Your Morning Newt Basket

December 6th, 2011 at 7:58 am David Frum | 99 Comments |

| Print

John Podhoretz on Gingrich in the New York Post today. “[Republican primary voters] know him mainly from Fox News.”

From a funny story in Politico that I missed while traveling: “He’s going to blow up at some point, and I’m just hoping it comes before he gets the nomination,” said one unaligned Republican insider, who has worked with presidential campaigns before. “I’m waiting for him to say, ‘Literally, I’m the smartest guy to ever run for president,’ “

The Washington Post plays with Republicans’ heads, writes a story suggesting that Newt Gingrich “does not carry Wall Street baggage” and might succeed at “chipping away President Obama’s support among Hispanics.”

Recent Posts by David Frum



99 Comments so far ↓

  • Oldskool

    One pundit said he doesn’t have to keep from imploding for six months, he needs to not implode for six weeks. Fingers crossed.

  • armstp

    Do you think he blows up first because of his penis or because of his cronyism or because of his lack of empathy for anyone who does not make a million dollars a year?

    • overshoot

      Newt is the perfect candidate: those are all advantages in today’s POG.

  • TJ Parker

    He’s the candidate that this GOP deserves. Power on, Knut!

    Hey, Knut: ya know, if you actually read the New Testament, you’d see that to be forgiven of your adultery you’d actually have to go back to your first wife: she’s your only legitimate wife, in the eyes of Jesus.

  • ottovbvs

    Oh Boy, the Republican establishment is starting to panic. 75% of Republicans don’t want their boy Romney (50% clearly loathe him) and the Anyone But Romney is cresting only a month before the first primary which he’ll probably win along with several others right after. A columnist in this morning’s NYT makes the interesting point that when it comes to Newt Republicans “Have grown accustomed to his face.” They basically know all the bad stuff about him and many of them still prefer him to Romney. The Republican establishment has reason to panic. He’s still a bit of a longshot but the odds have shortened dramatically.

    • nhthinker

      On another thread today, you quote a poll that indicates 54% of Republicans view Romney as an acceptable candidate.

      Please give us your imaginary citation for the 50% that “clearly loathe him”.

      Tossing around made up percentages is clearly bush league- even for you.

      That darn Gallup organization preventing liberals from being content with their fabricated statistics!

  • Stewardship

    The only thing he hasn’t taken credit for is inventing the Internet.

    Just caught a bit of Scarborough this morning. He and the reporters around the table claim first hand knowledge that the big Republican money is scrambling to find a path away from Romney and Gingrich. Perhaps that’s why we’re seeing all the conservative ink on Huntsman over the past week.

    • ottovbvs

      “the big Republican money is scrambling to find a path away from Romney and Gingrich. ”

      Starting to panic that the Romney dike won’t hold back the tide of tea? I have to believe a lot of money is actually starting to flow towards Gingrich now he’s emerging as the ABR.

      • radish2

        Morning Joe today said that is not yet true, that his “big” ad buy in Iowa is $220,000 over two weeks. Expectation that some big donors will start making up the difference with unlimited superpac contributions.

        • ottovbvs

          There was a story in yesterdays NYT saying his fundraising had dramatically improved and theres a story in today’s NYT about him reaching out to big donors.

    • tommyudo

      Big GOP money for ad buys may have some effect in a general election. Ads are made to get to the swing and low info voter. In these primaries, it’s a hard Right voter that is involved. Misleading ads aren’t going to sway them. For guys like Willard there are only two kinds of people – himself and the “help.” It shines through every time he appears in public. There is no “there, there”. The MSM media was almost unanimous in annointing Willard about a week or so ago, because he was up against a pack of mutants (Huntsman is irrelevant to the discussion), but now they are wobbling.
      Gingrich’s judgment is most manifestly evident in the third wife he picked. She looks like an albino android, who is in terrible need of a butch cut – just hideous.

  • radish2

    Am wavering between horror at the prospect of Newt as close to the presidency as the nomination, and – as a Democrat – peals of laughter at the thought of the currently befogged electorate waking up next summer and fall and discovering what their choices are.

  • medinnus

    The hag Nancy Pelosi was on the committee which admonished Newt for ethics violations when he was in the House. Small wonder the Democrats are chuckling with glee – she’s already done the opposition research, under Congressional authority.

