January 22, 2012
Jan 22 04:42 South Carolina exposes Mitt's weaknesses Jan 22 05:50 Jennifer Rubin: unhinged Jan 22 06:49 The domination is apparent Jan 22 08:48 Mitt vs. Reality Jan 22 10:51 Joe Paterno, RIP Jan 22 11:25 The GOP Establishment's Fearmongering Jan 22 23:24 TEA Party revivalism vs. Establishmentarian Status Quo
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
South Carolina exposes Mitt's weaknesses
Several things caught my attention tonight about the GOP nomination race going forward. Here's my take on what's happened this week:
1. Mitt has a glass chin. Mitt's great at throwing punches but he's worthless when he's attacked. The "looks presidential" Mitt disappears the minute he's challenged or criticized. Considering the fact that President Obama, the pro-Obama superPACs and his media allies won't play by Marquess of Queensberry rules , this puts Mitt at a significant disadvantage.
ADVANTAGE: President Obama
2. Newt's capable of giving as good as he gets. There's no question but that President Obama, like all narcissists, hates criticism. Similarly, there's no question but that Newt's substantive, issue-based criticisms will rattle President Obama.
There's no reason to think that this advantage is limited to the debates. Newt will criticize President Obama for vetoing the Keystone XL Pipeline project. When Newt accuses President Obama for caving into the militant environmentalists rather than doing what's right for America, Newt will put President Obama on the defensive.
ADVANTAGE: Newt
3. Message and connecting with voters vs. money and organization. Thus far, Mitt's outspent his opponents by a wide margin. He's widely acknowledged as having the best ground game of the 4 left standing, with RP a close second. Thus far, that hasn't translated into victories. In fact, after tonight, it's left more questions unanswered than anything else.
Newt started an online money bomb minutes after being declared the winner of South Carolina's winner. Then there's the well-funded pro-Newt superPAC. Combine that with the visceral connection people fel with Newt during Newt's dressing down of Juan Williams, then strengthened when he eviscerated CNN's John King and you've got the groundwork of an energized nationwide organization.
4. It seems like forever ago but Rick Perry's dropped out. Still, Gov. Perry's dropping out is a big deal, though not for the reasons most pundits and consultants think. I wrote about it here :
It'll be interesting to see the media's reaction to Gov. Perry's endorsement. That said, the biggest thing, in my opinion, is the fact that tons of TEA Party organizations 'from 25 states' will essentially pledge to be Newt's organization in those states. Potentially, the TEA Party's energy is a difference-maker. Look at the difference they made in last year's midterms.
Mitt has a strong organization, he's got a decent message but he doesn't have the TEA Party support, organization and enthusiasm that Newt now has. Newt's a fighter. That's what the TEA Party is about. Fighting for the TEA Party's principles fits Newt's personality. Mitt doesn't have a personality.
ADVANTAGE: Newt
4. Newt's 'attack' on capitalism. Mitt's made it clear that he'll continue to use the line that Newt's attacks on Bain are a full frontal assault on capitalism. Mitt's made clear that he'll try to convince voters that Newt's attacks on capitalism disqualify him as the GOP nominee.
People won't buy into that. Newt's gotten the endorsement of Thomas Sowell, Michael Reagan and Art Laffer, 3 of the most passionate free enterprise, supply-side proponents of the past 30 years. Good luck selling that. Which leads to point 5.
5. Mitt's attacks aren't powerful. Mitt's attacks are more vindictive and petty than powerful. Think jabs, not uppercuts and haymakers. When Mitt's tried zinging people, especially Newt and Rick Santorum, they've dusted themselves off, then returned a solid left to the jaw.
Think Mitt's saying that Romneycare was a great exercise in free market capitalism . Here's Santorum's response:
Ninety-two percent of people did have health insurance in - in Massachusetts. But that wasn't private-sector health insurance. A lot of those people were, as you know, on Medicare and Medicaid. So they're already on government insurance, and you just expanded.
In fact, over half the people that came on the rolls since you put Romneycare into effect are fully subsidized by the state of Massachusetts. And a lot of those are on the Medicaid program.
