huntsman. He has a decent record, but too close to the progressives for my liking.
And last but not least, Michele Bachmann. I love Bachmann. She is one candidate that tells it like it is. She has more, you know what, then all the men running put together. But I am afraid she will be viewed as a person that has no experience.
So now that we have bashed all of our candidates, maybe we should just fold up all of our tents and go home. Just let the socialist in the White House take the election.
Or should we stick together and discuss the issues. Let’s leave the baggage, the looks, the perceptions, the innuendo and the snide remarks to CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the drive-byes.
John Giles| 12.7.11 @ 10:59AM
But it would be a bit awkward to see Marcus come out during a Bachmann administration.
IzeHavitt| 12.8.11 @ 11:02PM
Ben, You've nailed it. It's Newt.
PCC| 12.7.11 @ 9:51AM
I know that it is practically apostasy in these precincts, but I LIKE Mitt Romney, and I hope that he'll be the Republican nominee who thrashes President Obama in the 2012 general election.
florin| 12.7.11 @ 8:37PM
I like Romney too PCC - I don't know why he is being so thoroughly demonized and to make comments about his hair is so superficial...neither Romney nor Gingrich are true conservatives...however, I'd rather have a RINO with character, Romeny than one without character, Gingrich. Gingrich's former mistress/current wife Callista is now moving into the spotlight. I do think that will hurt gingrich because people look at her and see a woman who broke up a marriage, who was having sex with gingrich while he was married and claiming that she was a good Christian. I don't believe either one of them, callista or newt, have core principles...whatever they want, they go after no matter who gets hurt. Gingrich's former wives and mistresses haven't said much up until now but they will...gingrich treats women shabbily...uses them and then tosses them for newer models...if the choice is between gingrich or Romney, I'll take Romney any day..I'd prefer someone like Paul Ryan or John Thune or Mitch Daniels...never gingrich!
Alan Brooks| 12.7.11 @ 8:25PM
Gingrich's secret is his brilliant dishonesty: conning those who know something about 'conservatism', but nothing about futurism.
Brookhiser got it just so:
"[Newt's worldview is partly based on] Marxism for computer geeks."
And Brookhiser was being diplomatic to a fellow 'conservative'.
Alan Brooks| 12.7.11 @ 8:43PM
"a more approachable, blow-dried heir to Barry Goldwater."
Duke was and still is a v. handsome guy, too bad beauty is only skin deep.
Kelly Staples| 12.7.11 @ 6:54AM
Newt's rated 90% by the American Conservative Union. That looks pretty good after 3 years of B.O. What the Klan has to do with anything escapes me, but some folks are never satisfied.
Vern Crisler| 12.7.11 @ 12:35PM
Right, Hillyer's comparison is outrageous. Newt can be irritating at times, but on the whole he is conservative. Hillyer ought to be ashamed for writing such trash talk.
aware| 12.7.11 @ 3:17PM
More right than you know. A poster child of the current state of what passes for "conservative" these days. Remember when conservatives cared about things like liberty and small government?
The Clintidote| 12.7.11 @ 4:50PM
No, I don't remember that. Nor do they, after they're elected and campaign promises are moot.
That's why I vote Libertarian.
SpiralArchitect| 12.7.11 @ 7:06PM
Here is a link to Lloyd Marcus' bit about the devastating price of Gov dependency - must read IMO
http://www.americanthinker.com.....qus_thread
You too Quin, you might be enlightened...
Alan Brooks| 12.7.11 @ 8:27PM
"Remember when conservatives cared about things like liberty and small government?"
Don't be so SUBVERSIVE, aware.
Gordo| 12.7.11 @ 6:56AM
We need a debate of candidates' wives. I'm not saying the one with the hottest wife should be president, but once the public gets to know Callista, they will not want her for first lady.
Anne Romney or Anita Perry would be great
first ladies.
chuck| 12.7.11 @ 8:44AM
Can we throw Moochele in the mix too?
Nancy in NC| 12.7.11 @ 8:48AM
Can she speak? This "Barbie" doesn't even look alive to me.
Frank Drackman| 12.7.11 @ 6:57AM
So whats your point?
Jack in Wi| 12.7.11 @ 6:59AM
I know Quin is probably pushing Romney, at least subconsiously. That being said. Everything he says here is true. Gingrich would be slaughtered by the Democrats. His record of mistakes and downright corruption is so long and so true that any good media hit man would make mincement of him.
He, like Herman Cain, is strictly a media sensation. I have talked to a lot of rock ribbed, Bush Republicans about Gingrich and he is just a laughing stock. At least McCain, although a crazed warmonger, had a record of personal bravery. Newt is a tremendous chickenhawk. This country is far sicker of these wars then 4 years ago. McCain's baggage included adultry, and selling out to the banks, Israeli, and military lobbies. He did not have the long record of feathering his personal nest like Newt has with his Fannie Mae fees and as a bag lady for the insurance lobbies. Even then I doubt if he would have come close to getting 40% of the vote if he had not picked Sarah Palin to get out the conservative base. I think Sarah Palin saved the Republicans in Congress by getting out the vote.
I think everyone knows that I back Ron Paul for the simple reasons that he is the most consistant and honest man to ever run for President. He also has been right on the vast majority of the issues he has backed. He is an intellectual heavyweight who also has a great record of personal morality. Now I don't like much about Mitt Romney, but he seems to have an impeccable home life. Romney and Dr. Paul have the activists and machine to carry the fight forward. Gingrich on the other hand has few activists and no personal qualities to inspire any loyality.
I believe both Romney and Dr. Paul are electable, but Ron Paul gets far more votes in polling from independents, the young , and disaffected Democrats. No Republican can come close to winning without these votes. Both men poll the best against Obama in head to head polls.
The party is split over many issues. There is no way if this continues that we can beat Obama. I have long advocated a real debate between the representatives of these factions, as the only way to heal this breach. Let Ron and Mitt have along and civil debate to see if there is any way to come to some solution. I suppose Newt would have to be included. but frankly the way he is going with this circus like atmesphere to his whole campaign I expect to see him gone by the end of January at the latest.
Gulcher| 12.7.11 @ 9:49AM
"I believe both Romney and Dr. Paul are electable, but Ron Paul gets far more votes in polling from independents, the young , and disaffected Democrats. No Republican can come close to winning without these votes. Both men poll the best against Obama in head to head polls."
Democrats like them for exactly the same reasons that Conservatives dislike them. Those polls you like assume a two way race but in fact either Romney or Paul would have a third party challenger taking the Conservative vote and then what happens?
Jack in Wi| 12.7.11 @ 12:01PM
The warmongering part of the Republican base is down to about 20% of the population. Reagan and no other Republican would ever had been elected without big numbers of Independents and Disaffected Democrats. Ron Paul also has a huge following among the young. He is also the only pricipled conservative runnning. No pro war candidate will come within 20 pointss of Obama.
DTOM| 12.7.11 @ 12:38PM
Jacque en Wisconsin, si'l vous plait!
Vern Crisler| 12.7.11 @ 12:39PM
Ron Paul is part of the blame America first crowd; unelectable.
squalis| 12.7.11 @ 10:27AM
I believe Bush is why we are in this mess. Yes, he was a victim of media prejudices, but, on domestic issues, he was far from a conservative. It also never made sense to me that while he was being viciously attacked he never went on the offensive himself. So, I don't know who these "Bush republicans" are, but I am not so certain they should be listened to for advice.
Kerry| 12.7.11 @ 12:58PM
Bush didn't go on the offensive because he felt he should be the adult in the room. He felt running the country and trying to work with others was more important than being defensive and attacking people like Pelosi and Reid who called him all kinds of names to the public.
The Big E| 12.7.11 @ 1:16PM
And thus allowed the lies of his enemies to be acquire the credence of truth. Failing to defend himself and his administration was a mistake.
florin| 12.7.11 @ 8:48PM
The Big E...I just don't think a President can spend so much time going after everyone who attacks them. I don't know if Cain is guilty or not but if he is, he is no more guilty of adultery than Gingrich or Clinton yet the media destroyed him BECAUSE he tried to answer each accusation. Sarah Palin is criticized because she stepped down from being governor although she explained that she was forced to reply to so many accusations and law suits that she just felt she was cheating her people and taking a salary when she couldn't work as hard as she wanted because of lawsuits, etc...while Obama spent years campaigning while Senator and thought nothing of collecting a pay check for a job he wasn't doing. I think perhaps it might be best to make a statement and then have done with it...people can check your record, politcally and morally - to see if you have the intelligence, courage, strength and character to hold public office. You are right that lies if repeated often enough acquire the credence of truth...but sometimes defending yourself against those often enough gives them the credence of truth...it's tough.
The Big E| 12.8.11 @ 8:55AM
First of all, there's a big difference between the way a candidate should respond or not respond, and an elected oficial should respond or not respond. But there's also a big difference between responding to attacks on a person's personal life and attacks on a person's public life. Had Bush been accused of adultery, I would agree with you. Deny it and move on. But he was accused of betraying the trust of the people he governs. He was accused of deceitfully starting a war, of even conspiring in 9/11. And he was accused of those things on a continuous basis for years, and yet all he did was deny it and move on. Check and see how many people now actually believe those lies. The percentage is shocking. Obviously, simply denying and moving on did nothing lend an air of credence to the slander.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.7.11 @ 1:30PM
Quin,
you KNOW that when Jack from Wisconsin agrees with you, that you are in serious need of your meds, right?
Margie| 12.7.11 @ 7:36PM
You told Quin to kiss your ass the other day, Reprobate.
NOW I have this to say to you:
To Ken the pompous Reprobate who continues in his SIN against God by falsely accusing a sister in Christ of wanting to be unfaithful to my husband:
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.21.11 @ 11:39AM
Margie,
you know you love me, and I have the e-mails to prove it.
Sorry you feel like thhe "woman scorned", but I am already happily married to a wonderful Christian woman."
NOW: YOU BEGAN THIS DISGUSTING FALSE ACCUSATION.
Either post the e mails you claim you have that I want to cheat on my husband, or continue proving what a lying Reprobate you are, asshole.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 12.7.11 @ 7:06AM
And who could be against Newt?
Certainly not the apostates of big government.
There may have been welfare reform thanks to Newt but the skids for big government were greased under Newt.
I'm sure he has his fans at Fannie/Freddie who hold onto their jobs and bonuses thanks to Newt.
And what of Obamacare? Newt and his associates collected close to 17 million during the years leading up the passage of Obamacare.
