Newt wins South Carolina

[Lisa Simpson]

Not me. What if the sleazeball wins?

That's what worries me.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would actually rather see Obama facing a total sleazeball who was drummed out of a powerful position of ethics charges and who is an utter and unrepentant horndog who fails as a husband and a father than against a person of a slightly strange religion who still seems like a decent person in his personal life.

Yeah. . that's pretty much how I feel, but as others have pointed out, once a guy gets the GOP nomination, there is a reasonable chance for him to win the general election.

I think Newt isn't likely even to get the nomination, but, as I keep mentioning, I also thought Gore could have easily won the 2000 election over Dubya. (I guess I should say, it was his election to lose, and he did. One could argue that Nader helped, but I think if Gore had run a better campaign, those couple of percentage of votes wouldn't have mattered. Nader's goal wasn't to help Gore get elected!)

 

[leftysergeant]

Not me. What if the sleazeball wins?

We would have the same problems that we would have if the corporate raider won, but people would have less respect for him and congress critters would take less heat for telling him where to shove his more absurd proposals.

 

[Delvo]

Well, if this primary teaches us anything, it's that the ladies can't get enough of the Gingrich.

What has he got that I ain't got?

Other women.

Both are happy to go against conservative conventional wisdom when it suits them. This BS about what it means to be conservative is an illusion.

Politicians who claim to be conservative seldom actually are. That's led to a tendency among voters and conservative pundits to judge them based on how conservative they seem, which presses the politicians to reassure conservative voters that they won't turn out to be fakers like so many others have before... which gives them all incentive, as they see it, to try to appear more conservative than they are, which turns them into exactly the kind of fakers that they're trying to reassure their base they aren't. (Liberals actually contribute to this by their constant work to portray non-liberals as rabid conservative extremists.)

BTW: if Gingrich is a true Conservative, why the attack on Romney's work at Bain Capital?

It's expressed quite explicitly in the only anti-Romney-@-Bain ad I've heard, which was by some republicanservative person or group but I'm not sure whether it was New's or not: you (the republicanservative voter base) know that this is a glimpse of what the liberals will do in a general election, and if this is a weak spot of his now, then it will be then too, so it will make him more likely to lose.

 

[BenBurch]

That's what worries me.

Even Mitt would be a disaster.

But maybe Mitt is a more electable disaster?

You are correct to worry.

 

[RandFan]

It's expressed quite explicitly in the only anti-Romney-@-Bain ad I've heard, which was by some republicanservative person or group but I'm not sure whether it was New's or not: you (the republicanservative voter base) know that this is a glimpse of what the liberals will do in a general election, and if this is a weak spot of his now, then it will be then too, so it will make him more likely to lose.

I understand that argument when it comes to releasing taxes but attacking Mitt for being a conservative? Seriously? Hey, if being a conservative is a weak spot we need to expose it now? That would be the height of idiocy.

 

[Almo]

I think that's evidence that those conservatives are out of touch with the country at large.

But what do I know? I never thought Dubya would win back in 2000.

You were right. He didn't. In a way.

 

[Minoosh]

It seems to me Republicans do not know what they want.

How is it that in SC Mitt is seen as a closet liberal but not Newt? Mitt's a self-made man except maybe for the boost he got having a politician dad. He's made a lot of money, he's fired a bunch of people, is truly not a Washington insider, doesn't have the marriage issues Newt does. To me it seems voters on a whim went for Gingrich because ... they thought he sounded tough during his tantrum when asked about his personal life.

Or they're prejudiced against Mormons.

My core question is the first one, and it's sincere. I really have no idea why Mitt Romney is considered not a true conservative but Gingrich is.

 

[pgwenthold]

It seems to me Republicans do not know what they want.

How is it that in SC Mitt is seen as a closet liberal but not Newt? Mitt's a self-made man except maybe for the boost he got having a politician dad. He's made a lot of money, he's fired a bunch of people, is truly not a Washington insider, doesn't have the marriage issues Newt does. To me it seems voters on a whim went for Gingrich because ... they thought he sounded tough during his tantrum when asked about his personal life.

Or they're prejudiced against Mormons.

My core question is the first one, and it's sincere. I really have no idea why Mitt Romney is considered not a true conservative but Gingrich is.

Newt is remembered as the one who wrote "The Contract with America" and defeated Hillary Clinton's attempt to reform healthcare. What has Mitt done to stand up to Hillary?

 

[RandFan]

Newt is remembered as the one who wrote "The Contract with America" and defeated Hillary Clinton's attempt to reform healthcare. What has Mitt done to stand up to Hillary?

