ABC Iowa Debate Reaction Roundup UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin, WTF?

Posted on | December 10, 2011 | 82 Comments

UPDATE 12:45 a.m.: Several people — including Melissa Clouthier, Dan Riehl, Ace of Spades and William Jacobson — were expressing outrage on Twitter at the way the Washington Post‘s Jennifer Rubin scored the debate:

Winners: Bachmann, Santorum, Perry — and because they can take steam out of Gingrich and he demonstrated a superior temperament, Romney too was a winner
Losers: Gingrich (who did himself no good and some harm) and Diane Sawyer (who sounded as if she were addressing a kindergarten class).

Rubin stands accused of being in the tank for Romney. Maybe he promised her the coveted ambassadorship to Vanuatu.

UPDATE 1:40 a.m. ET: Just checking around, trying to find anyone besides Rubin who scored this debate a loss for Gingrich and a win for Romney. No luck so far.

The Romney people are trying to spin Mitt’s $10,000 bet as something other than a gaffe. Good luck with that. And while I was looking for Santorum’s reaction to the $10,000 bet, I came across the snarky liberal Charles Pierce at Esquire:

Iowa Debate: Newt Knocks
Mitt’s Glass Jaw to the Floor

Now, I ask you: Does a liberal have any reason to overrate Newt’s performance? I don’t think so. And therefore I think it’s safe to say that, in terms of Saturday’s front-runner showdown, Newt beat Mitt. But something else Pierce wrote caught my eye:

Hell, who knows what impact Rick Santorum’s actually made out in the hinterlands where he’s been spending his time? All bets are off, I’m thinking.

Which is exactly right: If old-fashioned retail politics means anything at all in Iowa — and informed people insist it does — Santorum should out-perform his poll numbers.

* * * PREVIOUSLY (11:02 p.m. ET) * * *

ABC News is scoring this as a victory for Newt Gingrich.

UPDATE: During the debate, Michele Bachmann’s campaign issued a series of press releases with these headlines:

K-Street Gingrich: Washington Insider,
Crony Capitalist, Unreliable Conservative
— 9:35 p.m. ET

“Newt Romney” on the Individual Heath Insurance Mandate
— 9:55 p.m. ET

“Newt Romney” on Global Warming and Cap-and-Trade
— 10:05 p.m. ET

“Newt Romney” Supported the TARP Bailout
for Big Wall Street Banks
— 10:20 p.m. ET

UPDATE II: Des Moines Register:

Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum promised Saturday night to “zero out” taxes on manufacturing firms, reduce burdensome regulations and to encourage the availability of affordable energy to help create more factory jobs in small towns and rural America.
“We want ‘Made in the USA’ to be the moniker for my administration,” the Pennsylvania Republican told an audience at the ABC News/Des Moines Register GOP presidential candidate debate at Drake University. . . .
Santorum also said he stands out among the candidates as a “consistent conservative” who has a proven record of success in Congress.
“I fought and won,” he said, referring to his work on welfare reform and pro-life and pro-family issues in the Senate, as well as national security issues such as sanctions on Iran.
Santorum told how he was part of the “Gang of Seven” and succeeded in implementing legislative reforms while serving in the minority in the House.
“We figured out a way to win, even though we were in the minority,” Santorum said.

UPDATE III: McClatchy Syndicate:

DES MOINES, Iowa — Republicans threw everything they could at Newt Gingrich in a fiery debate Saturday night, increasingly desperate to stop his momentum toward the 2012 presidential nomination in the final weeks before voting starts in less than 4 weeks.
The former speaker of the House of Representatives responded with a combination of laughs and a steely determination not to let the charges go unanswered, particularly from chief rival Mitt Romney.
The spirited, two-hour debate was the first since Gingrich shot to the lead in polls in Iowa, prompting a round of challenges to his record as a Washington insider, his well-paid consulting work for the semi-federal mortgage agency Freddie Mac, his marital infidelities, and his recent statement that the Palestinians are an “invented” people.

