Why Newt Nomination Would Be Great For Dems

Via The Hill, A Republican operative explains:

Henry Barbour, a top Rick Perry fundraiser who endorsed Mitt Romney after the Texas governor dropped out, said Gingrich could not beat President Obama and would cost Republicans many House and Senate seats.

Barbour told The Hill that [. . . ] Gingrich [. . .] would turn the presidential race from a referendum on Obama into "the adventures of Newt Gingrich." "Newt would be a disaster as the nominee," he said. "He will put the House at risk. He will put our chances of taking the Senate down the tubes."

"He's too polarizing a figure to win the White House. He can't win independent voters and we can't win the White House without independent voters. He would be a disaster for our down-ticket candidates and our gubernatorial candidates."

Yes. Yes he would.

Speaking for me only

< Newt Gingrich Wins South Carolina Primary | R.I.P. Joe Paterno >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Henry Barbour?? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by BTAL on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:33:08 AM EST
    Haley Barbour's nephew...  Who fund raised for Perry...  Far from a the sharpest knife in the drawer.  

    How about Karl Rove? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:39:11 AM EST
    What do you suppose he thinks?

    Rove will pontificate during the (none / 0) (#23)
    by BTAL on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:50:57 AM EST
    primaries but will hold fire financially until the general - backing whoever has the nomination.

    Reliable reporting from behind the scenes (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:52:14 AM EST
    has had him working to clear a path for Mitt.

    Heh (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:54:26 AM EST
    You know what he thinks.

    Read it again (none / 0) (#46)
    by BTAL on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:33:57 AM EST
    Never stated what "I" think "He" thinks.

    The statement is what "I" think he will do.  No different than your opinion backed up with a quote from someone who is a third or fourth tier player.


    Senator Sharron Angle, Senator (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:32:57 AM EST
    Christine O'Donnell.

    I'm sure a Newt nomination (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:39:54 AM EST
    would be at least as entertaining as that new show I keep seeing promos for - Hillbilly Billionaires (tell me the woman who says, "I like my new teeth" doesn't look like the chihuahua in the Pedigree Denta-bone commercials) - but I would probably give an arm and a leg to see post headlines like, "Why Obama Nomination Would Be Great For Dems," because it might mean he was an honest-to-God Democrat.

    Or perhaps, a post title that is closer to the truth: "Why Newt Nomination Would Be Great For Obama," since, as near as I can figure, we're going to be reduced to cheering for this one mans's political fortune so we can keep denying that, after the confetti and balloons, after the victory speech (hey, if Bank of America Park gets the convention, where will the victory speech take place - Wall Street?) the reality is that what Obama's going to do with another four years isn't going to do much for us, for the country, or for the Democratic brand.

    I truly don't think Newt's going to end up with the nomination; I do think he's going to get close enough that, by the time he implodes or explodes or does his impression of Mt. St. Helens, the GOP is going to be unable to, um, pivot successfully to another candidate.

    Yay....where are my pom-poms?  

    It's great for more than Obama (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:57:29 AM EST
    My most persuasive example I think is Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts.

    BTW, who is your congressman if you don't mind my asking?

    I vote in Florida so mine is Allen West. Believe me, I'll vote for ANYONE over him.


    Shame about the closed primary ;) (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:05:10 AM EST
    wow (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:00:41 AM EST
    Allen West.

    Im so sorry.  that even trumps my AR one.


    No worries BTD (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:30:33 AM EST
    Elizaeth Warren will win with or without Newt as a foil.

    And, the Giants will win too.

    I like the former; but the latter, not so much.


    Well, under the old maps (none / 0) (#51)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:48:38 AM EST
    I was in MD-1, which is Roscoe Bartlett - and he has owned that district; under Gov. Martin O'Malley's new map, I am in MD-7, which is Elijah Cummings - much preferable, but the new map looks to squeeze Bartlett out and make it easier for a Democrat to be elected, so there's all kinds of hoo-ha going on.

    I'm hoping the new districts stand; would love to be in Cummings' district - I might actually have representation for a change.


    If you were in Bartlett's district before, (none / 0) (#58)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:15:43 AM EST
    that was the 6th, not the first.

    Oh, and the new map stands. Bartlett will likely be defeated in his new district by a Montgomery County Democrat--if he survives the primary.

    Here's an idea of what the Dems did.


    Oh, of course - I meant to type "6th" (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:52:43 AM EST

    And I don't even have the excuse of the "1" being near the "6" on the keyboard.

    Even though Cummings won't need my vote to win, it will be extremely satisfying to cast an enthusiastic vote for a Democrat - something I haven't done for a while.


    Alan West is my Rep too (none / 0) (#127)
    by Madeline on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 03:31:29 PM EST
    I would vote for anyone over west also.  Honestly,I don't know how he was even elected .

    Actually, the converse that works well (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:59:21 AM EST
    is "Why Obama Nomination Is Great for Republicans."

    Of course, any nomination on either side will be best for advertising agencies, as has been pointed out here so well by a commenter (whose TL name I wish that I could recall).  That's the contest, between advertising agencies, not between candidates, when Newt also claims that he is not a Washington insider.  

    But if a sitting U.S. Senator could make that claim and be believed by millions, why not a former member of the House?


    Eureka. No wonder Sen. Obama never (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 11:39:06 AM EST
    called a mtg. of his subcommittee.  It's biblical, really.  In, but not "of," Washington.  

    My favorite moment along that track (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 01:41:05 PM EST
    was Santorum in the course of 3 minutes in his NH speech saying both that he was a Washington outsider, and that he was the go-to guy in the Senate for conservative causes.

    You know (3.50 / 2) (#40)
    by jtaylorr on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:26:33 AM EST
    you can continue to post these long, concern-trolling posts, or you can grow up and realize elections have consequences.
    Do you really think CA high-speed rail will ever get built if a Republican is in the White House? What about the increased MPG standards Obama/EPA have been finalizing? The chances of an Infrastructure Bank being created if Obama loses? 0%. What about the Supreme Court?!

    Maybe the policies of the President have no real direct effect on you, so you have the luxury of complaining about Obama at every turn. But unlike yourself, I (and millions of others) are directly affected by the Prez' policies (at work/home and/or daily life), and let me say, the past four years have been like night and day compared the 8 years of darkness that came before.

    So continue living in your fantasy world where politicians do the right thing (just because!) and fundraising suddenly isn't even a consideration. The rest of us adults will vote for whatever lying liar of a politician plays the game best, hold positions closest to ours, and has the least baggage. For most people, that is Barack Obama.
    And until you rewrite the constitution and completely change how are politicians are motivated and their incentives, that is how politics will work in the United States.


    Unfortunately... (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:53:05 AM EST
    ...what you have just written is precisely why politics does not and will not work in this country for the forseeable future.

    I don't think Anne would think elections don't have consequences, I think she simply disagrees with what you would consider the OVERALL effect of those consequences.  What do you say, for example, to the millions of decent and hardworking people NEGATIVELY affected by Obama's failures?  Would you tell them what you just told Anne?  I doubt it.  But perhaps you don't think Obama's failings real or meaningful.  And i remind you: under this man's watch, and with his pen, Americans can now be detained indefinitely without trial or charges.  That is postively Orwellian and the democratic messiah signed it.  There is NOTHING you can tell anyone -- bullsh*t, cowardly, thimble-dicked signing statement or no -- that can spin that as anything less than one of the single most shameful and destructive acts in the history of the country.  Do you REALLY think that precedent is a good one to start?  Really???

    Personally, I think we are all of us living in a very pathological state of denial, more serious than we ever have.  Just IMO, but EVERY political conversation going on right now seems beyond the realm of the absurd.  The way we are talking about employment and money, for example, in a FIAT ECONOMY IN THE YEAR 2012 is, to me, suicidal in nature.  It is so completely deluded and irrational that it is literally wrist-cutting in its effect.  Our stupidity is killing us.  Oh but the Rebpulicans are crazy.  Yep, they are, and how do you fight that?  You FIGHT it, you don't try to embrace it, you don't LEGITIMIZE crazy by saying it has things to contribute to the conversation.  