So the idea that you have created this marketplace in, with this government-run health care system, where you have very prescriptive programs about reimbursements rates. You have very prescriptive programs just like what President Obama is trying to put in place here.
Mitt tried his best to ward off Santorum's accusations. In the end, they didn't faze Sen. Santorum.
Non-DC-based GOP activists want someone who hits hard and whose opponents stay down. That isn't Mitt.
ADVANTAGE: NEWT
6. Capturing the moment, seizing the opportunity. Newt's ability to seize a moment is the best I've ever seen. It's instinctive but it's more than that. It's a result of knowing the issues cold, combined with his quick wit, that seperates him from the rest.
The bottom line is that Newt's proven, time and again, that he's quick to spot an opportunity, then capitalize on it. Mitt has many solid qualities but that isn't one of them.
There's alot of primaries and caucuses still ahead. The things that must be troubling Mitt's advisors is that Mitt's weaknesses are getting exposed. Early on, Mitt's weaknesses weren't exposed, mostly because the storyline from debates was that "nobody laid a glove on Mitt."
That's nice but those 'nobody laid a glove on Mitt' days are ancient history. They aren't returning either.
Tags: Debates , Newt Gingrich , Mitt Romney , Rick Perry , TEA Party , Activism , GOTV , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 4:42 AM
No comments.
Jennifer Rubin: unhinged
If anything is undeniable, it's that Jennifer Rubin is a) infatuated with Mitt the candidate and b) unhinged when talking about Newt Gingrich. Rubin's latest post proves my point perfectly:
Newt Gingrich looked weirdly morose for much of his speech. He rambled along with some thanks, then said some nice things about his opponents and no surprise, took after the media and disagreeable judges, whom he deemed 'religious bigots.' He said, 'no, I'm not a great debater - no, really - I'm not.' And then with Newtonian arrogance, he declared, 'I just articulate the deepest-held values of the American people.' Of course, he hawked his idea of Lincoln-Douglas debates. (Even to supporters, doesn't this sound loony?)
Then on to some more substantive matters, he pledged to streamline the government and rapped President Obama for delaying the Keystone XL Pipeline. In there was something about the Army Corps of Engineers and a dig about Obama not being able to play tic-tac-toe, let alone checkers or chess. He resorted to his 'president of food stamps vs. president of paychecks.' It was too long, too, lacking in substance and incoherent. It was, compared to Santorum's Iowa speech and Mitt Romney's New Hampshire speech, oddly lame. It was not the speech of a frontrunner or of someone who seems to be actually trying to put together a winning presidential campaign.
First, in terms of substance, Newt talked about how there were "$29,000,000,000 worth of natural gas off South Carolina's shore" that would produce jobs that, "in Louisiana, pay $80,000 a year." Then Newt talked about the royalties from natural gas exploration and harvesting that should be used to modernize the port of Charleston. Then Newt mentioned that "1 in 5 jobs in South Carolina are tied" to that port.
Apparently, that was too much for Ms. Rubin to pay attention to in between hourly worshiping Mitt.
As for Ms. Rubin's questioning Newt's 'line' that he'll challenge President Obama to 7, 3-hr. Lincoln-Douglas style debates, I'll give a simple answer: with Newt being the best debater of my lifetime, why wouldn't you want to exploit President Obama's multitude of weaknesses in debates?
While it's true that President Obama likely won't agree to those debates, it's equally true that Newt wins either way. If President Obama doesn't agree, then Newt follows Air Force One from campaign stop to campaign stop, then offering a forceful rebuttal.
For Newt, it's a win-win situation. Why wouldn't you exploit that situation?
Frankly, it is very hard to understand how Gingrich's 'message' (more like a Google thought cloud: 'boo elites, religious bigots, food stamps') won in South Carolina. Floridians may be confused as well. Santorum and Romney should be heartened. They are running against a candidate who seems uncomfortable with victory and with no definable message beyond 'the elites hate America.' As Santorum put it in Iowa, game on.