What will Newt debate about? That's he's against lobbying because he's not a registered lobbyist?
Newt will have a hard time dissecting his reality and the perception of him as big government interloper away from the reality that he made millions working behind the scenes lobbying his former colleagues. There's nothing wrong with his making millions but the public is sick of Washington's revolving door.
Several other Republican candidates are also embraced in the big government love fest.
It will be difficult if not impossible for any of them to convince the public they have the right solutions.
Brian Mc| 12.7.11 @ 7:45AM
"It will be difficult if not impossible for any of them to convince the public they have the right solutions."
How right you are, BH. Just so long as we have a voting public who do not pay attention. Add to that - the fact that a huge portion of those who do pay attention, strongly believe that the government needs to "do something" and it is a battle no single man can win. This monolith we call a government has become a danger to us all and with more and more hoping that it does more and more does not bode well for this Republic.
To campaign on the notion that the government must do less would be political suicide; the die is cast. Short of revolution it cannot be broken.
Brian Mc| 12.7.11 @ 7:48AM
Shame on me....should have said, "No single individual..." My apologies.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 12.7.11 @ 8:11AM
Not to mention that when you are getting a free ride you don't have to pay much attention to who is paying the fare.
Brian Mc| 12.7.11 @ 8:36AM
Yes, I wonder how I might turn my home into a fortress, come next November, if the takers 'lose' out to the rest of us. I don't believe it to be possible this day in age. At any rate, I will stock up on defense essentials as best I can...and pray for my country to gain back its sanity.
martin j smith| 12.7.11 @ 7:35AM
Hillyer let us have some honesty from you: Which candidate do you support ? Is it Romeny --then say so. And which faction of the Republican Party do you represent ? I can guess.
Tell the leadershit of the Republican Party that they are on probabation from many "Republican" voters who are tired of the GWBzzzzzz, the John McCainzzzzzzzz and all of the other BEsserzzzzzzz.
We can figure out for ourselves who we want. Now take some milk an cookies and read a story or something.
Mimi| 12.7.11 @ 7:50AM
This article is devastating to Newt.....Why...TELL me just why are you doing this ?
Like seven others he is just trying to get there. Why did you wait so long to destroy him? Why didn't you come out with you feelings in the beginning of the process....Who else, who will get their numbers up the the high 30's will you do the same thing to? THE PEOPLE WILL DECIDE starting Jan. 3rd ....You have disgraced yourselve!
Nancy in NC| 12.7.11 @ 9:02AM
Quin isn't saying the Newt is a KKK type, but rather a wolf in sheep's clothing. And Quinn isn't destroying Newt...Newt is quite capable of his own distruction...his record is his bullet.
Please stop acting like Democrats and start doing your own research. Look at Newt's record...it's dismal. Why would anyone believe Newt is for limited government? He's part of the problem and is a an insider of huge proportions, and I'm not talking about his girth. Sure he can talk a mean game, but his performance belies what he says. Check out his affilation with the Council on Foreign Affairs for starters. And how can anyone overlook the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac connection?
Sure Newt is an improvement over Obama, so what? My dog is an improvement over Obama.
Mimi| 12.7.11 @ 11:19AM
Nancy, I never said KKK or mentioned it in my post....I was too shocked to read that article...no candidate deserves it, at this late date...why wait to weed out candidates when they get to the TOP?
Quin| 12.7.11 @ 10:15AM
Mimi: I DID say it at the start. Go back to the Spring, when Gingrich first entered the race: I blasted him extremely harshly. Indeed, even before he entered the race, I was blasting him over his whoring for ethanol.
Mimi| 12.7.11 @ 7:51AM
OOPS...yourself
Barky| 12.7.11 @ 8:06AM
Mimi is right...Low blow to compare Newt to David Duke...Also, presidential debates do matter.
Bush was elected by beating Gore in debates.
Obama beat McLame in debates. Bush Sr. had to debate Perot & Clinton together & they beat him
like a tag-team. Reagan beat Jimmy in debates.
Quin| 12.7.11 @ 10:22AM
I did not compare Gingrich to Duke. Please read again what I wrote. I was talking about the way that voters process information, and about how what they see and hear themselves "live" is far more important to them than evidence they are told about, no matter how strong the evidence. Thus, a lot of Louisiana voters kept tuning out all the evidence that Duke continued to be a Klan-like person because on TV he was a master at coming across as a guy who had matured and focused on their REAL issues (welfare reform and taxes) while expressing their sense of resentment against the establishment. Likewise, I am saying, potential VOTERS (not Gingrich) are now saying they are for Gingrich EVEN THOUGH his actual record is just about everything they say they are against -- BECAUSE what they most want is somebody to stand up to Obama, and he has the image of somebody who can stand up to Obama. Information to the contrary is information that, in the short run, people in the past three weeks or so have been tuning out.
Drunken Sailor| 12.7.11 @ 12:51PM
They same can be said about Romney, yet I don't see a comparable article by you saying the same.
And you may not have directly compared Newt to Duke, but you left that impression, deliberately or otherwise. There were many other politicians that you could have used as examples (the one at 1600 Pennslyvania avenue comes to mind), yet you chose the most despicable example you could. Nice hatchet job.
SpiralArchitect| 12.7.11 @ 1:44PM
"...the way voters process information etc."
This is one major reason Zero is still so hugely popular (not including the dead that will surely rise to ocne again vote for him).
The voter tends to make a decision, when they are not of the pre determined ilk, based off of what they see & hear and far too often think they have heard.
With so many accomplishments under Zero's belt, from having done 'more for Isreal than any other POTUS' to his killing OBL & his earth shattering Obamacare no wonder so many people think he is just peachy.
Let's not discuss the people on the Gov dole ( increasing in numbers daily - by design of course)that are now w/o option dedicated voters of Zero.
No room to mention Zero's ideology from his Marxist (Lennininist addatives) progression toward communism or his ever polular and always (ever, world wide) failed Keyes financial/economical wonders.
Solyndra type handouts - w/ little or no effort to hide them. Stupid or unconcerned about consequences??
Fast & Furious type programs (still growing, see DEA for details).
The lsit goes on & on but I do not want to distract from Quin's current Newt bashing.
BTW, Quin? Are you ready for another term...perhaps a turn to Autocracy under more Obama. The Constitution is teetering & could easily take a death blow. This will be clarified for those that like facts and information ( as you imply you are so fond of, Quin) as we watch how these ongoing congressional investigations progress. More importantly what the outcome displays. This will be the true weather vain of our nation in a Constutional sense.
Soon, Mitt & Paul will be the only opposition for Zero, will you then move onto them with glee as you have Newt? Is this all resumee work for a job with the Times, we are perplexed at your transgression.
SpiralArchitect| 12.7.11 @ 2:39PM
Too much corruption & too little time to complie.
Here is one I forgot - forgery to get names on ballots (but not limited to, I would reckon), but Fox News has a story on it today:
http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....-heats-up/
Lets not bring up any one of several Birth Certs for Zero of his multiple SSN's either, right.
Kyle Smith| 12.7.11 @ 6:53PM
You know how voters process info? You know all about evidence? Are you a psycholgist, criminal investigator, or just a writer? I thought so.
donserge| 12.7.11 @ 8:01AM
Priorities have become misplaced when conservative Republicans are stirring up conservative Republicans against conservative Republicans when we have an absolute disaster for a president who needs to be defeated at all costs. A candidate who will give you 100% of what you want will only be found when you write your own name on the ballot.
Nancy in NC| 12.7.11 @ 8:45AM
But Newt is not a conservative. He's another big government type with one world tendencies. Look at his record! How convenient that he tries to protray himself as a conservative...if it were only true.
donserge| 12.7.11 @ 9:28AM
The ACU looks precisely at congressional records and gives Newt a 90% lifetime rating.
loulou| 12.7.11 @ 1:54PM
Precisely, Nancy in NC.
Newt is a statist. Never was a conservative.
Neither was Mitt.
SpiralArchitect| 12.7.11 @ 2:45PM
Yes, Re-Elect Zero, we all think that is a great idea...There will be enough Autocracy for all at that point.
missbosslady| 12.7.11 @ 7:12PM
Exactly!
This article is just one of many pasted all over the Republican "Esatblishment" media who have already decided that it's Mitt's turn. The fix is in with the establishment who will continue to do their best to torpedo anybody that gets in the way of Mitt.
Just forget about the fact that Mitt hasn't broken out of the 20's in polling ALL YEAR! But the establishment media has made their choice and he is Mitt and if they have to write articles mentioning David Duke and Gingrich in the same breath (and then profess innocent intention) then so be it.
Mr. Hillyer, if you think many of us have not cringed at the thought of Mitt debating with Obama you are sadly mistaken. I assure you that that debate will matter. Mitt's Mr. Nice Guy routine just won't cut it and the more you Krauthammer Kids keep trying to jamb him down our throats the worse it will get.
When the establishment folks disabuse themselves of the notion that the American public is a pack of bumbling morons they may find themselves offering more honest opinion pieces.
I find your not-so-subtle use of Duke to be abhorrent and a huge FAIL.
idalily| 12.7.11 @ 2:54PM
Can conservatives PLEASE stop playing circular firing squad? The pure conservative candidate (if there is such an animal) IS NOT RUNNING. We must stop this trashing of candidates. It's fine to offer opinions of why your particular choice is good, but please, people, stop trashing the ones who aren't your choice. God, with the comments I'm reading, the criteria to be the nom is so impossible, Ronald Reagan wouldn't have stood a chance.
Deckard| 12.7.11 @ 3:48PM
idaily,
Amen! Ronaldus Magnus incarnate isn't running so let's stop the "mine is better than your horrible choice". You'd think that this was a Jerry Springer reunion show. Stop.
Purpleguy| 12.7.11 @ 9:39PM
Ronald Reagan would not pass the litmus tests for Republicant "purity" these days, so that ship has sailed. The right wing is so far right they're the lunatic left....
c. j. acworth| 12.7.11 @ 8:02AM
This election oughtta be a slam dunk. An unpopular president forcing unpopular legislation on an unwilling public, corruption and scandal everywhere, an economy in shambles, and the Stupid Party looks like it is getting set to throw it away. I'm praying for the best, but preparing for the worst. And I want so much to be an optimist, but it sure is getting tough.
SpiralArchitect| 12.7.11 @ 2:46PM
Spend the majority of a BILLION dollars for an election - WTF!