    Bottom line, you're happy with Obama, many others aren't.  You wanna line up positives and negatives, and attribute things to Obama that resulted from his strong LEADERSHIP, please, he falls far short of what is necessary to keep our country from merely treading water until it drowns.


    wow (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 01:24:09 PM EST
    it would be great if we lived in a utopian world wouldnt it.  and it would be awsum if Dennis Kucinich could be elected president but he cant.

    you're happy with Obama, many others aren't

    there is a very big difference between being happy with Obama and being enough of an adult to understand the choice at hand.  oh, wait that would be the lesser of two evils wouldnt it.  so what.  the lesser two evils assuming that ridiculous argument is still less evil.

    of course it is possible that Obama is an honest man who never posed as the leftie many expected him to be who is doing his best to govern in the face of absolutely unprecedented obstruction and a number of filibusters unknown in the history of the country.

    so the choice is to whine about that or to support him and any other democrat who can help to stop the republican obstruction while doing all we can to push the things we want for the country.

    but the unending whining of the pathologically self righteous does get tiresome

    even if it is entertaining.  


    Obama's (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 01:38:42 PM EST
    problems largely stem from the fact that he promised different groups different things and some people believed what he was telling them. I wasn't one of them FWIW.

    The biggest thing a person could have done is check is record. That was the most telling thing of what was going to happen. His record of hiding behind present votes was actually very predictive of his behavior.


    Obama has many problems (none / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 01:42:53 PM EST
    many many problems.

    he is still the president and currently the best hope of keeping the country from the slimy clutches of the rabid right.

    you complain a lot and thats fine.  so do I.  thats not really what that comment was about.


    "Wow?" Seriously? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 08:56:55 AM EST
    But now you're dog-whistling Dennis Kucinich?  "Wow," there's some rhetorical maturity for you - I can almost see you pondering whose name you can invoke that will convey just the right amount of loony-lefty-ism...

    I don't think there's a person here who thinks it's possible to create a utopian world, but, as with the Kucinich reference, "utopian world" is meant to paint as extreme those who believe it's possible to push against the status quo and refuse to accept what the powers-that-be have decreed that status quo to be.  

    And then we move on to the use of the label, "adult," which is meant to cast those who dare to speak out in opposition as immature and unable to suck it up and gratefully accept the lesser of two evils as a good choice.

    Speaking for myself, I was never under any illusion that Obama was even close to being on the left, so I never had any expectation that he would govern as a true liberal; what I didn't expect was that it would be as conservative as it was, and that there would be such willing acceptance of rightward ideology and policy, just because there was a (D) after his name.  

    Which kind of leads to the whole issue of obstruction.  Was there anything this president hasn't pre-compromised on in hope of getting GOP "cooperation" that everyone and their grandmother knew he would never get?  Well, other than the things he absolutely agrees with Republicans and conservatives on - like indefinite detention and assassination of US citizens, the compromise of privacy and liberty in service to the GWOT, economic policy, drill baby drill, lack of accountability - and so on?  

    And then we come to "the choice to whine," yet another negative characterization of those who, believe it or not, actually love their country and choose not to remain silent and accepting when someone who purports to represent it at the highest level engages in actions and advances policy that weaken the foundation of this country in service to the accretion of power.

    One question for you: how does one do all he or she can do to "push the things we want for this country" while simultaneously supporting those who are doing just the opposite?   How does one do that without becoming one of the "whiners" you despise?

    And so you close with one last slam" "the pathologically self-righteous."  Is that a label you use for all those who speak out against what's wrong - did you deem the participants in the Arab Spring as such?  Were Democrats who spoke out against the egregious actions and policies of the Bush administrations deemed to be pathologically self-righteous for doing so?

    I didn't think so.

    You know, some of us actually remember a Captain Howdy who was vocal and vicious in his criticism of Obama in the not-so-distant past, someone who declared that he was on the verge of being done with Obama.  Was that you in your pathologically self-righteous stage, or what?

    Wait, don't tell me - you've "matured" and given up on the dream of a Dennis Kucinich-led utopian world and now your mission in life is to post hundreds of comments trying to shut people up who have something valid to say.  

    Talk about "tiresome," the Howdy Doody show is all that and so much more.


    Thank You Anne (none / 0) (#201)
    by Amiss on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 01:47:29 PM EST
    I certainly could not have said it as well.

    And I appreciated you post, btw (none / 0) (#80)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:55:38 AM EST
    Didn't mean to sound otherwise.  Peace to you.

    Oh, bite me. (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:59:20 AM EST
    If it weren't for people who refuse to accept what the corporate politicians decree to be the status quo and "the best they can do," who feel a responsibility to make their voices heard over the meek baa-ing of the herd that has accepted that decree, things would be a whole lot worse than they are now.

    This is probably the most important election in (none / 0) (#131)
    by samsguy18 on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 04:00:18 PM EST
    my lifetime...the last election many of us who live in Chicago who are University based were made to feel very uncomfortable if we dared voice our concerns or opinions about Obama.....this time I will not be intimidated...there is too much at stake !

    Heh (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:31:18 AM EST
    So true (none / 0) (#203)
    by Amiss on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 02:09:16 PM EST
    Anne says the things many don't want to hear, but which nevertheless need to be said and heard She and others like her are the ones who endeavor to keep Democrats' feet to the fire.."

    This is so very true, too bad that there are not more "Anne"'s in the Democratic Party.


    If I were a Romney supporting PAC (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:12:20 AM EST
    I would run an ad along these lines:

    "Why are Democrats smiling? They think they're running against Newt Gingrich, and their ads are ready. . ."

    It didn't work in the 2007 GOP gubernatorial primary in KY, though.

    Republican voters seem no longer to actually care about (or have any ability to judge) electability.

    I think the base (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:25:22 AM EST
    has had it with the establishment.  and their candidate(s).  I think the more establishment endorsements they trot out for Mitt the less it will help.
    as for the last sentence about electability I think there is something to that.  the net has given them the ability to never talk to anyone except people they agree with and their idea of reality has become seriously warped.
    that is clear from the things the candidates say that are so obviously right fantasy. (think Obama is a socialist)

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Lil on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 11:03:10 AM EST
    The base is defiant. They seem to want to vote for whoever rams their positions with the most arrogance and guts. I think they think if they act that way, the rest of the country will come along eventually, albeit unhappily. Actually it worked to some degree the past few years. They just never give in (until recently a little) and they got rewarded last year with a majority congress.

    Most of them seem to think (none / 0) (#120)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 02:35:18 PM EST
    that the entire country actually agrees with them.  After all, that's all they ever hear on Fox and Limbaugh.

    Jeb will back Romney.... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by trillian on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:26:43 AM EST
    ...which should seal the deal for him in Florida, dontcha think?

    Jeb, said he will not endorse (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:35:26 AM EST



    Which (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:55:38 AM EST
    Pardon me while I ice my sore shoulder from patting it, is exactly what was said here recently. Long-term, Jeb has everything to gain and nothing to lose by sitting on the sidelines.

    what do you think of Newts (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:01:32 AM EST
    chances in FL?

    Bob Schieffer invited Newt (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:21:04 AM EST
    to participate in a special one hour Face the Nation from FL next sunday in a one on one with Mitt and he basically accepted.  we will see if Romney has the nads to accept.  I would be very surprised.

    ok I think this is news (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:26:31 AM EST
    Lindsey Graham was on FTN after Newt and while he did not specifically endorse Newt had not but good things to say about him, his message and the energy he is bringing to the party.

    that seems like news to me.


    ok more (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32:36 AM EST
    the other guest on FTN was none other than Haley Barbour whos name has come up a lot about his hatred for Newt.  he also didnt say a bad thing about Newt.  and when the sort of amazed host asked directly if the agreed with the majority who thought Newt was the most electable he answered "I think that remains to be seen".

    but the thing is neither of them said one bad thing about Newt.  this is very surprising to me.  not what I expected from either of them.


