Newt has been diverted from that attack by those who say it’s an attack on capitalism— nonsense.
Yep, I couldn't agree more. I e-mailed the Newt campaign and SuperPAC this earlier in the week, saying they had to continue with the Bain stuff, but they seem to have given it up. The SC exit polls showed that of the 30% of voters who thought Romney's business experience had an effect on their vote, they ALL voted AGAINST him. Newt successfully turned Bain Capital into a negative for Romney in SC, which was doubly effective because it took away a positive and added a negative at the same time. It's like buying one campaign ad and getting one free. Of all people Rachel Maddow had it right...she said all the people saying no, no, no, don't bring up Bain, don't mention Bain, were revealing that it was Romney's glass jaw. Of course we know the Democrats will kill him with that easily in the general election.
Bottom line, it wasn't so much anything Romney did that brought his poll numbers up this week, it was mistakes by the Newt campaign. They backed off Bain and Newt wasn't any more prepared to defend against criticism of him than Romney was the week before when Bain and his tax returns were brought up. Both of them should have had answers prepared on issues they should have known might have been brought up.
Unfortunately what Newt stepped in on the Fannie/Freddie investment question showed that his opposition research isn't anywhere near as strong as Mitt's. Just like in Iowa, Newt has shied away from giving a robust, clear and consistent defense of the attacks against him, and I don't know why. The average voter assumes you're guilty if you're attacked and don't defend yourself. How does it help to say Romney was involved with Fannie/Freddie when you're attacked for being affiliated with them? Does that both Newt and Mitt guilty of doing something bad? Newt should say he worked for Freddie, what he was trying to accomplish, why he had good intentions, why he may not have had anything to do with the things they did wrong, and at the very least repeat what he said last month about them not taking his advice.
The embarassing negative ads have been the worst thing for the Republican party as a whole and it is entirely possible that they have finally succeeded not in promoting their candidates, for no effort has been made to promote conservatism or any of its ideas in the ad campaigns, but in giving Obama something he could not do before all this started: the ability to beat an anonymous dogcatcher. The ads- which for all practical purposes look as if they were created by a bunch of catfighting venomous lesbians left over from the Hillary campaign, have unfortunately made Obama look like the only adult in the room.