I think the question calls for a comprehensive response and not just cherry picked anecdotes. How do you reconcile Newt's attack on venture capitalism? His partnership with Pelosi? His questioning of Paul Ryan's medicare plan? His glowing endorsement of Romney's health care plan?

Or are you just trying to explain the superficial perceptions of those in SC?

 

[Quinn]

It seems to me Republicans do not know what they want.

That's because different Republicans want different things. Some are wealthy corporate sociopaths who only care about having a pro-business, ant-regulation guy in charge, and won't care about his religion or personal life as long as the bucks keep flowing in. Some are evangelical Christian loons whose main concern is that the guy in charge shares their social values and their martyr complex, and will do his part to turn their delusions into law. Some are simply political zealots who only know that liberals are bad, and will vote for the guy who gets the crowds to yell "U-S-A! U-S-A!" the loudest (and if he's bangin' other chicks on the side, they either will overlook it or would want to high five him for it). After all, it is a Big Tent Party™.

It's also possible that among the many who fit those descriptions, there are a few sane ones who have reasoned disagreements with some Democratic political principles. But unfortunately for them, if any actually exist, their voices have been long since drowned out by the rest.

 

[pgwenthold]

I think the question calls for a comprehensive response and not just cherry picked anecdotes. How do you reconcile Newt's attack on venture capitalism? His partnership with Pelosi? His questioning of Paul Ryan's medicare plan? His glowing endorsement of Romney's health care plan?

Or are you just trying to explain the superficial perceptions of those in SC?

No, I'm explaining why republicans call Newt a conservative but not Romney.

All those things you mentioned are fair criticism, but that requires that the republicans care about them.

Since any "comprehensive" analysis would clearly reveal that Gringrich is just as "liberal" as Romney, it is obvious that people who consider Gringrich to be conservative and not Mitt are not using a comprehensive analysis.

 

[RandFan]

No, I'm explaining why republicans call Newt a conservative but not Romney.

All those things you mentioned are fair criticism, but that requires that the republicans care about them.

Since any "comprehensive" analysis would clearly reveal that Gringrich is just as "liberal" as Romney, it is obvious that people who consider Gringrich to be conservative and not Mitt are not using a comprehensive analysis.

Okay, thanks. BTW, regarding your "no". Given that only SC has shown support I would have to say that your points could only apply to SC (without presumption) and the reasons are superficial. Otherwise I agree with you. If Newt wins the nomination then your point would stand without presumption. To be determined.

 

[AlBell]

Even Mitt would be a disaster.

We agree.

But maybe Mitt is a more electable disaster?

That I doubt.

You are correct to worry.

Yup. And if Obama wins that won't change; just different worries ... 20 trillion deficit and 20% unemployment for example.

 

[johnny karate]

Yup. And if Obama wins that won't change; just different worries ... 20 trillion deficit and 20% unemployment for example.

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

 

[RandFan]

Yup. And if Obama wins that won't change; just different worries ... 20 trillion deficit and 20% unemployment for example.

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Still, GOP assertions are true even if they are hasty generalizations and of the chicken little kind.

 

[leftysergeant]

Yup. And if Obama wins that won't change; just different worries ... 20 trillion deficit and 20% unemployment for example.

That would depend on whether the congress he gets consists of grown-ups or spoiled children who stomp their feet and say "NO!" to everything just to hurt Obama.

 

[RandFan]

GOP angst:

Gingrich's rise could be their downfall

...just 12 sitting Republican lawmakers have endorsed the former speaker, while 64 support Romney.

And many former Gingrich congressional colleagues have endorsed Romney. As Gingrich's support began to climb, Susan Molinari even made a Web ad in which she said, "I served with Newt Gingrich in Congress. Newt Gingrich had a leadership style that can only be described as leadership by chaos."

At least it will be entertaining.

 

[Minoosh]

Ditto

 

[Minoosh]

"... just 12 sitting Republican lawmakers have endorsed the former speaker, while 64 support Romney."

Which could make a Newt run really interesting - anyone current congressional Republicans dislike can't be all bad. I do believe Gingrich thinks. Prides himself on it and could be interestingly oppositional vs. a GOP congress.

Someone pointed out that Callista could be a liability - an "other woman" in the White House?

After the SC debate I ended up liking Ron Paul more than I believed possible - he didn't seem like a preening peacock. Santorum looked vaguely pained, like he badly needed to pass gas. I'm still wondering about the Romney snub and whether being Mormon made a difference in SC.