That alone should raise questions of undue & improper influence.
Mark30339| 12.7.11 @ 5:45PM
Exactly CJ. With Gingrich, the left will jump for joy. They will spend the general election attacking his record and their media allies will constantly ask the right to respond to the attacks -- we will never get around to having a referendum on Obama's performance in office. We just can't afford to hand over the white house for 4 more years just because Newt talks effectively. Put up a candidate that embraces Republican values, that is visually appealing, that has a sound record as governor, and will attack Obama's record. Independents are ready to try a more appealing candidate. Let's not be stupid and repulse them with Newt.
JimH| 12.7.11 @ 8:07AM
Nice title. I'm sure he's a cunning linguist as well.
LC Peterson| 12.7.11 @ 5:49PM
; )
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.7.11 @ 8:11AM
You know, Quin
I'm just going to keep rooting for Governor Perry.
Your point is well taken about debating skills being of marginal importance.
We need most of all to be able to TRUST our President.
We need also to be able to like him and be proud of him.
I offer this speech for your consideration.
I think you will appreciate the simple honesty and humility here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDV8IjHDBXM
Nancy in NC| 12.7.11 @ 8:43AM
Newt makes Perry look like George Washington or Abe.
Too bad that Perry has make some gaffes that will follow him and has rendered him weak. His explanation about the instate tuition sounded lame and didn't sit well with those around the Country. His brain freeze didn't bother me...I have them frequently...who doesn't. His discussion of executive order in Huckabee's event was rather glaring to me. (I don't want another President "ruling" by executive order.)
I could support Perry, but he seems to be dead in the water.
loulou| 12.7.11 @ 1:55PM
Again, I agree.
I could go with Perry but where is he?
Alleena| 12.9.11 @ 12:56AM
If you want to know what Rick Perry's up to, this site should help.
http://rickperryreport.com/
As far as immigration is concerned, Sheriff Joe Arpaio recently endorsed him. I live in Texas, and I think he has been trying to do something about illegal immigration. With Washington blocking efforts to enforce immigration laws, he's had a difficult time.
http://blog.chron.com/rickperr.....paio-says/
Purpleguy| 12.7.11 @ 9:41PM
Hmmm a brain freeze ... "America is under attack" crickets, crickets ... been there, done that, no thanks, never again.
Occam's Tool| 12.7.11 @ 11:04AM
As long as it is not Ron Paul (Ron has NO chance against Obama in a general election. None.), I'm voting for the Republican. I live in MN---the race will be decided by the time I primary vote, pretty much.
Anybody but Paul. If it is Perry who wins the nomination, I will be writing my friend Ken to ask him where I should donate my money and time most effectively.
We will see how it goes. The reason we have elections is the reason baseball seasons are played. I don't know how many times a few years ago I read where the Cubbies were picked to go to the World Series in the pre-season. Didn't happen.
Play ball.
Clint| 12.7.11 @ 11:16AM
RINO-CINO Tool Job Is The Guy Who Said He'll Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman,Mittens Romney.
" Who Can Really Beat Obama? Ron Paul
Quick … who is the only Republican presidential candidate currently beating Barack Obama among independent voters?
Believe it or not, it’s Ron Paul. According to a new Public Policy Polling survey, Paul leads Obama among independent voters by a 48 to 39 percent margin – the only Republican to enjoy a lead among independents.
“This is yet another poll that clearly shows how competitive Ron Paul is against the sitting President,” Paul’s national chairman said in a statement. “Dr. Paul is making strides not just among Republicans, but independent voters as well. This broad base of increasing support proves that the American people are looking for conviction instead of the typical status quo rhetoric being offered by establishment candidates."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Jack in Wi| 12.7.11 @ 11:55AM
Occam. Ron Paul has the best chance against Obama. He polls the best by far among Independents, the young and disaffected Democrats. These wars are hated by about 80% of th population. If Romney keeps up with all this war talk, he will be trounced. Of course if he is the nominee he will move to the peace side immediatly. There is no way in hell he is going to let one of his five sons die in one of these stupid wars. I think you Zionists know that. That is why you push people like Gingrich to push the prowar agenda. How is the weather in Haifa today? Have a happy Hannhankah
DTOM| 12.7.11 @ 12:39PM
Jacque en Wisconsin, si'l vous plait!
SpiralArchitect| 12.7.11 @ 2:57PM
Paul could get 80% of all Inde's that vote & still lose...
No, I wont mention that most Rep's will not show at the polls.
No, I shall not even hint upon corruption nor mention that most of the dead voters vote Demo.
missbosslady| 12.7.11 @ 7:20PM
Why do the intials R.P. send shivers down my spine?
Or worse, R.P. and third party. Sheesh! It's deja vu all over again.
In fact, the latest R.P. reminds of the last one in many ways.
Ron Paul cannot win as far too many people view him as a fringe guy with kinda creepy groupies. Just sayin'.
Purpleguy| 12.7.11 @ 9:45PM
The Republicant Diebold machines will be in full force defrauding the vote ... I hate those electronic machines ... they rig the election especially in Democratic areas... Republican dirty tricks... like calling people to remind them to vote on Wednesday... Or trying to intimidate voters with big bruisers around the polling stations. We all know it, we all see it. But it won't work this time... Obama will win, he's our only hope. Mitt will push for polygamy and Newt will push for $200, 000 speaking fees and pave K Street with Gold - the gold he hawks in ads.
Deckard| 12.7.11 @ 3:55PM
JiW,
I like some of Dr. Pauls' ideas, I really do. But he is way over the top in too many areas to be electable against ANYBODY. Independents are just people that lack a focused, coherent sense of values...they are squishy.
Margie| 12.7.11 @ 7:42PM
Too bad you consider a liar and a Reprobate who is trying to destroy me, your friend, Occam.
This is precisely why you need to repent and believe the Gospel of God.
Reprobates will coddle you and speak smooth things to you, and will lead you straight to Hell.
Has Ken ever told you you need to repent and believe the Gospel?
Or has he drank strong drink with you and used the Lord's Name in van in your presence?
Did you know that he thinks he has a "deal" with God to do so? he has told me this.
He is a liar and the truth is not in him.
RCV| 12.7.11 @ 11:41PM
Margie, please don't turn on kind Occam now. He has been consistently nice and supportive to you. And he has always tried to be the peacemaker among his many friends, even when they disagree vehemently with each other. Please don't try to drag him into this sordid fight.
Margie| 12.8.11 @ 12:57PM
You pretend to care when you are a total fraud.
Mind your own business, liar.
Margie| 12.8.11 @ 1:08PM
You told Quin to kiss your ass the other day, Reprobate.
NOW I have this to say to you:
To Ken the pompous Reprobate who continues in his SIN against God by falsely accusing a sister in Christ of wanting to be unfaithful to my husband:
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.21.11 @ 11:39AM
Margie,
you know you love me, and I have the e-mails to prove it.
Sorry you feel like thhe "woman scorned", but I am already happily married to a wonderful Christian woman."
NOW: YOU BEGAN THIS DISGUSTING FALSE ACCUSATION.
Either post the e mails you claim you have that I want to cheat on my husband, or continue proving what a lying Reprobate you are.
"He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false witness utters deceit." Prov.12:17.
teflon93| 12.7.11 @ 8:14AM
The fat old white guy standing on the stage across from the young thin black president is going to yield some votes on optics alone. Obama is not so terrible a debater that this will be overcome through stunning eloquence even if that Newt shows up that night. There will also be no playing to the crowd about the obvious bias of the moderator---the crowd will be carefully stacked with apparatchiks who share that bias.
But that's not even Newt's problem. His problem is that support for him among conservatives probably won't be high enough for him to ride against the tide. He's also too mercurial to tought it out.
Romney would be even worse---more stilted than the cold Obama, not just old and white but too uncomfortable in his own skin to avoid dyeing his hair and grinning like an idiot in an effort to project "warmth" (but which looks like a housewife just this side of throwing a frying pan). Romney's never smooth---he simply recites his memorized talking points and often clumsily, showing little engagement. Debates are something Romney gets through because it's on the To Do List.
And if you think Romney's mask dropped when Brett Baier dared to ask him questions he'd been asked before, wait until you see what happens when he's asked why LDS didn't ordain a black man until 1978----a full 15 years after MLK's great marches and what he as a 30 year old thought and did about it. Tip of the iceberg.
We should be looking for as great a contrast as possible with Obama. I'd argue that candidate is Michelle Bachmann, despite being derided by liberals as being stupid and crazy (after all, you can't name a GOP candidate whom they didn't label that way). I'd support Santorum or Perry as well for similar reasons.
I don't see either Gingrich or Romney being able to do what it will take to beat Obama and then right the course of this nation. They are too compromised to the status quo and too interested in having the left wing media and the Democrats like them.
Maddox| 12.7.11 @ 9:20AM
The debates between Obama and whoever the Republican nominee is will not matter. Most voters won't watch anyway. They will hear the MSM declare Obama the winner and praise him for his newest 6-6-6 plan for America and will vote accordingly. The Dems fight dirty and Republican leadershit (sic, thank to originator) refuse to attack Obama so it will be harder to eject him from the Oval Office than it should be.
SpiralArchitect| 12.7.11 @ 3:05PM
Thx teflon for briefing, enjoyable as usual.
Maddox, you must be careful, I cannot continue to burst out with laughter while Im at work. >:(
Zero with another term could very well turn the US into an Autocracy, no I am not jesting or drunk.
loulou| 12.7.11 @ 1:57PM
Just so you know: Obama is not eloquent.
What you are mistaking for eloquence is actually demagoguery.
Margie| 12.7.11 @ 7:43PM
And it's actually deceit, too. The more evil one is, the better at deceiving they become.
RCV| 12.7.11 @ 11:44PM
So now Occam is evil and deceitful? Must you turn on everyone who has tried to befriend you? Please take back those unkind words, Margie.
RCV| 12.7.11 @ 11:46PM
Sorry, sorry, sorry, Margie. I just now noticed the comment was about Obama, not Occam. I am relieved and I apologize.
Margie| 12.8.11 @ 1:01PM
Deceitful Leftist. You are the epitome of snakes.
You live to twist the intentions and standings of Bible believing Christians because you HATE them~ you reject the Bible as being the Word of God, and you lie against the WORD OF GOD by slapping Him in the Face, going against His HOLY WORD by saying that Homosexuality isn't SIN.
You have not the right nor the authority just as your fraudulent Reprobate pals do, to speak anything to a Christian.