Actually, Newt's win isn't difficult to understand if you've spent time outside the DC echochamber. Newt showed a willingness, even a propensity, for fighting for conservative principles. Part of that fight was destroying the media's false premises. Newt didn't just destroy the premises. He did it with ease and without malice towards Juan Williams or John King.
Newt also had plenty of South Carolina-specific solutions. Opening up the natural gas off South Carolina's shores would be an economic boost in a state that's struggling. Using part of the royalties from that natural gas to fix Charleston's port makes sense to South Carolinians.
While that might not make sense to the Jennifer Rubins of the world, it does to people beyond the Beltway. At the end of the day, that's what matters because there's alot more wisdom outside DC's Beltway than inside it.
Apparently, South Carolinians think differently than Ms. Rubin.
UPDATE: Mark Levin's had enough of Jennifer Rubin:
Who the hell is Jennifer Rubin and how did she become a supposed authority on conservatives and conservatism?Tags: Elitists , Media Bias , Jennifer Rubin , Agenda Media , Driveby Media , Washington DC , South Carolina , Natural Gas , Charleston , Port , GOP , Election 2012
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/21/wapos-jennifer-rubin-not-happy-about-newt-win-romney-defeat-in-sc/
Has she written something profoundly important for the conservative movement or to advance conservatism some time in the past? Has she been involved in any conservative campaign or cause? Has she contributed something substantive or even interesting to the conservative movement or to the current debate? I am no expert on this person, but she appears to have been anointed a conservative thought-leader by the Washington Post when, in fact, she is no such thing. Indeed, as best I can tell, this is her fairly recent resume:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2011/04/epicfail-wapos-conservative-jennifer-rubin-liberal-democrat-berkeley-grad.html
Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 9:57 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 22-Jan-12 06:43 AM
So, who's taking Florida?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Jan-12 06:59 AM
Until I know how the early voting is going, I can't tell definitively. I'll just say this: If Mitt doesn't have a big cushion in early voting, Newt will, at minimum, give him a scare.
Comment 2 by LadyLogician at 22-Jan-12 05:23 PM
I don't know if you saw this on Twitter, but Rubin put up a really catty post during Gingrich's speech last night. Ed Henry posted "Newt's old teleprompter joke: Callista nods approvingly, on cue, every time" to which Rubin replied "newt has her trained with one of those clickers". Because God knows NO political wife has ever done that in the past.....
LL
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Jan-12 07:25 PM
I didn't see Ms. Rubin's tweet so thanx. She's as disgusting & devoid of character as any DC journalist, including Eugene Robinson.
The domination is apparent
It isn't just that Newt defeated Mitt Romney and thrashed Sen. Santorum. It's that, according to this map , Newt's domination of South Carolina was complete.
Of the 46 counties, Newt won 43, Mitt 3. In fact, in most counties, Newt tripled or quadrupled up Sen. Santorum while doubling up Mitt's totals.
For instance, Edgefield County, directly west of Columbia, was Newt's best county. Newt got 60.3%, with Mitt coming in a distant second with 18.5% and Sen. Santorum with 11.8%.
That's domination.
Union County, southwest of Charlotte, NC, was another major triumph for Newt, giving him 45.5% of the vote, with Sen. Santorum finishing a distant second with 19.5%.
Of the 3 counties that Newt didn't win, he lost to Mitt by margins of 5.9%, 7.7% and 3.4%.
What that means is that Newt won majorities of evangelical voters, national security voters and industrialist/economic conservatives. That's the old Reagan coalition.
It's just one state but it'll be interesting to see whether Newt can repeat that coalition elsewhere. If he does, then that eliminates the 'Newt isn't electable' argument.
Van Hipp made the case for Newt's triumph in this op-ed :
Newt Gingrich's South Carolina State co-chairman John Napier knew the 'Gingrich surge' was real last Sunday afternoon. Napier, a former U.S. Congressman and retired Federal Judge, pulled into the parking lot of the Land's End Restaurant in Georgetown, S.C. for a Gingrich event expected to draw 25-30 people. Instead, over 350 people showed up before others had to be turned away. Napier said, 'There were people there we hadn't seen since Reagan ran.' Napier should now. He was swept into Congress from a rural district in SC in 1980 on the coattails of the Reagan Revolution.
