Posted on 01/07/2012 2:20:03 PM PST by SeekAndFind
NASHUA, NH -- Just as in Iowa, Newt Gingrich's popularity has plunged here in New Hampshire. The former House speaker, who hit 24 percent in a Rasmussen survey in late November, is languishing at eight percent in the latest Rasmussen Granite State poll.
In the next primary state, South Carolina, Gingrich hit 42 percent in an NBC News poll in early December. Now, he is at 18 percent in a new Rasmussen survey.
The conventional wisdom holds that Gingrich fell as a result of highly effective attack ads aired in Iowa by rival Ron Paul and a super PAC working on behalf of Mitt Romney. Certainly those ads, which focused on issues like Gingrich's paid work for Freddie Mac and his global-warming partnership with Nancy Pelosi, did some damage. But talks with voters here in New Hampshire and with politicos in South Carolina suggest the ads are not what killed Gingrich. It was Gingrich's reaction to the ads.
Voters who once supported Gingrich but have now turned away from him say that his hot-tempered response to the ads, rather than the ads themselves, simply turned them off. "He's got a temper," said one Tea Party member at a Nashua coffeehouse Saturday morning. "I don't want a guy with a temper with his finger on the button." Other voters said Gingrich's ill-tempered complaints about the ads distracted them from the former speaker's message about jobs, the economy, and American renewal.
In South Carolina, Gingrich's decision to call Romney a liar did not sit well with many Republicans, including those who don't support Romney. "I think people saw him calling Romney a liar as just un-presidential," says one well-connected South Carolina political figure. "It just looked unpresidential."
As a political tactic, the brilliance of the Paul and Romney ads was that they provoked Gingrich to anger -- and into hurting himself. That allowed Romney supporters to follow up by accusing Gingrich of being in a state of perpetual anger, and therefore unfit for the presidency. "He's always angry," former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, a Romney supporter, said Friday. "There's nothing new about that…This is the old Gingrich. There was a new Gingrich for about 11 microseconds, and now you're back to the old Gingrich."
Gingrich has also been hurt by a long gap between Republican debates. Gingrich rose to prominence in the GOP race because of his consistently impressive performances in debates -- and by his decision to focus his attacks on Barack Obama and not on his fellow candidates. But until Saturday night's face-off in Manchester, there has not been a debate since the Fox News session in Sioux City, Iowa on December 15. That's a long time for a candidate to go without being able to showcase his strength. During that time, Gingrich has fallen steadily in the polls.
Voters here and in South Carolina still have great respect for Gingrich and what he has accomplished in his career; no rival can match him. And voters wish some other candidate had Gingrich's debating talent; one Tea Party member said he would like to see a candidate with Romney's business acumen, Gingrich's debating skills, and Rick Santorum's integrity. But for many voters, in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and across the country, temperament is a threshold issue. If a voter determines that a candidate is too hot-headed, or in some way does not possess the proper temperament to be president, it ultimately doesn't matter what else that candidate does; he won't win the voter's support. And that is what has happened to Gingrich in the aftermath of the Iowa attack ads.
Saw the hideous Debbie "Washerwoman" on Greta the other night and it was nothing but projectile regurgitating of the Dems line re: Romney. They're already after him ... and it's not going to be pretty. What was MOST disturbing was a lot of what she said was actually true (everything he has flip-flopped on, etc.)
It seems when there was a lull in debates the negative ads had a serious impact. When he debates everyone can see how effective he is. Newt/_______ -2012
Maybe we need someone who is angry.
