This vanity reminds me of fans of a losing football team saying “the other team won; but we had the better team”.
1. They well may have a point and be right, especially in multi-team tournaments.
2. If you read the post more carefully, it is really not about who is "better" but mostly to inform many people, who are still ignorant about what was really happening in Newt's life, and who believe and often unwittingly help spread the lies about him, his achievements and his ideas, and what the Tea Party needs to do now and in the future not to be the patsies of GOPe ... and what the GOPe is capable of when their power is threatened.
This is more than just about "winning" or "losing" one game, it's about learning from the game's mistakes, hopefully early enough to correct them while the game is still on and not keep making the same mistakes again later. It's about learning and learning process.
I would say the other side paid off the umpires, but we had at least six better players who struck out based on calls made by dishonest umpires. Unless we somehow stop Romney, this is going to be a terrible election, followed by (at best) four terrible years for America. Even Bill Clinton was better than a sack of manure. Obama is far worse than that sack of manure, and Romney is at best tied - although he could pay Rove and Nikki Haley to endorse him as better than steer manure.
Go back to Nov. 1, 2011. The only real surprise of the campaign so far was the moderate, but not enough, “surge” of Santorum. Everything else was entirely predictable from the start, including the lingering Newt-Paul people hanging on.