The latest scuttlebutt from last night's punditry was that "Mitt can't close the deal with conservatives." If I got a Franklin for each time I heard or read that phrase last night, there'd be a big smile on Gary's face. (Not to mention additional padding in Gary's wallet.)
I wouldn't put too much into that scuttlebutt just yet but Mitt struggled with that in his first run. People have seen Mitt on all three sides of a two-sided issue too often to accept his bromides as gospel fact.
Conversely, Newt's ability to attract big crowds in small towns and rural communities is worth noting. According to Wikipedia , Georgetown, SC had a population of 8,900 in the 2000 census. Interestingly, Mitt's biggest difficulties are with small town folk and lower income earners. This chart is indicative:
With the Midwest looming, Mitt needs to close the deal with that demographic group. If Mitt doesn't, his best outcom is limping across the finish line. That isn't the traditional mark of a frontrunner.
Tags: South Carolina Primary , Mitt Romney , Newt Gingrich , Domination , Demographics , Edgefield County , Union County , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 6:49 AM
No comments.
Mitt vs. Reality
At the tail end of Mitt's interview with FNS's Chris Wallace, Mitt told 2 whoppers that need to be slapped down hard.
First, he said that Newt Gingrich "has never worked in the private sector." Next, he said that Newt was a lobbyist.
Earlier in the interview, Chris Wallace asked Mitt if he was going to make character an issue. Mitt confirmed that that's part of his plan, saying that people need to know that the person making the promises will keep his promises.
I can't argue that character is confirmed by keeping one's promises. That isn't the only way of confirming a man's character. Telling whoppers that are verifiably false is a great way of losing credibility on the character issue.
These whoppers aren't automatic disqualifiers for the presidency but they won't help Mitt connect with voters. In fact, it'll hurt him amongst the significant block of GOP primary voters who think he's a flip-flopper.
Right now, Mitt Romney is acting too often like a bitter man. That's been visible since the ABC debate after getting asked the questions about whether states have the right to ban gay marriage. Since then, Mitt's been a grump.
There's still 47 states that haven't cast their votes so there's time for Mitt to change. Still, it's imperative that he gets that fixed ASAP. If he doesn't, his campaign could take on alot of water.
Tags: Spin , Credibility , Mitt Romney , Flip-Flopper , Interview , Chris Wallace , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 8:48 AM
Comment 1 by LadyLogician at 22-Jan-12 05:15 PM
Ummmm, Mitt.....the lobbying firm that you have been hammering Newt for being a part of WAS HIS BUSINESS. Or did you miss that little fact....
LL
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Jan-12 07:23 PM
LL, Of course Mitt didn't not notice. It's that he valued cheapshotting Newt more than he valued the truth. That's what real men of character do, isn't it?
Joe Paterno, RIP
It's sad that one of the great college football coaches, Joe Paterno, died this morning of cancer. He was 85:
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) - Joe Paterno, the longtime Penn State coach who won more games than anyone in major college football but was fired amid a child sex abuse scandal that scarred his reputation for winning with integrity, died Sunday. He was 85.
His family released a statement Sunday morning to announce his death: "His loss leaves a void in our lives that will never be filled."
"He died as he lived," the statement said. "He fought hard until the end, stayed positive, thought only of others and constantly reminded everyone of how blessed his life had been. His ambitions were far reaching, but he never believed he had to leave this Happy Valley to achieve them. He was a man devoted to his family, his university, his players and his community."
It's true that the last months of his life were filled with scandal. Unfortunately, that's part of Joe Pa's legacy. Still, it'd be wrong to not balance that lapse of judgment against the students' lives he strengthened.
For years, Joe Pa's graduation rate far outdistanced other elite college coaches of all sports, with the exception of Coach K and John Wooden. It'd be a shame to lose sight of that.
Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 10:51 AM
Comment 1 by LadyLogician at 22-Jan-12 05:19 PM
The Paterno family is, through the Logical Husband's Aunt and Uncle, an extension of the Logical Family. The LH's Uncle is a retired professor of engineer at PSU and friends and neighbors with the Paterno family. We had no doubt that this scandal would literally kill JoePa.