    • ottovbvs

      “The hag Nancy Pelosi”

      Why is Pelosi a hag. She’s a grandma, married to a wealthy CA real estate developer, who comes from an old Baltimore political family. As far as I can see she’s no more of a hag than my grandma or yours for that matter. And she doesn’t need to do oppo research, it’s in the public record. You can read it here.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/gingrich/report/part_i.htm

      • Graychin

        She’s a “hag” because she’s a Democrat. Worse, she’s an effective and outspoken Democrat. A LIBERAL Democrat!

        Millions of zombie consumers of right-wing media hate NP because… not sure, but that’s what they have been told to do.

        When facts are in short supply, an ad hominem slam is their first line of attack, as meddinus has so considerately demonstrated. (Or should it be ad feminem in this case?)

        • medinnus

          “When facts are in short supply…”

          Since my statement had nothing to do with Pelosi as such, but rather the utter stupidity of the GOP for embracing Newt, I didn’t feel the need to supply the reasons for my disdain for Nancy Pelosi; apparently if one tosses out an unflattering adjective, one must now annotate it, even when its irrelevant to the point of one’s post lest the knee-jerk defenders of Pelosi become… agitated. I think your collective outrage on Pelosi’s behalf is laughable. Calling her a “hag” is perhaps one of the mildest perjoratives I’ve seen in this forum, and far less than she deserves, IMO.

          Having grown up in the SF Bay Area, I am very familiar with the record of Pelosi.

          She was one of the cowards on the House Intelligence Committee who stuck their heads in the sand when they were told about the planned torture of prisoners. The HIC provided the war criminals in the White House with bipartisan cover, and their complicity is one of the political reasons why Obama declines to even bother investigating.

          She voted for the authorization of force in Iraq, although she went on record as having been briefed by the CIA regarding the unlikelihood of WMDs.

          There never was an entitlement she didn’t like and vote for.

          Like the other cowards in Congress, she voted to gut American civil liberties by voting to authorize the Patriot Act and its myriad renewals.

          In short, she’s a cowardly, shameless panderer, who speaks her convictions but doesn’t vote them, nor lead the House opposition. She’s a two-faced “professional” politician with a supple spine and cartilaginous convictions.

          She may be rich – that’s a virtue? She’s a political hack from a long line of Baltimore political hacks – again, that’s a virtue? I don’t despise her because she’s a liberal politician; I despise her because she’s a hypocrite and a political coward.

        • Graychin

          As used in your sentence, “hag” is a noun, not an adjective.

          And it’s still ad hominem. You can do better, as you have now shown.

        • ottovbvs

          “Calling her a “hag” is perhaps one of the mildest perjoratives..lest the knee-jerk defenders of Pelosi become… agitated. .”

          So this is your excuse for a rather graceless and ungentlemanly comment about Pelosi. I’m bound to say it’s a poor one.

        • medinnus

          Otto – Pot, kettle. Examine your glass house before you throw stones.
          Gray – Adjective, noun, who gives a flying f*ck? This isn’t a forum for grammar correction. As for being ad hominem, yeah, so what? Again, my definition…err…alleged defamation of Pelosi had nothing to do with my post, really.

          You will note, gentle readers of the forum, that their criticism of my use of the word “hag” is because I’m essentially an uncultured, grouchy, meanie. I plead guilty. Now get off my lawn

        • ottovbvs

          “Otto – Pot, kettle. Examine your glass house before you throw stones.”

          Would you give one single case wherever I’ve used these sort of abusive personal terms about any Republican woman politician or activist, or indeed any male Republican politician? Dismissing people like you occasionally as graceless twerps or something else justified by their comments here doesn’t count. It’s interesting you can’t tell the difference.

          “err…alleged defamation of Pelosi had nothing to do with my post, really.”

          So what? It was a singularly graceless comment although you don’t seem to have the good grace to admit it.

        • medinnus

          “So what? It was a singularly graceless comment although you don’t seem to have the good grace to admit it.”

          Sure I did:

          “You will note, gentle readers of the forum, that their criticism of my use of the word “hag” is because I’m essentially an uncultured, grouchy, meanie. I plead guilty. Now get off my lawn”

          What more do you want? She’s still, IMO, a wizened old witch of a crone, the Baba Yaga of the House of Representatives. Am I graceless? Sure. Is she a very model of a hypocritical political operator? You betcha.