UPDATE IV: Press release from the Santorum campaign:

SANTORUM STANDS ABOVE THE FRAY, STANDS TALL FOR CONSERVATISM, AND SHOWS HE IS THE ONE CANDIDATE READY TO BE TRUSTED AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF

Des Moines, IA – Tonight, Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum showed he was above the fray, the adult in the room, and the one candidate ready to lead the United States from day-one.
Hogan Gidley, National Communications Director, said: “Rick Santorum was the one candidate who stayed above the fray – answering the questions asked by outlining conservative solutions to the issues facing average Americans. Rick’s momentum is undeniable and he’s proving every day that he’s a man you can trust to be the Commander in Chief. His record matches his rhetoric – Rick has consistently fought for conservatism and Rick has consistently won for conservatism. Rick’s the real deal and the country got to see that tonight.”

SANTORUM SAID:

On Distinguishing Job Creation Plan:
“I was just visiting Fremont County where they just lost hundreds of jobs from a ConAgra plant. Instances like that are why Governor Branstad and Lt. Governor Reynolds held a manufacturing forum in Pella, because the heartland of America is suffering. During my lifetime we’ve gone from 21% of people employed in manufacturing down to 9% today. Small town America is hurting. We need a plan to revitalize manufacturing, which is why I have called for the elimination of the corporate tax on manufacturers, repealing the bevy of regulations of the Obama Administration, and lower energy costs… I will not give you a jobs number, because government doesn’t create jobs. I don’t believe you can have a top down mentality. You create the petri dish and I don’t need a government bean counter to tell me how many jobs we’re going to create.”

On Being A Consistent Conservative and Winning:
“This is not about what you say at the debate. In 1994, I was not supporting an individual mandate. I authored Medical Savings Accounts because I believe in a bottom up approach and I have never strayed. The record is important and what the question is was who is a consistent conservative. I would agree with Michele, but she’s been fighting and losing. I have been fighting and won. I won and passed Welfare Reform. I was the leader on pro-life and pro-family issues. I went out and fought on national security, and imposed sanctions on Iran. I was there in good times and in bad. I was there, I led, and I won… I was in the minority and along with Jim Nussle we formed the Gang of Seven, and we won. We exposed the House Banking scandal and sent the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to jail. We figured out how to win, even though we were in the minority.”

On Fidelity:
“Character counts, all of your record – personal and political. I would not say it is a disqualifier, people make mistakes, and people should hold you accountable. You are electing a leader, trust is everything, particularly in this election. I hear this all the time in Iowa, who can we trust? I have been married for 21 years, I have seven children. I have been consistent and I talk about my past.”

On Israel/Palestine Dispute:
“You must speak the truth, but do so with prudence. We are in a real life situation, not an academic exercise. We need to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our ally. We need to be working with the Israeli’s, because they have the right to determine what they do with their land – and the West Bank is their land.”

On His Upbringing and Family:
“I grew up in a modest home, and I was blessed with a mom and a dad who made the little things feel like luxuries. Today we see the family breaking down. Single parent households have poverty approaching 40%. Single moms are doing heroic work, but it’s tough. We need to elevate the institution of marriage and the family. The most important luxury is a mom and a dad.”

One Bringing People Together and An Opponent:
“I listened to Newt’s (GOPAC) tapes as a young man and he laid out a vision for conservative governance. I ran in a tough environment. In 1990, I ran and won, and when I won, the Wall Street Journal called the RNC and the RNC didn’t even know my name. In 2000, I won re-election in Pennsylvania in the same year that President Bush lost by 5%, I won by 6%. I’ve run as a conservative and won, I stuck by conservative principles.”

UPDATE V: The real winner tonight? Bill Quick, who supports ~~syphilitic camel~~ Newt Gingrich.

UPDATE VI: Katie Obradovich of the Des Moines Register:

Paul had a particularly good debate, although he probably won’t get much credit for it from the national media. It’s hard to fathom why he’s not more of a target – -he’s running second in the polls of Iowa caucusgoers. He’s running an attack ad against Gingrich and repeated his claims the former speaker is a hypocrite. Yet, both Perry and Romney praised Paul when asked what they’ve learned from other candidates during this race.

