The Three Reasons Newt Is More Electable Than Mitt

Pages: 1 2

The following article presents one interpretation of the race for the Republican presidential nomination. For a counter-view written by Ryan Mauro, in favor of Mitt Romney’s electability, click here

For well over a year now, we’ve been hearing that Mitt Romney was the inevitable nominee for the Republican Party.  I’ve personally heard it from Republican fundraisers, Republican Party staffers, and high-ranking conservative commentators.  Not only was Romney inevitable, they’d say, he deserved inevitability, because he was clearly the most electable candidate.

With Newt Gingrich blowing Romney’s inevitability meme out of the water in South Carolina and Florida, the question is no longer whether Mitt is inevitable – he’s not—but whether he deserves to be the nominee based on electability.

I believe Mitt is, in fact, virtually unelectable.  By contrast, I believe that Newt Gingrich has a serious shot at beating President Obama.  Here’s why.

(1) Narrative.  Presidential elections are decided on narrative and who gets to define it.  In 2004, conservatives succeeded in defining the race as a strong and stable wartime president against a flip-flopping Vietnam-era radical who lied about his war record.  In 2008, Obama and the media defined the narrative, which quickly became “The Chosen One.”

In 2012, the conventional Republican wisdom goes, Republicans must run as bland a candidate as humanly possible.  If they do, Obama’s record will be the issue rather than the Republican candidate.  Romney is clearly the least offensive candidate.

There’s only one problem: every narrative has to define both candidates.  The Republican establishment may wish to define Romney as a successful businessman and CEO with governing experience.  But he will be defined instead as a 1% elitist out of touch with mainstream Americans; his Bain Capital background will be trotted out to no end; his failure to create jobs in Massachusetts will become a key campaign issue (he was 46th out of 50 during his tenure).  The Obama campaign is drooling to get their hooks into Romney – that’s what the entire Occupy Wall Street movement has been about.

Romney has been absolutely incapable of fending off such attacks in the primaries.  Gingrich trashed Romney over Bain Capital, and it clearly had an effect with South Carolina voters; Romney’s tax records have been more of an issue than Newt’s marriages in the last two weeks, despite the best efforts of Marianne Gingrich.

In fact, it gets even worse for Romney.  Historically, boring candidates don’t do the defining – they get defined.  Name the more boring candidate in each election since 1976, and you will be naming a loser: Ford, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, H.W. Bush, Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain.  This is an unbreakable rule.  Boring candidates do not have the charisma or capacity to define themselves.

What’s worse, they don’t have the ability to define their opponents, either.  Romney is especially plagued by this.  The two issues of this campaign will clearly be Obamacare and job creation.  Romney loses on both – he created the model for Obamacare, and his job creation record is extraordinarily spotty.  The best argument he can make about Obama is the one he’s been making: that Obama is incompetent, that he has “amassed an actual record of debt, decline and disappointment.”  It’s a good argument.  It’s just  not a winning argument.  Kerry tried the same argument in 2004; Dole tried the same argument in 1996.  Defining Obama as incompetent won’t cut it, because in fact, he is extremely competent – at achieving far-left goals.

Want to know Obama’s counterargument?  It’ll look a good deal like Andrew Sullivan’s infamous Newsweek piece.  And if this campaign gets bogged down in the details of whether a recovery is actually taking place, even as Obama defines Romney as an out-of-touch richy-rich guy, Obama will win.

It will be significantly more difficult for Obama to craft a narrative about Newt.  Obama can’t attack Newt on lobbying – Obama’s stacked his administration with lobbyists, and he was the #2 recipient of Fannie/Freddie money in the Senate.  He can’t attack Newt on job creation – if Obama wants to argue Gingrich era job creation vs. Obama era job creation, good luck to him.  He could go after him on his personal life, but the only people who care about that are conservative, anyway.  He can’t attack Newt as an elitist – they’re both professors.  So what’s left?  The “crazy old coot” argument.  If Newt can avoid that pitfall, as he’s been doing so far with Romney, he can maintain his image as the “big idea guy” who worked with and against Clinton to create massive economic growth.