          You don’t like my opinion? Tough.

        • ottovbvs

          “Sure I did:”

          So you haven’t got an example of where I’ve used this kind of language to describe a Republican politician. As for gracelessness? Res Ipsa Loquitur.

        • nhthinker

          Otto’s graceless pejoratives for an honorable African-American:

          ottovbvs // Feb 26, 2011 at 7:22 pm

          Powell is essentially a man of straw in my opinion. Could you see Colonel Stimsom, Dean Acheson, George Marshall, Dulles or even Kissinger if he’d strongly disagreed being steamrollered by an obvious lightweight like Bush? Powell could have resigned and been the greatest hero in America given how things turned out, but he didn’t have the balls. In the event he ends up getting canned by the weanie Bush.

          But he cops to being senile so you can’t blame him for his high opinion of the part of himself that he remembers.

        • ottovbvs

          “Powell is essentially a man of straw in my opinion.”

          The thinker ALSO can’t tell the difference between a comment on someone’s performance in an office and a gross insult directed at the individual person of a grandma. Why is this not a surprise? Could he be a graceless twerp also or is he just thick? Let me try and explain it to you thinker. If I said thinker regularly distorts the truth and makes stupid comments on FF that would be fair comment (as indeed it would be if you said the same about me). OTOH if I said thinker was a senile, fat, drunken slob with a big wart on his nose and halitosis…that would be an unacceptable attack on your person. Now do you understand the difference?

        • nhthinker

          Otto- You clearly are a tone-deaf boor who does not understand that you clearly impugned Powell’s character, not his performance. Your insult was much more demeaning than calling Pelosi a hag. That you have no concept of the depth of your transgressions is comical. But I guess I should not make fun of you: after all, you formed your opinion of entitlement to ridicule long before desegregation and likely now too old and stubborn to learn anything new about your opinion of yourself.

        • ottovbvs

          Apparently you don’t understand the difference and are even more stupid than I thought (and also something of a racist apparently) but since I’m comparing Powell with five previous SoS it’s obvious I’m talking about his role as Secretary not as a golfer or father.

          “Powell is essentially a man of straw in my opinion. Could you see Colonel Stimsom, Dean Acheson, George Marshall, Dulles or even Kissinger if he’d strongly disagreed being steamrollered by an obvious lightweight like Bush?”

          What’s more many think as I do including at least partially both Powell and his chief of staff. Viz.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/politics/09powell.html

          http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9883.htm

          Your gotchas are absurd but at least I know you must have spent hours trawling the thoughts of ottovbvs in order to find these gems and bring them to a wider public. Who knows you might learn something.

        • nhthinker

          Otto- You impugned the professional character of an honorable African-American man.
          You said he did not have the balls to stand up for what he believed in.

          For a dinosaur like you that does not know how to use a search engine, it might have taken you hours to determine if you had ever denigrated a politician worse than calling Pelosi a hag. For me, it took about 10 minutes. Google “ottovbvs bush site:frumforum.com” the Powell gem pops right out. About the same amount of time that it took me to find your slurs for others using “ass” after you calling me out for calling you an elistist “asshole”.

          Your use of language is seemingly stuck in 1950s Baltimore. Seemingly, your opinion of people like Powell are stuck back there, as well.

          Google works much better than your memory.

          “No, George Tenet did not sit there for five days with me, misleading me,” he said, referring to the week he spent at the Central Intelligence Agency reviewing the evidence on Iraq before making his presentation to the United Nations. “There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn’t be relied upon, and they didn’t speak up. That devastated me.”

          You have absolutely no evidence that Powell was hampered by lack of balls or being a man of straw. Now I guess you will assume his characterization is a lie because it does not fit with a judgement you have already rendered due to your prejudices as opposed to the evidence of the actual truth.

        • ottovbvs

          Rant on thinker and prove just what a totally fatuous ass you are and one who is something of a racist or at least is unhealthily preoccupied with it(and I guess you’ve forgotten all that Birtherism stuff but we haven’t)…..And apparently even those with whom I’m sure you are generally in sympathy believe Powell has feet of clay.