LL
Comment 2 by eric z at 22-Jan-12 07:43 PM
It is apparent now why he wanted to finish the season as head coach.
The GOP Establishment's Fearmongering
Now that Mitt's inevitability mirage has been burst, the DC GOP establishment is engaged in a panicked, coordinated fearmongering attack. Thomas DeFrank's op-ed is the poster child for that fearmongering:
WASHINGTON - South Carolina's rebellious Republicans rewarded an improbable, against-the-grain victor - but he wasn't even on the ballot.
Mitt Romney's disastrous tax meltdown, coupled with Newt Gingrich's adroit bellicosity, media-baiting and Washington-bashing, have campaign strategists smiling this weekend in the Chicago headquarters of the Democratic nominee.
'The winner in South Carolina was Barack Obama,' a prominent Republican strategist glumly volunteered. 'This plays perfectly into his hands. We've prolonged the process, and that's good news for the President.'
The GOP idiots in DC started parroting that line last night. The truth is, the DC GOP establishment has already shown their hand. It isn't a pretty sight:
So look for more party leaders currently 'neutral-for-Romney' to get off the fence to inoculate against a Gingrich surge.
'Newt means losing 45 states,' a Mitt-leaning GOPer told the Daily News. 'It would be a catastrophe for the country.'
Do these idiots think we're that gullible? Losing 45 states is quite a feat. Only Walter Mondale has accomplished that.
Do these DC idiots think that Newt wouldn't sweep the southeastern states? Do they think he wouldn't win the Heartland? The only way the Midwest, the Heartland and the South don't go GOP is if there's unprecedented voter fraud in each state in those three regions.
Let's look at Mitt's solutions. Most involve playing the class warfare card or they're utterly timid. At a time when animating the TEA Party is essential, Mitt's doing his best to lull them to sleep, both for the primaries and the general election.
Note to Mitt: The last time we had a candidate who ran a general election campaign throughout the primaries was 2008. That didn't turn out well. If you don't engage the base, you'll get smoked as badly as Sen. McCain did.
Legal Insurrection is all over this topic in this post . Be sure to read it because it exposes the fearmongers.
Tags: Establishment , Fearmongers , Mitt Romney , John McCain , Bob Dole , Paranoia , DC , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 11:25 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 22-Jan-12 06:11 PM
I think the last thing the GOP needs is to wrap this up quickly, because it allows the Obamamedia to concentrate their fire on a single candidate. Make them destroy all the candidates, as they are doing their best to do, and then have it exhausted by the time of the convention. Of course, only Gingrich seems uniquely positioned to not only hold Big Media at bay but even use them as a foil to gain victory, as in SC yesterday.
Comment 2 by eric z at 22-Jan-12 07:41 PM
I don't know if they - the GOP - can lose 45 states, but I would enjoy seeing them try. Will there be money for the GOP in Minnesota for this election? Will that big giant hole be a problem? Hire a lawyer or two to fix it - to do a recount, of the cash?
Anyway, the circus moves to Florida. I bet nobody dumps on Social Security entitlements, in Florida. Immigration? Not a likely issue this Florida cycle. So, talk about Romney's taxes and Gingrich's ethics hearing anniversary. His extramarital lifestyle. Yawn.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 22-Jan-12 11:27 PM
Actually, I saw polling a couple months back showing that FL seniors favored SS & Medicare reform.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 23-Jan-12 09:19 AM
Unfortunately, Myth and Noot ARE the GOP establishment, in nearly equal measure.
Though at least, thank God, Noot isn't Romney. Our cleanest dirty shirt.
TEA Party revivalism vs. Establishmentarian Status Quo
Steve Schmidt is only one of the GOP Establishment's voices expressing their paranoia at the thought of Newt Gingrich being the GOP nominee. It's time that these out-of-touch morons took a trip beyond DC's ivory towers and got a feel for what's happening in the real world.
The Establishment is consistently telling the activists that we've got to do things their way, that the activists essentially don't know how to read their districts, their states.