As for Newt defining Obama – well, Newt hasn’t been shy about that.  His goal is to paint Obama not just as incompetent but as unexpectedly radical – a man who posed as a moderate but governed like a hard-left ideologue.  Newt has been impressively articulate on this.  He may not cite Alinsky during the general election, but you can bet he’ll go after Obama on Obamacare, foreign policy spinelessness, and socialistic redistributionism.  McCain hit on that theme last time, but only in the last two weeks – and by then, it was too late.  Newt has already come up with the single catchiest title for Obama: The Food Stamp President.  It works because not only is Obama putting people on food stamps, he’s ideologically committed to increasing the number of people on food stamps.  This title sticks.  But it won’t stick coming from Romney, who looks like he’s never met anybody on food stamps.

(2) Numbers.  The Republican establishment constantly acts as though it must run the most moderate possible candidate in order to win.  Candidates without clear vision, in this view, run the best.  Once again, that’s wrong.  Gallup shows that 40 percent of Americans consider themselves conservative; 35 percent of Americans consider themselves moderate; just 21 percent of Americans consider themselves liberal.  That means that for a Republican to win convincingly, he need only win less than one out of three moderates and draw the entire conservative base.

Pages: 1 2

  • AJinAZ

    Great article Ben.

  • Alexander Gofen

    What a shameless demagogy, promoting every party talk point on the book!

    If one is in a position to checkmate the opponent in one move, but retreats and takes a peon instead: what kind of game it is?

    Well, in order to defeat the opponent, the first thing one needs is … TO WISH TO DEFEAT THE OPPONENT (rather than to settle with him on 8 years you, 8 years me)…

    And in order to defeat any opponent one must expose his criminality in the first place (unless one is not an accomplice indeed). And how much more criminality you need if your opponent is Obama/Soetoro?!!

    – He is a thief, an identity THIEF (for G-d sake)!

    – He is a fraud who had produced a cheap audacious forgery! He has compromised the entire institute of American presidency more than anybody in the history.

    – And he is not US natural born thus not qualified because of this alone – not to mention his numerous acts of treason against our nation. The most recent one – killing the project of Canadian oil pipeline – in order to placate his "green energy" cronies and islamic owners. Yet not a peep from any of the so called "front runners"!

    Pest on the houses of all of them! Just wait how they will bustle when their criminal enterprise is exposed…

    • stern

      why does it feel like I've read this post before?

    • Jon Adams

      Keep it up! Every Republican candidate should demand loudly and constantly an
      investigation into Obama's criminality. If they are afraid to even mention his
      blatantly counterfeit birth certificate and suspect social security #, how can we trust them
      to protect the Constitution? America hungers for someone to expose this con man.
      Just look at the massive support Trump got when he demanded the birth certificate.
      Too bad he dropped the ball everyone is afraid to pick it up.

    • WildJew

      This one of the things that bothers me about Romney. Shapiro wrote: "The best argument he (Romney) can make about Obama is the one he’s been making: that Obama is incompetent…." He forgot to mention, Romney says Obama loves his country. Obama is not incompetent. He does not love this country. I can't take that kind of mealy-mouthed campaigning. Doesn't Gingrich at least say Obama is a dangerous radical?

  • crackerjack

    The problem with Gingrich is that he contradicts everything his teaparty and evangelic electorate stand for.

    The teaparty rejects big goverment and cronyism
    Newst's career and fortune were made in the lobbys of Congress, the halls of the Senate and the backrooms of Freddie Mac.

    The Evagelics demand Christian values and morals.
    Newt is a recidivist adulterer.

    If Romney can't call Newt out on hypocrisy, Democrats gladly will.

  • Claire Solt PhD

    This author is seriously morally challenged. He uses some midget yardstick to try and measure the girth of the giants but is blinded by the shiny buckle on Newt's belt buckle. Woe unto people who consider the best and brightest boring and prefer the sizzle to the steak. Three years ago ,Newt was all caught up in metrics to reform bureaucracy. I have not heard him mention it now. Though he says we need big ideas, he can also get sidetracked by a little work project for poor kids. This is a chance to throw aside the limits of the political class, and choosing Newt just makes them giddy because he is of them, to be sure. Harvard chose Romney from among his peers to pursue the dual law and business grad program. Surely this is the best prep for being president. A spotless record of success and service would only bore the most cynical goof in town..

