Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    All the king’s horses may not be enough for Romney

    All the king’s horses may not be enough for Romney

    Mitt Romney had a disastrous interview with Bret Baier the other night, compounded by Romney complaining about the interview to Baier (video via Right Scoop h/t HotAir):

    As bad as the original interview was, Romney’s reaction simply confirms the perception that Romney will have trouble in a general election.  If he can’t handle totally legitimate questions from Baier, and his team will not let him appear before the Center Seat panel, then how will he hold up when the media and Team Obama gang up on him?

    Newt Gingrich, by contrast, had a great interview on Hannity last night.  (Newt previously appeared on Center Seat.) It’s well worth watching the whole thing (video at bottom of post).

    There simply is no other candidate running who has the command of the issues, the vision of how to take on Obama, and the ability to communicate a positive message.  On Hannity, Newt gave a commanding performance before an audience of two million people, plus a lot more when the interview is run in pieces on news shows.

    Mitt Romney’s campaign is planning it’s attack on Newt, figuring its bank account and organization will prevail:

    Romney’s strategists are gaming out scenarios. They say they understand the risk that, in a multi-candidate field, any attack they make against Gingrich could boomerang to hurt Romney and help a third candidate.

    Taking on Gingrich is “going to be a process,” one adviser said. “It’s not going to be an overnight kind of a thing, unless he steps in it. But he seems less likely than the others to do that.”

    Across the country, many of Romney’s donors and political supporters said there is no sense of panic over Gingrich. Romney’s network takes comfort in the great financial and organizational advantages that he has amassed to help him survive a potentially grueling nomination fight.

    All the king’s horses and all the king’s men may not be enough for Romney.

    Video of Newt’s interview on Hannity via Right Scoop.

    Update:  Considering Romney’s refusal to appear on Center Seat and moaning about the questions about his record, this headline is particularly ironic – Romney: Obama will ‘cower’ from debating his record


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    So we’ll all get be hind Newt and go off the cliff with him, because if there is any figure most repulsive to the ‘sensible’ center, it is New Gingrich.

      spartan in reply to Quayle. | December 1, 2011 at 10:42 am

      Perhaps ….. but there is one area I will trust Newt on; it is putting good conservative judges on the bench.
      I believe Romney will put a bunch of Souters and JP Stevens on the bench. Newt will put folks like Alito and Roberts on the bench.

        Quayle in reply to spartan. | December 1, 2011 at 10:47 am

        You’re missing the point. Newt will never make it to the presidency because he will never win over the center.

          spartan in reply to Quayle. | December 1, 2011 at 11:13 am

          Never underestimate the center’s desire to want good judges. It was a hot issue that closed the gap on a couple of Senate races in 2006. The center also wants leadership …… do you you really think they want to re-elect a guy who leads from behind?

          andcar in reply to Quayle. | December 1, 2011 at 7:03 pm

          If polling tells the truth, the center is pretty tired of Obama. This election will be a referendum on BHO as president- any of the “top-tier” Republican candidates have a good chance of being president if they win the nomination.


    If Newt prevails, it looks like we’ll get another smooth talker versus a very squishy conservative over the last ten years.

    A good addition to this post would be Michelle Malkin’s interview this morning from Fox & Friends:

      William A. Jacobson in reply to hrh40. | December 1, 2011 at 10:41 am

      So we should not elect anyone currently running? That’s a cop out, even if I share the sentiment that we could have done better. Make the case for which of the candidates actually running you prefer over Newt.

        DINORightMarie in reply to William A. Jacobson. | December 1, 2011 at 11:23 am

        Slightly OT but related:

        I predict Sarah Palin will endorse Newt, in early January. Just a gut feeling I have, given his vocal and constant support of her, and the 2008 rebuttal to the MSNBC hack at the RNC Convention when she was announced and accepted the VP slot on the ticket.

        Palin is staunchly ABO, and no third party; Newt is the statesman, the voice of reason, who is articulating solutions and has a clear vision on how to turn this country around. And he is HOLDING OBAMA ACCOUNTABLE.

        That is what America needs right now, along with a Conservative Repub. majority in the House and Senate to legislate – and undo the toxic Obama/Dem legislation crammed down our throats since 2006 when Nancy started the leftist-socialist ball rolling!

        When/if Sarah does that, then it will be sealed, IMHO. Newt will gain the nomination.

        She won’t endorse Romney because she knows he is a weather-vane politician. She won’t endorse Michele, after her betrayal-by-silence after her campaign manager publicly attacked Palin this past summer. The others, well…..I don’t see her standing up and endorsing them, for various reasons.

        Sarah Palin wants the Republicans to WIN. And, again all in my humble opinion, the Tea Party patriots are listening for her endorsement. Her views, her words are powerful.

        Newt is the only one who has consistently given it to Obama; he has been a statesman on the front end of each and every issue; he is NOT perfect, and is humble enough to say that publicly (take that, NRO).

        Newt has the wind at his back at present. Come January, we’ll see if he will bring in the votes and voters. I believe he can, and will, because he is the only one who is hitting hard on Obama; Obama is Newt’s opponent: Obama’s policies, Obama’s outcomes (failures), Obama’s view of America. What a contrast!

        Sounds like a winning strategy to me.

        workingclass artist in reply to William A. Jacobson. | December 1, 2011 at 11:33 am

        Newt’s idea to stalk Obama allover the place till they have a “Lincoln/Douglas” style debate is hooey!

        Michelle’s (and others) point is why do we conservatives cave so early to the Establishment Ruling Class Republicans?