I think you nailed it.
| Poll | Date | Sample | Romney | Santorum | Gingrich | Paul | Perry | Huntsman | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 1/4 - 1/5 | -- | 32.0 | 21.5 | 18.0 | 11.5 | 5.0 | 1.5 | Romney +10.5 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 1/5 - 1/5 | 750 LV | 27 | 24 | 18 | 11 | 5 | 2 | Romney +3 |
| CNN/Time | 1/4 - 1/5 | 485 LV | 37 | 19 | 18 | 12 | 5 | 1 | Romney +18 |
| Insider Advantage | 12/18 - 12/18 | 736 LV | 19 | 4 | 31 | 7 | 5 | 4 | Gingrich +12 |
| Clemson | 12/6 - 12/19 | 600 LV | 21 | 2 | 38 | 10 | 5 | 3 | Gingrich +17 |
| NBC News/Marist | 12/4 - 12/6 | 635 LV | 23 | 2 | 42 | 9 | 7 | 3 | Gingrich +19 |
I do not know the words needed to describe my disgust for Fox news.
When the People realize, if they ever do, just how much FOX has helped to destroy our candidates and thus destroy our country, it is my fantasy to see Fox news go broke.
If FNC is successful at shoving Romney down our throats, thus giving Obama 4 more years to destroy our country, it should be time work on their advertisers to help to bring FNC down.
Here is a list of lies that Gingrich has clarified ...
Fact Check: Latest Ad by Pro-Romney Super PAC “Restore Our Future” Contains Numerous Lies and Falsehoods
Atlanta, GA - Newt 2012 released a fact sheet today responding to the latest dishonest attack ad aired by pro-Romney Super-Pac “Restore our Future”:
Falsehood: Freddie Mac paid Newt $30,000 an hour - $1.6 million.
The Truth:
“I think less than maybe once a month, they [Freddie Mac] would drop by. We’d spend an hour [talking].”
-Newt Gingrich, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 11/17/11
It is this remark which the Super-Pac uses to justify this gross distortion.
First, Freddie Mac was a client of the Gingrich Group, a firm with thirty employees and offices in three cities. The client fees were not paid directly to Newt, they were paid to the company, and the vast majority of it went to staff salaries, health insurance, rent and other overhead.
Second, like any consulting firm, a great deal of work and research goes into the recommendations given. Newt and his staff spent time preparing for these meetings, putting in hours of research to bring a well informed opinion. To report that a one hour meeting is the extent of their work is ignorant of standard business practice.
Falsehood: Gingrich teamed up with Nancy Pelosi on global warming.
The Truth: Newt absolutely opposes “cap and trade,” which Nancy Pelosi supports, as well as any system of taxing carbon emissions. He testified before Congress against the Nancy Pelosi-backed cap and trade effort in 2009 and led a grassroots effort while he was the Chairman of American Solutions to block its passage in the House and Senate. Newt repeatedly states there is no scientific evidence to justify a large government, centralized response.
Falsehood: Together [Gingrich & Pelosi] they co-sponsored a bill that gave $60 million a year to a U.N. program supporting China’s brutal “One Child” policy.
The Truth: Newt never voted for this legislation and this never became law. Additionally, Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City Policy was in place in 1989, which would have prevented any money going toward abortions in support of China’s One Child Policy:
“As to US contributions to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, their continuation will be conditional on “concrete assurances” that no part of the US monies will be used for abortion and the Fund does not support abortion or coercive family planning programs.”
-US Policy Statement for the International Conference on Population, 1984
This policy applied to any legislation passed through 1993, and implicitly prohibits any US funds from going to China’s One Child policy.
Falsehood: As Speaker, Gingrich even supported taxpayer funding of some abortions.
The Truth:
“House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Sunday supported the availability of federally- financed abortions for poor women who are victims of rape or incest.”
-Chicago Tribune, April 10, 1995
Newt supported Hyde amendment language, which prohibits federal funding for abortions. This language often makes exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother, and is supported by conservative members of Congress. These clauses were found in the Republican supported Stupak Amendment to President Obama’s healthcare bill. Newt recognized that an outright ban on federal funding of abortion would not be signed by Bill Clinton, and worked to remove federal abortion funding as much as possible in the existing political framework.
Falsehood: [Newt] was fined $300,000 for ethics violations by a Republican Congress.