Repent, liar, and believe the Gospel of God, lest you TOO perish.
RCV| 12.8.11 @ 2:16PM
Huh?
Margie| 12.8.11 @ 8:30PM
RCV the Obama Socialist suck and Leftist Lawyer for a living is feigning stupidity now. LOL.
Frank Drackman| 12.7.11 @ 8:17AM
Theres one man who can win for the Repubiclowns in O-12.
and I mean if O-bama doesn't get Lung Cancer and die, cause even that effete ex Utah Governor would beat Biden like Ike beat Tina...
Zell Miller, former Georgia Governor/Senator.
Here me out, I know he's a Democrat, so was the Gipper.
You had to be a D to win statewide office in the South back in the 80's, Newt only won cause his district was in the Lanta' burbs.
And I know Zells in his 70's, again, so was Ronaldus Maximus, 70's like 50 used to be, did you know LBJ was only 62 when he left Office? Looked 82.
Zell was a Marine, back in the 50's when DIs could march recruits through Swamps for having a scuff on there combat boots. And you'd have to suspend training for a week to even explain to todays Marines what a "Scuff" is, cause the new-fangled boots don't require shining.
Zell would kick Newts fat ass in his own state, the rest of the South, and he'd beat Mit out in Secret Underwear Country.
OK, maybe not in Utah, but he'd win Idaho.
Frank
missbosslady| 12.7.11 @ 7:23PM
There is just one huge flaw in your thinking.
Let' s see if you can figure it out.
Margie| 12.7.11 @ 7:45PM
Ah yes, Zell Miller, the repentant Democrat. He was indeed a refreshing sight to see and hear, wasn't he?
Even my Father would vote for him, I am sure. And he's a lifelong Dem.
Dave | 12.7.11 @ 8:25AM
While it's true that Newter carriers around a lot of spun baggage, and doesn't really blow the skirts up of those who've dug into his past positions on all sorts of issues icky to conservatives, it's always a fascinating case study during Republican election cycles to see how aggressively those pundits that are (allegedly) on our side will begin eating their own, rather than allowing the campaign winds to blow the vessels. Then again, I suppose eating your own is better than shooting yourself in the foot. It's certainly a lot less painful. Plus, the all knowing pundits end-up getting their daily allotment of fiber. So, maybe I'm wrong here.
Michelle will be pleased.
Red Bubba| 12.7.11 @ 8:34AM
Finally, a break in the almost universal thought-experiement of a debate with obama. Any such debate would be carefully scripted to make obama look rational. Lets find someone who can govern and not worry about casting the debate show.
Nancy in NC| 12.7.11 @ 8:35AM
Great article, Quin. I am in complete agreement with you, and fail to understand why everyone doesn't "get" it.
I am dismayed by the tea party types who are enamored with Newt. They are just like those in 2008 that fell in love with Obummer's rhetoric. Don't see what they have actually done, but listen to their glib tongues. Overlook that he was the most liberal senator, just vote for that hope and change. Newt's record is dismal, politically and personally. I don't believe he's changed at all, and is truly unelectable.
Newt speaks like a conservative but has never actually acted like one, only played one on TV. Too bad Reagan can't tell us what he thought of Newt. Nancy Pelosi is Newt in drag.
In case any have forgotten, we are in big trouble here. We are not electing the next American Idol winner, but someone to depose the Marxist-in-chief. Newt can't and won't be able to do it. Neither will Ron Paul, although I agree with him on domestic issues, but his foreign policy will kill him. (Forget the fact he's old, short, and comes across as slightly nutty.)
Quin is correct. Although many in the GOP are salivating over a Newt/Obama debate, debates are insignificant in the big picture. (Heck, if it's scheduled against a football game, few will watch.)
Personally, I like Michele Bachmann, but realize that Americans aren't ready for a conservative woman, and the media will make mincemeat out of her rather insignificant gaffes while overlooking Obamas'. (He didn't even know he was in Kansas yesterday.)
I'm really mad at the GOP conservatives refusing to run...people like Mike Pence, Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan and even Christie. Because of their reluctance I'm afraid we will get stuck with 4 more years of Obama.
I think it's time to start focusing on the House and Senate races and make him ineffectual...just in case.
Occam's Tool| 12.7.11 @ 11:05AM
I do love Michele...have from the beginning...
John Giles| 12.7.11 @ 11:13AM
Ron Paul is not short. I am 6'4" tall and I stood next to him on two occasions. He is at least 6'0". He slumps his shoulders which makes him looker shorter than he is. The field of contenders is, with exception of Bachmann who is tiny, very tall.
loulou| 12.7.11 @ 1:58PM
What's wrong with short?
Walter | 12.7.11 @ 8:36AM
Have we heard before that one and only one candidate can get the independent and disgruntled democrat vote. I remember that was John McCain. McCain was almost as liberal as Romney and the only people voting for him were voting for Palin. These posits presented by Hillyer will not be considered in a vacuum. Positions espoused by Mr Gingrich are inherently more favorable for the country than the positions of Obama. Go down a list of problems we face in your mind and decide who would more judiciously consider the different angles to a solution, Mr Obama, Mr Romney or Mr Gingrich. Who finds Mr Gingrich unlikable? Some turd congressman who didn't like a meeting they had? I find Mr Obama arrogant, elitist, racist and divisive. Am I dreaming? Mitt Romney is McCain without the military decorations. He might win but would anything change? I doubt it.
Occam's Tool| 12.7.11 @ 11:07AM
You know, why don't we vote for someone who can get some passion behind him or her, without asscheek spreading to jihadis?
Perry might, Bachmann might, even Santorum might.
John Giles| 12.7.11 @ 11:17AM
I think that you meant ass-cheek spreading to the Founders.
Clint| 12.7.11 @ 8:45AM
" Citing Gingrich’s support of Dede Scozzafava in the 2009 congressional election in New York’s 23rd district, his backing of Medicare Part D and TARP, and his commercial with Nancy Pelosi about climate change, Armey observes that “Newt entered the race with serious ground to make up with these 2 million Tea Party activists.”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Walter | 12.7.11 @ 10:20AM
Is Armey and the Tea Party endorsing Romney or is he holding out hope Bachman will win the nomination? I don't see her winning under any circumstances, without every other candidate dropping out. The contrast between Obama and Mr Gingrich during the campaign will more than make up the so called ground he is behind.
Clint| 12.7.11 @ 11:25AM
" Unsurprisingly, the suggestion that the establishment wants to wrap Romney in a cloak of inevitability only makes Tea Party types more combative. “We will fight against it being a slam dunk,” asserts Pam Wohlschlegel, Florida coordinator for Tea Party Patriots. “It’s not a done deal. And, I tell you, if Romney continues on his track of dissing Tea Partiers, it’s not going to work in his favor!”
Even inside the Beltway, some conservatives are getting verrrrry nervous at the prospect of Romney capturing the nomination. At the offices of FreedomWorks, the Tea Party–promoting group chaired by former House Republican leader Dick Armey, there is much talk of what can and should be done to stop the former governor. “We have strategy discussions all the time about, how important is it that Mitt Romney doesn’t get the nomination—for the party, for the cause? And how involved and engaged should we be to prevent him from doing so?” says Brendan Steinhauser, the group’s top field organizer. “I’ve been arguing it’s vital that we take him out.”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
TommyFrisco| 12.7.11 @ 8:53AM
Debates don't matter? David Duke? Are you the author of this article or was it David Axelrod? I am thoroughly and utterly digusted with the Republican elites and "conservative" pundits, ALL of which continue to smear every GOP candidate that rises in the polls and threatens Romney's nomination. Rush and Levin are the last remaining voices I listen to because they are the only ones continuing to say that the VOTERS should decide who our nominee will be. Your job is to help inform us on the issues, not to propagandize us in the SAME way that the Left does.
SpiralArchitect| 12.7.11 @ 3:33PM
Careful, Quin might be reading.
missbosslady| 12.7.11 @ 7:39PM
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!!!!
I have been saying this all day.
Sadly, it appears that Dr. Krauthammer had a big sleep over for all the establishment guys and gals and gave them their marching orders along with soda and popcorn.
Mitt couldn't beat McCain for the nomination and McCain was a horrible candidate. I cringed everytime McCain opened his mouth and the debate in which McCain & Mitt got into it had me racing for the porcelain alter.
Please stop trying to shove Mitt down our throats. We didn't want him in 2008, why would we want him now?
I swear, sometimes I think that the establishment crowd wants Obama to get that 2nd term.
roadmaster| 12.7.11 @ 8:54AM
Newt is an arrogant pr*ck for sure, but I hoped he would stick around long enough to raise the level of the debates. I never thought he would shoot to the top and stay there. He is pretty fast on his feet for a old, fat guy, but drags so many blunders around that he needs to explain/defend. You can't win campaigning defensively.
I believe the Obamanites were all geared up to run against Romney, the Mormon - he's ready made for their race card, which should be completely worn out, but is not. Newtie throws them a curve so they'll pretend to relish campaigning against him until they get their attack plans organized. Sending Pelosi out to fire a shot across his bow was stupid, but she's despises Newt so much, she probably begged for the chance.
Gingrich will probably fade as people remember or are educated to who and what he is, so that leaves us with Bachmann coming back, which I doubt because she's gone "dirty," taking the route of the distorting, exaggerating, and twisting out of context that dhimmicrats are so proficient at. That's some poor advise and strategy she's getting. Huntsmann, like Perry, was way over hyped and people don't see anything in either which alleviates their disappointment. One is a former "D" and the other should be. Ron Paul peaks at 15-17% because that's all the loons, part-time and full-time, there are. He may make a good point now and then, but his ideas for national security are simply nuts.
That leaves Santorum, who gets about as much traction as a pig on ice, and I don't know why - he has been consistently conservative over the years and the only mark I have against him is his support for Arlen S.P.E.C.T.R.E. over Pat Toomey. Maybe his turn is next.
Frank Drackman| 12.7.11 @ 8:56AM
OK, I'm really Zell Miller.
I've got more recent experience than that lard-ass Ging-rich, gave the Stem-winder at the most recent Repubicklan Convention that nominated a candidate that not only got over 170 Electrical Votes, actually Won, and I sent more Criminals to the Electric Chair than "W", Perry, and Jeb Bush combined...
But Ah've got sum pride, I'm not comin out from my Nawth Jah Jah cabin till somebody calls...