          The Shame of Colin Powell
          http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/08/30/the-shame-of-colin-powell/

        • ottovbvs

          Apparently Dick Cheney isn’t a great Powell fan either thinker…

          “A visibly angry Colin Powell used an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday to blast former Vice President Dick Cheney for using “cheap shots” and “barbs” to drive up sales of his new memoir, which accuses Powell of trying to undermine President Bush during the run-up to the Iraq War and tacitly allowing his deputy to leak the name of a covert CIA agent. ”

          I won’t bother putting up links to what the left generally thought as you will no doubt dismiss them as members of the KKK. Suffice it to say the left, the right and even Powell himself have a somewhat jaundiced view of all or at least part of his record at State.

        • nhthinker

          You have absolutely no evidence that Powell was hampered by lack of balls or being a man of straw.

          Your mother would tell you that she taught you better than to insult an honorable public servant without evidence… or maybe not.

          Your quoting of KKK supporting websites but unwillingness to link to them shows just how low you have sunk to try to protect your facade of a reputation.

        • nhthinker

          “Apparently Dick Cheney isn’t a great Powell fan either thinker…”

          So this is your excuse for a rather graceless and ungentlemanly comment about [strike]Pelosi[/strike] Powell. I’m bound to say it’s a poor one.

        • armstp

          She is a “hag” because she is a woman.

    • JohnMcC

      Well, my dear Mr Medinnus, it’s just one of those little verbal tics that tells one’s listeners much more about you than about the subject of the barb. Thank you for the insight. Hope you get better.

    • Secessionist

      Hilarious.

      You guys really ought leave Medinnus alone.

      Medinnus has been a very consistent and pretty ruthless critic of the GOP’s conservative wing. He has also been a consistent supporter of Barack Obama and the Democrats on many issues.

      I guess that’s not good enough though.

      So Medinnus called Nancy Pelosi a hag?

      So what?

      If anything, he was too mild. That foul woman deserves to be called much worse than a hag for supporting the Patriot Act alone.

      • ottovbvs

        “So Medinnus called Nancy Pelosi a hag? …So what? ”

        So we can add graceless twerp to your list of other accomplishments which apparently also include selective censure depending on who it is and any opinions they may have expressed.

      • medinnus

        Actually, I have a decent record of criticizing Obama as well – especially concerning his two-faced cowardice regarding defending war criminals. I am critical of politicians who, in my mind, are cowardly hypocrites. Condemn Obama on his merits all you like – it was GOP stupidity that forced me to vote against Bush, against McCain, and if they throw Huntsman under a bus, against Romney (or whoever escapes from the GOP wing of the lunatic asylum).

        I am a graceless meanie. Actually, I’m a mean-spirited rat-bastard asshole. I like to think I’m intellectually honest – but I’m probably as big a hypocrite as the politicians I deride.

        As I’ve said before here, I’m a social moderate Conservative, probably more Libertarian than not. I was one of the first here to trumpet Huntsman, about whom I really only strongly disagree regarding a woman’s right to control their own bodies and reproductive choices.

        Doesn’t change the fact that Pelosi is a political hack and coward. Doesn’t change the amazing defense of Pelosi being a hag – straw man, but apparently it strikes a deep nerve with the Liberals here.

        • ottovbvs

          ” Doesn’t change the amazing defense of Pelosi being a hag – straw man,”

          It’s not a strawman, nor does it have anything to with political labels it’s just something I at least only expect to hear from the certifiably insane who post here, not from the reasonably grounded like yourself medinnus. I’d say exactly the same if someone said it about Nancy Reagan or Hutchinson or even Bachmann.

        • Secessionist

          “Actually, I have a decent record of criticizing Obama as well – especially concerning his two-faced cowardice regarding defending war criminals. ”

          I stand corrected.

          You are definitely right about their defense of war criminals. Obama and the Democrats are also huge supporters of the police state. The War on Drugs. The Patriot Act. Wiretaps. You name it. If they’re any better than the GOP in this area, it’s not clear where they are much better. They don’t generally support torture. That is probably the only significant difference.

          A law giving the government the authority to indefinitely detain US citizens without a trial just passed the Democrat controlled Senate with 90+ votes (I think). Obama has threatened to veto the bill, but I won’t be surprised if he doesn’t.