Category: ABC, Debates, Election 2012, Iowa

Comments

82 Responses to “ABC Iowa Debate Reaction Roundup UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin, WTF?”

MrPaulRevere
December 10th, 2011 @ 11:14 pm

“ABC News is scoring this as a victory for Newt Gingrich.” Of course they are, because they know he is a likely loser in the general election. I do find it hard to get enthusiastic about Mitt Romney but I thought he aquitted himself very well. The real winner? Rick Santorum who was very articulate and forceful and at 53 is now an almost stone cold lock for VP.
smitty
December 10th, 2011 @ 11:17 pm

Olt Romney, we hardly knew ye. . .
Steve in TN
December 10th, 2011 @ 11:20 pm

So Bachmann is doubling down on going full retard, I see.
Anonymous
December 10th, 2011 @ 11:37 pm

It’s the Gardasil what did it.
Dcmick
December 10th, 2011 @ 11:50 pm

For the only woman on the stage to close the evening praising in some fulsome fashion Cain, who saw his candidacy blown up when it was revealed he didn’t disclose to his wife that he was paying hush money, and all the while she’s constantly patting herself on the back as the sole and principled conservative on the stage, ———————– surreal!

Just surreal.

And I actually considered supporting her when this whole nomination process commenced. Glad I never jumped on her bandwagon.
Dcmick
December 10th, 2011 @ 11:53 pm

Please!

It was clear to all that Romney was tight the entire evening and never got into his rhythm. Six years of endless labour, with his entire family devoted to doing all they could to secure the nomination, and he’s further away now than when he began.

It isn’t slipping away form him anymore, after tonight it’s gone.

Gone.

Just gone.

We’re more likely to see Santorum make a run than we are to see Romney return to the frontrunner spot.

Amazing.

And the more the evening went on, the MORE confident Gingrich became.
Garym
December 10th, 2011 @ 11:58 pm

In other news, you are a racist if you support Newt. So sayeth Glen Beck.
MrPaulRevere
December 11th, 2011 @ 12:04 am

I would respectfully suggest that an individual of your intellectual gifts avoid all bandwagons.
Anonymous
December 11th, 2011 @ 12:15 am

Bachmann won by winning, and Newt won by not losing.

Santorum never broke out at all. He didn’t hurt himself, but he just didn’t land any big punches.

Romney completely cratered, so much so that no one noticed Perry stomping all over his own testicles at every opportunity.
Dcmick
December 11th, 2011 @ 12:17 am

A wise suggestion……..
Dcmick
December 11th, 2011 @ 12:21 am

Another one who has gone bonkers.

The other day Beck tried to artificially maneuver Gingrich into his Progressive/non-Progressive box, and received a tutorial from a well-read historian on an issue that Beck has only a passing understanding of.

There was a great deal more to TR than Beck appreciates, or is willing to appreciate. And saying so doesn’t mean you’re a lock to vote for Obama. Only Beck with his customary taste for the hyperbolic would even suggest as much.

Just another bizarre moment in recent American politics.

Why can’t Beck just educate people on the logical drift of Progressivism and Progressive politicians, without all the drama and without the overearnestness?

It’s like he’s some little Greenwich Village drama queen…………..
Dcmick
December 11th, 2011 @ 12:27 am

To the contrary, Gingrich won by demonstrating to the rank and file that he can hang and bang without losing his cool, which means he’s ready to take his game to the next level.

Romney on the other hand demonstrated that he’s apt to choke in the clutch; ———– I actually felt bad for the guy, so much effort, so much emotional investment, and for what, to glorify himself, so that he could have the Mitt Romney Presidential Library?

Perry wanted to convey decent points but was hobbled by this thing that he has only a remote command of, that thing is popularly known as the English language.

Bachmann once again demonstrated her willingness to go after her opponents. Earlier in the debate she questioned Gingrich with the marital problems, then ended up her debate with a weird, really, really weird praise of Cain, whose entire candidacy blew up with his extramarital behavior.

Santorum may have helped himself, but how can he get any movement without money to advance his candidacy, to advance his message and to segue off his debate performance. How can he gain real movement in less than 25 days? And a good seven days thereof won’t be really worth the while for the candidates because of the Christmas and New Year celebrations.
MrPaulRevere
December 11th, 2011 @ 12:33 am

“Romney completely cratered” ? I take it that you are not a Romney fan which is fair enough. I saw a man who realized his future is on the line and decided to punch back. At this point conservatives are faced with a cold calculation; who is most likely to defeat Obama?
ThePaganTemple
December 11th, 2011 @ 12:33 am

That ten thousand dollar bet Mitt made to Perry might have been the most exciting thing Mitt said during all the debates.
ThePaganTemple
December 11th, 2011 @ 12:37 am