    • jacob

      I will be glad when people stop flashing to my face college degrees, as this
      doesn't cut the mustard with me…
      I've known many a "Summa Cum Laude" failure in real world and many a
      Summa Cum C making it and how….! ! !
      Not many of our great Presidents have been Yale or Harvard men…..
      I voted for ROMNEY but I must agree he will be too much of "milk toast"
      against somebody like OBAMA, proven in his debates with poor McCain,
      who debated him with kid gloves, failing to rub on his nose the fact of
      having been a strong opponent of his proposed legislation nto curb FANNIE
      and FREDDIE's abuses, because he was the 2nd. biggest beneficiary of
      their "largesse"….
      I agree with NEWT having some bagagge but he apologized for it and yes, I
      agree that he will sweep the floor with OBAMA in any debate, as Obama has
      no way whatsoever to defend what is as ruinous and indefensible as his
      "administration" (if thisdisaster can be called as such) has been…..

    • Blaze Pascal

      "Ph.D." Are you bragging or complaining?

  • Underzog

    The prodigy of the Conservative movement has written another spot on article. Romney will put everyone to sleep, but there might still be enough people awake on Obama's side to give the election to Obama.

    As another Orthodox Jew, Don Feder, put it, when Republicans run their boring moderates against very flawed Democratic candidates — the Republicans and the Republic lose; e.g., Ford vs Carter, McCain vs the marxist Obama; etc.

    Those who are concerned with the very survival of this country as something other than a third world backwater had better back an articulate fighter. And that person is Newt Gingrich!

  • mark

    With all the baggage the Newt has, people think he is the man because he is a great orator, and that he can use that talent to beat Obama. Hitler was a great orator too. Would you vote for him,despite his other short comings? Does it not bother anyone else to think of his six year mistress, home wrecker, now third wife, representing the U.S. to the rest of the world as the "First Lady"?

    • davarino

      So you want to put the Chancellor up against Hitler?

    • Stephen_Brady

      Nazi reference … the last refuge of the desperate.

    • Blaze Pascal

      What about Mao See Dung? He was a great orator.

  • NoNewtsIsGoodNewts

    "There’s a reason that Tea Partiers are rallying behind him, too – this was the man who led the Republican Revolution of 1994."

    Not this one.

    • DMW

      Not to assert that Newt is a leader of "this one", but it was through one of Newt Gingrich's web-sites (either or American Solutions) that I learned about an organizational meeting for the first Tea Party rally in Oklahoma City, OK. A link was also provided for direct contact. 13 of us showed up at a meeting in March 2009 and planning began. Over 5,000 people showed up on the Oklahoma State Capitol steps on April 15, 2009.

      • Blaze Pascal

        Newt is a creative, energetic problem solver with a huge record of accomplishment working with both Republicans and Democraps, and that's saying something.


      Same here. I'm one Tea Partier who will vote for Romney as the "anti-Newt" if it comes to that. The only Tea Partiers supporting Newt are those who have deluded themselves into believing he's some sort of Conservative. The rest of us know better.

  • waterwillows

    I like Newt. Better a repentant sinner, than one who has an 'artificial' manner to him.

    Newt is an American. A real, genuine American and not the hopey, changey type. He is proud of America and her people. He will work with the Constitution and not against it.

    Beside, Newt is not the first, and nor will he be the last, flawed man the Lord has accepted.

    • Canadianviewer


  • mrbean

    Most men would vote for Newt Gingrich because he is more of an alpha male than Mitt Romney and will stand his ground under Democrat demands and media attacks, he is more savvy in dealing with Congress and will push harder for the Republican agenda in reversing Obamaism, and he has balanced budgets already where Mitt Romney actually increased deposit spending and entitlements as a governer.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Newt is the least conservative Republican candidate in the race, as he supports amnesty. Indeed, if amnesty is ever implemented in America, it will be the final nail in the coffin of conservatism.

    Newt also supported George Soros' handpicked candidate Dee Dee Scozzafava, conceded a well publicized debate to John Kerry on global warming and then a few months later sat down with Nancy Pelosi to film a PSA to urge Congress to act on cap and trade and global warming legislation, called medicare reform right wing social engineering, supported the individual mandate on healthcare until just recently, claims FDR was the best president of the USA ever, was fined over $300,000 while speaker of the house for ethics violation, was forced to resign in disgrace after 88 percent of the Republicans in Congress voted against him, has tons of excess baggage that will be laid bare if he wins the nomination, and that will ensure that Obama wins a second four year term.