Frank, I mean Zell
chuck| 12.7.11 @ 9:02AM
When the election comes around, the economy is going to be as bad or worse than it is today. People vote their pocketbook! I still believe that ANY Republican, hell even Huntsman, could beat Obama.
He already publicly written off the white male vote. Democrats are publicly abandoning him. The students who wholeheartedly supported the "One" last time, are now either working at Mickey Dees, unemployed, or sitting in a park protesting. Think they're going to drop everything to go worship at the altar again? Party affiliation for Democrats has dropped from 40% to about 32%. Factor that into the polls, which the pollsters are not doing, and O IS TOAST!
SpiralArchitect| 12.7.11 @ 3:43PM
ACORN is no longer in existance, the members are.
You think "Chicago Politics" (Blago just got 14 years for trying to sell Zero's Senate seat) is a nifty term that was jsut ment to be a catch phrase?
Corruption wins election, never forget that, never.
emo| 12.8.11 @ 6:36PM
Sorry:
I predict Obama wins and the Dems win 40 seats in the House and hold the Senate.
I also predict that the House GOP by next summer will be in full panic mode about losing their precious majority. They will throw the GOP nominee under the bus and try and cooperate with Obama. They will cave on every piece of legislation in the summer and fall of 2012. The result will be a surge for Obama up to 55% popularity and the GOP will so demoralize their base they will stay home causing the loss of 40-60 House seats.
In Jan 2013 Harry Reid will repeal the Filibuster and will pass EVERY piece of leftist legislation with only majority not super majority support
The Big E| 12.7.11 @ 9:07AM
Quin, your point about the value of debates is well taken, but frankly, you ought to be ashamed of yourself - and not because you're opposed to Newt - I'm not a Newt fan either. But comparing him to David Duke? Are you serious?
If you think Newt's the wrong guy for the job, say so. If you think he cannot beat Obama in the general, say so. That's fine. But comparing him to David Duke? You have got to be kidding me!
Comparing their Republican opponent to a Neo-Nazi is straight from page 1 of the Democrat Party's playbook. Obama himself will say no worse than THAT about Newt if he gets the nomination. Even Nancy Pelosi hasn't been that unfairly harsh on him.
So Quin, what if Newt does wins the nomination? What are you gonna do? Obviously, if you think he's comparable to David Duke, then you won't be supporting him against Barack Obama in the general. After all, what fair-minded, intelligent person COULD support someone comparable to a Neo-Nazi? So, what are you gonna do, Quin? Stay home on election day? Vote for Obama? Write campaign ads for Obama . . . oh, wait . . . you're already doing that!
The fact is that if Obama wins re-election, it will NOT be because the media's in his pocket. It will NOT be because of his $800 million campaign. It will NOT be because he eviscerated the Republican nominee in debates or otherwise. It will be because we Republicans will have eviscerated our own nominee for long before the two ever square off.
So congratulations, Quin! You're doing a fine job in assisting in Obama's re-election effort. I hope you find a place to hang the framed "Thank You" note you'll receive from the Obama campaign.
I've just lost ALL - and I mean ALL - respect for you.
Quin| 12.7.11 @ 10:24AM
Read my comments above. I did NOT compare Gingrich to Duke. Period. End of story.
Occam's Tool| 12.7.11 @ 11:08AM
Yes, but the analogy was forced, I think, Quin...
loulou| 12.7.11 @ 2:00PM
Quin was thinking Gingrich and writing Duke.
Sorry, Quin. You blundered and diluted the impact of your article.
LC Peterson| 12.8.11 @ 7:38AM
I thought Quinn's point on David Duke was sound. Duke had some appeal and then people came to their senses (obviously the same thing happened with Newt's original campaign staff). It's Quinn's irreverent subtlety in the article title that is the real club; it dismisses Newt as a completely self-involved narcissist doing all he can for his own pleasure and self-aggrandisement. Newt is smart enough to know that being the nominee means that Obama and his media allies will switch the campaign from being a referendum on Obama to being a relentless and smearing attack on Newt's record (something they couldn't do with a Romney or a Perry or a Pawlenty). Yet Newt indulges himself rather than help the GOP get a winning team nominated.
The Big E| 12.8.11 @ 9:00AM
It is not Quin's point about Newt with which I disagree, it is his utterly inappropriate comparison to David Duke. There are many other much better known politicians he could have used, including ones much more similar in background to Newt, but he chose one known primarily as a Neo-Nazi, and then denies he intended any comparison.
The Big E| 12.7.11 @ 11:16AM
The comments you refer to above in defense are exactly the same sort of thing Democrats say when confronted with comparing some Republican to Hitler or some other figure, and it's crap.
There are countless politicians from both parties, many much better known than David Duke who carry much more similar baggage, whom you could have compared Newt to in order to make your point that the way he appears now is not the way he really is. So why use a relatively unknown Neo-Nazi like David Duke - who frankly, is better known for being a Neo-Nazi than for almost becoming the Governorship of Louisiana - unless you intended to draw a sub-textual comparison as well? So don't give me this, "I didn't mean it like that" BS. I don't buy it when I hear from liberals, I don't buy it when I hear from my 11 year old, and I'm not going to buy it from you.
You owe Newt an apology for comparing him to David Duke, and you all of the readers of AS an apology for thinking we're so gullible that you can get away with such a lame, childish, left-wing excuse.
The Big E| 12.7.11 @ 11:35AM
Please excuse my typos today, gentle readers. The steam boiling out of my ears is clouding my view of the keyboard.
Frankie| 12.7.11 @ 11:38AM
Exactly, Mr. E. Liberals also do the period, end of story thing as well. Reading it here is really disappointing.
chuck| 12.7.11 @ 1:40PM
Ditto that.
Kyle Smith| 12.7.11 @ 6:48PM
Oh, so easy for you to tell rubes what you DID and DID NOT do. You get paid to write after all, and what you say goes.
Mimi| 12.7.11 @ 11:05AM
Big E ....Great Post...These candidates ALL need our support...When one breaks out...congratulations are in order....The critics are too late and harmful at this late point. Especially when the critics are on our side. We all need to discuss the GREATNESS of the candidates and all their positives.
SpiralArchitect| 12.7.11 @ 3:52PM
Unfair.
Read what he was writing not what he implied or inferred.
SpiralArchitect| 12.7.11 @ 3:53PM
If you were curious, no, I could not write that with a straight face.
Kyle Smith| 12.7.11 @ 6:50PM
Quin's esteemed colleagues should call him out too. He's not a serious writer; brings nothing to the table. Of course, it's up to the guys at AS, to throw him out the door, it is a free country, that can keep a tapped in beltway loser on their staff if they want to.
John C.| 12.7.11 @ 9:20AM
The lack of patriotic and true conservative GOP candidates shows how RINO (liberal) the Republican Party is. Mitt and Newt are bona-fide liberals and Ron Paul is an ultra-liberal on foreign policy -- even to the left of Obama. And all the rest, though conservative on some domestic policies, are pro-China one-world globalists. In addition, they all are virtually silent on the decimation of our military, which is frightening.
This election will be the final death of conservatism in the Republican Party. Rest assured that the talk radio guys are part of the RINO establishment no matter what they say otherwise and they are pushing for the silver-tongued Newt -- the master of flip-flopping. These so-called conservative pundits even forget that Newt pushed for ultra-liberal Scuzzy in NY 23.
Weep for your country.
Nancy in NC| 12.7.11 @ 9:25AM
You are exactly right, John. Why do so many not see it? I'm weeping with you.
missbosslady| 12.7.11 @ 7:44PM
Sorry John, I don't cry. I fight.
Some of the defeatism I'm reading here is more disheartening than any of the insulting crap the right & left pundits throw at us.
Don't you realize that making you believe that your fight is futile puts them halfway to victory?
Good grief!
Maddox| 12.7.11 @ 8:08PM
All here are fighters. We can cry over what is lost and then gather ourselves to face reality. Accepting reality is crucial in preparation for the fight over what comes next. The facts paint a dismal future for our economy. Our national security and standing in the world can be salvaged if the right people take charge. We must fight to put conservative leaders in place to save what can be saved and rebuild what cannot.
bill| 12.7.11 @ 9:22AM
Newt is a great debater but he lacks leadership and has no proven conservative records.
He supported the TARP, Cap & Trade, the Climate Change legislation, and for amnesty/Dream Act and pro-choice.
Newt is in BIG TROUBLE!
Nancy in NC| 12.7.11 @ 9:23AM
Newt IS big trouble.
loulou| 12.7.11 @ 2:03PM
IS Newt a great debater?
Just because he's agressive and verbose doesn't mean he's a great debater. In fact, Newt uses too many words. Parsimony would be better.
People throw around the praise, "great debater" way too freely.
In fact, I'm beginning to not give a rat's a** about great debating. Only Reagan was a great debater because at his core he was a committed conservative.
Nancy in NC| 12.7.11 @ 9:22AM
I know that Quin is quite capable of defending himself, but it is amazing to me that many fail to see the David Duke analogy.
Too many are listening to what Newt says rather than what Newt has done in the past.
Radioman777| 12.7.11 @ 9:55AM
Debating isn't the same thing as governing and debate skills don't equal leadership skills. These two facts are being ignored, much to the detriment of the country. Back in the day, in USAF NCO Leadership School, the NCO Academy and Senior NCO Academy, we were taught what leadership was and how to go about being a good leader, and it didn't have much to do with being able to out-debate the other guy (if you could call the current "beauty contest" format a debate). Vision, competence, courage to do the right thing, selflessness and integrity are the qualities that make a good leader. These qualities are wholly absent from the current inhabitant of the White House and missing in varying degrees from most of the GOP candidates.
bill| 12.7.11 @ 9:56AM
Problems with the GOP nominees:
Newt : supported the TARP, the individual mandate, the climate change legislation, amnesty, pro-choice
Mitt: supported Romneycare, pro-choice, same-sex marriage, gun control, climate change legislation
Rick Santorum: lost his senate bid in 2006
Ron Paul: is bad on foreign policy
Two candidates I admire most:
Rick Perry: the three time governor of TX, OPPOSED the TARP, EPA, the climate change legislation, the $800 billion Obama Stimulant package, DL for illegals, abortion, same sex marriage.
Michelle Bachmann: helped repeal the Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank Bill in the GOP led House, OPPOSED the TARP, Obama Stimulant Bill, abortion and same sex marriage.