          I wish more intellectually principled liberals, progressives, moderates and centrists would pay closer attention the Democrats’ record in this area.

        • medinnus

          “Obama has threatened to veto the bill, but I won’t be surprised if he doesn’t.”

          He threatened to veto it because it didn’t go far enough, not because it goes too far.

        • Secessionist

          I hope you’re kidding about his reasoning for the veto threat. If not, wow.

          How much further can you go than indefinite detentions without trial???

        • medinnus

          “Just to underscore what is — and is not — motivating the Obama administration’s objections to this bill, Sen. Levin has disclosed, as Dave Kopel documents, that “it was the Obama administration which told Congress to remove the language in the original bill which exempted American citizens and lawful residents from the detention power,” on the ground it would unduly restrict the decision-making of Executive Branch officials. In other words, Obama officials wanted the flexibility to militarily detain even U.S. citizens if they were so inclined, and are angry that this bill purports to limit their actions.

          – Glenn Greenwald (emphasis mine)

          http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/congress_endorsing_military_detention_a_new_aumf/singleton/

          I sometimes agree, sometimes disagree with Greenwald, but he’s always worth reading.

        • Secessionist

          medinnus:

          Thanks for the link. It was both enlightening and unsettling. I’m going to start reading Greenwald.

          I should have known better than to assume Obama threatened to veto that bill because he is concerned about civil rights and due process.

        • ottovbvs

          “but he’s always worth reading.”

          But is he always accurate? And would you generally agree on his stance towards national security policy? I’m the last fan of GWB but some of Greenwald’s critiques of some aspects of Bush’s security policies was somewhat hysterical. There are a lot of people out there who mean us harm.

        • Secessionist

          Greenwald was 100% accurate in the article medinnus linked. Greenwald is correct to speak out against Republicans, Democrats and the president for supporting laws that violate due process.

          Based on your vague reference to unspecified people “who mean us harm,” I take it you support indefinite detentions without trial.

        • ottovbvs

          “I take it you support indefinite detentions without trial.”

          Why would you think that since I never said that?

        • Secessionist

          Just an impression. In addition to the people “who mean us harm” aside, throughout this little digression into Nancy Pelosi’s support for police state measures, you weighed in a few times without criticizing those measures.

        • ottovbvs

          “throughout this little digression into Nancy Pelosi’s support for police state measures,”

          DSP:
          More of your little fibs? And the Pelosi digression was entirely about your and others rather oafish personal characterisation of the woman.

        • Secessionist

          Otto:

          If you don’t support indefinite detentions without trial, then I stand corrected. I look forward to you criticizing Barack Obama and any Democrats who help the GOP make that bill law when/if it happens.

          Since we are the on the subject anyway, what is your stance on that bill (see medinnus’s link)?

        • jakester

          I don’t really like calling any woman a hag, but what you did was pretty minor and didn’t bother me

  • overshoot

    Say what you will about your Presidential candidate, DF, but you’ll vote for him next year. And in the meantime, you’ll spell his name correctly.

  • lilmanny

    The problem is that he doesn’t have enough time to self destruct. Time and time again since last summer we’ve seen that the GOP base needs a LOT more than just proof to abandon their favorite. Think about it. It took months or weeks of embarrassing details and statements to derail Palin, Trump, Bachmann, Perry, and Cain. Even after they were revealed to be incompetent, it was another month or so before the tea cons found a new favorite, and there is no other possible favorite left, so their loyalty will be even more entrenched than before.
    With the base, Gingrich’s flaws are baked in, attributed to the delusional hatred by the media and the elites that look down on them. It will take actual fresh controversy to slow him down, and I don’t see it happening. So far they are gleefully embracing his act and we have, oh, about 20 days before the zeitgeist is cast in cement.

    Gingrich is not going to blow this so Romney had better win this. Once Sister Stupid weighs in it’s all over.

  • indy

    Given the degree of angst we are starting to get out of DF and friends, I have no doubt they have seen the latest polls. Newt +30 among the tea party crowd, up 10-15 in Iowa and 10 in South Carolina, and closing the gap by 20 points in NH in 2 weeks. Cain is getting set to endorse Gingrich it looks like.