    Not to mention that Newt is the first Republican candidate ever in history to launch Alinsky like anti-capitalist attacks against the free enterprise system and a fellow Republican. Before the Republican Party was morphed into the second coming of the Dhimmicrat Party, such a blasphemous attack on the capitalist system would have resulted in the excommunication of Newt Gingrich from the Republican Party.

    In addition, at the same time Newt also used class warfare, another blasphemy, when he attacked Romney for not releasing his income tax return in the middle of January no less when most people still hadn't received the necessary paperwork back to file their taxes to draw light on the fact that Romney is mega rich. Indeed, the lamestream press jumped all over Romney for over a week and vilified and demonized him continuously until his poll numbers precipitously dropped because he didn't agree to release his tax returns at the behest of Newt. However, conspicuously Rick Santorum and Ron Paul hadn't agreed to release their tax returns either, but it didn't become an issue for them, only for Romney. In other words, this was blatant media manipulation to influence people away from Romney and onto Newt and it worked like a charm, as Newt can't come close to defeating Obama.

    Meanwhile, Fox News Sunday reports that several people that appeared in Newt's anti-capitalist attack ad have admitted to being paid to say what they said. In addition, Fox News' Megyn Kelly does a live interview with two more people that appeared in Gingrich's anti-capitalist attack ad that claim that what they said in the attack ad didn't pertain to Romney or Bain Capital. Instead they claim that they were deliberately misquoted out of context and without their consent by the makers of the anti-capitalist attack ad.

    Indeed, this news should have been enough to destroy Newt's credibility. However, Fox News stuck it in a black hole somewhere and never reported it again. Instead, Fox News joined the lamestream media's attack campaign against Romney for not turning in his tax returns fast enough and for being guilty of being a successful capitalist. Indeed, as usual there is some major, major lamestream media manipulation taking place today and it looks like it will be very successful again.

    Anyway, if that commie supporting sleazeball Newt Gingrich wins the nomination, I'm staying home on Super Tuesday 2012. Just like I stayed home on Super Tuesday 2008. There is no way I'm voting for that commie supporting RINO sleazeball, and when Obama inevitably wins in another landslide, the American people will get exactly what they deserve.

    • Blaze Pascal

      Sounds to me like you're scared sh!tle$$ of Newt.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Why would I be scared sh!tle$$ of Newt? I'm just not mentally handicapped enough to believe that sleazebag can win.

    • zsqpwxxeh

      Your rant might have more substance if Newt were in support of amnesty. He isn't, as anyone who's been listening to the debates knows by now.

      What do you think about Newt's view on fighting jihadism? Rather tougher than your run-of-the mill RINOs, eh?

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Your rant might have more substance if Newt were in support of amnesty. He isn't, as anyone who's been listening to the debates knows by now.

        What? Do you live in some sort of information cocoon or something? Newt does support amnesty. In fact, Newt is going around Florida today claiming that all conservatives who don't support amnesty for illegal immigrants like him lacks humanity. But what about the rule of law? Apparently, if you believe in the rule of law, you lack humanity. Yeah right! Give me a break and go buy a clue.

        What do you think about Newt's view on fighting jihadism? Rather tougher than your run-of-the mill RINOs, eh?

        Since I pay particularly close attention to the issue of Islam, I make it a point to always understand the individual candidate's positions on Islam, and Newt, just like Santorum and Romney, is totally incompetent on the issue of Islam. Indeed, they are all totally incompetent when it comes to the issue of Islam, and if you believe that Newt is somehow better on the issue of Islam than the others, then you aren't paying close enough attention. Which after reading your first comment above, isn't all that surprising. In fact, with respect to you it is par for the course.

        • zsqpwxxeh

          I'll try saying it once again. Newt isn't for amnesty. Don't take my word for it. Read the actual policy statements. If you can't see the difference between giving a few selected illegals a green card after careful review and amnesty, look it up in a dictionary or something.

          As for your statement that Newt has an incompetent view of jihad, the foolishness of that remark can be seen if you read Spencer's article on Newt, quoted today in Jihad Watch.

          And yes, you are an arrogant, pompous windbag. As always.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            I'll try saying it once again. Newt isn't for amnesty. Don't take my word for it.