Looks to me like Perry and Mitt are making a play for the Ron Paul pod people. Let’s face it, they could be a factor in the general election if somebody can get them on their side. That’s why I said any candidate would be well advised to think seriously about offering the VP slot to Rand Paul. It wouldn’t make any difference as far as winning Kentucky of course, but it could make a difference in other states where the Tard vote is a factor.
Dianna Deeley
December 11th, 2011 @ 12:49 am

I’m in the Pretty Much Anybody Who Is NOT Mitt Romney camp. Really, it’s scaring me that Romney might end up the nominee.
ThePaganTemple
December 11th, 2011 @ 12:49 am

By the way, newsflash to Santorum and Romney both. We give Israel billions of dollars in aid, and we are criticized roundly for that, not just by Muslims, but all over the world, including by our allies, and our people are attacked on a regular basis in part because of this. So yes by God any American whether politician like Gingrich, or private citizen like me, has the right to offer an opinion on what he thinks about the legitimacy or otherwise of the Palestinians, or any other damn thing to do with the matter.
Dianna Deeley
December 11th, 2011 @ 12:50 am

I find myself – having watched the debate with the sound off but close-captioning on – wondering if Diane Sawyer is under medical supervision tonight. That was, frankly, bizarre. I don’t know that she was drunk, but it sure read that way.
Dai Alanye
December 11th, 2011 @ 12:52 am

My views as sent to various family members:

Gingrich, as always, is quite crafty and effective in giving applause lines. I’m getting sick of his manuevering, however, and he needs to be called on his donning the mantle of “historian” like a sort of Cloak of Invisibility or Tarnkappe, whenever he needs to hide from a mistatement. -1

Romney might have had his best debate, although he still seems a bit robotic. +1

Paul got away scot free, with the others rarely attacking or even disagreeing with him, the weasel. +2

Bachmann also got off easily, and has now come out with still another cheer: Win, win, win! One term president! Go team, go! Blah, blah, blah! even

Perry did better than in any previous, sounding somewhat less of a dumb hick than usual. +1

Santorum mostly did well, with only a few mistakes — but among them, unfortunately, his closing remarks. Elections are about the future, not the past, and winning in Pennsylvania doesn’t directly translate into defeating the half-blood prince. +2 [I hope.]

Diane Sawyer was the most weird person in the auditorium, her voice cadenced in some bizarre manner as she attempted to lecture us all on how imPORtant to aMERica tonight’s deBATE was. She was also hung up on numbers like some reincarnation of Howard Cosell. [This holds true even if Cosell still stalks the earth.] -9
George Stephanopolodopolis is a quaint marmoset, but being next to Sawyer he managed to come across well by comparison. +1

The audience refrained from making complete fools of themselves, and even booed Gingrich during an underhanded attack on Romney. +3
MrPaulRevere
December 11th, 2011 @ 12:52 am

Umm, I’m not quite sure why Rubin is being bashed, maybe its just me: Rick Santorum had his best debate of the election cycle. He was more at ease, gentle in tweaking his opponents and solid on reiterating his background as a consistent conservative on Iran and healthcare. In talking about his humble beginnings he went to his strong suit — emphasizing the importance of an in tact family. And in speaking on the infidelity issue he was impressively restrained, pointing out the role of redemption.
Dianna Deeley
December 11th, 2011 @ 12:54 am

What?! The?! Heck?! are you talking about? Paul-pod people do not necessarily regard Rand Paul as the Ronulan heir (far from it!), and the sane of all persuasions have Rand Paul – perhaps unfairly – under hawk-like scrutiny for signs of incipient insanity!
Adjoran
December 11th, 2011 @ 12:56 am

Gingrich never ends well.