    Soon the only unknown about this might be whether or not Newt gets a new wife before the primaries end.

  • Graychin

    If Newt implodes before he secures the nomination, it will be due to his thin-skinned arrogance played out very publicly. But arrogance or not, as long as he keeps throwing lots of red meat about the Kenyan Anti-Colonialist in the White House to his Republican primary voters, he just might cruise to the nomination. I like his odds better than Romney’s at this point.

    Newt’s won’t implode Bachmann-like because of saying stupid and outrageous things like our need for more orphanages and after-school workhouses. He has managed to sell that kind of stuff to Republicans for a long time as examples of his “transformative ideas.” As Krugman said, Newt is what a stupid person thinks a smart person sounds like.

    After the nomination, to know Newt is not to like him very much – except for devout Obama-haters. Undisciplined Bad Newt is certain to crack under the pressure and throw one of his public temper tantrums before next November.

    It’s going to be lots of fun next year watching Mr. Frum rendering “inoperative” all all the negative things he has said about Newt, and explaining why Newt would be such a great improvement over Obama. Doesn’t someone lose his status as a Professional Republican if he can’t endorse his party’s nominee for president?

    • MSheridan

      Remember his list of reasons for endorsing John McCain, circa November 2008?

      http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjE5NDk2NzQ5YzRlNGM4ODA0OWUwNjE0ZTk1MjU3YmM=

      I’m really glad I don’t have a publicly read piece like that one on my conscience and in my past.

      • think4yourself

        Okay I read the piece (shudder). Perhaps my favorite part:

        “One final comment. As readers of this space know, I have been very critical of the selection of Sarah Palin. Yet I do not regard her as a reason to cast aside the principles of my life on voting day. She may not bring much knowledge to this ticket. Yet she is obviously no fool. … But on Tuesday, I will trust that she can learn.”

        “Beyond that, it says something important that so many millions of people respond to her as somebody who incarnates their beliefs and values. At a time when the great American middle often seems to be falling further and further behind, there may be a special need for a national leader who represents and symbolizes that middle.”

        Frum, I’ll bet you wish you could take those words back. I should look at some of your more recent comments on SP from when she was flirting with the Presidential nomination.

    • NRA Liberal

      I’m going to go out on a limb and bet that, if Gnoot takes the nom; Frum will endorse Obama.

  • PracticalGirl

    “[Republican primary voters] know him mainly from Fox News.”

    Sure, but there’s plenty of time for the Democrats to remind general voters of Gingrich’s well-documented record as an elected government official, if it comes to that.

    Contrast this with Romney, who performed an unprecedentedly thorough scrub of his record as Governor- the only 4 years of public service we have to judge his government actions by- on his way out of the State house.

    http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-tried-erase-evidence-governorship-102728516.html

    • MSheridan

      My favorite quote from that story so far:

      “Well, I think in government we should follow the law. And there has never been an administration that has provided to the opposition research team, or to the public, electronic communications. So ours would have been the first.”

      That’s from Mitt himself, to a newspaper reporter from the Nashua Telegraph, on camera. When I first saw that, I just stared in crogglement. I now wonder if maybe his flip-flops weren’t quite as cynically calculated as I had previously thought, but merely a symptom of a larger mental dysfunction. It may be that he not only has no core political values (as many on the right and left have long supposed), he may not even understand what values might be. Spending $97,000 of taxpayer money to cover up emails that might prove potentially embarrassing in a future electoral race is one thing. But to completely fail to understand that doing so is wrong? That’s another thing entirely.

  • icarusr

    Dear Mr. Frum

    It’s your party and, you know, you can cry if you want to.

    Best wishes

  • LFC

    Well at least it looks like Newt has Donald Trump by his side to give him some business cred.

    Trump? REALLY? It really seems like the GOP just has to find a way to keep their clown car full. Cain exits and Trump jumps in and takes his seat. Or perhaps Cain will still be around and they simply now have a clown RV to hold their circus.

  • indy

    Did anybody notice that Hunstman is picking up steam? He is now at nearly 10 points on the RCP average, just behind Paul for third place.

    • Nanotek

      a last-minute Huntsman rise is my only concern … I hope Gingrich gets the nomination

    • LFC

      I believe that Huntsman could carry Republican and many Independent votes in the general, but I don’t think he’ll be able get the support of the type of motivated Republican that will make up a huge part of the vote in the primaries. In other words, he can’t carry the nutty and irrational.