            You can say it all you want. Nevertheless, Newt is not only an amnesty supporter but according to him all conservatives who do not support amnesty lack humanity. In other words, if you are a conservative that believes in the rule of law, then you lack humanity.

            Read the actual policy statements.

            I've already read his actual policy statements and he is an amnesty supporter. You and he can play ludicrous word games all you want, but in the minds of all true conservatives as opposed to RINOs like you and Newt, Newt like you is an amnesty supporter.

            If you can't see the difference between giving a few selected illegals a green card after careful review and amnesty, look it up in a dictionary or something.

            They didn't just break the law when they cut in line and illegally immigrated to America, but they also continually broke the law when they got an illegal Social Security Card and when they illegally went to work in America and at the same time stole jobs away from worthy American citizens, most of them legal Hispanic immigrants, and also at the same time contributed as well to holding down wages, thereby also contributing tremendously to the high cost of social welfare programs in America. Hence, if such lawbreakers get to benefit from their crimes and burden to society without having to pay for them, then you can call it whatever you want, but it is nonetheless amnesty, and it is not my fault that you are apparently too mentally incompetent to figure that out. Anything that lifts the burden of lawbreakers from having to pay for their crimes and burdens to society is de facto amnesty. Don't believe me, then follow your on stupid advice and look it up.

            As for your statement that Newt has an incompetent view of jihad, the foolishness of that remark can be seen if you read Spencer's article on Newt, quoted today in Jihad Watch.

            I don't need to read anyone's article about Newt's stupidity regarding Islam as I am the one that informed Spencer of Newts' stupid speech on Islam at AEI.

            And yes, you are an arrogant, pompous windbag. As always.

            Yes I am, but only in kind and in return.

  • BLJ

    I think Newt will be more agressive in his attacks on Obama's record as POTUS. He has already shown that he isn't afraid of the bogus "you are a racist" charge that the Dems and MSM always bring out. This fear was part of the reason McCain lost in 2008.

    I also don't believe most people really care about Newt's private life. It really is "the economy stupid" this time. The public is scared about the direction the train is heading and they want someone to get control.

    The whole objective is to get Obama out of the WH. The Dems will bring a gun to the fight so should the Republicans. Newt may be more capable of bringing that gun over Romney.

    • Blaze Pascal

      Newt is not afraid to lay it on the line or to get a problem solved.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Oh wow…now Newt Gingrich in Florida is claiming today that all conservatives that don't support amnesty for illegal immigrants lack humanity. What about the rule of law? Apparently, if you believe in the rule of law, you lack humanity. Yeah right! Indeed, if someone that far to the left wins the Republican Party nomination, then the Republican Party must be written off once and for all.

    • Blaze Pascal

      I'm willing to budge on that one. Most of them are right wing Christians anyway.

  • Not Romney

    Well-stated. It would seem that Mitt Romney's "job creation" mantra will be an uphill battle. It's still not clear that Romney presided over a net creation in jobs (at least not American jobs) at Bain.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Yeah right, Not Romney…you are a Marxist taking advantage of those Alinsky like anti-capitalist attacks on the free market system launched by Newt Gingrich. All of them by the way completely bogus and about as credible as the abominable snowman.

      • Blaze Pascal

        Can you sort that out a little better for us Obama?

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Read your above post moonbat. Go kiss Obama's backside you mentally incompetent loon.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Then, you're defintiely in a minority.

    In this thread I am, but like I care. Just because all you leftwing RINOs are jumping in the lake, doesn't mean I am dumb enough to do it too. I've never been much of a follower. It's not my style.

    You sat out Super Tuesday in 2008, when you had a chance to influence the nomination?

    You mean a chance to influence the election moonbat. However, I'll be damn if I will help the left to continue hijacking the Republican Party.

    You'll sit out the election if your candidate … ROMMNEY … doesn't win the nomination?

    My candidate Romney happens to be the most conservative of the three viable candidates. However, he just barely passes my litmus test and that's only because Obama is president. Under normal circumstances, because of his insane positions on Islam, I wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot poll, but since the other two viable Republican candidates are also loons like Romney when it comes to Islam, I will hold my nose and vote for Romney because he is the most conservative of the three viable candidates.