The Truth: Eighty-four politically motivated ethics charges were filed against Newt when he was Speaker of the House regarding the use of tax exempt funds for a college course he taught titled “Renewing American Civilization.” Eighty-three of the eighty-four charges were found to be without merit and dropped.
The remaining charge had to do with contradictory documents prepared by Newt’s lawyer supplied during the course of the investigation. Newt took responsibility for the error and agreed to reimburse the committee the cost of the investigation into that discrepancy. The agreement specifically noted that the payment was not a fine, but instead a “cost assessment.” The House vote affirmed this agreement.
In 1999, after a 3 ½ year investigation, the Internal Revenue Service (under President Bill Clinton, nonetheless) concluded that Gingrich did not violate any tax laws, leading renowned CNN Investigative Reporter Brooks Jackson to remark on air “it turns out [Gingrich] was right and those who accused him of tax fraud were wrong.”
For more facts about Newt Gingrich’s record, please visit Newt.org/answers.
Yep. It’s been painfully obvious. F&F had an interview with Newt this morning and suddenly Karl (oh Karl we haven’t seen you in over a month) Rove shows up to bash Newt. He’s been acting like he’s OCD. Even Brit Hume’s voice went up 3 notches. They’ve been frantic to take Newt down.
Newt has done a lot of interviews and town halls, etc. in the last month that are just as interesting as what he says in debates, if not moreso. Problem is the media doesn’t seem to cover those at all. They instead pick the one sound bite that keeps the “horse race” going. Romney and Paul say awful lies in their ads, but don’t usually say it themselves out loud. Newt says what they’re doing is unfair and terrible out loud, that gets quoted while nothing else he has been saying gets quoted, and he looks like the bad guy.
There is a big reason the SuperPAC negative ads succeed and it’s because it takes that stuff out of the candidates’ mouth and puts it onto some amorphous non-entity. Without big money, Newt can’t do that type of thing. The idea that you’re supposed to smile and say vicious lies being spread about you by anonymous people doesn’t bother you is just ridiculous. Is it preferable to vote the liars into office instead of the people in the difficult position of defending themselves from the lies?
If voters want to continue to be ignorant about the spin game, not investigate the candidates’ platforms themselves, rely on the information they get from the media in cahoots with the big money candidates, they will get the candidate they deserve.
Rove would rather lose than have anyone who could throw a wrench in the GOP Establishment plans.
Sadly, those polls you cite are from December 19th.
It’s a lot worse now. They may have been his highwater mark.
The South Carolina and Virginia polls are from 12/19/11. In politics that’s a lifetime ago. Meaningless.
What happened to the Romneybot York’s credibility? He has none.
I have to say that I agree completely w/ you! There is just something about them that is like one long trip to creepytown. Call it shallow, but there is no getting around that observation!
Bought and paid for polling, gives you support 100 feet wide and 10,000 of an inch thick. In short hype, a fad, the bloom is now off the rose.
Newt’s comments about illegal aliens hurt him. Why support illegals?
“he underwent an anal exam with every little comment pulled out from the last 10 years”
Exactly. It is that simple and Newt at first did not have the resources to fight back. Those days are over and Newt is now fighting back. GO NEWT!
While I agree with you that Callista is “unlikeable,” I still think Gingrich has a shot. Callista is going to have to soften her image. When Michelle The Moocher started out, she was worse than she is today (if you can believe it). Callista has got to get rid of that blond-on-blond helmet hairdo and let down her guard a bit (as well as swearing off facelifts and botox treatments). She comes across as incredibly brittle. That being said, I can still support Newt if he can rise above the negative ads being run against him by wealthier candidates.
1 the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness : he is known to be a man of integrity.
2 the state of being whole and undivided : upholding territorial integrity and national sovereignty.
The Man Who Couldn’t Beat Obama Endorses the Man Who Couldn’t Beat McCain
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.