    Why are you surprised (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:35:38 AM EST
    that two of the Repub "leaders" aren't attacking a Repub candidate????

    read the above post (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:37:59 AM EST
    it reflects what I have been hearing republicans say since last night about 7 pm

    the Newt segment is up (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:35:24 AM EST
    I am puzzled (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:41:33 AM EST
    are they smart enough to know piling on at this point will only help Newt and a memo went out?

    I think so (none / 0) (#112)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 01:44:13 PM EST
    I think they know he will not be the nominee in the long run, so why bait the bear now?

    I dont know if he will or not (none / 0) (#137)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 04:42:59 PM EST
    but if they dont want him to giving him that kind of praise and approval, and if you watched it was praise and approval, on a high profile show like FTN seems an odd strategy.

    the hose seemed as amazed and incredulous as I am.
    they both gave the impression they were completely on board with the possibility of Newt as the nominee.


    there was one thing that seemed (none / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 04:59:27 PM EST
    like a bit of a tell, maybe.
    Graham was the first interviewed after Newt.  the host had just invited Newt to participate in a 2 hour one on one debate with Mitt next sunday on what will be FTNs first 1 hour broadcast and Newt had accepted and the host said he would call Romney instantly after the show.  the host then went to Graham and asked for his help in securing Romneys attendance and asked what the thought about that.

    Graham smiled sheepishly and said "I think you are a dangerous man".
    then regained his composure and continued to say he thought it was a fabuolous idea and then continued on to lavish praise on Newt.


    the wholething is up now (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 11:29:41 AM EST
    Not according to Jeb today (none / 0) (#50)
    by BTAL on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:38:59 AM EST
    In that case..... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by trillian on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:51:39 AM EST
    .....he may be setting himself up as a last minute candidate. There is no way the people who actually rule this country will accept Gingrich as the nominee.  They want Obama or Mittens.....and they usually get what they want.

    Another blog I'm reading (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 01:16:30 PM EST
    as commenters claiming that a brokered convention is inevitable, already, after only a caucus and two primaries.  I'm trying to pin one down on specifics to show that is the result of none of the candidates having had more than one win, the array of candidates and low percentage for each, etc.

    ZERO chance of (none / 0) (#83)
    by BTAL on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 11:26:26 AM EST
    Jeb launching a late R candidacy, or a 3rd party effort.  It wouldn't work and would be political suicide within the party.

    He wants the whole base to implode (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 12:13:08 PM EST
    And run like a Republican not crazy resembling his daddy in 2016.  I realized today that a Newt nomination is gold for him too.

    The gray beards of the party...... (none / 0) (#102)
    by trillian on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 01:12:50 PM EST
    ....won't accept Newt....they want Mitt....but if the voters refuse to fall in line, I can see them asking Jeb to get in the race.

    Jeb (none / 0) (#129)
    by Madeline on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 03:47:05 PM EST
    most likely has a problem with Romney's immigration policies.  

    I hope he does not back anyone.


    Gallup Tracking (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23:37 PM EST
    Over the last 7 days, Newt has closed 19 points on Romney in the Gallup National 5 Day Tracking Poll From Romney up 37-13 to up only 30-25.

    It doesn't take rocket science to know that in a one day snapshot, rather than a five day rolling average, Newt has caught Romney.

    What South Carolina means for Newt in Florida we'll see over the next few days. A fair guess is that the Romney RCP 18 point lead in Florida a week ago is probably now under 5. How Romney handles his tax release over the next 2 or 3 days could decide whether Mitt loses Florida.

    the debate tomorrow (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 01:10:47 PM EST
    could be do or die

    New polls out (none / 0) (#177)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 10:00:46 AM EST
    Two Florida polls done yesterday both give Newt a sizable lead in Florida. I'm expecting a full blown negative media burst from Romney, to the financial benefit of the State of Florida.

    I got a kick (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by desmoinesdem on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 01:10:39 PM EST
    out of this David Frum tweet:

    Suppose it were Gingrich v. Obama. And suppose we restricted franchise to Republicans who served in Congress 1978-1998. It'd be a close vote

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 02:35:19 PM EST
    I disagree somewhat with what is being said. I'm sure Gingrich might help in the south some with the general election but would absolutely kill candidates in the rest of the nation. I have found this whole thing hysterical. I never thought Newt winning a primary would be so much fun!

    This also exposes the evangelical political movement as a completely bankrupt entity.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#126)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 02:42:57 PM EST
    That's very funny!

    Get this, GA6th (none / 0) (#144)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 06:43:48 PM EST
    It is fun watching ol' Newt...and, goodness, I agree with everything that you just said.   Newt: A path to victory...for us  Dems.

    Ah, the Southern Strategy & Nixon: Must be round 10 or so; except one that the Southern Showman Newtie may bite the Repubs in the butt. he has stood the Southern strategy on it's head.  especially if he can figure how to win Florida...my questions on that concern the percentage living in the conservative panhandle, the Cuban-American vote, and the vote of non- wealthy seniors.

    In any event, with Newt, it would seem to be beyond difficult to energize the "family values" vote ...unless the light hits that Michelle, Malia, Sasha and-yes-Barack sure seem like a nice (first) family.


    I'm good with it (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:12:13 AM EST
    Should I start campaigning for Newt in the panhandle?  It could start a rumor that Newt would instantly make part of his platform, that he was peeling "Reagan Democrats" off.  Newt would love that Reagan Democrat thang.  Florida might too.

    the tea party monster (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:24:56 AM EST
    the republicans welcomed into their bed is about to bite them right on the a$$

    Speak (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:29:41 AM EST
    Whatcha talkin bout?  Details

    the tea party and their ilk (none / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:32:53 AM EST
    hate Romney.  they may not love Newt but they love his anger. Newt is on a roll channeling the anger they fostered.  as gyrfalcon said in another thread, the chickens are coming home to roost.

    Florida is very different though (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:34:55 AM EST
    I don't see tea being the big hit in Florida.  I think Florida will marginalize tea.

    FL republicans are very conservative (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:38:12 AM EST
    and the primary is closed.  this is the state that dumped the establishment candidate for gov and elected bald knob and Rubio was not the establishment candidate if I remember.

    I don't think Florida is happy with its tea though (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:45:33 AM EST
    Like many spaces and places they went tea once, and it wasn't so great.  Why go there again when it turned out so badly the first time?  They are not happy with their tea govenor.  This will not help Newt, and works sadly in Mitt's favor with the state's Conservatives.  Just my take.  The panhandle can go Newt but he's going to be fighting Santorum for that bone too and Santorum plays just as well in the pandhandle IMO.

    There's Florida, and then there's (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:46:52 AM EST
    the Florida Republican base.

    If you think Florida can't nominate Newt, I have two names for you: Christine O'Donnell and Carl Paladino.


    who do you think (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:49:06 AM EST
    the 30% is who is still happy with the teaparty whackjob gov?

    Sorry, not convinced at all :) (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:50:05 AM EST
    Newt is (whatever else) (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:22:57 AM EST
    a smart guy.  he knows what is about to happen to him.  and why shouldnt he.  republicans are on every cable show and blog they can get access to saying what they are about to do to him and besides they already did it in Iowa.
    I thought there was several bits in his talk last night the clearest being running an "american" campaign and not a republican one that suggest he is considering, if they force him out or swamp him with ads and testimonials from former coworkers, some kind of third party kamikaze run.

    which would also be great for democrats.

    Don't they mean "Haley Barbour?" (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:30:49 AM EST

    different guy (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:33:16 AM EST
    OK, because I thought I read (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:34:38 AM EST
    the same thing last night from Haley.

    It's not exactly rocket science.

    Except that speaking of "independent voters" is supremely stupid.


    Uncommited voters (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:39:54 AM EST
    is a phrase I am trying out.

    But when you listen to many of them (none / 0) (#34)
    by observed on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:11:07 AM EST
    talk, you think maybe they SHOULD be committed.

    Of course, that raises the question (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 01:05:50 PM EST
    as to how many Republicans really want a republic, and how many Democrats really want a democracy.

    Hey, BTD, any insight (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:36:04 AM EST
    on how the Miami Cubans are going to vote?

    Not a decisive split I think. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:38:33 AM EST
    Slightly for Romney I imagine.

    Romney has been extremely hard line (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:41:34 AM EST
    on immigration and pretty hard on hispanics in particular.  Gingrich has been courting them.  well, as much as a republican is able to.

    Not much to choose from (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:53:53 AM EST
    This is not a Jeb Bush situation.

    I am certain that Romney did ads in spanish (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:45:38 AM EST
    in 2008. I think he even got his spanish-speaking son to narrate.

    We'll see if he "goes there" again.


    Yes, and apparently (none / 0) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 02:27:00 PM EST
    used a Castro-era slogan by mistake in one of them.

    Didn't those ads backfire? (none / 0) (#145)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 06:48:56 PM EST
    Sounds to me like the Democrats (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:00:23 AM EST
    are about to "Palin" Newt. They will also have the help of the so-called "mainline" Repubs.

    Problem is, the more the water carriers of the Demos and the mainline Repubs attack Newt, the madder and more determined his base becomes.

    During the 08 lynching of Palin the mainline Repubs stayed mostly quiet. That, as much as anything else, created the Tea Party movement. They proved again who they were with their actions in 2010 in NV and MD.

    "Let sleeping dogs lie" has long been a proverb that people should obey. Newt won't be as easy as Palin. He has a sharper tongue and is quicker on his feet.

    Can he win the nomination? I don't know. Can be beat Obama? I don't know. But the thought of Obama running away from Newt's challenge for Lincoln - Douglas type debates tickles me greatly.

    Newt aint McCain. He isn't afraid to return fire.

    Be careful what you ask for. You just may get it.

    Please oh please (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:02:23 AM EST
    don't nominate Newt!

    Attack Newt? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:06:55 AM EST
    We're cheering for him.

    This is a ridiculous comment.

    Watch out for George Will, not us.


    Newt would be a good nominee (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:34:07 AM EST
    Nope (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:18:32 AM EST
    The Demo "strategists"  will be doing their best to "Palin" Newt. Just watch the talking head shows.

    Leaving aside the fact that (none / 0) (#118)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 02:32:40 PM EST
    I have no idea what to "Palin" Newt could possibly mean, Dems. won't have to do a durn thing other than maybe run some ads with clips.

    How dare you use the "lynching" (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by DFLer on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:14:46 AM EST
    metaphor for what happened to Palin....exposed as the dangerous idiot that she was/is.

    Please attend a real lynching, or at least review the history of this act in America against blacks before you use that language here so cavalierly. The comparison just doesn't come CLOSE to the real deal.


    I am referring to the numerous (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:22:51 AM EST
    lies told about her and spread by the media and Democrats, especially in Internet.

    I mean, if she was so stupid, why did the Democrats and Obama operatives/fans feel it necessary to lie?

    As for lynching and blacks, perhaps you missed this.


    T & J (none / 0) (#76)
    by DFLer on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:51:03 AM EST
    I am sick of people appropriating this language, as if what they are describing (ie Palin) even compares to the real thing. If Peanut Butter and Jelly really thinks that what happened to Palin was a lynching, I suggest that he see/study the real thing, and he would see that. It's an insult to those who suffered real lynchings. That's all.

    Well, I hope you get over (2.00 / 4) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 11:40:56 AM EST
    your illness.

    BTW - It was the Clarence Thomas hearings that demonstrated a "high tech" lynching and that is exactly what happened to Palin.


    "Please attend a real lynching"? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:20:04 AM EST

    There has to be a better way to say what you mean!


    I am extremely troubled (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:02:50 AM EST
    that I agree with much of that.

    Let sleeping dogs lie? giggle (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:28:14 AM EST
    You crack me up.  Mostly because nobody has the nose and the shovel for digging up a dead horse or a buried hatchet around here like you do :)

    Traveling? Was that you that wrote... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:26:03 AM EST
    Should I start campaigning for Newt in the panhandle?  It (sic) could start a rumor that Newt would instantly make part of his platform,

    Orbitz and Travelocity have some super deals.


    This is a great to time to vacation in Florida (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:29:02 AM EST
    No doubt about that :)  Weather's great, price is great, Presidents and wannabe candidates littering the landscape, stopping traffic :)

    Well, being a Demo (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:37:20 AM EST
    operative ain't easy!



    Well it is this year (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:40:18 AM EST
    Windfall and all that :)  Due have been paid though.  

    watching Newt on MTP (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:13:43 AM EST
    he is good.  Gregory is asking the right questions and Newt, unlike Romney, has good answers.

    from a republican point of view of course.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#122)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 02:36:28 PM EST
    He's entirely capable of sounding sane and reasonable.  Don't know that he can keep that up forever, but if he does, Dems. are going to have to run ads with clips of some of his uglier moments to remind people.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 02:41:03 PM EST
    but that will be easy. And that's why people like BTD are cheering Newt on.

    So am I! (none / 0) (#150)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:33:25 PM EST
    I just don't think we should expect him to melt down all on his own, throw hissy fits and otherwise show the voting public the Newt everybody hates.

    His years of being a talking head (none / 0) (#163)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 08:44:12 AM EST
    have paid off. He has been jabbering on TV for years, and has mastered the format. That is the only thing that makes him dangerous as a potentially viable candidate.

    If Mitt really wants to compete (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:14:47 AM EST
    He should play the polygamy card.  Open marriage seems to be working for Newt.

    Reading everyone's comments (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:34:50 AM EST
    ONE THING is clear, we all knew things weren't going to be all that great for the Republican party this go around but none of us dreamed it could get this bad for them :)  They literally out preformed and overshot all of our expectations. What does a party do with this....where does a party go when the base is cheering its candidates on as they talk about killing others and/or allowing them to die and paler shades of the Satan currently in the White House or how Obama isn't a capitalist?

    Newt got 41% (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:33:56 AM EST
    of the married female vote...

    And unless they can catch him in bed with a dead woman or live boy there isn't anything left that might run off the Christian Right.

    Tracy, people are angry at Obama.

    People are tired of almost 4 years of high gasoline, and a bad economy. That is what is hanging around Obama's neck.


    This item came out last night (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:43:21 AM EST
    When a very angry Conservative was having a meltdown in front of me.  Look, Conservative women made it very clear long ago that they have nothing in common with us free love Dem voting hippie chicks :)  And now they really have proven that :)

    Say whatever you want too Jim (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:48:57 AM EST
    But Obama is never getting up there and saying, well...let's get all the stupid people (people WE think are stupid) together, put em in a colosseum and turn unfed lions on them while we all watch and his base cheers.

    How how how how did these people go from screaming in fear in front of all rolling cameras about death panels into becoming a Roman Mob death panel before rolling cameras?


    No, what Obama has (2.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 11:36:22 AM EST
    said is that he will destroy the coal industry, wants high gasoline prices and knows "they" just want to cling to their guns and religion.

    Those Repub attack ads are made and in the can just waiting. And whereas McCain, and probably Romney, wouldn't run them, Newt will.

    Here's one:


    And here's one I would run if I was boss. It would show the average price of gasoline, starting at $1.81 a gallon and climbing to near $4.00 a gallon.


    Voice over:

    "When Obama was sworn in as President the average price of gasoline was $1.81. It is now higher. Much higher...... pause and switch to a shot of Obama on the golf course....

    But President Obama has been much too busy to try and lower prices.

    Want lower gasoline prices? Vote for Newt."

    Fade to black.


    I'm so so so tired of the coal industry (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 12:15:20 PM EST
    blabbering about how scrubbers DESTROY their industry.  It is the biggest load of crap.  Scrubbers save American lives, the brains of our children, and create jobs.  It will just mean fewer multi million dollar bonuses for some people.  That is all it means.

    I think it is the (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 01:20:40 PM EST
    scrubbers scrubbing the scrubbers's scrubbers that bother people.

    If it keeps mercury out of the air (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 02:09:56 PM EST
    and out of my fetus grandchildren while they are forming and growing up, I don't give a flying f^ck how many scrubber scrubbing scrubbers are coming out of the fatcats year end bonuses. And I always care when my genuine life preserving life needing demand creates a job!  Someday when you grow up Jim, my one wish for you is that you learn to think critically for yourself.  

    Oh please (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 02:20:44 PM EST
    Your statements are a perfect example as to why Newt is listened to.

    Thew EPA was good and has done good.

    But the bureaucrats know that if they ever say, "Good job, time to go home," they will be fired.

    So it ss unending quest to get the last 1% of the 1% of the 1%. Which is, of course, more expensive and more expensive and more expensive.

    Joe and Jane Sixpack are tired of such antics.


    Maybe they should stop drinking, ... (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 02:32:53 PM EST
    Joe and Jane Sixpack are tired of such antics.

    ... or learn the actual facts, rather than getting their "information" from climatedepot.com.


    Wish you were boss (none / 0) (#124)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 02:37:30 PM EST
    No, what Obama has said is that he will destroy the coal industry, wants high gasoline prices ...

    Not only are such blatant lies easy to debunk, they'd make Gingrich look even more unstable.

    Send 'em your CV, Jim .... please!


    How the helt is that (none / 0) (#133)
    by Madeline on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 04:10:19 PM EST
    Obamas fault?

    you must be new (3.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 04:30:13 PM EST
    everything is Obamas fault.

    try to keep up.


    Of course not (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 01:22:23 PM EST
    But if these conservative women aren't bothered very much by Newt's past actions I don't think Independent women and more liberal Repub women will be.

    I think you're wrong on that (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 01:28:01 PM EST
    as the difference is not really determined by political labels.  I think it may be more about  cultures of codependent vs. independent women.

    Oh, I think Southern women are (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 02:15:44 PM EST
    strong and independent.

    Of course I realize that doesn't match what TV is teaching you.


    If refusing to breast feed your children (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 02:31:12 PM EST
    because you pass around stories that it will destroy your hoping to be stripper boobs and make your husband arrange secret meetings with you boob job nextdoor neighbor isn't codependency, I don't know what is.  If a whole community shaming everyone who doesn't go to church on Sunday and Wednesday hoping that the shame will keep everyone in line around here and make one the highest divorce rates in the United States come down isn't codependency, I don't know what is.  If this whole cultures mindset that has led to the highest rate of pornography addiction calculated yet isn't positively the flag that says this culture is based strongly on the shame/addiction/codependency cycle over and over and over again....generation after generation, I don't know what is :)  And I expect you to understand ZERO of what I just typed :)  And that's okay, there is always the possibility it will make sense to you someday.  If falling in love with every first lady who obviously has an eating disorder of some kind isn't codependency, I don't know what is.

    And Southern women, they keep their men child-like emotionally because they manipulate.  That is the only acceptable way to get what you need. They don't make I statements, but they will bless my heart.  And that's okay, bless my heart.


    And lest we forget that Dothan AL (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 02:36:45 PM EST
    Is THE toddler beauty pagent center of the world, where we do slap fake tits on toddlers and teach them how to shake it for the audience....OY!  And this small town Christmas parade will have at least 20 pagent queens riding on their grandpa's waxed car next year :)  Please god, don't allow any of them to run over the 50 different cub scout troops marching in the parade :)  The number of different local scout troops must equal the number of churches.

    I have a daughter and a niece, (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 05:18:48 PM EST
    each of whom has lived in the South for six years or more, who would agree with that impassioned and exceptionally well-written comment, MT. Each of them has expressed very much the same observations.

    I am so glad that they have (none / 0) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 07:53:12 AM EST
    a strong family that empowers them and enables them to value their whole self and will stand by their sides when challenged.  It is important for all  people growing, but as a woman I witness the crazy out there for my own sex in this cultural region and WOW....just WOW.

    Tracy I sure hope you get to move away (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 04:17:26 PM EST
    from such a terrible place. It obviously is not worthy of such as you.



    Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 04:55:28 PM EST
    I've lived in the south almost my entire life and boy do I wish that was true but it largely isn't. Yes, there are some steel magnolias who are absolutely wonderful like my grandmother was but largely my experience has been that most southern women are extremely passive aggressive because their opinions are downplayed in the culture. When the culture teaches subservience a lot of people buy into it unfortunately.

    Oh good grief (none / 0) (#149)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:15:29 PM EST
    You folks painting all southern women as such is astounding. If someone painted any other large group with such a broad brush you would be screaming, and rightfully so.

    But let me repeat.

    41% of Southern Repub women voted for Newt.

    I assume their "man" was not in the booth, although we can be sure "he" was just outside waiting to get their pregnant bodies back to the kitchen so they can prepare supper before they all get to the church services.

    (sarcasm alert)

    Now, if those Southern women forgave and voted for Newt, whatca think Independent and liberal Repub women will do?


    They didn't "forgive him" (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 09:44:39 PM EST
    He's a Republican.

    "Family values" and marital fidelity are only relevant when they're talking about Democrats.


    Did I say (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 08:24:24 AM EST
    "all". No I did not. What I said is the culture encourages submission. I mean how many southerners were upset with the Southern Baptist Convention's declaration that women should be submissive? Not too many that I recall.

    Silly, no one has to be in the booth with them. When you have been programmed over and over to think a certain way it becomes easy but I know it used to be in SC that your husband could come in the voting booth with you.

    Hey, I had one of your conservative fellow travelers tell me exactly that: women should be barefoot and pregnant. There's a lot of them here in the south that think the same thing.

    The first time I went to NYC and I was living in the buckle of the bible belt in SC, I was shocked at how confident the women were there compared to back in SC. Completely different mindset. Women in the south hear a lot of "you can't" whereas maybe women in other parts of the country say "you can"


    Check the SC Republican Party platform (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 09:57:45 AM EST
    We oppose any legislation, which offers financial incentives for mothers to leave home for the workforce, or that creates a scenario in which the State becomes the parent.

    Link - (page 14)

    At least there's nothing about remaining barefoot ...


    I just died laughing reading your post (none / 0) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 08:43:01 AM EST
    My nextdoor neighbor, she's born and bred and I scare her :)  On Tuesday, we had to remove a 150 year old pine from the property.  My husband was sad, he almost wanted a funeral for it or something poor guy :)  And it is one hell of an accomplishment for a pine tree.  It was dead though, probably lightening, and a dead tree 70 feet tall is dangerous.

    So I get my son-in-law here with the skid steer, and we have a tree climber who is a professional at this too. The tree is too dead to climb safely though, so the tree climber has this catapult device that catapults this huge hook into the tree so that they can control its fall.  It's all roped off, the saws going.  It starts to come down and the dead top breaks off and hits the ground like a missile.  Then everything is down, saws going, skid steer hauling....I'm out there and I love it, but my dad was a contractor so how can I not love this sort of stuff.

    My neighbor stood at the edge of her property with her hand over her mouth demonstrating a look of horror for me for a solid two minutes, just watching.

    Also, we took the siding off the front of our house because there were problems we were noticing.  Wow what a mess, someone demo'd the brick off the front and then left unsealed Celotex up with huge holes in it.  You wouldn't believe it, no use even telling you how bad it was...but it was the only outside wall to the house and led directly to the indoor drywall.  It was the weekend though, so I HAD BEEN DEMOTED because some people were no longer at work.  I had to pull nails and suck up roach droppings and dead spider nests with a wet/dry vac and sweep nails, same damn job for 40 years now...no promotion :)  I'm a mess of a woman, I'm a horror :)


    Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 09:53:01 AM EST
    How can I say this????

    First, a question. Do you think you are special/different because you watch people cut a tree down? Because you work on your house?

    Tracy, you are incapable of understanding and your knowledge is so limited about the south and southern people it is almost unbelievable.

    But, when I read your multiple anecdotal comments and complaints I can only say that you attack the people around you because you are unhappy about things you can't complain about so you turn it on them.



    I understand the South just fine (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 10:48:40 AM EST
    And MY FATHER DID raise an independent, strong, beautiful, capable woman, who is not horrified when other women display in front of me how independent and strong and beautiful and capable they are too.

    AND......I understand the South just fine (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 11:00:55 AM EST
    If you have women in general encouraged and able to act like me, how do you know we aren't gasp...... lesbians.....and not needing you for much of anything?  I mean, you might actually HAVE TO grow into a decent fully integrated person who is a humanist because I/we might actually have to be able to really like you and enjoy your company to be able to commit to being with you for a lifetime :) GOD FORBID

    No Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#185)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 11:36:05 AM EST
    You attack too much and you judge based on anecdotal things.

    That isn't understanding nor is it acceptable when you use those anecdotal things to condemn a whole group.

    Think about that.  "anecdotal things to condemn a whole group."

    As a country we've spent years trying to get away from that. Yet you, who prides herself on being liberal, violates the very premise of liberalism.

    Have a nice day. And try to remember all those southern women who worked side by side with their husbands in the fields, all their lives.

    Trust me, Tracy. They weren't shy and no one pushed them around.


    Are you talking about the black girls? (none / 0) (#189)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 11:51:03 AM EST
    When they were allowed to have a husband?  Everybody knows what your chances are of finding out what they think of you, it is usually pretty good.

    What women who worked what fields?  I had one great grandmother who was born in Mississippi.  She was a Denley from Callhoun County.  My grandfather never let me be around her much though.  She grew up living next to the foundation of the family mansion that the Union Army burned down.  She was supposed to have had a different life and she was so angry and such a lunatic about that her son considered her unsafe for small children to be around.  She never worked in a field though, she cooked and cleaned for five men and a daughter and the men worked in the fields in Colorado....but she died remembering the life she "should have had" and she died a raving lunatic about it.  Stop telling me I don't get the South, I get the South and I'm sorry you can't deal with any of it but that's your problem.


    No Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#191)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 11:59:37 AM EST
    This isn't a racial issue, although I know you would like to somehow make it one.

    It does, though, display your almost complete lack of knowledge about the south both 50 years ago and today.

    As I said, you take your lack of knowledge, mix that with a few anecdotes and you become an instant expert and start judging and condemning a complete group of people.

    That's wrong, Tracy. Totally wrong.


    I mean really, you need to stop telling (none / 0) (#190)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 11:55:22 AM EST
    me about the South.  I could go to the Denley family reunion every year if I wanted to.  My dad said they would welcome me with open arms because I married white and he's a soldier.  I could be a poster child.  But they raise the Confederate flag and sing to it during the reunion and my husband said, "That's treason!"  And he means it :)

    Tracy, what I'm telling you is (1.00 / 1) (#193)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 12:04:06 PM EST
    that when you take your prejudice, mix it with some bias and add a few anecdotes........

    someone needs to tell you what you are doing.

    I just did.

    Do you really believe what you write??? Does the Denley family actually exist??


    What you're doing is wrong (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 12:09:31 PM EST
    What I'm telling you is that when you take your prejudice, mix it with some bias and add a few anecdotes........

    someone needs to tell you what you are doing.

    I just did.

    "Shariah is coming!"

    I just did.


    Hahahahahahahaha (none / 0) (#192)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 12:03:23 PM EST
    That isn't understanding nor is it acceptable when you use those anecdotal things to condemn a whole group.

    Think about that.  "anecdotal things to condemn a whole group."

    From the same guy screaming about how the scary "Moos-lims" are trying to impose "Shariah Law!" in the United States.

    You can't make this stuff up ...


    Ah yes (none / 0) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 09:33:29 AM EST
    the ole "Southern Stepford wives" claim.....

    And did that "conservative fellow travelers" tell you that he/she believed in women's rights, gay rights including gay marriage, was pro choice, for a single payer health insurance plan modeled on Medicare and believed our drug laws are messed up and needed changing?

    You know, you need to check what people have supported before you label them. But isn't your failure shown in your comments regarding me a perfect answer to your comments regarding southern women???

    BTW - Since you are concerned with cultures that require women to be submissive can I assume you are vehement in opposing any form of Shariah law?
    Especially coming to the US??


    LOL (none / 0) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 11:14:19 AM EST
    you are now backing out of what you were claiming. My problem with people screaming about Sharia Law are the same ones that are advocating for some kind of Christian Sharia which is much more likely to happen than the Sharia Law that you are talking about. I would want NEITHER but the kind of Sharia Law that you have been voting for is much more likely to happen than the Islamic kind.

    Quit voting straight GOP if you don't want to be associated with these people.


    LOL yourself (none / 0) (#188)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 11:39:11 AM EST
    Haven't changed a thing.

    But that's always a neat way of saying you agree with me.


    oh good grief (none / 0) (#151)
    by womanwarrior on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 08:35:46 PM EST
    Self respecting independent and liberal republican women may well recognize Newt for the poor excuse for a human being, narcissist, and paragon of hypocrisy that he is. At least my friends would.  

    He may be all of what you claim (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 12:21:18 AM EST
    but he still got 41% of the female vote.

    Yes, we know that. But you (none / 0) (#155)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 01:24:08 AM EST
    seem to be no longer stating that women elsewhere, including Independents, will be find with Newtie.

    Now, are you backtracking on that prediction?  Are you getting the point that the traditional political labels may not be so useful when trying to predict how his record will play in Peoria?


    cx (none / 0) (#156)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 01:24:42 AM EST
    . . . .will be fine with Newtie.

    Not changing (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 09:21:19 AM EST
    just thought it not necessary to keep repeating.

    Now, if those Southern women forgave and voted for Newt, whatca think Independent and liberal Repub women will do?

    You mean the female REPUBLICAN/TP vote? (none / 0) (#160)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 08:05:16 AM EST
    Why would that surprise anyone?

    I reread this a few times (none / 0) (#167)
    by CST on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 09:11:16 AM EST
    before I realized you wrote "Independent and liberal Repub women"

    emphasis mine.

    Liberal Republicans ey?  I guess the unicorn vote might go for Newt.

    All joking aside, I assume "liberal Republican" would be something like a northeast republican.  And no, I really don't see them going for Newt.

    I don't know much about southern women.  But if 41% of them voted for Newt that pretty much tells me all I need to know about 41% of them.


    Well, the point (none / 0) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 09:43:25 AM EST
    is that Newt has been forgiven for his affairs by a group that, supposedly, doesn't believe that sex is a private matter. That is, the southern Repub women who voted for him.

    Again supposedly, liberal Repub women believe that sex is a private matter and won't hold Newt's "affairs of the bedroom" against him.

    And the same thing can be said for Independent women.

    What I find sad is watching supposedly liberal women of all three political groups stammer when the subject of Shariah law comes up.


    They're not "stammering" (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 09:54:00 AM EST
    What I find sad is watching supposedly liberal women of all three political groups stammer when the subject of Shariah law comes up.

    They're laughing.


    liberal Republican women (none / 0) (#171)
    by CST on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 09:49:25 AM EST
    may not hold his affairs against him, but they will probably hold the fact that he's Newt Gingrich against him.

    Same with Indies.

    Your final strawman iss beyond rediculous.  But I'll let it go with - if you think it's a private matter, why would you have a problem with a solution brokered under a private value system?  If those are the rules someone chooses to live their life by, what do I care?


    Thanks (none / 0) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 09:55:01 AM EST
    If those are the rules someone chooses to live their life by, what do I care?

    So it is your opinion that all women chose to live under Shariah law?



    that's absolute nonsense (5.00 / 0) (#178)
    by CST on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 10:04:08 AM EST
    and nowhere did I say that.

    ALL women?  I want some of what you're smoking if you're reading that.


    Okay (none / 0) (#183)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 11:29:24 AM EST
    Just what number of women do you think, if they had a choice, would choose to live under Shariah law?

    Some? Those locked/raised into the culture? Is that good?

    Remember, we were talking about southern women voting for Newt and the consensus on your side was that the southern culture was the problem.

    Your position seems a bit double sided to me.  


    Sorry Jim (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 11:36:36 AM EST
    When start running around with your hair on fire screaming "Shariah law" - as if that will become the law of the United States - you have already lost the argument and can't be taken seriously.

    I know jbindc (none / 0) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 01:12:53 PM EST
    But I had rather be right and lose than PC and be part of the gang.

    BTW - I'm sure this argument was had a few years back in England.


    speaking of England (none / 0) (#200)
    by CST on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 01:45:09 PM EST
    can you point me to a single case where an "honor killing" was accepted under "shariah law"?

    I didn't think so.

    Meanwhile we kind of have that around here.  It's called the death penalty.  And boy do you guys down south sure like to dish that out.


    You mean in England (none / 0) (#202)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 01:50:11 PM EST
    ... because they allow people to choose submit their cases to a panel and settle civil/marriage disputes under Shariah principles, who's decisions are reviewed by a civil court - much like an arbitration panel?  Or, much like Jewish parties who submit their disputes to a Beth Din here in the United States?



    umm (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by CST on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 11:36:54 AM EST
    I didn't say anything about southern women voting for newt, other than say that if 41% voted for newt that tells me all I need to know about that 41%.

    I wouldn't presume to know what southern women are like since they only ones I 'know' are the ones on TL and they certainly aren't pushovers.

    I think your fear-mongering on Shariah is rediculous.  So if you think only 3 women would choose it, what are you so afraid of?  Frankly, I find the whole thing obsurd.  It's incredibly hard to live in the US and be locked into that culture.  So if you choose it, it's probably a real choice.  This isn't Saudi Arabia.  As a Muslim here you are constantly being questioned.  I'm much more concerned with those "locked into" Christian culture since that is what significant portions of this country are about.


    Well, I just pointed out your (none / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 01:18:03 PM EST
    snark and put down.

    My point is that while you, and others, claim that it is the culture that makes southern women agree to the claimed put downs (pregnant and barefoot) you want to ignore the problems facing Muslim women brought on by Shariah law.

    Honor killings in the US are very real. Stoning and executions in some Muslim countries are real. Ignore  them if you like but they aren't going away by being ignored.


    what exactly did I claim (none / 0) (#198)
    by CST on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 01:41:26 PM EST
    about southern women?  Absolutely nothing.

    If you are so worried about honor killings you should welcome Sharia Law.  FYI, honor killings are illegal.  You don't know what you're talking about.  The fact that some countries and cultures abuse it does not mean that it is in fact what "the book" says.  As a Christian I'd think you'd get that.  People do all sorts of things in the name of religion that are not actually condoned by that religion.  I'm pretty sure the bible doesn't tell you to murder all the Jews either.

    Murder in the US is very real, murder by muslims and christians and athiests alike.  Call it whatever you want, murder is murder, and your so-called Christians commit plenty of murder.


    "Honor killings in the US are ,,, (none / 0) (#199)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 01:44:46 PM EST
    very real"?  How many, Jim?  One?  Two?  There's all kinds of killing in the US - even killings because of religious beliefs - but you're not worried about anyone who isn't Muslim.  Let's see:

    Of course, there's the famous Eric Robert Rudolph.

    Don't forget Scott Roeder.

    Also Jim Adkisson.

    Here's a Christian fundamentalist couple who spanked their daughter to death.

    And what happens in the case of some religious whack-job who commits an "honor killing"?  Oh, .... that's right.  They're charged with murder just like everyone else.  Yet for some reason, you want to single out Muslims and monger fear that "Shariah Law is coming!"



    I don't watch much tv, Jim (none / 0) (#136)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 04:37:05 PM EST
    and from shows that I have watched, I can't recall many Southern women.  So that's not it.

    It certainly may be that the South only exports the many women from there whom I do see and know, and upon whom I (and others here who have discussed this) base this estimation.  They are strong in some things, by the way, but that is different.


    in South Carolina (none / 0) (#164)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 08:45:49 AM EST
    Just pointing out the small (none / 0) (#165)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 08:50:56 AM EST
    sample size. 41% of GOP women in a small state. Nothing that can be extrapolated elsewhere. Let's see how he does in Florida.

    The SC Republican platform re: marriage (none / 0) (#172)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 09:52:29 AM EST
    The link on their website doesn't work, but the SC Republican Party platform is pretty interesting.  Re: family and marriage:

    We recognize that Civil Law is often used as a moral guide. Conversely, citizens must recognize that the "pursuit of happiness" is not a license for all forms of hedonism, violence, and irresponsibility. We readily recognize that character counts, and private choices often have public consequences. Unfortunately, these points seem tragically lost on President Barack H. Obama and the Democratic Party. Toward this end, the South Carolina Republican Party stands for:

    * High regard for the institutions of Marriage & Family


    The South Carolina Republican Party considers the sacred institution of marriage as fundamental
    to the stability, betterment and perpetuation of our society. Many economic, emotional, and
    physical ills in our culture could be avoided if abstinence before and faithfulness in marriage
    were the standard of behavior.

    ... and Newt wins big.



    So Newt's been (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:04:56 AM EST
    working for Obama all along. The Kabuki Twins?

    We only needed you for (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:09:30 AM EST
    EVERYTHING to be on the table in this thread :)

    Hah. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:13:21 AM EST
    You don't mind if I take that as a compliment, do you? ;-)

    A comment that may not stay: (none / 0) (#89)
    by the capstan on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 12:14:50 PM EST
    I am beginning to get the idea that the the Republicans represent an 'absolutely anybody but Obama' position that is scarily appealing to  US voters.  Before JFK, I said I'd move to Mexico if Nixon won (glad I could not foresee the future).  What now?  Australia, maybe, rather than have to say 'President Gingrich'?

    BTW, maybe if Newt were neutered?  Nah, he'd still be insane.

    (Written in despair from the scarlet red corner of SC.)

    You mean like how they represented an (none / 0) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 12:19:43 PM EST
    absolutely anybody but Clinton position the last time they blew themselves up before they blew themselves up rubber stamping rubber room Bush.  Funny how they are putting the same lunatic up there too to do it.  Knock thyselves out! Three times is a charm and is really going to stick in some swing voters or uncommitted voters minds for the rest of their voting lives.  Knock thyselves out!

    Scary. (none / 0) (#128)
    by womanwarrior on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 03:41:24 PM EST
    Nothing but scary.

    This is, after all, the Republican primary (none / 0) (#95)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 12:33:39 PM EST
    Whomever emerges as the victor will soon have the full support of most all  Republicans in their  unifying quest to defeat President Obama--keeping orthopedists everywhere busy treating Republican whiplash.  If it winds up being Gingrich, that pesky history of his will be rationalized away and quickly dispatched.   This is a case where not being in elected office for over a decade serves the electoral amnesia and more recent shenanigans, including his AIG booty for historical consulting will be overlooked. Even PAC re-runs will soon be seen as "despicable."

    As for his other booty issues, Gingrich will be forgiven for he knew not what he did, other than loved his country too much.  Cardinal Wuerl is likely, once again,  to squeeze in support in the spiritual redemption department if not too busy preaching for the sanctity of marriage and against same sex marriage.

    The Republican electorate, particularly, the Christian Evangelicals will wink, knowingly and understandably, about those hypocritical platitudes about family values--for it  would not be unheard of for a preacher to take a greater interest in a choir director than providing hymnals.

