Newt was obviously ticked off at being thrown on the defensive, and comes across very poorly.
Can't undo seppuku. He's toast.
Newt was also on the RINO Hugh Hewitt’s radio show and Hugh did not press Newt at all.
>> Article: “Levin however was awesome”
Was the author of the article really Mark Levin?
What really got me is the way Gregory mentioned that Newt was in Georgia when he made the Food Stamps comment, in fact he made a point of it more than once.
He was obviously implying that Georgia is full of Bigots. Those Elitist Yankees like Gregory are almost seething with rage when they spit out the names of any Southern States.
He seems to play both sides.
But I think Michelle Malkin was right, Newt sat too long on the loveseat with Pelosi...
Levin was making the point we have elections, representatives, town halls, letters/calls/emails/faxes/tweets/facebook posts, and asking why we need the extra process Newt is talking about. This was a softball!
Newt wants to more directly involve the American People in large entitlement reforms. That's fine: it's the only way the press is forced to provide "equal time" rather than adopt the Democrat's demagoguery wholesale or giving that party cover to oppose any necessary reform. I can't believe Newt couldn't articulate a cohesive answer.
Newt is trying his hand at a bit of centrist populism: I'll involve you, not just tell you how it's going to be like Obama or (stereotyped) extremist Republicans. Newt obviously wants to sound inclusive and non-threatening to "independents" and disaffected Democrats but in doing so he sounds indecisive and confused.
Clearly Newt sees passing the Ryan plan outright as "right-wing social engineering" because it'd be done by the usual dysfunctional constitutional process of representative government. Again, Newt failed on articulating his message which is to involve more Americans in entitlement reform, not just the lobbyists and partisan extremists in Washington.
The problem is Newt sounded weak, like a mushy parliamentarian with no defined message and no alternative plan. It was embarrassing.
He offered no time table (now, campaign cycle, post-election), no list of participants (congress, president, candidates, who?). This was a SOFTBALL.
He failed to articulate his case. I ended up almost feeling bad for him!
Pared to the bone, he's not necessarily wrong on process, but he's inept in articulating why and THAT is not presidential material.