Jack Sloane, a member of the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, said that Gingrich is "the smartest man in the room. He knows his history." But Sloane said he plans to vote Romney because "I'm ready to back whoever can stop Obama."
Therein lies the problem. This perception has been cultivated and sown with a mighty effort by the establishment/media and it's bounty is now paying off. This dynamic is more powerful than anything else and nothing will likely overpower it.
Santorum stumbled a bit this evening, at one point rambling at length as he compared his plans for the economy to those of Gingrich and Romney.
There is a small encapsulation of Santorum's biggest flaw (add inability to be engaging and inspiring) and why he'll never make the cut.
Is the Chamber inviting only Gingrich and Santorum and not the others?
SARAH PALIN JUST SAID IT!
She just told Sean Hannity that she wants the process to continue so she endorsing Newt Gingrich in South Carolina.
Were she in South Carolina, she would vote for Newt.
That means, NO ROMNEY!
GO NEWT!
The real problem is they make Perry look like the “dumbest” man in the room , when he is so accomplished and remarkably versed at legal challenges.
Perry understands instinctively where to strike.
He pointed it out last night. “The Feds are at war with us”
If he wants to back someone who can beta Obama he needs to back Gingrich.
Even Nancy Pelosi said Romney cannot beat Obama.
I like Santorum and if I have to will vote for him, but he just hasn’t got the goods.
Probably a smart man, but his comments are nonsensical and illogical.
Think about it! He calls Gingrich "the smartest man in the room" believes "he knows his history." Then, he asserts that he "plans to vote Romney because he's "ready to back whoever can stop Obama."
Were the "pundits" to be faced with the prospect of a Thomas Jefferson candidacy, there is little doubt that Jefferson would be declared "unelectable."
The reasons would vary, but there is no doubt that among elitists in both Parties, in both the political class and the media, there is a belief that American citizens are too uninformed to recognize and respond enthusiastically to an intellectual like Gingrich.
Last night's hearty response, including an unheard-of standing ovation, from an audience of ordinary citizens, should have exploded that premise.
As in 1776, the rights of individuals are under attack, and in order for liberty to be restored, "the People" need an articulate spokesman who can go deeper in a debate than just trite phrases about the "private sector" and the familiar, oft-repeated words of "hope of the earth."
In the Fall, the great defender of coercive government's role in "redistribution" of the people's earnings in order to buy votes from the "99%" must be rebutted, exposed, revealed, and shown to be a false prophet, expounding counterfeit ideas which are directly in opposition to our Constitution's protections.
A quick mind which is full of the Founders' reasoning on behalf of freedom is needed for that task. Fast talk and shallow surface responses will not do the job.
Gingrich appears to be the single candidate who "knows his history" enough to reveal the real agenda and shallow depths of the so-called "intellectual" of the Democrats.
Think about it, Mr. Sloane. You were on the track--wrong conclusion.