        The general election is not for 11 months. And yet the GOP has backed us into a Romney/Gingrich corner.

        I don’t accept that.

        If we truly want to change the way business is done in DC, we need to change the way folks get to DC.

        Starting with the corrupt, closed system that the two parties have set up that makes it almost impossible for We the People to pick our candidates.

        Today we have Joshua Green in the Boston Globe dancing on the grave of the tea party regarding being left with Gingrich or Romney.

        I say it is the Republican Party’s fault that we are left with these two. The GOP actively worked against 2010 tea party candidates.

        The GOP chased candidates out of the 2012 race.

        The GOP has co-opted some of the tea party candidates who were elected in 2010.

        It may take longer than we like, but the tea party will continue to fight the current, corrupt, Ruling Class-controlled process of electing presidents and others.

          William A. Jacobson in reply to hrh40. | December 1, 2011 at 1:31 pm

          “Michelle’s (and others) point is why do we conservatives cave so early to the Establishment Ruling Class Republicans?” That’s a fine point, but we’re beyond that in this presidential election cycle. We choose among those running, and if we didn’t convince better people to run, then shame on us. But trashing every person in the race gets us nowhere except Obama 2012. Pick a candidate, or someone else will do it for you.l And focus on Operation Counterweight, to elect a more conservative Congress.

            I am focusing on nonpresidential races. Just attended a fundraiser for my U.S. Rep candidate and donated directly to her campaign. I’m hoping someone I know is going to take on an entrenched state rep next year, and I’ll support him.

            I did not trash Gingrich. Is he not a smooth talker? With a dubious history of conservatism over the last decade?

            I grow weary of vetting equaling trashing.

            But you’re missing the point in your complete acceptance and acquiescence of this “election cycle” that the parties have set up. And closed to all candidates who are not handpicked by them.

            If it’s too late this cycle, when will we ever tackle it?

            I’m highly suspicious that it WAS the party machinery that convinced some candidates not to run – despite the tea party’s best efforts.

            That’s a problem.

            The party power has got to be broken.

            Angelo Codevilla’s “The Ruling Class” is a Must-Read for every voter.

            William A. Jacobson in reply to hrh40. | December 1, 2011 at 6:01 pm

            I have no problem with vetting, and I share much of your frustration. It’s just that at a certain point a decision needs to be made, either pick a candidate or sit it out until the general. But if you’re going to sit it out until the general, don’t complain about the choice.

    scooterjay | December 1, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    My democratic friends here in SC who “supposedly” knew about Nikki Haley’s sexual promiscuity and her “unfitness” for office because she “doesn’t have enough experience” to be governor are all suddenly quiet when it comes to Newt. I’m guessing that there will now be some shocking-SHOCKING! allegations out about Newt soon.


    scooterjay | December 1, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Boy, you sure can tell that the “occupy” camps have been broken up…..looks like some folks are back in Mamma’s basement!

    Henry Hawkins | December 1, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    Major Opinion Poll from Sunday, 11/27/11:


    Gingrich 32%
    Romney 23%
    Cain 14%

    Among Independents:

    Gingrich 32%
    Paul 17%
    Romney 16%

    Gingrich leads in all demographics except among likely women voters.

    The notion that Gingrich can’t win independents is horse hockey.

    The notion that Gingrich is surging only because everyone is taking turns surging is horse hockey and a bit of an insult to those who support Gingrich, as if their support is awarded mindlessly, numerically, automatically, or for reasons other than a serious assessment and consideration. This smacks of the liberal tactic of declaring that any opinion that differs from my own must be based on nonsense.

    The dynamic here is that most of us conservatives and Republicans are stuck with the fact that most of our preferred candidates have chosen not to run in 2012: Jeb Bush, Hayley Barbour, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Sara Palin, Chris Christie, et al. Accordingly, we are left to determine our preference among the existing slate, all of them flawed in some way, with some more flawed than others. A few have revealed new flaws in the process. That a candidate has flaws is normal and I cannot understand why we see such a drive for perfection – it has never existed. Reagan was seen as intriguing but flawed, as was Clinton, as was… every freaking candidate. This time, it’s like our football team lost 9 of 11 starters on offense (those who chose not to run) and we’re having to pick the best replacements from among the rest of the team. The process is necessarily messy and worrisome, but a foundational part of democracy. That is, what we are going through is normal, not an aberration, not a cause for worry.

    What we need to bear in mind is that any of the following: Gingrich, Romney, Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, or Huntsman would make for a far better president than Barack Obama. In that we are blessed. (I’m sorry but… although his domestic agenda is better, Ron Paul’s foreign policy insanity will get us all killed).

    We also need to stop using the assumption that a given GOP candidate is “unelectable” as a way to promote our own preferred candidate. This is complete nonsense. Obama is the worse president in memory with the record and polls to prove it. Every candidate on the stage is more electable than Obama, and that’s what matters. They are all eminently electable. Enough of the circular firing squads. Whomever we choose, it will require accepting some warts and blemishes. Every good presidential candidate is a used car, dented and damaged from the experiences which made him or her a good candidate. Obama, having zero experiential miles on him, was a shiny new car.

    As for me, I choose Gingrich because of his command of policy and the inner workings of the federal government, his excellent communication skills, his experience as House Speaker, and primarily because of his experience and demonstrated skills as a political infighter, which will prove absolutely necessary in what promises to be one of the ugliest, dirtiest presidential campaigns in modern history, and more importantly, in the actual performance of duties if and when he is elected.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend