Great News For Dems: Newt On The Rise

Come Saturday, it appears that South Carolinians will thrust Newt Gingrich back into the GOP race with a likely win in the GOP Presidential primary. Further, Newt is surging in the Gallup national tracking poll. What an amazing turn of events. The is truly excellent news for President Barack Obama and the Democrats.

Newt Gingrich, is, of course, unelectable. There are a number of Republican states Gingrich puts into play for Obama, including Texas. Every blue state would be safe for Obama. Many swing states would become safe. Downticket Dems would benefit from this as well as Gingrich would drag down the entire GOP ticket in blue states. Scott Brown would lose to Elizabeth Warren for sure I think.

At the very least, a nasty campaign would be assured beyond Florida if this trend holds. And progressive Dems can be bolder in their support of candidates-- with a safer electoral board, more chances can be taken across the country.

Here's hoping that is how it plays out.

Speaking for me only

< President Obama Sings Al Green at Campaign Appearance | Newt Gingrich: Lone Wolf, Loose Cannon >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Old enough to remember (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:03:53 PM EST
    when Ronald Reagan was unelectable.

    I'm not (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:22:00 PM EST
    Tell me the tale dad :)  Please, I seriously didn't know this one :)

    I can remember when (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Zorba on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:44:10 PM EST
    Gerald Ford called Reagan "unelectable."  (Take his opinion for whatever it was worth, given Ford's own loss to Jimmy Carter.)  So did George H. W. Bush (of course, he wound up serving as Reagan's Vice President for eight years).  I seem to recall many of the people in the Republican establishment at the time seeing Reagan as unelectable.      

    What I remember... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:25:17 PM EST
    from one of the Reagan documentaries, can't remember which, is that he was pretty much a conservative wingnut joke nationally, kinda like Palin, until he won the nom. and presidency...then the joke was on us;)

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#54)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:28:41 PM EST
    That's simply incorrect (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    You could argue he was viewed like Goldwater circa 64, but that would be wrong too.

    Reagan was a 2 time Governor of California and was the clear frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 1980.

    While there was a feeling that Reagan could be Goldwatered in the 1980 campaign, to think Newt is comparable in political ability, that the country is the same (hint less white people now) is to simply want to think something, as opposed to think about the question.

    Newt is unelectable. Reagan was not. There is no comparison.


    Not talking actuality here, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:29:44 PM EST
    My "exactly" reflects only the mistaken evaluation by myself & many Dem friends that Reagan could never be elected. Mea culpa...I was so wrong at the time to take Reagan lightly. Everyone that I knew at the time thought he was a showman & clown, a nice-looking below-par candidate. Again, mea culpa that I didn't appreciate the personal characteristics (exuding warmth, nice smile, "morning in america" & suchlike) combined with the resume of a Calif governor.

    This morning I was reminded by a longtime friend about how wrong we both were in our conclusion that Reagan couldn't be elected. So...I go on because that experience reinforced the "don't take things for granted."  Yet, I am gladdened at the prospect of Newt as a candidate to run against--even with my "I won't make the same mistake twice" relex--because, eventually, he will goof up bigtime. There is no way that he is the charmer of a Reagan...Newt glowers, scolds, gets too angry & condescends to begin with. There is no way he will get the "he is our true conservative philosopher, so lets forgive him" pass from the country at large with all his background. Essentially all he has is his debating skills...and that gets old (particularly when confronted with the smarter Obama.


    Reagan would lose today if (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:38:27 PM EST
    he got the same percentage of the White vote as he did in 1980.....

    The GOP establishment (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:02:05 PM EST
    of that era was beaten by the party's Conservatives and we've (nation) been heading straight down hill ever since in every category from public policy to divisive discourse to trashy culture.

    Too often today we hear liberals lamenting that today's Conservatives aren't like Ronald Reagan.  The truth is the election of Ronald Reagan eliminated Republican moderates and put their Conservative wing in control and led Republicans on a path to absolute depravity.  Now the Conservative wing is the only wing of the Republican Party and the trail leads straight back to Reagan.


    What a few liberals (none / 0) (#159)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 02:26:51 PM EST
    lament is that even Ronald Reagan was often very willing to compromise. (I'd call those people more center-left than liberal, but whatever.)

    Whether it's preferable to have policy moving to the right through compromising with Reagan (or Obama compromises with righties), or the utter gridlock we've had in recent months, I'm not entirely sure.


    I understand (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 10:51:38 PM EST
    what liberals are doing with that.

    I was pointing out what's happened to American politics since Reagan's election, what that election meant.  

    My disappointment with that line is that it obscures reality.

    Further, I don't believe Reagan compromised as much as he reacted.  After his early tax cuts resulted in a huge deficit he signed a tax increase into law.  That's not so much compromising as it is reacting.

    He worked out deals with Tip O'Neill, but remember Democrats held onto the House (average margin 76 seats)during Reagan's entire Presidency and his widest margin in the Senate was 8 seats and after the '86 mid-terms Democrats held the Senate by 10 seats.

    It was also a transition time when the center of American politics just started a move to the right.

    Democrats still had enormous power in Washington.

    Reagan mostly got his way.  When he left office the highest marginal income tax rate was 28%, Pentagon spending was the highest it had been during the Cold War, deregulation was carrying the day and unions were in retreat.


    Me, too. In September of 1980 (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:32:38 PM EST
    as I well remember, George Reedy called it for Reagan and was questioned by Ben Bradlee and others as to whether George had lost it.

    Btw, Reedy made that call based on interesting use of "psychographics," still not common then in politics (as they were by then in advertising commodities other than politicians, although psychographics then became pervasive in politics ever since).  He saw connections to political prognostication from such seemingly unrelated data as a sudden upswing then in sales of cowboy boots and other Western accessories.  I thought that was so weird at the time, but Reedy was a Texan, and by 1980 he had spent several years in the Midwest, and certainly had come to know the rest of the country well in his journalistic and press secretary career.  So he saw things that Easterners ignored or could not comprehend as significant, I think. (He also predicted the rising importance of Texas voters and of Texas in many other matters, such as their unholy influence ever since on education nationwide.)


    ths scott brown/warren angle (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by CST on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    is interesting - is that because you think Romney will help Brown in MA?

    You could be right... he'll certainly help more than Newt.

    That race is really interesting to me, and surprisingly positive to date.  I think the bottom line is, people kind of like Scott Brown, he's a likable guy.  But I think people like Warren more.  So it's an election between two people that the public generally has a good opinion of.  Rather than it being the lesser of two evils.  And they have been playing it very nice so far (also Warren isn't technically the nominee yet, but she will be).

    It almost doesn't feel like politics...

    If I had to guess, in a presidential election year, I would say people probably like Warren more.  But Scott Brown is surprisingly resilient, and much credit to him he has been exactly who he was elected to be - a moderate.

    How refreshing! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:11:34 PM EST
    Politicians acting like adults!  Civil political discourse!

    seriously (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CST on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:16:10 PM EST
    although it is early.  Still plenty of time to get nasty I suppose.  That being said, neither one of them strikes me as that kind of pol.

    There will be a lot of outside money in the race though so you never know.


    Not that Romney will help Brown (none / 0) (#160)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 02:32:13 PM EST
    but that Gingrich at the top of the ticket would bring out every rational person in Mass. to vote against him, and then many of them also against fellow GOPer Brown while they're at it.  And rational people still way outnumber the nutjobs in Mass.  I suspect most Mass. Republicans would even vote for Obama over Gingrich.

    From afar, it does seem like Brown is a half-decent guy for a Republican, and it's nice to know the campaigns have played nice.  But I'd be surprised if that lasts.  I think Mass. bare-knuckle politics will reassert itself as the election gets closer.


    Ahem! (none / 0) (#161)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 02:33:44 PM EST
    Vermont has both Mass. and Hawaii beat hands down.

    Basically true (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 04:17:28 PM EST
    although it's more complicated than that.  But never mind.

    In terms of the current time, though, I can say emphatically as a former proud resident of Mass. for 40-some years and now an even prouder resident of VT, Vermont is far and away more liberal than Mass.

    Among other things, we have the only openly socialist member of Congress, who was elected overwhelmingly by thousands of small towns and farmers over one of the last actually "moderate" Republicans in the country.


    Well, I have to say (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 04:31:36 PM EST
    As long as you have Bernie Sanders in the Senate, Vermont needs to take a back seat to no other state in leftist credentials.  Go, Vermont!

    Thankee, thankee (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 09:30:28 PM EST
    Although we're a wee bit annoyed at his colleague Sen. Leahy at the moment.

    What baffles me is why rural VT (and I'm talking long-timers, not the crunchy back-to-the-land newcomers from the cities like me) has such very different attitudes from rural folks pretty much everywhere in the country.  I still can't figure it out.

    My small farm town, for instance, comfortably elected a gay man with a male spouse and two adopted non-white daughters to the school committee a few years ago.

    And did you know VT is the least church-going state in the country?  All those pretty churches with the white steeples you see in iconic images of VT have only half a dozen or so elderly female members that spend full-time trying to keep the thing going by having endless "suppers" and flea markets and etc.  THe churches are still community social centers, just not on Sunday mornings.

    I suppose there must be some PhD theses or something out there that explore why rural people in VT are so different, but otherwise I've never heard so much as a theory.


    it's especially strange (none / 0) (#175)
    by CST on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 10:40:28 AM EST
    when you consider that NH and ME, which are both also in northern new england and fairly rural, are not like that.

    I'm sorry, but it's really hard for me to (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:42:54 PM EST
    cheer for Lady Luck to smile on someone like Newt, just so that she can smile bigger and brighter for Obama, who, in my opinion, has an approach and a philosophy and comfort level with things that aren't significantly different from those at the core of the GOP.  He's not a serial adulterer, he's not a racist, he's not rounding up the faithful for the next Crusades, but - his re-election probably kills any chance for a left-of-center agenda to survive.  I truly believe that another 4 years of Obama will complete the erasure of the Democratic brand we used to know, entrench dangerous authoritarian policy, make the Constitution largely irrelevant, secure the fortunes of the 1% and see more poverty and inequality than ever before.

    Actually, I see a lot of that happening even if Obama isn't re-elected, just faster.  Some great choice, huh?

    I don't know, maybe it's time for me to  surrender to the inevitable, become one of the "really? There's an election?" kind of people, accept whatever it is the media wants me to know, think and feel, and be done with it.  If I can learn to like being ignorant, perhaps I will be happier - or at least have better blood pressure.

    So what's the alternative? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by magster on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:54:14 PM EST
    While Obama has certainly been underwhelming, little things that cumulatively make a big difference have happened (judges, CFPB, DADT, Keystone rejection)that would never have happened had McCain won 4 years ago. Just the judge issue alone, McCain would have given Kagan's and Sotomayor's spots to two anti-choice Roberts' clones.

    I'd love to elect a real Democrat, I hate centrist Blue-Dogs, but when the next 4 years of an entire 1/3rd of the federal government is at stake (and possibly 2/3rds if Supreme Court nominations are considered) less bad is indeed, less bad.


    False choice (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:58:15 PM EST
    Folks keep throwing that around - McCain wouldn't have appointed Sotomayor and Kagan!

    That assumes there would have been vacancies. Judges and the justices watch the politics too, and barring death practically, retire under a president of their same political persuasion.


    Stevens is now 92 years old... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by magster on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    It was heroic for him to hold out through the GWB eight years of hell. No way he could have waited much longer.

    He's 91 (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:12:29 PM EST
    And still kicking and writing and speaking  He could have been on the bench for three years of a McCain term, right?

    and if mccain spent (none / 0) (#26)
    by CST on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    4-8 years in office, followed by romney or whoever, then what?

    Yes having a D president allows new (young) blood on the court.  And that's a good thing whether they would have tried to wait out McCain or not.


    And if ponies could fly (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:09:07 PM EST
    They'd be unicorns.  

    Since we're playing " what if?" please don't forget that McCain would have had a 60 seat Dem majority in the Senate to get his nominees through.


    reality (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:13:06 PM EST
    McCain, if elected, would be there for 4 years at least.

    And we would not have Sotomayor or Kagan on the court right now.

    That's not a unicorn, that's pretty obvious.  Now sure, we might have a 90something year old Stevens instead but I consider the young blood a plus since you can't predict future elections.

    So McCain would've had 60 Dems to go through. You think that means he nominates someone better than those two?


    More like 45 Dems (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by magster on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:17:58 PM EST
    15 guys claiming to be Dems and 40 Republicans.

    The flaw in your logic (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 05:05:25 PM EST
    Is still assuming one or two vacancies had McCain won.

    no... (none / 0) (#116)
    by CST on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 05:07:41 PM EST
    I've already stated that I think younger justices > 90+ justices because you never know what the future elections hold.

    So even if they had waited it out, I think we are better off.  Because no one knows what would have happened after that.  This way we know that we have two young, competent judges on the bench for a long time to come.  That is a net benefit to me.  I'm not assuming anything.


    if anything (none / 0) (#119)
    by CST on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 05:09:03 PM EST
    I think you are making a big assumption that it would've been 4 years of McCain followed by something better.

    Which is a chance I wasn't willing to take.


    Keystone Pipeline? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:18:45 PM EST
    Not a peep here for the surprising rejection of the Keystone Pipeline.

    It was kicked down the road, with the (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:25:44 PM EST
    door open to a new application that would avoid the areas of concern.

    Which was what Obama wanted to do to begin with - kick it past the 2012 election - but the GOP wouldn't go for it in the last round of "negotiations" over the two-month extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits.

    Go read the president's Jobs Council's recommendations to see where this Democratic president is headed; I would defy you to find what distinguishes it from a Republican plan; her's a hint: John Boehner praised it as (paraphrasing) "what the Republicans had been supporting all along."


    actually it was (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:27:59 PM EST
    kicked down the road to very wisely be used and a bargaining chip again I would guess.

    Go read the recommendations, Donald; (none / 0) (#65)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:47:56 PM EST
    they might as well have come straight out of the Heritage Foundation.

    Ignored? Really? Then perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 03:52:40 PM EST
    you can explain why Barack Obama has said that liberals are going to be very unhappy with his budget proposal, due out soon.

    I mean, the members of the council were hand-picked by the president, no?  Seems hard to imagine that they were chosen because somehow they don't share Obama's general philosophy, doesn't it?

    Kind of like how people keep trying to avoid accepting that Tim Geithner isn't where he is, making the decisions he's made and is making, because he and the president are on opposite ends of an economic world view.

    Oh, well - I guess we'll see soon enough what effect the Jobs Council has on the budget that gets presented; I find it unlikely that we will see much of anything we will recognize as intrinsically Democratic - but I would he happy to be wrong.


    Citation, please (none / 0) (#112)
    by Farmboy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 04:49:22 PM EST
    Barack Obama has said that liberals are going to be very unhappy with his budget proposal

    And Google isn't going to be any help; it can't find that quote.


    Well, first I read this: (none / 0) (#117)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 05:08:07 PM EST
    The Obama Administration is going around telling liberal groups that they won't much like the budget they'll put forward at the end of the month. OF COURSE liberals won't like this budget. It's being produced under a spending cap. The spending cap necessarily cuts investment as a percentage of GDP to Eisenhower-era levels, and it really starts to kick in come FY2013. It's going to hurt the economy. These were the wages of the debt limit deal, which was assuredly no win for liberals, or more to the point, no win for the American public.

    and followed the embedded link to this:

    Senior administration officials fear a backlash from the left and are trying to prepare their allies to expect a disappointing budget, sources say.

    "A senior White House person said we weren't going to be happy with the budget, but they're doing the best they can" given the spending caps set by the 2011 Budget Control Act, said one source.

    I probably took liberties - taking my cue from the d-day post - with attribution to Obama, but it would be quite a stretch to imagine that the "sources" do not represent the general view of the president.


    So, unnamed sources and FDL. (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Farmboy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 05:52:06 PM EST
    That explains why Google couldn't find the president actually saying that, since he didn't.

    I like how the headline of the Hill article,

    Obama warns left: You won't like budget
    prefaces a story that reads,
    Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, sought in meetings last week to lift the left's gloom

    which is then followed by conjecture from unnamed sources to back up the headline, zero names for any "liberal" or labor groups, and a lame attempt at relevance by mentioning last years' budget.

    Imagine if a child walked up to you and said, "Some guy, I can't tell you who, told me there are bears in the sewers." "Which sewers," you ask. "I don't know. Sewers. Just sewers. And bears." I'd be more likely to believe that - at least I know bears are real, unlike the unnamed sources.


    You're an intelligent person (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by sj on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 10:36:02 AM EST
    Pretending that targeted leaks are an unknown feature of the political landscape is beneath you.  Sometimes those leaks are to test the waters, sometimes to draw fire away from the true source and probably for lots of other reasons as well.

    Now I, as a "Left of the Left" citizen, personally don't expect much from President "Entitlement Reform!" Obama.  And I would dearly love to be pleasantly surprised.  But I took note and mentally filed that away.

    I don't like the use of unnamed sources but just because they are unnamed it doesn't mean that they're wrong.  It doesn't mean that they're right, either.  What is wrong is to dismiss them out of hand.

    It is a datum.  No more, no less.


    First off, thanks for the compliment. (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 03:39:09 PM EST
    Right back atcha. Secondly, I understand that targeted leaks and unnamed sources are a time-worn function of every administration since the birth of what is considered modern journalism.

    However, a targeted leak has a standard format. First, the stenographer writes a headline that says something like, WH claims Iraq trying to buy yellow cake. The article then backs up the headline with unnamed admin sources that say Iraq is trying to buy yellow cake. The WH checks the reaction to the article, and if it's the direction they want, they point to the article and say, Look! The Times says Iraq is trying to buy yellow cake! We. Must. Have. WAR! If the reaction wasn't what they wanted, then they release a different leak and try again. That's how it's done.

    This article wasn't a targeted leak, it was internet click bait. Everybody knows that there are budget cuts coming; that's not news, and the WH isn't going to leak that info because it's already out there. But write a yellow headline over an article containing nothing but conjecture - and year old complaints - now you've got at least some page hits and a mention on Memorandum.

    That's why I'm not buying this one. When an administration wants info leaked, they put out info that is previously unknown and they put it out where it can get some positive traction, spun to their advantage.


    Well, I'm not buying it either (none / 0) (#177)
    by sj on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 12:35:30 AM EST
    But neither am I dismissing it.  I'm just noting it.

    As to targeted leaks having a standard format?  Some, surely.  But  I think they can come in the way of floating a rumor.  But just like rumors at work, it doesn't hurt to pay attention.


    Then, that's more worrisome evidence (none / 0) (#151)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 08:43:19 PM EST
    that the Obama Administration is not speaking for Obama.

    How is this supposed to encourage people to vote for him?  I really, really don't get this constant excuse that he can't get people who work for him to, well, work for him.


    and tanning beds (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:48:44 PM EST
    The Pipeline will get built (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:35:18 PM EST
    The longer Obama can drag it out to get more safety concessions and more in return on other issues, the better.

    No praise at all for anything?


    How bad does "less bad" have to be, (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:20:36 PM EST
    before we stop using it as the metric by which we judge candidates?  

    Cheering Newt because it helps a marginal and nominally Democratic president to four more years, where he doesn't have to worry about re-election and can make the "tough choices" and make us all "eat our peas," shove the Bowles/Simpson agenda down our throats with a little help from good friend Paul Ryan, and keep pushing for the Big Banks and Wall Street to have a Get Out of Jail Free Card with no expiration date - to name a few - just makes me want to weep from sadness, frustration and general hopelessness.

    I gave you the alternative: just check out of the process and save what little of your sanity you have left - you'll need it to deal with whatever comes out of the WH in the next four years, regardless of which party's president is calling it home.


    actually (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:23:59 PM EST
    if you are talking about Newt and Obama I think the "less bad" is pretty darn obvious.

    and I expect large numbers of voters will feel the same.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Left of the Left on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:08:02 PM EST
    The way things are headed and if you look at what Anne is speaking about you will see, but even if you havent the past year of OBama trying to out republican the republicans- crying deficits deficits and touting how his cuts are better than theirs- should make it clear enough.

    There is little benefit behind voting less bad, when it gets you to same spot, just a bit slower.


    yeah, well (none / 0) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:50:05 PM EST
    its a free country

    True (none / 0) (#150)
    by Left of the Left on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 08:15:14 PM EST
    Though popular opinion isnt always correct.

    Oh, Donald, I do so love it when (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 03:37:12 PM EST
    you lecture me...sigh...

    Where you and I particularly disagree is that there's nothing wrong with voting for the lesser of two evils; that is a metric that I firmly believe has led to the steady decline in the quality of the choices before us, and a corresponding decline in the quality of governance and policy.

    As I said somewhere on one of these threads, if you take away the crazy, the scandals, the evangelical pontificating and the racism, it's hard to find much of a difference between the GOP field and Barack Obama.  You would be justified in saying that if we are apparently fated to have Republican policy, you would prefer it without the crazy and all the rest of that stuff, but isn't it a shame that in a few short years, what used to be a populist, left-leaning Democratic party has moved ever-rightward, has lost sight of "the little people," and managed to normalize policies that are authoritarian, intrusive, and failed to look out for the interests of the least among us?  I'm sure it's all Bill Clinton's and that damnable DLC/Third Way crowd's fault, but it saddens me no end when I think of the opportunity Barack Obama had on a golden platter to make the Democratic brand actually stand for something exquisitely distinguishable from conservative, repressive, authoritarian, elitist Republican ideology.  I'm aware that he was never any kind of liberal candidate - neither was Hillary - and I equally fault the Democratic Congress for not pushing Obama left, and instead, just doing Obama's conservative bidding like the lapdogs they apparently are - with some few exceptions (and those people are just deemed to be leftist loons now for trying to hold onto principles that used to be considered mainstream staples of the Democratic Party).

    Now, Donald, you know I am not going to really be able to check out of the process; I will be here, rhetorically, and probably literally, tearing my hair out for the next - Good God - 10 months.  Unless I develop a rapid onset of Alzheimer's or have a stroke, I'm pretty sure I will be unable to turn on my ignorance switch voluntarily.

    Whether I ultimately will be able to touch the screen for a presidential ticket remains to be seen, but please know that I won't be sitting home, not voting at all; I will vote local and state candidates and issues, and may even be able to vote for Ben Cardin again.

    I just can't keep settling anymore for "lesser of two evils;" it makes me feel like I'm condoning and accepting that this is just the way it has to be.


    Well said Donald...I too (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by samsguy18 on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 04:56:53 PM EST
    Appreciate Anne's honest comments...and most of the time I agree with her....the politicians and the media inundate the voters with so much skewed spin it's almost next to impossible to identify the truth from the fiction....Obama has been a weak and selfserving President.....He's a great campaigner..he loves the limelight....His leadership skills leave much to be desired !

    I hate coming up with a subject (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Left of the Left on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 09:19:51 PM EST
    Given the damage they caused during the previous decade, the Republicans portend disaster for the country, were they to regain the levers of power.

    I wont speak for Anne, but this is where I have trouble wrapping my head around it. They are doing that damage anyway because existing dem leadership, obama in particular, has accepted their argument. I'm perfectly fine with lesser of two evils voting in a general sense. Generic Dem A is better than Generic Repub B.

    But these aren't generic, non-specific candidates.

    As Anne has pointed out the course Obama is taking, and the arguments he is presenting, are under Republican framing. He is out there with them selling how the deficits and spending are the top priority and how to get the economy going again. Just recently the payroll taxcut debate is another example.

    Congress will not be Dem controlled, and best case will be just barely split party control. The moment for a democratic agenda is gone. So a President who has been itching for compromise will finally have his opportunity to do so, without fear of losing dem support, or reason to play for anything other than another historic moment- like his failed grand bargain.

    SO while I can see the damage done if a Bachmann, or Paul had won, I struggle to see Romney in that same light. With Obama out of office Democrats can be democrats again, and we can put a stop to the dilution of party principles.  

    Lesser of two-evils is a short term solution that ignores the long term damage being done. It is a valid strategy to prevent some nut from obtaining control. It should not be the default voting strategy for every election. This isn't some hypothetical test with blank candidates.

    I do not see what there is to fear in a Romney presidency. What could a moderate Romney (playing for centrist support with a tea party to play off of) sign onto, that Obama (compromiser in chief) would somehow protect us from?

    I'm willing to be convinced, but whats so scary about Romney? He's not a fanatic, he's just a pol whose desire to remain in office will keep him from doing anything truly crazy.


    If you had directed that at me (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by sj on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 08:56:10 PM EST
    I would be royally pi$$ed.  In fact, I kind of am anyway, because I agree with everything LOTL said, with the very notable exception of the last two paragraphs.  And I've been pretty clear that I got my hands VERY "dirty" doing just those things you recommend.  Only to have the state party actively undermine anyone who was just a little too populist.  

    The voting public didn't try to kill those campaigns -- the party did.  And having done my level best to actually support those populist candidates or potential candidates only to have those efforts shot down, I don't have to justify my attitude to you or anyone else.  Advocate rebellion or revolution?  No, I don't do that.  But I fear it.  Because working within system would work if it was honest.  A gamed system is a broken system.

    Now I get that you believe in the process.  But as you mentioned above, Hawaii is hardly a microcosm of the Party at-large.  I think your viewpoint can't help but be colored by your positive experiences, as mine is colored by own distasteful ones.  And from where I sit -- and have sat -- your view is practically dripping with the rose color of your glasses.

    I don't have a solution.  I thought I did, once.  Turns out I was wrong.  And it was years before I would admit that.  But wrong I was.  

    The closest thing I've seen to changing the game in the last 30 years is Occupy.  And they are doing it (so far) by staying out of electoral politics.  That a nascent movement could change the conversation from all deficit-reduction/entitlement-reform/austerity all the time to income inequality and the 99% is astounding to me.  Because I can tell you for sure working within the current process was. not. doing. it.


    Well it's simple really. (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Left of the Left on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 10:44:13 PM EST
    Support candidates worth supporting, and not allow oneself to be scared into supporting those who are not. Support in any capacity possible, if not financially, then physically. If not financially or physically then voting and word of mouth. AT no point did I advocate rebellion or checking out of the process. Not everyone can do what you have done, that does not lessen their vote, opinion, and says nothing of their argument. It's actually quite irrelevant in this discussion honestly.

    My point, which you either missed or chose not to address, was what is there to fear in a Romney that Obama will protect us from?

    Lesser of two evils should not be the standard voting strategy. Continuing to do so is what allows those like Obama to ignore the base because at the end of the day they will vote for him anyway. I am saying people own their vote, it belongs to no other person or party, and should be earned.

    Also, do you not see the disconnect between this:

    Because to be perfectly blunt, while I see and hear people like you on the internet, when it comes time to organize politically at Democratic caucuses, you're generally nowhere to be found. There's the occasional stray individual, but nowhere near the numbers that one would think was out there, given your collective presence online.

    and this:

    That said, I'm still voting for Obama. What's waiting in the batwings of the GOP is simply and unequivocally nonsensical. None of those clowns would be acceptable as a candidate for the local zoning board or water commission, let alone for the presidency. Given the damage they caused during the previous decade, the Republicans portend disaster for the country, were they to regain the levers of power.

    Maybe you dont see their presence because they're so demoralized from buying into this lesser of two evils stuff that establishment people like you tell them is best.


    I (none / 0) (#130)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:34:25 PM EST
    think Obama comes off as a glib bullsh*tter when he campaigns.

    Some people like to be entertained by their masters.
    They voted for W, and they'll probably vote for O.


    The anxiety and fear I see daily is Increasing.. (none / 0) (#105)
    by samsguy18 on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 04:07:28 PM EST
    I live in a blue state and I can tell you for the unemployed ...underemployed...uninsured and bankrupt....they'll vote for anyone but Obama.

    I live in Western PA (none / 0) (#118)
    by smott on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 05:08:37 PM EST
    ....a "formerly" blue state....may stay blue if Newtie gets in...I think may go red if Mittens is the nom.

    And I agree. Desperation. This is a depression that has not been reported in the press.

    I think we'll see where the GOP party powers stand in the next couple weeks. If they feel it's a no-chance throwaway Newtie may get in. If they feel there's a real opp to beat Obama, it's Mittens.

    I'm picking Mittens if only because he has seemed (at least mostly) to be the pick of Fox News.


    My patient population is a cross section (none / 0) (#122)
    by samsguy18 on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 05:32:46 PM EST
    I started practicing in the early eighties...It didn't seem or feel this bad.

    But if you take away (none / 0) (#124)
    by Farmboy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 05:54:56 PM EST
    the crazy, the scandals, the evangelical pontificating, and the racism - Obama is running unopposed.

    I completely (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:30:55 PM EST

    Four more years of Obama will ring the final death bell of the Democratic brand we used to know.

    And if either Newt or Mitt ascend to the throne, g'bye a wee bit quicker - as you said.

    I also feel that there is no election coming up.
    It's more like a game show.
    A side show.
    A carnival.
    A chance for the media to sell us some more sh*t we don't need.
    A white sale.


    Ah, you must hearing the black (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:36:31 PM EST
    helicopters of the pro-Obama hit squad that would take out any primary challenger, as you posited awhile ago.

    You (none / 0) (#133)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:37:22 PM EST
    have a screw loose.

    You said it. (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:41:38 PM EST
    Well now... (3.50 / 2) (#169)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 04:34:40 PM EST
    Who is off in conspiracy land, lentinel?  Who is into the "Ooh  everything Obama could possibly think dream feel must be wrong, devious, or tricky because it must be so" land?  What the hey...!

    I voted "Medicare ForALL" in 2010 in (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by seabos84 on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 04:17:03 PM EST
    ALL state level and federal offices, and, it felt GREAT!

    A week doesn't go by where 1 of the 'leaders' in the Washington state Democratic Party isn't mouthing some right wing talking point, trying to fit into that right wing definition of 'moderate' blah blah blah.

    Unlike in the years and the decades past, while I felt ILL over their pathetic politics, I felt GREAT that I had NOT voted for any of them last time around!

    IF Newtie is the nominee, the sell out branch of the Democratic Party - a branch I will NEVER EVER support again - is going to do what they did since 0bummer picked Geithner & Summers and Rahm ... they're gonna double down.  The "progressive" diaper wetters will still be buying the adult diapers by the pallet at Costco.

    We need a lot of Graysons - to hell with the rest of them. Free yourself - always vote

    stop voting sell out.


    (p.s. - I helped on school board races last summer and fall, and helped flush 2 of 4 Arne Duncan ed-DeFibber toadies - there is plenty to do and there are plenty of decent candidates - to hell with the top.


    Surrender to the inevitable? (none / 0) (#127)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:17:05 PM EST
    My bet is you won't be able to just let the world roll by.  Judging by the intelligence and passion consistent in your every comment, you won't be able to surrender to the inevitable.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:12:17 PM EST
    but I am still not so absolutely sure that Romney would be so much more of a threat to Obama than Newt.  so far Romney has been an disaster as a candidate IMO.  and he seems to get worse as he goes along.

    I just saw a guy on teevee making a pretty good case that Newt might do better with hispanics than Romney would have because he has not been as hard line and in fact lots of people thought his positions on the subject, for example that its not practical or humane to deport millions of people who have been here for many years, would be a problem with him with republicans.

    also New would IMO pretty much eliminate the possibility of a right wing third party run.  something that I think would be a virtual certainty if Romney is the nominee.  the base loves Newt and the hate Romney.

    I pretty much agree with what you said but I think the difference between the two republican candidates is that Newt would, I agree, make it much better for democrats all the way down to dogcatcher to win.  but I think the race between him and Obama could possibly be a very interesting  one.

    Romney is FROM Mexico (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:29:52 PM EST
    He's an anchor baby for God's sake :)

    My Aunt is Latino as now are my cousins (none / 0) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 04:24:43 PM EST
    because of her.  We joke about such things often, sorry that I offended you.

    Correction (none / 0) (#110)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 04:28:52 PM EST
    It was Mitt's great-grandfather who fled to Mexico.

    Have you seen the film Lonestar? (none / 0) (#137)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:44:33 PM EST
    Great movie and great cast....

    Deals with anti-Latino sentiment in 1950s Texas....

    Half the school age children in Texas are Latino.....The Lone Star State will turn blue too, soon.


    Have you seen today's (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 07:39:21 PM EST
    redistricting decision?  

    Newt up on Spanish-language radio in FL (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:27:43 PM EST
    and it's not pretty for Romney.

    In the piece, a man's voice (not Gingrich) calls Mitt Romney a "liberal" who is "anti-immigrant" and may have "fame" but not be up to the job of president. Perhaps most damning, the ad says, "Mitt Romney goes around using Castro phrases," referring to the 2008 presidential campaign when Romney, campaigning in Miami, mistakenly associated a Fidel Castro slogan with a free Cuba.

    Romney talked about Patria o muerte, venceremos -- Fatherland or death, we shall overcome -- a trademark phrase Castro used to close his speeches. Romney's use of the phrase did not sit well with Cuban Americans, who, according to a Miami Herald report at the time, "winced."

    Click through to read a partial transcript (translated) of the radio ad.

    Newt's nu Catholicism (none / 0) (#60)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:38:57 PM EST
    may help with some Hispanics, but I wouldn't think so with many Cubans, even before this ad.  BTD is by far better to explicate the great diversity among the many people put under the granfalloon of "Hispanics," but I think that this ad is off on several counts that suggest that Romney is getting bad advice on this issue, at least for Florida, as well.

    Mitt is such a knucklehead! (none / 0) (#64)
    by DFLer on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:46:52 PM EST
    what idiot briefed him (none / 0) (#68)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:54:07 PM EST
    to say that? He doesn't speak Spanish, to my knowledge, so someone must have taught him that line and encouraged him to use it. That would be like a 1980s candidate telling a group of emigres from the Soviet Union, "Workers of the world, unite!"

    Does Mr. Romney windsurf? (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 07:40:30 PM EST
    It doesn't seem to be hurting him (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:58:49 PM EST
    Since he's up in Florida an average of 19 points.

    You think that wasn't available back in 2008?


    that is a recent number (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:07:00 PM EST
    not long before that Newt was up by about 30 points.

    lets see what happens to those numbers after saturday


    Yes (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:28:59 PM EST
    Polling through 3 days ago - after the debate on Monday.

    I think Newt does better than average (none / 0) (#93)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:52:49 PM EST
    among senior citizens, which would suggest he has a lot of potential in Florida.

    Newtie (none / 0) (#94)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:56:30 PM EST
    Wants to have private investment retirement accounts.  

    Not sure how that plays with the "Keep you d@mn hands off my Social Security" crowd.


    I thought it was (none / 0) (#95)
    by CST on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:59:37 PM EST
    "keep your government hands off my social security"

    It might play just fine.


    Newt (none / 0) (#96)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    Has, in the past, embraced Perry's position that Social Security is uncosntitutional.  

    whatever (none / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:47:30 PM EST
    the fact is about a month ago he was about 30 points up in FL.  as I said.  lets check after saturday.

    looking forward to your spin.


    Weigel (none / 0) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:57:33 PM EST
    Newt by 30 Points in Florida
    By David Weigel | Posted Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2011, at 2:26 PM ET

    I also think because of all you said in the post (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    that if he does win saturday the republican establishment will go into absolutely ape-sh!t panic mode.  the will drag out every republican with a suit to endorse Romney (which I happen to think may have the opposite of the intended effect) but in any case it will get most fugly.

    again all good for us.

    Seems impossible, and I sure thought (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:58:57 PM EST
    this was over.

    If Newt Gingrich is nominated, I will never be happier to eat crow.

    And now Romney reminds everyone (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:08:37 PM EST
    Exactly why Newt is unelectable.  Because if Nancy knows the secrets, Obama knows the secrets in such a way that the ethics violations may become more fully known by all.

    Who knew that any of this was going to be this fun?

    It's fun (none / 0) (#128)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:21:37 PM EST
    except when the realization sets in that we're in store for another dreary 4 years of Obama.

    Have you ever (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:53:46 PM EST
    smiled. Or this standard fare for members of the mopey whiny wing of the Tigger party.

    What (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 08:14:00 PM EST
    is a Tigger party?"

    Where do you get phrases like "mopey whiny"?


    Students chanting Mitt Mitt Mitt (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 12:03:24 PM EST
    in Greenville this morning not far from several college campuses. Furman students? Wofford students? USC Upstate students? Maybe Bob Jones students?  

    Nope, they were bussed in from Brigham Young.

    Interesting bit of news there. (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 12:11:31 PM EST
    This is great news (none / 0) (#1)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:28:50 AM EST
    for John McCain.

    Yes (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:49:27 AM EST
    that was the reference.

    This is not great news (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:49:58 AM EST
    Newt will never get the nomination, so it means nothing for the Democrats.

    I used to believe that, now I am not so sure (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:56:47 AM EST
    They may be just that crazy.

    Yeah, they may be and that suits me (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:07:16 PM EST

    He would, if the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:00:18 PM EST
    wants to take a bye on 2012, as I tend to think that it wanted to do in 2008.

    The long game, and all that.


    Yeah, they surely got almost all they want (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:05:02 PM EST
    without a GOP POTUS. Why not swing for the fences again? They don't have a lot to lose. Eventually they will come up with an electable candidate and get back to the job of packing the courts.

    So cynical! (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    But doesn't it just fit? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:43:56 PM EST
    Yep. (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:52:28 PM EST
    Jeb in 2016 (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:08:39 PM EST
    If Romney wins, Jeb is out.

    "Many swing states would become safe" (none / 0) (#5)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:58:45 AM EST
    You betcha.  

    Yup. It would be total repudiation of the (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:02:46 PM EST
    'court independents' strategy.

    I realize I am being two faced - I would love it if Dems abandoned that strategy. We'll see how it plays out.


    Oh, they won't call it court independents (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:06:38 PM EST
    but it will be the same old kabuki, reaching out, compromise is necessary, capitulation on the first offer.  The reasons why they do it always change but that they continue to do it speaks volumes about the Dems real purpose.

    Quell the masses while leaving intact as much of the status quo as possible.


    True enough (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:14:17 PM EST
    And the GOP does not have to call it that anyway, since a lot of so-called independents are just GOPers embarrassed by the far right. They tend to fall into line without any particular 'courting'. It is the Dems that think they can win them over with the pretty talk about reaching out.

    Which is another reason (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:02:19 PM EST
    It will never happen.  

    Newt can bring the red meat in debates though (none / 0) (#17)
    by magster on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:16:26 PM EST
    I can see the media glorifying Newt's general election hyperbole as the "tonic for a dysfunctional system" or some such blather.

    Not if Dobson has anything to say about it (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:21:03 PM EST

    That's the news this morning from the evangelical right as Focus on the Family's James Dobson declares his preference for Santorum because, among a host of other reasons, Karen Santorum "would make a fabulous first lady role model."

    Here's the zinger.

    Dobson went on to compare Karen with Calista, noting that "Newt Gingrich's wife  . . . was a mistress for eight years."

    What a sexist woman hating slob.  It isn't Newt that's the slut, it is that damned horn playing Calista :0).  Any reason to hate on a vagina is good for Dobson.

    That tells it all, doesn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:34:00 PM EST
    One more reason to cheer Newt on. anything that discredit's Dobson and his ilk is fine with me.

    wasn't Karen living in sin (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:22:52 PM EST
    with an abortionist doctor 40 years older than her?

    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:42:28 PM EST
    See story on Daily Beast, as I recall.  Fascinating -- but I can see how this can and will be explained away, with blather about forgiveness and coming to the light and the like, which will play well with the anti-abortion community.  I know one of the local leaders, and her radio show today has all sorts of confessionals from those who were so wrong in their foolish youth.  The timing of this show, of the appeal a week ago for the confessionals, tells me that the Santorumites are ready.

    Why wouldn't Gingrich's "forgiveness" (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:26:13 PM EST
    meme play just as well with the Dobson's of the world?  Can't convert to Catholicism?  

    Probably because evangel protestants deem (none / 0) (#99)
    by easilydistracted on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 03:21:53 PM EST
    Catholics as idol-worshiping sinners on the fast track to Hades. I attended an evangel church in my grade school years. We were taught that Catholocism was the work of satan. Evangels generally won't admit it openly (except maybe for members of the KKK)but behind those church doors they are calling the Pope a false prophet. Doesn't surprise me the Dobson types aren't buying this confession/redemption stuff.

    I always found that funny (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 04:26:37 PM EST
    As it was, you know, Jesus who told St. Peter that he was teh rock upon which he would build his church - the church that was the Catholic church.

    Ah, you will love the Mormon gloss (none / 0) (#144)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:59:00 PM EST
    on that.....

    Global warming ad with Nancy Pelosi (none / 0) (#162)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 02:36:21 PM EST
    Gingrich's repentance is largely accepted, but that still doesn't make him pure ideologically as Santorum.

    There is no forgiveness for fetus murder (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:39:06 PM EST
    Not on the religious right, maybe the religious wrong.

    I don't know about living in sin... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:35:54 PM EST
    but definitely working in sin. through the lens of the likes of Dobson.

    Then again maybe thats a plus for Santorum through that lens, he straightened the Mrs. right out;)


    Yes, indeed (none / 0) (#83)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:37:37 PM EST
    Uhhhm Verrrrr (none / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:38:07 PM EST
    I didn't know this.

    so far he and his (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:21:15 PM EST
    buddies backing of Santorum has resulted in exactly squat.

    They've only just begun....... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:35:09 PM EST
    Karen's white lace and promises, a kiss for luck and their on their way :)

    I know who Tebow is for (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:37:35 PM EST
    And it's not the mistresses :)

    In not sure what you are saying (none / 0) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:44:28 PM EST
    you think between Newt and Romney they would support Romney?  if so, perhaps.  I will believe it when I seen it.  it is certainly not happenin for Santorum

    They'll support Romney before Obama (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 11:22:09 AM EST
    That's a given, a reluctant one.  Where else they gonna go?  As for Newtmania, just a flash in the pan.  I think this goes down to whatever wire with Romney and Santorum.

    I completely disagree (none / 0) (#163)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 03:02:14 PM EST
    I think Newt is going to win easily today.  that means he is going to get so much free media - since it is the first real surprise of the primary and the news is going to wallow in it - that he will effectively counter any amount of paid media Romney can buy in FL, in additional to getting millions to spend on paid media, and he may very well win there.

    what happens then is anyones guess.  but its going to be fun.

    any Newt win today is going to give him enormous momentum but if he should win by, say, double digits - as I actually think he will - it will be a Newtnami.  and if he wins in FL Romney is in serious trouble.  not only from Newt but from the establishment who will realize he is 1 and 4 and the one was basically his home state.


    Wait until the unknown (none / 0) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 06:18:05 PM EST
    ethics violations catch up with him though.  He's done before he ever began unless Pelosi and everyone who was part of the investigations is full of it when they say there are big big nasty messy secrets in there.  He's unelectable.