The GOP Team for 2012:
Presidency : Rick Perry
VP: Michelle Bachmann
Occam's Tool| 12.7.11 @ 11:09AM
Excellent, bill.
bill| 12.7.11 @ 11:40AM
Thank you.
loulou| 12.7.11 @ 2:04PM
Ditto. Or Perry/Santorum.
Nancy in NC| 12.7.11 @ 11:39AM
I could vote for that team.
bill| 12.7.11 @ 11:41AM
Thank You.
Jabber3| 12.7.11 @ 10:06AM
Quin, who do you think would be the "last man standing" if Newt were the nominee and Obama agreed to seven five hour debates with no moderator? They both like to "hear themselves talk". Just wondering what you thought.
Old Blevins| 12.7.11 @ 10:10AM
Ahhh...the silly season continues. For better or worse, I do enjoy the primary fratricide on the Republican side, because we are collectively arguing who should be the "best" person to be POTUS. What astounds me is that there is not a single primary challenger (that I know of) on the Democrat side this year. Does this mean that the Democrat party collectively endorses Mr. Obama's policies and performance in his first term? Not a single person on the Democrat side who will stand up and say, "I can do better?" This, to me, is more disturbing than our infighting.
Hepe N. Chinge| 12.7.11 @ 10:22AM
Perhaps, if Newt latches onto three more wifes, he will find success.
buckeyeman| 12.7.11 @ 10:28AM
This is all clearly the result of the fact that we have fielded the worse imaginable slate of candidates. Three hundred million Americans (well, mostly Americans) in this country and this is the best we can do? Every single candidate has at least one flaw big enough to drive Obama's big black bus through. People joke that a waffle iron could beat Obama but many of us realize that it just ain't so and that the horrific slate of Republicrats will likely result in O's re-election. I've been just gobsmacked for many months that the field is so weak but unless I run, it doesn't look like it will get any better. Welcome to Barry's second term.
The Big E| 12.7.11 @ 11:29AM
A waffle iron could beat Obama if we get behind that waffle iron, but we're expending our energies complaining that the waffle iron doesn't cook the waffles evenly, or uses too much electricity, or makes waffles to begin with when what we really want is pancakes.
Meanwhile, while we're bickering over breakfast, our enemies are biding their time till we're weak from hunger and disjointed from bickering over insignificant things, and then they plan to devour us.
Newt may not be much of a waffle iron, Mitt may not make waffles at all, some of the others may add strange things to be batter, but I'd rather have breakfast than be breakfast.
missbosslady| 12.7.11 @ 7:52PM
Thank you Big E.
The question is not if Newt is conservative enough (and BTW several who grade these things find him to be in the 90% range on the conservative scale).
The question is will Newt be a socialist/marxist/ commie? Because that is the war that is at hand.
Plain and simple.
It is not that the perfect candidate isn't running, it's that the perfect candidate does not exist.
bull-gator| 12.7.11 @ 10:31AM
Rick Perry is this generation's Zel Miller. Both came from humble beginnings and are self made men of integrity, character, and God fearing. Both are against big government and wasteful spending. Every conservative concerned citizen voter needs to give Gov Perry another at bat. He's the real deal and I'm not going to support any other candidate. Cut the man some slack regarding those liberal inspired disgusting (and non sensical) debates.
bill| 12.7.11 @ 10:48AM
I agree with you 100%, and here's something:
Ronald Reagan + Barry Goldwater = Rick Perry
martin j smith| 12.7.11 @ 10:46AM
I will say this --I will not vote for a Obama ( II ) that would be Ron Paul. I would not vote for RINO ( I ) that would be Huntsman or RINO (II ) that would be Romney. -Please let the voters decide and tell your Establishment buddies that they are pissing voters off
and cut it out. NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everyone has an opinion but the propaganda I am getting about Republican Candidates is annoying and a distraction. We can figure out who to chose
So Who do you support ?
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.7.11 @ 10:56AM
Gator,
I'm sure glad Bill and I aren't entirely alone here.
...You will enjoy Perry's speech (above linked).
In fact, there are several speeches by him on youtube. My absolute favorite was in New Hampshire. ROTFL. hilarious! His Republican audience loved him for it.
My favorite Perry line of all though..."yeah, I stepped in it." Cracked me up.
Occam's Tool| 12.7.11 @ 11:09AM
I liked the one where he made fun of himself against Ron Paul.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.7.11 @ 11:29AM
Yeah Doctor, that was fun...
but here is my most favorite speech so far (excerpts) from New Hampshire...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxjJ9QMjHzo
RCV| 12.7.11 @ 11:50PM
Perry's self-deprecating humor is one of his very attractive qualities. I always had thought he would be Obama's toughest opponent, and I'm utterly perplexed at how his promising start cratered so quickly.
Margie| 12.8.11 @ 1:05PM
"But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress.
For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,
inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding the form of religion but denying the power of it.
Avoid such people.
For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses,
who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth." 2Tim. 3:1-7.
RCV| 12.8.11 @ 8:18PM
?????????????????
Margie| 12.8.11 @ 8:28PM
What's the matter, RCV? Can't understand what God says?
Perhaps you can get a Christian to explain it to you. I'm not interested in wasting my time.
Oldefarte| 12.7.11 @ 10:56AM
The complete/whole story of the Duke/Louisiana election is not being told here. He did not lose because his political message failed to garner voter support [which it did], but instead he lost because sane/sensible Louisianans persuaded their former longtime governor [and resident rogue/charleton] to run against Duke on the Democratic Party side [and whose immense popularity among Louisiana residents resulted in his political ability to be the only potential candidate capable of defeating Duke]. As to a comparison of the Louisiana/Duke former situation to the current one, I opine that the opposite scenerio should be proposed, in that the best, most electable Republican candidate should be put forth in order to defeat the current socialist, radical POTUS [whose re-election would most certainly result in complete destruction to this country from four more years of what's been deciminated since 11/4/08]. If anything, the political level-headed leaders and civic-minded citizens of this country desperately need to find the very best alternative to the current office holder and his community-organizing ways in order to save this country from its continued embarrassment and humiliation of his re-election. Newt is not, nor should he be compared to Duke, but Duke should be and is comparable to the current resident of 1600!!!!!!!!!
Jeff Perren| 12.7.11 @ 10:59AM
Quin,
As always you make many unassailable points. But I believe Charles Hurt has the better of the argument when he writes:
"But the problem for Mitt is that these are not normal times. These are desperate times. We don’t need competence. We need a revolution.
And this is where Newt shines.
Tempestuous and uneven? Certainly. But Newt has a political soul. Sometimes he wanders off, but he has an internal political compass that ultimately hews to conservatism. He has lived his life yearning to be a great figure etched into history.
For all of Mitt’s extraordinary accomplishments, he lacks any such political compass. He simply recalibrates his politics for whomever he seeks to serve. If it is the people of Massachusetts, then he is glad to trash Ronald Reagan and embrace abortion rights. The people of America? Then just a few little tinkers and adjustments and dial-twisting and - Presto! - he is all lined up to be your leader."
Mitt v Newt.
Anthony| 12.7.11 @ 11:01AM
A low point for you Quin. Your absurd analogy, using David Duke no less, as opposed to any other skillful speaker, and your debate performance obsession, is intellectually vapid and misses the point.
If indeed Newt has catapulted to the top tier because of his performances in these debates, it's only because Newt gave answers and policy solutions that resonated with the audience.
Newt's ascendancy is not just a result of his debate performance, but rather, is a segue to the recognition that the man has a serious intellect and legislative experience. Newt has a subtantial record of accomplishments, albeit with flaws, that R voters are taking note of.
While I concur that Newt has significant baggage, and has taken positions that we agree are not conservative, nonetheless, you continue to fall for the leftist trap to eating one of your own, as opposed to taking on Obozo.
None of our candidates is perfect, and you can play this game until we have noone left standing.
I submit Reagan himself would not withstand today's onslaught.
Our playing this game only helps Obozo, who cannot run on his record, so will run against the R herd, already weakened by its own.
Your attempt at being the smartist guy in the room is not helping the cause.
Clint| 12.7.11 @ 11:22AM
" Public Citizen’s Craig Holman said this was the first time he’d heard the “ambiguous term ‘strategic consultant’ replaced with an academic term ‘historian,’” but that regardless of the terminology, Gingrich “was hired as a lobbyist for his rolodex built while being a public servant.”
Gingrich, Holman told TPM in an email, “represents the worst of revolving door abuse. Gingrich cashed in on his status as a former public official, taking in $300,000 in salary from Freddie Mac to promote the lender’s business model one year as a ‘strategic consultant’ rather than a registered lobbyist in order to avoid disclosure, and then switched sides when the winds of political opportunity shifted.”
Holman continued: “This clearly shows that those who swing through the revolving door to promote the business interests of whoever can afford their price tag rarely do so on principle, but merely for self-profit and opportunity.”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & In Iowa.
missbosslady| 12.7.11 @ 7:57PM
Oh no!
A private citzen legally earning money! Gross!
I am oh so sure that many here would never have accepted $300,000 legal dollars in exchange for their consultation.
Ha-ha!
Stormy| 12.7.11 @ 11:38AM
A good liberal hit-job on Newt without any alternative championed. We don't want no stinkin' Newt. We want four more years of Barack Obama.
OLDRAY| 12.7.11 @ 11:44AM
Hilllyer's article is as bad as any major media trash. His use of David Duke would rival the worst NY Times piece. Your site has become shit.
bill| 12.7.11 @ 11:45AM
We had Newt and Mitt like candidate, John McCain in 2008, and Obama won in a landslide.
We have to think out side the box, and help somebody who has a proven conservative record, and can defeat Obama in 2012.
That man is Rick Perry.
Oldefarte| 12.9.11 @ 10:04AM
Sadly, the reason why Obama won in 2008 was not the inefficiency of McCain [or in his RINOism as some would pontificate], but instead due solely to THE STUPIDITY OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER-VOTERS. Even if JC would run as a Republican next year, if the TV's of this country do not get their collective heads out of their rear anul cavities, it would simply make no difference as the result would become the same!!!!!!!!!
cicero| 12.7.11 @ 11:47AM
Let's face it folks, every Presidential election comes down to the lesser of two evils. This will be no different. None of the current Republican candidates is lesser than the current president.