    However, I will never vote for that commie sleazebag Gingrich under any circumstances because he is too openly corrupt and dishonest, and I will never vote for Santorum, because other than social conservatism, he is a big government liberal just like GWB.

    In any event, it doesn't matter, because if Romney doesn't win the nomination, Obama wins another four year term and this country continues its steep and rapid decline, as Romney is the only candidate of the three that can possibly beat Obama.

    I'm really starting to believe that you're a DEM troll, on this site. How much does Soros pay you, son?

    No…unlike you I'm a true conservative that doesn't compromise his principles and I'm definitely not a RINO delusional leftist like you demonstrated yourself to be over and over and over again ad nauseum.

    After all, Nancy Pelosi is deinitely for the nomination of Romney, and so are you. Peas in a pod …

    To the contrary, she's far more afraid of Romney than she is Gingrich, she just lacks respect for Gingrich.

    … maybe you're the commie sleazeball …

    If you want to know who the commie sleazeball is, go look in the mirror.

  • mrbean

    The women will vote for Obama because they have the Kim Kardasian syndrome and want the chocolate luff hamma and because Oprah told them to, the liberal omega males, castrati and homos will vote for Obama because of white guilt, and the mainstream media will vote for Obama because they have a tingle up their legs and their tongues up his A$$.

    • mrbean

      un dah bruthas an' dah sistas vot dah Prez Obama cause he dun beez a brutha and gonna tax all dem rich honkay crackas on dah wall street so weez gits arr food stamps.

    • Blaze Pascal

      You're such a pessimist.

  • Maxie

    The ONE reason Obama gets re-elected: Manufactured votes. The Cemetary and Cartoon character constituencies will be out in force thanks to the SEIU and 'Acorn' activists. Only a few precincts in two or three "swing states" are needed to tip the electoral vote to Imamobama.If needed, will come the "recount" scam a la Al Franken.
    Is this a great country or what!?

  • 080

    The problem is that Mitt is presenting a Bob Dole, or H.W. Bush or John McCain countenance. Whenever it has been tried the Republicans lost. He has to get off the thousand points of light message. Newt knows how to unleash lightening bolts. See his remarks about the Supreme Court or the responsibility of the president to uphold the Constitution. He's quite good. Mitt has to stop telling peoplel what a great business man he is and switch to telling people what he thinks he can do for them. On the other hand I find the John Bolton endorsement should make people think.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    With Newt Gingrich blowing Romney’s inevitability meme out of the water in South Carolina and Florida

    Hold on there buddy, let's not jump the gun here. Gingrich hasn't won crap in Florida, and he never would have won in South Carolina without the aid, assistance, and the massive media manipulation that came his way courtesy of the lamestream press.

    Indeed, the only reason Mitt loss in South Carolina is because the lamestream media in coordination with Newt jumped on Newt's Alinsky like leftwing class warfare attacks against Mitt because Mitt wouldn't agree to release his tax return at the behest of Newt in the middle of January no less, like Newt is some sort of God or something and like Mitt unlike most people had received back already all the forms necessary to file his taxes. Yeah right.

    The whole purpose of the ploy was to accentuate and enhance Newt's bogus Alinsky like anti-capitalist attacks against Mitt in order to portray him as an out touch mega rich corporate raider. Meanwhile, at the same time Rick Santorum and Ron Paul also never committed to releasing their tax returns in the middle of January, but somehow miraculously it never became an issue for them. Only for Mitt.

    Hence, the lamestream press relentlessly demonized Mitt as a mega rich corporate raider until his support precipitously fell, while at the same time intentionally deep sixing proof that Newt's anti-capitalist attacks were all bogus.

    One has to ask himself why the lamestream media is all of a sudden lending aid and support to Newt Gingrich of all people, and the answer is very obvious, because Mitt Romney is the only candidate in the race that can possibly defeat Obama, while Newt Gingrich doesn't have a prayer in hell of being capable of winning. Just look at the polls in the most critical states.

    I believe Mitt is, in fact, virtually unelectable. 

    That's because you are naïve to the extreme, which is something I have been noting on FPM forever and also is one of the reasons why I usually skip your unhinged articles. Indeed, you are not only one of the least astute writers on this site, you are also one of the least conservative as well. Hence, it is very easy to understand why you are attracted to the least conservative candidate in the race.