Better than Obama, by far, of course, and worthy of support if he wins the nomination, but a very flawed candidate by his very nature.
CO
December 11th, 2011 @ 1:04 am

Rick is a Party man, it won’t be Rick Santorum

Under Rick Perry’s administration in Texas one million jobs were created while the nation lost two million jobs.
Rick Perry knows how to get the job done.
Nobody’s done it better.
MrPaulRevere
December 11th, 2011 @ 1:07 am

I find it endlessly fascinating that folks who crap on Romney now were his biggest cheerleaders in 2008. I’ll name names: Mark Levin, Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh.
Anonymous
December 11th, 2011 @ 1:15 am

Romney is not my first choice, but he could show up to a debate in a tommy bahama shirt and flipflops, do two rails of blow from Bachman’s rack, and I would still vote for him before Newt. I think Gingrich’s support is a house of cards. Romney is not who I ideally want, but i do have the utmost respect for him as a human being, and someone who wants what is good for this country. If ultimately he wins the nomination, I can vote for him in full confidence he is a good choice.
Dianna Deeley
December 11th, 2011 @ 1:26 am

Yes, but he has entirely allowed his message and campaign to be co-opted by the media’s “He’s a Texas governor, and therefore an idiot” story. Worse, he keeps making it worse and I’m in despair for him, short of a miracle.

Sorry.
Anonymous
December 11th, 2011 @ 1:28 am

Newt was awful, and Romney didn’t look like his normal presidential self.

Bachmann was terrific. Santorum would be better at POTUS, but his campaign should be taking notes from her performance ….she kept it simple…..NewtRomney…LOL….
Dcmick
December 11th, 2011 @ 1:43 am

“At this point…?” Republicans have always been confronted with the decision of how to defeat Obama and overturn his baleful legacy. Nothing new in that, nor is that something “fac[ing]” Republicans now more than it “face[d]” them two years ago.

You think Romney’s “future is on the line.”

What does it mean to say a multimillionare in his 60’s has his “future” supposedly “on the line.” Is he staring at a soup kitchen in his future or something.

Romney has sought the nomination for six long, long years.

And hasn’t gotten any traction.

The notion that a guy who can’t exceed 23% support in the party is going to go on and win a general is a fantastical proposition out of all accord with political reality. Romney can’t gather the party to him and behind him. Sure, he has managed to eke out some support on the cocktail circuits in Manhattan and DC, but beyond that, the political cloak covering him is threadbare indeed.

Romney needs to stop trying to force a disastrous campaign on a party, and stop trying to use the party as some backdrop on the stage of his life. The Grand Old Party is about a bit more than a platform for the aggrandizement of Mitt Romney and his longstanding desire to be President.
Dcmick
December 11th, 2011 @ 1:46 am

Romney is now done.

You can stick a fork in him. You’re more likely to see the Republican establishment try to force some outside Governor into the race through legal loopholes in the allowable timespan of getting onto state primary ballots than you are to see Romney ever return to frontrunner status.

He’s had his chance to win support, Republicans listened to him, tried to sympathize with him, and simply can’t bring themselves to support him.

Romney is done.

Whatever happens now, one thing is fairly clear after tonight: Romney won’t secure the nomination.

AND HE NOW perceives what has become plainly clear, that the party isn’t going to grant him the nomination.
Dcmick
December 11th, 2011 @ 1:48 am

They weren’t his “biggest cheerleaders,” they were reluctant supporters at best because they understood well the bitterness inside McCain, and understood well that McCain who could bring himself easily to savagely attack his fellow party members, would never have the nerve to go after the guy the media was besotted over.

It was always fear of McCain rather than devotion for Romney.

The party should have gone with Giuliani!
Hugh Hewitt
December 11th, 2011 @ 1:57 am

Jennifer Rubin better stop stealing my act! Back off Jen, Mitt is mine!
Dcmick
December 11th, 2011 @ 1:58 am

A “house of cards?”

Can you identify what battle against a powerful liberal media and powerful liberal culture that Romney EVER participated in?

Or in other words, where did Mitt Romney make his bones for Conservatives?

In the mob there’s a moment for a wannabe where he has to cross the threshold, where he has to demonstrate his full fledged determination to prove himself equal to the criminals in the organization.

Well, for Republicans, where has Romney crossed the threshold taking on a liberal media.

Where was Romney against HILLARY CARE?

Or welfare reform?

Or more recently, where was Romney on “the surge” in Iraq?

The list of possibilities is endless. Gingrich has participated in multiple battles and received the scars from victories and defeats, which reflects the ebb and the flow of political realities.

But what of Romney?

Well we’re told that Romney has a decent marriage………………..

Yea, and the point being?

And then we’re told that Romney has a great family………

And the point thereof?

Romney’s domestic bliss is effectively irrelevant in this 21st century drama afflicting Uncle Sam.