We are trying to turn the aircraft carrier on a dime. Ain't going to happen. It took us a long time to arrive at the brink of a socialist state, and it will take us a while to just pull back from the brink. No one candidate is going to present a 100% solution. We will have to deal with the profligate spending; runaway debt; dependency state; etc. Newt has plusses - he knows how the system works, and can make it move (hopefully in the right direction). Mitt knows how the economy works, and can hopefully make it move in the right direction. Perry knows how to make a beaurocracy works, and can work with the legislature. Hopefully, he will make it go in the right direction. You get the piccture.
Obama knows in which direction he wants to move this society. He must be removed, along with his whole aparatus. Any of the Republicans is preferable.
cicero| 12.7.11 @ 11:48AM
Let's face it folks, every Presidential election comes down to the lesser of two evils. This will be no different. None of the current Republican candidates is lesser than the current president.
We are trying to turn the aircraft carrier on a dime. Ain't going to happen. It took us a long time to arrive at the brink of a socialist state, and it will take us a while to just pull back from the brink. No one candidate is going to present a 100% solution. We will have to deal with the profligate spending; runaway debt; dependency state; etc. Newt has plusses - he knows how the system works, and can make it move (hopefully in the right direction). Mitt knows how the economy works, and can hopefully make it move in the right direction. Perry knows how to make a beaurocracy works, and can work with the legislature. Hopefully, he will make it go in the right direction. You get the piccture.
Obama knows in which direction he wants to move this society. He must be removed, along with his whole aparatus. Any of the Republicans is preferable.
bill| 12.7.11 @ 11:49AM
My 2012 GOP Dream Team:
President: Rick Perry
VP: Mitch Daniel
AG: Rudy Giuliani
Treasury: Michelle Bachmann
Secretary of State: Rick Santorum
Any one agree with me?
SpiralArchitect| 12.7.11 @ 5:20PM
ROFL
You make a cabinet of GOP front runners.
Glad it is not up to you.
John C.| 12.7.11 @ 12:05PM
A liberal Republican president (like Newt) posing as a conservative can do even more damage than Obama (assuming we take the Senate) because the GOP media will cover for their stealth liberal policies, as Rush and company did for W. over 8 years. And with Newt backing of super-liberal Scuzzy there is a good chance he will give us a Harriet Miers and for sure his amnesty will get passed.
But even if Newt wins the nomination there is little chance he will beat Obama -- the Dems will point out his hypocrisy and crony capitalism through devastating TV Ads. In addition, the majority of women will not vote for him. The real damage will be that Newt will have reverse coattails and the Dems will keep the Senate and maybe regain the House.
Hank Rearden| 12.7.11 @ 12:42PM
Well, this is certainly the bear case. But, who has been more effective carrying the conservative message than Newt? He led the charge that took over the House in 1994. That was pretty impressive. Then he got welfare reform and a budget surplus through. What conservative has done more? Mitt is an OK guy, but he is an "in-box" type of guy. He doesn't understand the feral nature of the Dems, that they will always put party before country. In an imperfect world, I go with Newt.
WL| 12.7.11 @ 1:11PM
Everyone knows you support Romney Hillyer...
Do you really have to write columns to prove it? Why don't you just join the campaign...
How are those budget deals working out for us...since you tried to bludgeon everyone into swallowing....
Your advice and analysis is just go along to get along moderate CRAP
ole meanie| 12.7.11 @ 1:41PM
Being a conservative, I would certainly like to see Obama sent home in 2012, but I don't see how it is ever going to happen with a candidate like Newt Gingrich.
Conservatives seem to be easily seduced by candidate/entertainers who espouse the common conservative themes, without considering whether most voters share their desires.. They are captivated by candidates who issue comments that make good sound bytes, such as Palin, Cain, and now Gingrich. They are on a continual hunt for the candidate who can beat Obama in a "debate". They think, evidently, that once nominated, any candidate they choose will be elected and thus in a position to cram conservative "values" down the throats of the American people. They never seem to understand that the American people don't want conservative "values" imposed on them.
In so thinking, conservatives don't seem to consider whether their candidate would be acceptable to a sufficiently large portion of the 80% of voters who do not define themselves as "conservative". Do they really think most voters want to relitigate Roe v. Wade, repeal Affirmative Action, end Social Security and Medicare, engage in endless foreign wars to impose the American Way of Life, eliminate the Federal Reserve system, and have a greater role for religion in the life of the nation, or that they give a hoot about Cap N' Trade? ? If they do think this, they are sadly deluded. Maybe the existing programs or policies were not perfect solutions, but they are solutions long settled and that most people accept. The last thing most of the electorate wants is continual uproar about old, essentially settled issues. They just want the programs and policies to be fairly and competently administered.
Conservatives should be fixated on one question: who is electable? Newt Gingrich may be able to cream Obama in a debate--but I doubt it. He may even be the eventual GOP nominee. But he is not going to be an inspiration to the typical American voter, and he will not be elected. I will go so far as to predict that Gingrich's own mercurial nature and his decades-long history of outrageous, inconsistent and even unrealistic promises and comments --not to mention his questionable personal hsitory--will provide Obama and the MSM with a database from which to build an extremely effective representation of Gingrich as the quintessential insider, governmental profiteer, and deeply unreliable man. I don't expect this to begin seriously until after Gingrich is nominated--if he is.
What is it that conservatives find so objectionable about Romney? He "flip-flops"? Well, wait until you start seeing constant TV replays of old Gingrich comments over the years. Romney isn't an ideological demagogue and actually appears to be and sounds like a man with a balanced personality who might think about the feasibility of a course of action before sounding off? True, he is not a fire-breathing conservative ideologue.
Conservatives had better wake up and realize that no doctrinaire conservative ideologue who announces his doctrinaire conservative ideology is going to get elected. Goldwater being Exhibit A.
Gingrich, if nominated, will be taken down, and the election won't even be close. Then we will be confronted with Democratic Party claims that the landslide proves a "mandate" top continue with the Obama Way.
Controse| 12.7.11 @ 4:50PM
ole meanie don't flatter yourself. ole dufuss would be a better fit given your analysis above. How can you ignore the mood of the nation faced with lying unemployment rates, lying Democrats and lying media at every turn. More people on food stamps than ever before. Talk of EPA caused brown outs. A NASA devoted to reaching out to Muslim nations. A president that was "behind enemy lines" the one time he had to work for a living. Seventy percent or more of the population thinks the nation is on the wrong track but a man with the eloquence to nail why that is to their foreheads can't beat Obama, or who ever he is? The million dollar Obama, or who ever he his, smile has caused you to take leave of your senses.
Kim| 12.7.11 @ 9:36PM
I agree. Newt "debated" John Kerry on the environment and climate change and Kerry wiped the floor with him! John Kerry of all people! Kerry had the upper hand the whole time while Newt was concillitory. At one point, Kerry found himself advocating a private solution while Newt came up with a government solution. Kerry was shocked and call him out on it. The video is on YouTube. It's called "You call this a debate". Republicans, especially Tea Partiers need to see this "debate". When confronted by Democrats, sometimes Newt isn't all that big and bad...
Naturalborn Texicanette| 12.7.11 @ 2:01PM
Rick Perry is my man. Watch those videos on Utube. I gaurantee they are a truer portrait of the man who IS Rick Perry than the liberal controlled "debates".
He's the genuine article. Vote for Perry.
loulou| 12.7.11 @ 2:05PM
I will.
bill| 12.7.11 @ 2:21PM
Amen.................
Gooms| 12.7.11 @ 3:24PM
So a "master debater" ( boy...is a joke hidden in there!), won't necessarily garner votes, but a someone who gives "great speeches" can be voted into the White House?
billc| 12.7.11 @ 3:27PM
Ho hum, just another hit piece against Newt from the establishment that want Mitt to get the nomination so he can be defeated in the general because he doesn't have the nads to stand up for himself or our country. I get so sick of all these so called conservative sites beating up the nominees except Mitt. If you do not believe that people can change and admit that they were wrong and have asked forgiveness for what they have done then you do not deserve to call yourself a conservative. Why don't you dolts focus on the positives of the candidates instead of trying to tear them down?
Controse| 12.7.11 @ 4:30PM
Amen brother.
LC Peterson| 12.8.11 @ 7:52AM
If you think this is a hit piece, wait till he's the nominee. The election will stop being about Obama's record and will be a relentless, negative, AND BELIEVABLE series of attacks on Newt. Independent voters will not support him and the GOP will lose.
Frank| 12.7.11 @ 3:36PM
An overlooked factor here in Newt’s favor is that people are excited to see that he will bite back at the media. At least half the battle on Obama’s behalf in the general election will be carried out by the MSM – and Gingrich has demonstrated his ability to slap back and even cow the media. If he plays the liberal media bias card in the general as skillfully as he is now, he will shut down Obama’s biggest cheerleader: the media that are supposed to cover the campaign.
rdbrewer | 12.7.11 @ 3:46PM
Quin Hillyer is a master baiter.
Ron| 12.7.11 @ 3:49PM
Okay...I am just a simple guy, but a couple of things:
Mr. Hillyer did not say anything about Newt being a KKKer...He was simply pointing out that voters may look at some histronics, but when they go into the booth, they go with their emotional responses. David Duke was the extreme example of that. He polled well, spoke as if he had given up his Klan days, and the voters were eating it up, until the voting day, and all of the media barrage and messaging kicked back in...and he lost.
To the Dr. Paul supporters...yes, Dr. Paul was in the Air Force. However, if you look, most GPs coming out of medical school enter the US Air Force medical service as at least a Captain. Same thing for the US Army. Usually, the Air Force may even enter the Doctor as a Major. So, really, Dr. Paul was an entry level doctor. Does not mean he is some Rambo, battle scarred veteran. Just saying y'all need a small dose of reality to go with you constant "Dr. Paul was an Air Force officer" mantra. I get tired of it, and I look to see what he commanded. Leadership is as important as simply serving. If he did not hold any command positions (other than running the ER at a Air Force clinic) then if I see it, you know the opposition will make hay out of that, despite NerObama's lack of anything. Just food for thought.
Kyle Smith| 12.7.11 @ 6:43PM
Sure, but Hillyer could have referenced many who won votes because of the debates and compared Newt to that person.
Controse| 12.7.11 @ 4:26PM
My goodness Mr. Hillyer you really, really don't like Mr. Gingrich do you. Your revulsion goes so deep you draw a moral equivalence between a man who made his political bones professing his NAZI beliefs and the man who finally kicked the Democrats out of the House of Representatives. That you don't think Newt would have Obama, or who ever he is, staring into the headlights like a deer while the audience laughs and laughs and laughs betrays your blind hatred of Newt. If Newt can stare down the MSM to the point that there comes reports they do show prep to respond to his challenges he can pancake Mr. Teleprompter. Your little rant here isn't doing much to buck up your reputation as someone those seeking a valued insight on American politics would turn to.