    Gingrich had heterosexual affairs and marriages, opposes abortion, is willing to propose ideas with racist overlays,  and is anti-gay (under the guise of opposing same sex marriage) so he meets the basic requirements. Anything else, is gravy.  But, most of all, he appears to  satisfy their hunger for a strong candidate who will be able to take the gloves off and bloody President Obama--win or lose.   No purple state man--he offers to them more red than a Rothko painting.

    AIG? (none / 0) (#99)
    by BTAL on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 01:09:57 PM EST
    That's new.

    Thank you. meant (none / 0) (#108)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 01:34:55 PM EST
    Freddie Mac.  

    I dont know Dan (none / 0) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 05:54:14 PM EST
    I think most sane republicans (which I think includes surprisingly few actual voters) are truly horrified at the idea of Gingrich as the nominee.  not only because the thought of President Gingrich honestly terrifies them but because they know that he would not only lose badly but give both houses of congress to the democrats in Obamas 2nd and last term, which they already dread more than judgement day.
    from a detached point of view it is a wonderful thing to watch.  the republicans, with the intent of keeping the masses ignorant and superstitious, have slashed funding for education at every level and promoted creationism museums and fought the teaching of evolution etc etc.  once they had them ignorant and superstitious enough to manipulate the wanted to make them angry so they spent millions doing that.
    well guess what.  they succeeded.  they got exactly what they wanted.  they have an ignorant angry mod beating down their door who actually believes Newt Gingrich is electable and no matter what the say or do they wont now change their minds.
    if Newt keeps winning there will be civil war in the party.  if they drive Newt out I think he might go to america elects or some other third party route and they are still screwed.
    at this point I think one thing is becoming clear.  no matter what happens to them from the stew they have cooked up it will be good for us.

    Captain, I would like to (none / 0) (#142)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 06:12:21 PM EST
    think that there would be enough Republicans who would find horror in the prospects of a Gingrich presidential candidacy, and, enough Americans who wold see the ominousness of a Gingrich presidency.
    South Carolina is not exactly a bell-weather but it would be well not to underestimate the voters ability to buy snake oil, especially when the Romney alternative subscribes to the tenets of W.C. Field;s, 1941 flick, "Never Give a Sucker an Even Break."  We should check with the Wall Street high rollers to see if they are buying stock in Tiffany & Co. to get a better feel for the danger.

    underestimate (none / 0) (#146)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 07:30:28 PM EST
    I absolutely do not.  I think Newt is a truly dangerous man.  as I said in another comment recently if he was the nominee and the bottom dropped out of the economy for whatever reason it is not at all beyond the realm of possibility he could get enough anger votes to win.  I honestly think that is about the only way.  something truly disastrous would have to happen but disastrous things have happened before.
    as far as stock, if he did (god forbid) become president and Callista started spending a lot of time in public it would probably be wise to buy stock in hair spray.



    Now (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 03:47:15 PM EST
    Chris Christie is out trashing Newt. A trashing from a tea party darling no less. This sure is fun!

    That's a bit weird (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 06:16:49 PM EST
    with other Repub leaders leaving Newt alone now.

    But I can't keep track of what to expect from the players in that side of the soap opera of politics, as I just don't get their program, I guess.

    I suspect that the answer is what's in it for Christie.


    I dont think all other republicans (none / 0) (#147)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 07:36:06 PM EST
    are leaving him alone.  there was the odd Face the Nation episode but I still dont know what that means if anything.  but it is odd to have Haleys nephew trashing Newt as in the post above and Haley singing his praises.

    with that one expection pretty much every republican I have seen - but I have not been watching today and not reading much either - seem to be agreeing with the post.  I also saw governor Chubbs laying into Newt today.


    Oh, I didn't say all (none / 0) (#153)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:21:09 PM EST
    of them, as I'm only aware of those that I happened to see or read about today, and I had expected that none of those would hold back today.  I certainly know, from your many posts, that some attacked today, one reason why I did not generalize to all of them.

    That would have required that I watch for and read about far more politicians than I want to do.  


    This is great for Mitt (none / 0) (#132)
    by diogenes on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 04:00:24 PM EST
    Instead of facing a real candidate as the "Anti-Mitt", he gets to face Newt, who will be attacked on all sides and who has peaked about three months too soon.  Newt is no great friend of the Tea Party, either, so no one is going to sit on his hands and not vote if Mitt gets the nomination.

    dont quite get this (none / 0) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 07:38:30 PM EST
    it seems to me Newt is peaking at exactly the right time.  
    and as far as the tea party their only real issue is anger and Newt is playing that like a Stradivarius

    Between now and Super Tuesday (none / 0) (#158)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 07:57:56 AM EST
    Here is the schedule of primary / caucuses.

    Florida (primary)

    February 4, 2012 Nevada (caucus)

    February 4-11, 2012 Maine (caucus)

    February 7, 2012 Colorado (caucus)
    Minnesota (caucus)
    Missouri (primary) - *
    February 28, 2012 Arizona (primary)
    Michigan (primary)

    None of those states seem like the Gingrich "anger" and whacko conservativsim will play well.  How do you think he gets to Super Tuesday still in tact?

    March 3, 2012 Washington (caucus)


    If Newt's the nominee & Europe reverses (none / 0) (#159)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 08:03:40 AM EST
    any nascent US recovery, there's no telling who wins in November.

    Newt powers up in Florida (none / 0) (#179)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 10:06:22 AM EST
    this morning's polls:

    Rasmussen Newt +9
    Insider Advantage Newt +8

    That's about a 25 point swing in 7 days.
    Judging by Romney in Orlando this morning, he sounds like a man that knows he is in trouble.

    Problem is (none / 0) (#184)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 11:35:37 AM EST
    More than 200,000 ballots have already been cast in Florida. Most experts feel that these are mainly votes for Romney.

    Romney has the organization - Newt is still scrambling.

    The Romney camp understood long ago that once the small-state contests are over, the race becomes a quest for delegates to August's Republican National Convention. 1,144 delegates are needed to nominate, and they won't be gathered quickly. Republicans are operating under complex rules this year that award delegates in a variety of ways, making it difficult for anyone to clinch the nomination fast.

    By the end of February, only about 15 percent of delegates will have been chosen. Romney's real edge, Sabato said, would become apparent March 6, on which there will be 12 primaries or caucuses. One-fourth of all delegates will be selected that day.

    "Only someone like Romney can compete everywhere at once," Sabato said. Gingrich was unable to get on the Virginia's March 6 ballot and reportedly has had trouble filling delegate slates.

    Romney has organizations in place in state after state, and "he should be the candidate to be the nominee," said Lance deHaven-Smith, professor of public administration and policy at Florida State University.

    Romney still faces tall hurdles - the conservative base of his party hasn't rallied to him - but his path ahead should get smoother. He's got a good chance to win Florida, and has strong support in upcoming contests in Nevada Feb. 4, Colorado Feb. 7 and Arizona and Michigan Feb. 28.

    Romney, though, still must show he can win somewhere other than New Hampshire, where he owns a home and governed the neighboring state.
    Florida is a real possibility. "He's been more evident on television, and Florida Republicans are not as conservative as South Carolina Republicans," said Peter Brown, Orlando-based assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

    Typically, insurgents like Gingrich stumble in big states because the strategy that vaulted them to small-state victory doesn't translate to bigger, more-complex states. Visits to five diners a day with 100 people each, which worked in South Carolina, doesn't have the same impact in Florida, which has more than 19 million people and a half-dozen expensive media markets.

    Even today - Rommney still has the edge.  Of course, that can change, but Newt will not appeal to those upcoming states as he appealed to those folks in SC.  They are just different breeds of Republicans.


    Today's Gallup 5 Day (none / 0) (#195)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 12:27:34 PM EST
    National Tracking Poll has Romney ahead by 1. Look for tomorrow's Gallup Tracking to have Newt up by 2-3.