Posted on 12/01/2011 1:33:46 PM PST by tcrlaf
>> I’m not against Gingrich, exactly, I’m just not seeing the electorate suddenly falling in love with this guy
I’m kinda warming up to Gingrich... but you raise a damn good point.
Yes, the Dems always say they just can’t wait to run against whoever the frontrunner/nominee is.
That said, the Dems do not fear Newt.
For one thing, those Dems who lived through Newt’s Speakership years know very well how much their base hated Newt and how they haven’t forgotten.
I’ve said it before: the effect on the Dems of nominating Newt for President would be the same as the effect on the GOP/Tea Party of nominating Nancy Pelosi for President.
It’s called, um, heightened voter intensity. I.e., the willingess to crawl over broken glass to vote against him/her.
Doesn’t mean Newt can’t win, but it’s a factor when you have a sizeable portion of a party’s prime voting age base (the baby boomers) having already formed an opinion of Gingrich from the time that he was Speaker.
Of course, maybe having Bill Clinton come out and praise Gingrich last week may help with that problem?
Personally, I thought that was a perfect trap. It would be so easy to lure Gingrich into a compromising political position with the former President or even with Hillary. Then the Clintons would turn it back on conservatives.
yeah right . . . they are shakin’ in their boots at the prospect of TOTUS having to debate Newt. I’m loving the 4 hour schedule and the Columbia and Harvard law professor and editor of the Law Review (whichever C or H) being afraid to debate the Georgia small college educated Newt.
Bingo! Do you remember the front page of either Time or Newsweek running the the cover with Newt's mug and the caption, "The Gingrich that Stole Christmas"? That was when the Zedia (zombie media) could fling arrows with impunity.
Harkin should take heed of the old Chinese proverb:
“Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.”
Just like the ‘80 Carter campaign.
I know it’s flame-bait to talk about electability here, but this is one problematic election—I don’t see huge love for Obama, but I see the disdain (at least) for Gingrich being much more deeply entrenched, especially in the twenty-somethings and older. He has to attract voters who will somehow have to ignore their unexamined feelings about him which may be based on media spin and not reality, but how many people are going to go that far?
I just don’t see this pool of voters available for Gingrich to draw from. Other than Ron Paul I don’t see any of the other Republicans with as large a problem in this area.
“Why is that, because the Dems made a big deal out of his personal life? BFD.
First of all, it don’t mean nothin’.
Second, all we have to do is remind the Dems of Clinton’s “personal activities” while in the Oval Office.”
Third, there are persistent rumors that Obama has a lifetime membership in a gay Chicago bathhouse (along with Rahm Emmanuel). I’ll call the Obot campaign on Newt’s divorces and raise them one bathhouse. http://hillbuzz.org/why-wont-the-agenda-driven-media-report-on-barack-obama-being-gay-dating-actor-kal-penn-and-frequenting-chicago-bathhouse-mans-country-you-know-the-way-they-leaped-to-trash-herman-cain-with-u
I agree - BFD. Reagan was divorced and Clinton screwed everything that moved - I don’t think that the American public is such a bunch of immature prudes that we’re going to elect a leader based on such largely irrelevant factors.
You are wrong. Memories are short in politics. Obama will not dare debate Gingrich because he will be made to look the fool that he is. In contrast, Obama has no fear of Milquetoast Romney.
Not sure they need to fall in love with him or any of the other candidates. Look what “love” got us last time.
My brother is a die hard liberal and will not vote this time around. That tells my much of what I need to know about Obama’s support out there.
>> I know it’s flame-bait to talk about electability here
No flames here. Electability isn’t ALL-important, but it *is* QUITE important.
That is, if you wish to actually *govern* according to your ideology (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), rather than simply *talk up* your ideology in one internet forum or another. :-)
OK, well love was just a figure of speech. If you don’t think LIKING a candidate has something to do with voting, though, and that it’s all about wisely, logically selecting the more intelligent candidate, you need to do a little more research.
The truth is ALWAYS the opposite of what a ‘rat says. Now we know, Obama is all wee wee’d up and Michelle is getting that old feeling back of not feeling proud of her country.
Thanks, Harkin, for letting the cat out of the bag while we are getting ready to evict the commies out of our house.
I think slick willy is the author of this article....Justin Sink
TS
Bomb thrower?!
I remember Harkin peeling off his suit jacket, loosing his tie and preaching like Elmer Gantry at his demagogic best during Paul Wellstone’s Funerally.
He went from 'dead in the water' to 3% to 12% to today's lead solely on the strength of his debate performance.
Meaning....people listened, people liked.
Newt will rise or fall on what he does next....not what he did in the past.
“I’m not against Gingrich, exactly, I’m just not seeing the electorate suddenly falling in love with this guy, when they’ve not exactly fallen for any candidate solely because he was the smarter of the two choices.”
Theb you’re eyes are stapled shut, because the electorate is already in love. We need someone who will unequivically and unreservedly stand up against Obama and slap his ass back into the private sector. Newt is this man.
We all know Obama's record on this and I find it hard to believe that this country will buy 4 more years from him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.