TommyFrisco| 12.7.11 @ 5:15PM
You and all of your "conservative" friends have been telling us for months that Romney is the only GOP candidate that is electable because he is more moderate than the other candidates. Now you're telling us that Newt is more moderate. Why wouldn't that make Newt more electable?
LC Peterson| 12.7.11 @ 5:32PM
I thought master debating was a sin.
Oldefarte| 12.9.11 @ 10:07AM
You're correct, but so is STUPIDITY [which the American taxpayer-voters are guilty of in spades, as evidenced by their collective sin on 11/4/08]!!!!
Wayne| 12.7.11 @ 5:44PM
So, American Spectator is a Democratic site right? Sure looks like it.
Simon Templar| 12.7.11 @ 6:02PM
Quin,
You really are grasping now. Comparing Duke to Gingrich? Please, it is utterly ridiculous in every shape, form, and context. It is amazing that you have the nerve to deny it later in this thread.
You were one among many out here that held these debates up as the litmus test. Now, you are saying they are not worth much? Did anyone besides myself notice this? Did you or did you not rip Perry for not doing well in these debates and every other candidate that made a mistep, mistake, or mispoke during these debates?
If you are going to write such a load of shit is it too much to act that at least you be consistent?
Kyle Smith| 12.7.11 @ 6:41PM
Nice article. Way to include David Duke and mention that Gingrich doesn't like people to make fun of his weight. Have you brought up the girth of Chris Cristie.
How about when JFK was such a better looking debater than Nixon in 1960? JFK put make-up on his face as one should do for TV; Nixon didn't. This is said to have been a big reason for JFKs victory.
Thom| 12.7.11 @ 7:10PM
At this point in time I really don’t have a horse in this race and I’m still looking for a Secretariat in a stable of mules, burros and one crazy old JackAss. The up and down nature of those at the front of media attention (and destruction by a propaganda machine composed of 80% Democrats) is primarily the result of having no depth of virtues and presidential qualities most conservatives demand. If Hamlet were running for office as a Republican he would probably be on top now not because of any virtues he had but because we know all his faults and how the story ends…
If the current stable is all the Republican brand has to offer in the fall of next year we will all be wearing clothes pins on our noses. Should a Republican win next fall whoever that is will have an enormous task ahead and one that grows by the day in scope and difficulty. The core of our problems as a Republic cannot be fixed in one presidential term. Reagan had many virtues and a few significant weaknesses but he did know how to articulate a vision and his well-known personality to many was confirmed by this debate performance to the masses. Warts and all Gingrich is the only candidate that can articulate a wide range of issues and demonstrate a depth of knowledge across a wide range of issues that the others for whatever reason simply won’t or can’t. Gingrich’s ascension is in part because all the rest are simply one dimensional in a world where every political decision is executed in 3D High Def.
If you don’t want Gingrich being the nominee someone with the goods had better step up to the plate pretty soon. The world is not receptive to one dimensional (single or narrow issue) solutions and Gingrich understands that. His debate performance may not be of material matter in the general election but whomever sits at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave the next 4-8 years is going to have to articulate a clear foreign policy that isn’t based on apologizing to the world’s dictators and be able to convince what few allies we have left in the world that American exceptionalism is not DOA. That’s going to be a hard task at best.
The odds of a Secretariat level candidate showing up is a pretty long shot at this point simply because of the dominance of the Democrat propaganda machine that is erroneously referred to as the “main stream media”. It apparently isn’t clear to many that that media machine is quite effective at protecting their “horse” while dumping “free” in kind political hit pieces on any of our candidates they think is a threat to their “horse”. The only person I’ve seen that can handle that was run out of the running by establishment Republicans as well as Democrats. I humbly disagree with Quin here on the importance of debate performance. People who can’t articulate a vision for this Republic for better or worse will not draw principled people to the polls. You have to have the Presidential goods and be able to articulate that to the American people in this media 24/7 driven world.
gary siebel| 12.7.11 @ 9:09PM
LOL.... I am really enjoying the Repubs discomfiture. Best spectacle on the planet at the moment.
Newt is just a crook, pure and simple. A clever one, but a crook nonetheless.
Debates do matter, but not the winning/losing aspect so much. For many people it's the ONLY time they pay attention, and the debate either reinforces, or undermines previous opinions. It's a way to get to know the person (which is why Perry is a hopeless case -- not remembering which agency you want to eliminate shows him to be a coached pretty boy, a complete dunderhead).
I would remind people that Hamilton and Jefferson supporters also declared that the election of the opponent would lead to complete ruination of the country, yet here we are, 200+ years on, still making the same accusations in regards to ruination. Politics is sooo entertaining.
Compare Nute to Gavin Newsom, not in the crookedness department, but both are trying to weasel their way to the top; rising to a higher level of incompetence. Both did some things their respective bases loved, which allows them to stay in the running.
Face it, Obama will win, and the country will survive regardless. FDR was supposedly going to ruin the nation, but as Will Rogers pointed out, no one man can ruin the country. Take a deep breath, mellow out, and try to come up with an overall theme other than merely anti-Obama. Repub hysteria is rather like Dem hysteria over Bush's 2nd term.
And if you really want to blame somebody for the position Repubs are in, try Cheney -- for cooking the Iraq intel.
POST American| 12.7.11 @ 9:18PM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
---Globalist
-------RED CHINA TREASON OP 'heavy'
---------NAFTA/ GATT perpetrator
------------ardent EUGENIST
---------------LIAR
-----------------------------=-------------------------------
--------------ILL---LOOM--in--OT---TEA
---------------------------+---------------------------------
-------------------PSYCHOPATH-----------------------
"Understand folks, we're living in a
SIS-stem designed and run by PSYCHOPATHS.
Psychopaths LOVE power. They ABSOLUTELY
worship it and those above. They have nothing
but contempt and duplicity for those below.
The are fine actors and superb liars.
The know how to sniff the wind of opportunity --and
have NO qualms about following that wind,
wherever it may lead. They recognize and work
with other PSYCHOPATHS --and have NO
sympathy or conscience whatsoever beyond
their coterie. NONE. ABSOLUTELY NONE."
---------------UNDERSTAND FOLKS!-----------------
Ron| 12.7.11 @ 10:16PM
Jeez. This place is getting so negative I think I need a vacation to Gitmo to cheer up a little.
The Bruce| 12.8.11 @ 2:17AM
Can someone explain to me just how the hell Newt became the Tea Party favorite????????????????????
Last I checked, the Tea Party was about getting our fiscal house in order.
How in God's name can they point to Newt for that? He, along with Slick Willie, cooked the books, taking SSI spending off of the federal budget, along with budgetary gimmicks (projecting "surpluses" vis a vis the dot.com bubble) to give the public the ILLUSION that we somehow balanced the budget?????
To this day, he's the reason why uninformed liberals cite "surpluses" from 1997 to 2001, ad nauseam, to this day. It goes to show that he's smarter than ALL liberals and most conservatives.
He's a sham.
Jesus H. Christ, has the Tea Party lost its collective mind???? Look at his positions for the last ten years. At best, he could be characterized as a moderate Democrat (moderate Republican could be a stretch).
Evidently the Tea Party swallowed the proverbial Kool-Aid.
There is virtually nothing Conservative about the Stay-Puffed-Marshmallow-Man.
POST American| 12.8.11 @ 2:37AM
------------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------
---"SO negative" (???)
IF you there can drop the 4 decades of
self-basting 'feel good' programming from
EUGENICS psychopaths like Oprah
-----CATCH THIS------
Even as we write, we learn:
'GOV'T Activating FEMA CAMPS
Across the Nation'
-Kurt NIMMO
Infowars.com
(hours ago)
The Globalist RED China TREASON OP
is a not only a DONE DEAL
----but, the RED China 'model' -----IS HERE.
"Understand, manning the camps IS to
be the 'new' economy. And you yourselves,
IN the camps, will be working too ---at slave
wages."
-ALEX JONES
"The value of life is rapidly going down
to that of the RED Chinese folks. REALLY.
Better wake up folks. Better get up.
Better drop the sports n' the porn.
Better get moving. THIS IS REAL."
--------------------------IT IS-------------------------------
Joe D.| 12.8.11 @ 12:14PM
My friend you got to get a ladder and get over you 20 years of Newt Gingrich hatred. People can see it. As for Dole, he lost on his own with no help from Newt. He was a lousy Moderate.
Newt has his own problems but we did not lose 1996 President or other races due to him. We lost only a few in the congress and senate. And the contract with America was a success.
Finally, as for winning a debate with Obama, a number of candidates would do that if they just pointed out all of his lies as he spoke them, and he will.
Stefan Stackhouse| 12.8.11 @ 12:20PM
Newt just may accomplish the impossible and make Mitt actually look good.
Kerry| 12.8.11 @ 12:26PM
If the Dems have publicly declared that they will destroy Gingrich in the next few months, then I DEFINITELY will be sending him money and promoting him as presidential material as much as I can. I am in the tea party, and no, I am not happy with Newt's baggage, his questionable at times principles, but guess what, we cannot and will not get our country back over night. We have to do everything in our power to right this ship and I will be satisfied with Newt if we can also get more strong, constitution minded conservatives in the Senate as well. That is also why I am supporting Jamie Radtke for U.S. Senate in Virginia, against the RINO George Allen. We cannot depend on one man to fix this country, but I feel confident that Newt Gingrich will not lead us farther astray.
The Obama Timeline | 12.8.11 @ 6:52PM
Regarding the points:
"What makes a bigger difference is unpaid (establishment) media (Gingrich will get crushed), organization (Gingrich will get crushed), paid media (Obama's $800 million campaign will crush him), and the voters' sense of whether they would mind seeing and hearing the candidate on their TV screens for the next four years (not bloody likely, based on the Gingrich persona's long-established propensity to wear out its welcome and become grating after a few months)."
Aside from the last item, insert the name of any other candidate and it makes no difference. They will all get crushed.
Daniel Peterson | 12.9.11 @ 12:12AM
Gingrich-Edwards in 2012!
Oldefarte| 12.9.11 @ 10:10AM
Ginguich may in fact be the next 'EDWARDS' [nationally speaking of course, and in context to this editorial]!!!!!!!!!