    • ottovbvs

      That’s to be expected as other candidates implode everyone gets something but obviously the main beneficiary of the Perry/Cain fades has been Gingrich. There was a poll out yesterday showing that something like 63% of Republicans were comfortable with Newt as the nominee versus the low fifties for Romney. So a comfortable majority don’t see him as unelectable and that has to be the scary thing for those like Frum hence today’s almost manic Newt dump.

    • medinnus

      I have noticed, and while it makes me smile, being a Huntsman supporter, it doesn’t particularly offer me hope; that estimated 15% who won’t vote for any member of the LDS church, even a “Jack Mormon” like Huntsman, won’t budge, and the rest of the lunatic fringe who don’t care about policy or governance will embrace the Tea Bag of the Week ™.

      I am convinced that Huntsman’s campaign is about positioning the sane for a run in 2016 when Obama cleans the clock of whatever Christine O’Donnell analogue the GOP nominates in 2012.

      I hate to say it, but I think we’re going to head into the GOP with no clear nominee, and end up with a brokered convention, where things can get awfully messy.

    • indy

      I’ll just remind everyone that on Dec 6, 2007:

      Giuliani: 25.7
      Huckabee: 14
      McCain: 13

      I happen to think much of the dislike of Romney is religion related though people won’t admit it. Huntsman suffers from all of Romney’s negatives except he is more policy oriented. In the modern GOP this doesn’t seem to be a helpful addition.

  • Secessionist

    Ron Paul will do better in Iowa than the polls suggest. He might even win.

    • Graychin

      Agreed. Paul’s supporters seem to be more motivated than anyone else’s, and the Iowa Caucuses are even more about turnout and a good ground game than most conventional elections.

  • Okie Exile

    Somewhere along the line, qualities like “leadership” seem to have been ditched by the GOP. Newt may have a decent brain (when he chooses to use it), but he seems far more suited to the role of whip and gadfly than actual leader. Even reading comments from supporters of him, they seem to favor him because they think he will make Obama look bad in a debate (because Obama can’t have a brain, of course; someone has to feed that “boy” lines on a teleprompter), rather than ability to actually get things done.

    I know that not everyone who dislikes Obama does so because of race, but, from Trump to Perry to Newt, they seem to flock to people who they think will act rudely to Obama, and “put him in his place”, rather than people who would make a good President.

  • Rick123

    I’m really looking forward to the Trump debate. It will be the jumping the shark moment for Newt and the rest of the GOP.

  • JohnMcC

    John Podhoretz is my favorite NeoConservative because he won the Jeopardy championship FIVE TIMES! So they’re not all complete fools. And when he says that Fox News keeps it’s viewers stupid, I think we can trust him.

    • ottovbvs

      Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.
      John Stuart Mill
      English economist & philosopher (1806 – 1873)

  • Frumplestiltskin

    Sorry, I love America too much for Newt to get anywhere near the nomination. I prefer Obama over Huntsman but if Huntsman became President I would not panic in sheer horror. Newt as President would be an epic disaster for the world.

    Speaking of Trump (Rick123) I saw a little of him on Hannity saying we should have blackmailed the Libyan rebels to give us 50% of their oil in order for us to help them. He then congratulated himself on how smart he is and how dumb Obama was to not do this.
    The man is an utter moron, I simply do not understand his celebrity.

    • ottovbvs

      “but if Huntsman became President I would not panic in sheer horror. ”

      That’s what I thought about Dubya

      “I simply do not understand his celebrity.”

      Simple… he started at the bottom with a billion dollar real estate fortune left him by his father.

  • think4yourself

    If Newt wins Iowa, places a strong second in NH, wins SC (Bachmann, Santorum & Perry drop out and their votes go primarily to Newt) and then Newt wins FL – what will the conservative columnists do?

    I can see a 3 man race with Gingrich and Romney essentially tied and Paul a close third. I think Huntsman is disqualified because he took a job in the Obama administration.

    • ottovbvs

      Since outside of a couple of places Paul barely gets into double figures, who get his votes?

  • roubaix

    Can anyone find the full video of Newt’s Spanish-language apology?