The fact that the only thing that the establishment has to throw forward in support of the Romney candidacy is his family life is EVIDENCE of the fact that Romney has failed, FAILED to make his bones with Conservatives and Republicans, DESPITE AMPLE OCCASIONS to do so.
Dcmick
December 11th, 2011 @ 2:04 am

And the most bizarre.

For supposedly the guy we were assured, endlessly told was the most “steady,” “reliable” “trustworthy” and “dependable” of political candidates, who would never falter on the political stage, for him to come out noticeably tight, noticeably discomfited, noticeably on the defensive, noticeably off his stride, was but more evidence that just about everything the establishment has told us about Romney is not factual.

His supposed political skills were supposedly his strongest suit, but after his performance tonight in the clutch, his inability to really go after Gingrich, his preference for allowing surrogates to do his dirty work, his tightening up when the pressure was on, ————————————- how can Republicans rely on this guy not to tighten up in October of next year, when the pressure will be sky high.

Gingrich by contrast was enjoying himself.

This thing is over.

That’s just the way it is.
Hugh Hewitt
December 11th, 2011 @ 2:06 am

And Newt, you leave Mitt alone!
Hugh Hewitt
December 11th, 2011 @ 2:13 am

You are obviously a listener of my show. Keep the Romney faith!
Dcmick
December 11th, 2011 @ 2:14 am

He ended as “Speaker of the House,” and when he began his career in politics, who ever thought that a Republican would EVER reach such a level?

You’re taking that Speakership as if it were something easily acquired.

When it wasn’t.

Welfare reform? Who forced that through, who forced Clinton to sign what he had twice vetoed? The guy you said doesn’t “end well.”

There’s too much political unawareness in that comment for me to really respond to, for it would take me to recommend a book list of recent political history for you to read to rectify.

Suffice it to say you’re repeating soundbites crafted by Democrats and repeated by a Republican establishment that both desire Gingrich on teh sidelines, not in a position of power to change how things are done in Washington.
Hugh Hewitt
December 11th, 2011 @ 2:14 am

Yes, Yes, Yes. Only I am loyal.
Hugh Hewitt
December 11th, 2011 @ 2:16 am

Stop lying!
Dcmick
December 11th, 2011 @ 2:17 am

Well, as far as that idiot thing goes, ————- if there was a guy who tried to play to type with an existing stereotype, than that man would be Rick Perry.

Perry’s unequal to the nomination, the questions, the debates, the office.

He needs to leave promptly, so that we can use what little time is left zeroing in on Gingrich, challenging him and forcing him to up his game to the next level.

Romney is going to use his own wealth to artificially breath life into a campaign that is now dead, and that donors are going to start walking away from. Just as in 2008.
Dcmick
December 11th, 2011 @ 2:19 am

“[A]wful?”

Newt was facing the prospect of unrelenting attack going in, had his marital record exhumed before the nation, challenged on his health care positions and had his tendency for blunt speech questioned as well.

He responded calmly.

Didn’t lose his cool.

People who think Newt didn’t ace the thing haven’t a clue what it’s like to be anything remotely like that situation.
Anonymous
December 11th, 2011 @ 2:20 am

It isn’t about what Romney is or isn’t, its about what newt isn’t, and that is someone I will vote for. He’s not an executive, those closest to him politically decided he was a liability as a leader, he’s exhibited exceptionally selfish behavior his entire life, and here are a couple of other things that I distrust about him: I think he will get bored with the job at times, and and I don’t think he has the energy for it; I suspect he will be a part time president. I also suspect he will think he is special enough that his ideas make big government okay since he is running it, and that is also unacceptable to me. Ill let him off on that since that can’t be proven or disproven. Is Newt smart? Sure. Does he have some interesting ideas? Yeah. Can he debate? Absolutely. Do I trust him as a president? Not a chance. What I said is not an endorsement of Romney, Romney is third in line; it is an indictment of Newt. I also don’t like non-executive politicians; all they do is talk. I will take the worst executive still running over a congressman. The capper for me is that Newt seems so completely fascinated with himself to the point that I dislike his hubris. I have more than enough reasons for not supporting newt.
Dcmick
December 11th, 2011 @ 2:22 am

I wonder how much he got for that book deal………..