    Could it be that the South Carolina (none / 0) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    Republicans have been impacted by OWS?   Romney has dropped like a stone since his self-portraiture as poster boy for the one percent.  And, just as the primary voters seemed to be resigning themselves to his religion with its polygamous past, questions may have arisen in their minds as to what else besides all that cash may be secreted away in the Caymans.  

    So, once again the Republicans find themselves on the prowl for a non-Mitt.  Ron Paul, would be  just fine in the domestic area, but no wars is scary for them.  So what to do?  The more anyone gets to know Santorum, the less they like him; forgiveness is for sexual affairs and such, but K Street lobbying, is more one percent and trumps forgiveness. Also, Google may not be blackened out.

    How about Gingrich.  There is so much to forgive, either a blanket of forgiveness needs to be dished out, or forget about it.  Besides all  that really counts is that he believe that marriage is between one man and one women, and he has been faithful to that belief, if not to the woman, or to those scary words: until death do us part.  Now add a dollop or three of racism and you have a  Republican South Carolina victor to be set free on the nation.

    I heard some SC GOP woman on NPR (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:12:01 PM EST
    the morning positively cooing about how Newt as a fellow southerner knows how to, and I wish I could remember her exact words, talk to SC people and acknowledge their history and outlook, whereas Santorum with his PA pedigree just does not get it. It boiled down to Newt's fluency in the racial coded language, which he has displayed so masterfully in the last week.

    Well Bless her heart (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:45:09 PM EST
    Perfect riposte! (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 04:06:16 PM EST
    (I miss Kathy.)

    Me too. Discussion here the other (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 07:36:52 PM EST
    day re Michelle Obama's job interview w/Valerie Jarrett.  I thought:  where the heck is Kathy.  She owned that issue.  

    Cayman Islands (none / 0) (#43)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:22:33 PM EST
    prediction:  We will hear  everything we want to know about banking practices on the Caymans...and more. What images!
    What images ESP in these hard economic times!  

    I'm rootin' (none / 0) (#28)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:04:38 PM EST
    for Newtie.


    Because in terms of policy - wars - oil interests topping aggressive policy toward renewable sources - suppression of civil liberties - detention without charge or trial - invasive Justice department - jingoistic foreign policy - rendition - Gitmo - etc.

    they're close to being on the same page.
    They express it differently....

    So in a debate, when old Newtie comes out with one of his horror stories, Obama will have to pretend he's on the other side.

    That would be interesting to hear... not that I would believe it...

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:14:28 PM EST
    that Newt Obama debates is something I would like to see.

    Just to prove BTD's point on how Newt is ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by magster on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:19:32 PM EST
    the Dems greatest dream, look at Newt's favorability ratings just posted on TPM.

    Gingrich is likely (none / 0) (#40)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:20:12 PM EST
    to pull a Reagan move and give amnesty to illegal aliens, even though he speaks with a forked tongue and claims to be against it.

    At least Romney is against letting law breakers jump ahead of the immigration line.

    I agree (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:25:39 PM EST
    and the immigration issue is only one on which he will be unpredictable and completely craven and opportunistic.

    if Gingrich were the nominee (none / 0) (#46)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:24:13 PM EST
    The 2012 election would have the largest gender gap ever recorded.

    not if (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:26:04 PM EST
    you believe Ann

    If you're going to take a page out of (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:31:54 PM EST
    ABG's book, and invoke my name on a regular basis, at least spell it right, would you?

    But, as to your point, I have no idea what you are talking about.  Plenty of Republican women will vote for Newt, and while many women have cooled on their support for Obama, I'm sure many of them will vote for Obama.

    I only ever speak for myself: I'm a woman who won't vote for any Republican, and likely won't vote for Obama - or anyone - for president.  Whether there are a lot of other women who feel the same way, I couldn't - and didn't - tell you.


    even among Republicans (none / 0) (#53)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:28:36 PM EST
    Newt consistently polls much better among men. Independent women are going to run screaming from the GOP ticket if he's the nominee.

    there is a gap (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:36:41 PM EST
    but not as much as you might think.  I saw this being discussed this morning.  more gop women support Santorum for example and more men Newt but when it came to Newt or Obama the seemed to think they would stick with Newt.

    of course you would probably have to say (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:40:49 PM EST
    that was based mostly on opinions before the interview which may or may not have an effect.  personally I suspect not much.

    the GOP women (none / 0) (#67)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:52:35 PM EST
    will vote for the GOP nominee, whoever it is, but the GOP women are reluctant now to support Newt because he is much less appealing to women than to men.

    During the 2008 primaries Romney did better among women than men--don't know if that's the case in current polling. I see either Romney or Santorum as potentially more appealing to women than Gingrich by a mile.


    Gingrich attracted Calista. Not sure (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:34:07 PM EST
    how though.  

    Maybe science should investigate the (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:39:30 PM EST
    possibility that when plastic meets scum, some sort of magnetic field is created...

    haven't you heard? (none / 0) (#91)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:51:57 PM EST
    power = the ultimate aphrodisiac.

    also about the Mary ann thing (none / 0) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:46:04 PM EST
    she was the second wife right?  so wasnt she the "other woman" at some point?

    Clemson University (none / 0) (#71)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:00:59 PM EST
    poll just released gives Newt a 6 point lead matching yesterday's PPP poll. Like the PPP poll, Clemson was conducted Wednesday and Thursday.

    Ahhhhh.... (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 02:47:29 PM EST
    Newtie wants Romney's tax returns, and now Mittens is demanding unreleased documents from Newtie's ethics violation investigations while in the House.

    And predictably, Nancy Pelosi gets blamed.

    Tsk, tsk.

    And hey - Obama didn't release his tax returns until late March, McCain, Kerry and Bush released theirs in April.

    that must be why he was (none / 0) (#140)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 06:48:16 PM EST
    booed and hooted at in a republican debate last night.

    Meh (none / 0) (#153)
    by trillian on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 08:45:34 AM EST
    Who cares who wins the WH? Either way, we are looking at a future of reduced civil liberties, a two tiered justice system, death of due process.....and of course austerity.

    How do you cook a frog? (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by chrisvee on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 10:03:56 AM EST
    If Obama wins, we continue to get bamboozled until it's too late to get out of the pot.  If a Repub wins, self-preservation forces us to jump out of the pot.

    Although I would never vote for one of these Repub clowns for President, I can't help but wonder if long term Obama has been very bad for Dems indeed.