    • mark

      Newt will probably win Florida. He'll certainly get the Cuban vote with his Overthrow the Cuban government statements. Don't remember him mentioning this before. He knows how to give the people what they want to hear.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Newt will probably win Florida. He'll certainly get the Cuban vote with his Overthrow the Cuban government statements. Don't remember him mentioning this before. He knows how to give the people what they want to hear.

        Nah…he isn't going to win. After the last debate, Romney has already regained the momentum and has just passed him up again in the two latest polls. In addition, Newt's sleazy politics is beginning to catch up with him, as he is blatantly dishonest and it is very noticeable. Newt is also calling conservatives that don't support amnesty as lacking humanity. In other words, all conservatives that believe in the rule of law lack humanity. That kind of sleazy politics may work in the Dhimmicrat Party, but it won't fly for long in the Republican Party.

  • tedder

    Ann Coulter's all out flack-ing for a moderate-liberal and her disdainful remarks for any conservative candidate especially Newt is baffling and is enraging virtually her entire fan base. Need proof? She hosts chat rooms on her web site This is a site for her fan base, it is safe to assume that it is a pretty fair representation of her at-large base. The disappointment is almost universal. The general media has yet to detect it, but definite backlash is brewing against. Some want a boycott of her next book.

    I think Romney is going to lose the fight for the nomination,. If so, she hasn't left herself any option but to go ballistic at whichever conservative prevails especially if it is newt. In which case, she asking for a protest ala The Dixie Chicks.

  • Soljerblue

    I would rather go with a candidate who MAY win, than a candidate who WILL lose.

    Newt — for all the reasons stated in this article, and a few of my own.


    Anybody but Obama except Ru Paul

  • Anamah

    It seems impossible to find another more destructive presidential candidate than the current occupant of the W.H; who is nothing but a destructive idiot.

  • Jim_C

    Look on the bright side: you will have viable candidates in 2016. And guess what? we'll actually survive until then.

  • Jon Adams

    Appreciate the excellent article, except:
    Obama was not a professor. This is part of the big con. I'm not surprised you perpetuate the fraud. The conservative media seems in lock step on not exposing Obama.
    Con – Obama was a law professor.
    Truth – Obama is a "disbarred" lawyer. He was a part time visiting lecturer. Although no one can seem to find any of his students or records of his classes.
    Con – Obama presented his birth certificate and ended the debate on the issue.
    Truth – It was a photoshopped counterfeit. Spend 30 minutes on YouTube and you will know America has been conned and it is a federal FELONY to present a phony birth certificate.
    Con – Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president
    Truth – A natural born citizen means both parents are U.S. citizens. It is not rocket science to know Obama doesn't it this definition. Unless you believe as some do that he is the son of Malcom X. Although even if true doesn't solve his problem.
    Con – Obama attended Columbia.
    Truth – Who knows but all evidence shows he wasn't there. Even Stephanopoulos who was at Columbia the "same time" says he can find NO evidence that Obama was there.
    Con – Barack Hussain Obama is his name.
    Truth – For many many years he legally went under the name Barry Soetoro. Where is the evidence he ever legally change his name.
    Con – He will be difficult to beat.
    Truth – He should not even be considered as a candidate until such issues as the fraudulent and felonious birth certificate are resolved. If we are a nation of laws he has to answer for this and where did he get his social security # at the very least.
    And one last thing. For those who have joined the chorus line that the reason he killed the pipeline is he is bowing to his radical base. Nonsense. The unions are also part of his base and they want the pipeline. I believe the reason is simple. Obama wants to fu*& the USA in every way possible and adding to our energy supply and bringing down the cost of fuel for America is antithetical to his goals.

  • BullPasture

    Excellent job! Romney will lose to Obama in the same way he lost to Ted Kennedy. Romney likes to put forward the false impression that he ran against Kennedy as a favor to the party with no expectation of victory. The truth is he hoped to ride the wave of Gingrich's Contract with America that won 54 seats in the House and 8 in the Senate. Romney was one of the few to lose. Kennedy was vulnerable. Romney held a slight lead in the polls in September before the election. Then Ted Kennedy nuked him with his really quite awful record at Bain with the company Ampad. Buying a company for $5 million, loading it up with $400 million in debt, taking out $100 million and then bankrupting the company is indefensible. Obama will nuke him like Kennedy did.