The Establishment's 'wisdom' brought us President Obama and Speaker Pelosi. It almost bought us Charlie Crist. Thank God the activists have risen up through the TEA Party and changed America.
Was it the GOP Establishment the driving force behind the stunning midterm repudiation of this administration, that swept fresh, conservative blood into state legislatures and that increased the number of GOP House members by 63 in 2010?
Of course it wasn't.
Now the elitist Establishmentarians are back, telling the activists that they know what's best. That's what they told us in 2008, too. That didn't work out well, did it? Not only did we lose the White House but the elitist Establishment's milquetoast candidate cost us the ability to filibuster Obamacare.
Now there's a new poll out showing Newt jumping into the lead in Florida :
In the most recent 2012FloridaPrimary.com poll, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich got the big bump he needed from his victory in South Carlina and moved from his 19% to first place with 29%. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney picked up 2% of the undecided and came in second with 25%. Former Senator Rick Santorum ticked up a point finishing in third with 15%. Ron Paul, who intends to bypass the Florida Primary still polled at 7%.
With the 'Undecided' still at 23%, the fact remains anyone can still win in the winner-take-all Florida Primary.
Poll Results:
Newt Gingrich 29%
Mitt Romney 25%
Undecided 23%
Rick Santorum 16%
Ron Paul 7%
The sample size is only 300, which makes its predictive value less than optimal. That said, it's screened for likely GOP Primary voters, which increases its predictive value a little.
If the Establishment wants to hurt Mitt Romney's chances of winning the nomination, they should keep doing what they're doing. Activists will see this for what it is: a win-win situation. We'd get rid of the parasites in the GOP establishment while getting rid of a GOP progressive like Mitt.
Trading a radical, Alinskyite progressive for a moderate progressive is a trade up but it isn't what this nation needs.
What's embarassing is that Little Annie Coulter wrote frequently how a Mitt candidacy was doomed for failure. Now she's doing her best Mitt impression by flip-flopping and declaring that Mitt's the only electable candidate in the race.
What's worse is that, from high atop Little Annie's ivory tower, Little Annie is questioning the decision that the people of South Carolina made Saturday.
It's long established history that questioning the will of the people is what progressives do. That's what they do because they know what's best for everyone. That's what Little Annie Coulter, Jennifer Rubin, Steve Schmidt and others are doing. It wouldn't be surprising if that's what Mitt's doing behind closed doors.
After all, he'd checked all the right boxes. He'd said the right things, at least often enough to pass for a conservative. The bad news is that the activists aren't satisfied with milquetoast, spineless politicians like Mitt.
That's proven out by this Insider Advantage poll taken today:
Gingrich 34.4%
Romney 25.6%
Paul 13.1%
Santorum 10.7%
Unlike the earlier poll, this sample size is more than ample, sampling 557 likely voters.
It's time for the Establishment to stop pouting and start supporting Newt Gingrich. Issue-wise, he's where the nation is. Temperament-wise, he's got the nation pegged, too.
Let's remember that Reagan trailed Carter by 30 points at this point in the race. Let's remember that Dukakis led Bush the Elder by almost 20 points in August, 1988. Those races were won handily because their messages resonated with the people.
Do Establishmentarians think that Newt can't win when he's outlining his ideas for modernizing the port of Charleston or harvesting the $29,000,000,000 worth of natural gas off South Carolina's shores?
Do Establishmentarians think that Newt can't win after giving the best explanation of conservatism in 20 years during his dressing down of Juan Williams?
Actually, I'm betting that they do think that because they don't believe in conservatism. The Establishment aren't conservatives. They're just control freaks who are marginally better than the command-and-control progressives in the other party.
This is a fight for the great awakening ushered in by the TEA Party revival parties. That great awakening is what's right with America. Establishment Republicanism won't get it done.
Tags: GOP Establishment , Mitt Romney , John McCain , Steve Schmidt , Bob Dole , Ann Coulter , S.E. Cupp , Jennifer Rubin , Snobs , Elitists , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012 11:24 PM
No comments.