30 pieces of silver for Hewitt’s objectivity.
Dcmick
December 11th, 2011 @ 2:26 am

Yea, ——————- but OH THE HUMANITY if we were to have a debate moderated and hosted by Trump, with him selecting the issues, with him asking the questions and the followups.

What a joke!
Dcmick
December 11th, 2011 @ 2:37 am

Not what Romney is or isn’t?

Executive experience?

Liability?

Selfishness?

Aging flake?

Humility?

I’ll answer in that order.

A man is being selected for the nomination, and that selection cannot be made in isolation of the assessment of the alternatives. So when assessing Gingrich’s candidacy, there has to be some place left in that assessment for a weighing of the alternatives. Anything else would be imprudent.

Executive experience? Gingrich quarterbacked the Republican opposition to Clinton’s initial proposed stimulas and health care bills, then quarterbacked the 1994 takeover of the House. There wasn’t a single Republican then alive who could have quarterbacked that Republican team to victory then. Not one.

Liability? As soon as Gingrich took over Democrats began lobbing ethics accusations against him, {at one point over 300 such ethics accusations piled up against him}. Under existing House rules, EACH ETHIC ACCUSATION needed to be investigated, even if groundless. After almost a year of such accusations, and the media dutifully playing their part, there then began this cloud of supposed corruption that attended all things Gingrich. But THIS WAS ALWAYS a Democrat scheme, which proved effective for House Republican allies refused to defend Gingrich.

Aging flake? The idea that a guy with that much fascination for policy would now weary of it is out of all kilter with our understanding of the man himself.
Anonymous
December 11th, 2011 @ 3:11 am

I respectfully request that in the future you pre-evaluate your comments not just for truth, but for the tendency to create images in the reader’s mind, that the reader doesn’t want there, and cannot immediate expel (just as, e.g., a Ghostbuster cannot expel the image of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.)
Anonymous
December 11th, 2011 @ 3:23 am

qbing one big event is not running an administration. performing a great feat isnt managing day to day minutiae required of exec. i am sorry, i dont see the leadership qualities I am looking for; i dont see the moral authority to ask us for sacrifice; i dont see him as an aspirational figure either; i see cruelty; as someone said, the milk of human kindness doesnt run in his veins. if i just wanted someone who is capable and espouses my views, id hold out for trump, but the prez needs to be more, and trump is self-aggrandizing. i see newt as someone with good ideas who is good at debating; i could even see him winning, but i also can see him as a failure at governing. you changed my words about his fascination; i said fascination with himself, and i know what i said. i didnt say aging flake; i suspect that he will become bored and put away the toy and want to move on to other things. i didnt intend to have to say, since others should make up their own minds, but i also suspect he never intended to be in the lead, and was only campaigning to sell books. i cant prove that, but i believe it. newt is fifth place to me; sorry.
K-Bob
December 11th, 2011 @ 3:54 am

True. But then, which candidate isn’t flawed? It’s kind of come to the point where we have to figure out the one with the least number of serious flaws.
K-Bob
December 11th, 2011 @ 4:01 am

You overstate the support for Romney in a contest where the other two competitors were McCain and Huck.

Supporting Romney, even as tepidly as the Conservatives did back then, was the least terrible choice.

We ended up with McCain anyway.

Romney deserves every bit of criticism he’s gotten from the talk-radio folks.

Except ol’ Hugh, of course.
Adjoran
December 11th, 2011 @ 7:12 am

No, he ended resigning from the House because his own Republican had lost all confidence in him and would not have reelected him Speaker.

If you haven’t read the House Ethics Committee Counsel’s report, James Cole was furious at the light hand-slap given Gingrich and detailed the nature of his violations. It’s not sealed, it’s not secret, it’s public record and if you aren’t willing to read it now, just wait until next fall and every media outlet in the country will be reading it to you.
Adjoran
December 11th, 2011 @ 7:17 am

No candidate is perfect. Most aren’t Gingrich-grade imperfect, though.

About

This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

ABC Iowa Debate Reaction Roundup UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin, WTF?

Comments

THE FULL METAL JACKET REACH-AROUND AWARD

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

Search

Recent Posts

RSS reader subscription

MEMEORANDUM

Recent Comments

THE AMAZING GONZO FEED

Major Leagues

Archives

Free Agents

SHAMELESS CAPITALISM

Triple-A Franchises

Blogroll

About

Subscribe to our feed

Search

Admin