    It must be the reason for his edge with Hispanics.

  • anniemargret

    The average Joe and Jane Republican could care *less* about policy. They do care, however, about culture wars. Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Gringrich…. it’s a pattern. The nastier they sound, the more beloved they are.

    There is some deeply insane strain of hate and fear that runs through the Republican party. For years it was kept under wraps, but with Palin running amok for almost three years, the furies got out of the Pandora’s box and now they are flying with impunity.

    They love Gingrich and howled with relief when he called Obama the Kenyan anti-colonialist, marking him again as the “Other”….exactly what mainstream American Republicans despise. I worry about this country. We used to be a progressive nation, with brilliant ideas and a penchant for unity in making this country better and brighter, the ‘beacon of light’ the rest of the world used to admire.

    Now we have millions of voters who would vote against their own interests, their own families and grandchildren, who could care less about this earth and the environment, full of bitterness and fear, prejudice and hate, and willing to listen to any bill of goods the next right wing fear-mongerer sells.

    Of course Huntsman is not included. He actually thinks. They don’t want a thinker, they want a hater.

    And sadly I was very disappointed to hear Huntsman is now doubting the word and the massive amount of evidence for climate change and mankind’s role in it. He seems to be eating the fruit of the idiots just to keep pace. Too bad, I was starting to have some respect for him.

  • Candy83

    It actually doesn’t matter who the Republicans nominate in 2012. They’re not going to win back the White House as quickly as 2012 — and when you look at who the contenders are it feels deliberate.

  • jakester

    Newt is probably going to be our next president. Putting aside all his bs and stock conservative posturing, he is an interesting guy as well as sort of charming rogue. He at least is smart and original and a heck of a lot more interesting than previous blockheads we’ve seen in the GOP circus.

  • jquintana

    There is only one reason Newt won’t be President in 2012: most independent women will refuse to vote for him. He’s old, wonky, cranky, and fairly unattractive—bad enough qualities for any candidate, but his greatest transgression of all is that he admitted to cheating on his first two wives. Conservative women will vote for Newt, liberal women will vote against Newt, and most independent women will vote against him for the reasons described above. If Newt is the nominee in 2012, look for another four years of Obama.

    • medinnus

      Most independents will choose Obama over Newt as well, regardless of sex.

      He’s a bit of a nutter, and I can’t see him going the distance against Obama in a general election without an implosion or two – won’t hurt him with the “Anyone but the Sherrif!” crowd, but will stampede the sane to Obama in self-defense.

  • skmarshall

    I’d like to see this topic as an on-going feature until such time as Mr Gingrich fades back into obscurity… but in the title i’d change “basket” to “bucket” – sk

  • ottovbvs

    nhthinker // Dec 6, 2011 at 9:14 pm
    “Apparently Dick Cheney isn’t a great Powell fan either thinker…”

    “So this is your excuse for a rather graceless and ungentlemanly comment about… Powell. ”

    Surely no day is complete without the latest example of unreality that is nhthinker land. No thinker, it’s not an excuse it’s a fact of political discourse and a demonstration that the perfectly fair comment that Powell proved to be a man of straw as SoS is an opinion that is widely shared on left and right as well as by myself. Since you regularly call people by obscene names, you’re hardly qualified to comment on what constitutes graceless comment.

    • nhthinker

      Otto-

      It is a somewhat vile pleasure of mine to use your own words to demonstrate what a hypocritical martini sipping elitist you are.

      I must thank you for your contributions that make it so easy.

      I would be curious if you could get even one other poster here to back you up and say your comment about an African-American leader of military men, being a man of straw and not having any balls, had any grace to it whatsoever. I kind of doubt it.

      Or just have any other poster agree with you that “hag Pelosi” is a more significant graceless insult than calling Powell a man of straw without any evidence.

      • jakester

        “hypocritical martini sipping elitist”
        as opposed to a “hypocritical beer swilling clod”?

      • ottovbvs

        “Surely no day is complete without the latest example of unreality that is nhthinker land. ”

        Thanks for another great unreality contribution nhthinker. I can always rely on you to rise to the fly. And you really need to stop playing the race card after all that birtherism stuff you were peddling.

  • jakester

    I am putting my money on Newt for first place!