Boop Her Nose!
Kitty Is Too Tired to Donate
How About You?
Become a Monthly Donor
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/20/2012 9:24:14 AM PST by reformjoy
There are a couple false "truths" which seem to be dictating much if not most of the Republican presidential race. One is that Newt Gingrich would be a great debater against President Obama. This accepted conventional wisdom is not only bogus; it is a myth of Herculean proportions.
It appears that Gingrich's entire argument for the nomination is that he is the guy we want in a nationally televised verbal brawl with the media's all-time favorite candidate. Nary has an opportunity passed when Newt fails to, in his typically egomaniacal style and with great bombast, assure us that all will be right with the world once Obama is forced to take him on in the ultimate battle of the brains.
(Read more at link)
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Agree. I find it terrifying. Only the very right wing thinks this explosive anger venting to the media, other candidates etc is cute. The general public grown-ups do not and will not vote for him.
I contend Zero will be asking for the debates. The further the polls have him behind the more he’ll want to debate.
Ignorant votes rule
No matter how politically incorrect it may to say out loud, there is absolutely no doubt that the voters who determine who wins our presidential elections are frighteningly lacking in even basic knowledge of the issues or the candidates.
While this has probably always been the case, the evidence is overwhelming that, for a variety of reasons (most notably the fragmentation and "fluff-ification" of our celebrity-driven media), this problem is getting worse every cycle. In 2008, I commissioned two scientific polls as part of my documentary of the media coverage of the election which proved just how incredibly ignorant of fundamental facts the voters of each candidate were.
It is quite clear that the country is basically split politically into thirds. One third is known in overly polite circles as "independent" or "casual" voters. In truth, these are people who don't pay attention and don't really care about current events. Unfortunately, because the other two thirds of "partisans" tend to balance each other out, it is these voters (yes, regrettably, they do indeed vote) who usually decide the winner in presidential elections.
Because the media has by far the greatest influence over this group (because they get their political "news" almost entirely from headlines, comedians, and friends), they went for Obama in a huge way in 2008 and, to a lesser extent, probably will again this time.
“The Public” doesn’t refer to GOP Primary voters, it refers to the Kardashian electorate, i.e., the Swing Voters.
FU John!
You are nothing more than a heaping pile of excrement and a sad unfortunate caricature of human being.
You are to stoopid to be given voice.
STFU and go away.
Those voters are first and foremost driven by economic factors. And I don't see the economy improving for Obama by November 2012.
And the solution is NOT to run the blandest candidate possible. Reagan showed that conservative values with solid communication skills are a winning combination. I think Newt has that combination as well - Newt will be able to hold the interest of swing voters in debates.
And as much as Romney boosters hate any criticial evaluation of his Bain tenure, it will be too easy for the Dems to paint him as the type of Wall Streeter who brought about the financial meltdown. It doesn't even have to be true, the charge will stick because Romney won't have the ability to fend it off. People give much more of a damn about their jobs than they do about Newt's divorce from 13 years ago.
So my larger point stands - the reasons this author gives as to why Romney would be a better candidate are misguided and right out of the Rovian mindset.
I’m skipping the Republican primary. I will vote for Newt if he is the nominee.
Newt IS the honey badger! (Somebody needs to photoshop this)
The problem is you have to live outside the Conservative Bubble in order to comprehend what you are saying. Unfortunatly too many of our side live in the Bubble. They act as if 80% of the electorate think as they do. If Newt wins the nomination the general election’s main issue will be Newt, we lose. If Santorum gets the nomination, he will scare the living s**t out of the independents and those in the middle, we lose. If Romney wins the nomination the election will be about the economy and business(even his own business past), we win. This is not cheerleading, but reality. A principled loser is still a loser. This country was built by winners not losers. Maybe our country’s problem is that their are too many losers of all stripes and types.
We don't need to attract independents because Barky repels them. Reagan didn't win because independents liked him, but because Carter disgusted them.
The media will overplay their hand with Newt's baggage, they can't resist, and it will backfire at some point. Americans are angry at America's decline and rightly will unload on the MSM on election day.
Willard is a Harvard trained lawyer weasel, and he comes off as a weasel in every sound bite. I doubt even he can stand to be alone with himself. While he looks great on paper voters aren't going to want to watch a weasel in their living room for 4 years.
For the longest time I couldn't figure out Willard's motivation for running. It's not because he wants money. It's not out of narcissism. It's because he's a Bain-plant weasel. It's a plot for Bain to loot the country and leave us bankrupt. It's a lot like how the trial lawyer industry tried to get their plant John Edwards into the Whitehouse.
Those voters are first and foremost driven by economic factors. And I don't see the economy improving for Obama by November 2012.
And the solution is NOT to run the blandest candidate possible. Reagan showed that conservative values with solid communication skills are a winning combination. I think Newt has that combination as well - Newt will be able to hold the interest of swing voters in debates.
And as much as Romney boosters hate any criticial evaluation of his Bain tenure, it will be too easy for the Dems to paint him as the type of Wall Streeter who brought about the financial meltdown. It doesn't even have to be true, the charge will stick because Romney won't have the ability to fend it off. People give much more of a damn about their jobs than they do about Newt's divorce from 13 years ago.
So my larger point stands - the reasons this author gives as to why Romney would be a better candidate are misguided and right out of the Rovian mindset.
*
If Romney wins the nomination the election will be about the economy and business(even his own business past), we win.
...you’re joking, right? what do you think the 1/99% is about? this is the anti Romney campaign writ large and Mitty will be the crown prince of raiders in the 1%! been in Axe’s planning for some time, with Van Jones in the wing for some rioting/anarchy/racism gatherings for good measure... try and scare the indies into sticking with the racial uniting halfricanamerican 0bamao...
ymmv
There was no other way for Gingrich to answer that question. He had to play the first note of outrage, then build it to a crescendo and keep it going to make sure king was cowed enough not to try again. Newt has no good response to his marital issues.
If you are right, then there is no hope for us anyway. If the OWS is having a big impact, then we better start getting used to addressing each other as comrade.
How about the Clinton defense, that's Newt's personal life. Clinton used it when he actually had a WH intern perform lewd sexual acts in the Oval Office, a simple affair off-duty should be pretty easy to brush aside.
reformjoy *is* John Ziegler. Ever see a Ziegler post on FR? Check who posted it; 100% of the time it's reformjoy. Who else would post anything by that John Ziegler moron but John Zielger himself?
Angry and Unhinged?? I am not sure what debate you were watching, he effectively made a hugely valid point about the press, gotcha politics, and politics.. absolutely spot on, didn’t look unhinged at all.
He was articulate, precise, absolutely spot on, and had he tried the kind of line like you suggested, he would have come across and dismissing a topic and playing dodge.. He faced it straight on, called CNN and the press and put the entire topic effectively to bed, and exposed the press openly for their crap on top of it.
Newt looked absolutely spot on, not unhinged.
Howard Dean’s scream looked unhinged, Newt did not remotely look angry or unhinged, he did exactly what he should have done, and what no other candidate in this field is capable of doing. Calling the press on their crap, and not only call them on it, but make them look like the fools they are for trying it.
Santorum frankly will be eaten alive if he is the nominee, the election will be over before it begins, Santorum does not have the political ability, personal likeability or frankly intellect to remotely handle the assault that the Republican candidate will face. Santorum on his BEST DAY OF HIS LIFE, would be a VP candidate, he’s not remotely able or capable of being the top of the ticket.
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.