If Gingrich & Obama go head to head what is Obama's best strategy?

[astro]

It looks like this has a possibility of happening. If Gingrich is the candidate what's the game plan for Obama?

[emcee2k]

Be Obama instead of Gingrich.

[River Hippie]

Pretend Newt is Trump and mock him mercilessly. Wait for inevitable Gingrich temperment issues to surface.

[drm]

I'm Canadian and my memory might be flawed, but didn't Gingrich fight Clinton on going after Osama in his second term? I'd say drive that point home - especially since you were in power when you caught the guy.

That limits the "Republicans are the only ones to keep us safe" rhetoric.

[Untoward_Parable]

Chuckle and celebrate early?

[Voluble]

It looks like this has a possibility of happening. If Gingrich is the candidate what's the game plan for Obama?

It depends. Will the debate be held in Austrian?

[Shalmanese]

Not to have affairs while his wife is dying.

[Icarus]

For Obama - Take the high road, try to basically ignore Newt altogether, focus on "We have lot's of work left to do, so help me by sending more Democrats to the Congress".

Anything he could say against Newt has already been said, and they still vote for him. He needs to avoid saying anything that can be interpreted as, "That's the best you can do? You folks (Republicans) are nuts!" 'cause they're a bit sensitive about being called nuts nowadays.

[Lago Ys-Transform]

Repackage Mitt's flip-flops for Newt, bring up quotes from conservatives for Newt being a patron for the 1% and combine it with his lobbying for Fannae Mae and his ethics problems, remind people of the government shutdowns, have surrogates bring up his marriages. Seriously, if Obama's team can't get this one in the bag short of a dead hooker in the Oval Office or a second surprise recession (which may still happen before the election; see the Euro), then he doesn't deserve to be president.

I am still completely baffled that not only is Newt gaining momentum despite having every disadvantage that Romney theoretically has but is also picking up some of his support! WTF?

[Icarus]

I am still completely baffled that not only is Newt gaining momentum despite having every disadvantage that Romney theoretically has but is also picking up some of his support! WTF?

As they say about stocks, all that junk about Newt is already "priced in".

[The wind of my soul]

I'm sure he could work some of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY) into the discussion. (To those who don't feel like clicking, it's an ad bashing Gingrich's insider status and following the path to corruption and money, put together by the Ron Paul 2012 campaign.)

[GIGObuster]

I am still completely baffled that not only is Newt gaining momentum despite having every disadvantage that Romney theoretically has but is also picking up some of his support! WTF?

That is easy, Newt is the "not Romney" survivor, as time is running out, the heart is winning over the brain for the Republicans as one commentator said recently.

The point was that the "brain" would say that Romney was the best chance they had to attract moderates, unfortunately the "heart" of the Republicans is full of tea.

We have seen this movie already, tea party candidates removed the moderate Republicans in some primaries only to lose in the general election (Like in Jacksonville and Tampa's recent mayoral races), Newt (if selected) will more likely than not scare the moderates in the presidential election.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Get people to needle the Newtster, until he cracks. His temper explodes at the drop of an insinuation.

Short temper + odd notions = Obama Victory.

[HMS Irruncible]

It would be a mistake for Obama to prepare a defense against the intellectual midget that Gingrich is. Instead he needs to gear up for a contest with an overinflated blowhard with a talent for sophistry. If Obama is caught flat-footed in a pseudoacademic shitstorm, he won't be able to re-litigate it 2 days later in the New York Times opinion page. He has to get this right on the first bounce.

Also, as is par for the course, he needs to find a way to skewer Gingrich while not appearing to bully him, lest he rub up against the tripwire of the right-wing victim complex ("Wahh! The big smarty was mean to our average guy! What a meany smarty! Average is better!")

[Exapno Mapcase]

Keep referring to him as Dr. Gingrich.

[Simplicio]

I suspect the Obama strategy would be to:

-try and blame Newt for the perceived increase in hostility in Congress due to his bomb throwing while he was a rep. in the 90's, and link that to current Congressional gridlock

-accuse him of lobbying once he left the House

-remind people that in the late 90's, Gingrich was leader of a party that couldn't stand him and more or less tossed him out. Link this to his earlier campaign staff leaving en masse earlier in the campaign as a general pattern of his being a crummy leader.

But more generally, the public is already pretty familiar with Newt. Unlike Romney, where public opinion is probably still malleable (as most people are still probably only vaguely familiar with him), Newt's image is probably not going to change due to campaing ads. Happily for Obama, that image, left from the 90's, is pretty negative, so team Obama really just needs to keep reminding him of why they hated him a decade ago, rather then come up with a new "narrative".

[Simplicio]

I'll also go ahead and predict that Gingrich's flip-flopping won't be a big theme in the Obama campaign against him. While Gingrich certainly has turned against several of the issues he spent most of the last decade promoting, I think the public image of him as conservative zealot is too ingrained to change with campaign ads.

And its also an image that a)people already have and don't like, b) plays well off the image Obama has cultivated as the "adult in the room", c) is likely to motivate liberal voters to go to the polls more then accusations of flip-flopping, d) is likely to turn moderates of Newt.

So the Obama message will be "crazed zealot who the public already decided it hated a decade ago for good reason", not "flip-flopper".

[CandidGamera]

Light a cigar and prop his feet up on the desk, and wait to be re-elected in a landslide.

[hogarth]

Make a humourous internet video playing off his middle name of Leeroy, er I mean Leroy.

[Jas09]

So the Obama message will be "crazed zealot who the public already decided it hated a decade ago for good reason", not "flip-flopper".Yup, that's the one.

And then let the party do the dirty work of airing out all that laundry from the House ethics investigations.

[BrainGlutton]

Keep referring to him as Dr. Gingrich.

. . . He needs a Persian cat . . .

[RTFirefly]

If Gingrich is the candidate what's the game plan for Obama?Keep a safe distance and wait for Newt to publicly self-destruct.

[Ravenman]

Make a humourous internet video playing off his middle name of Leeroy, er I mean Leroy.

Suddenly, the former Speaker's whole campaign has snapped into focus for me. "Let's do this! Poor people can't work! Citizenship for illegal immigrants! I made $1.8 million from Freddie Mac! Leeeeeroy Giiiiiiingrich! At least I ain't chicken."

[LSLGuy]

I'm a Dem, but there's still a problem for Obama here.

Like in 2008, the party which gets out the vote wins. The so-called moderates are not really up for grabs. And in darn few districts do they control the outcome.

The side which most enthuses their base to actually vote, not just fulminate online, will win. Obama won largely due to a groundswell of voting by groups, such as 20-somethings, who did not traditionally bother to actually, you know, vote.

IF Obama can get those same people out to vote again, he'll win. If not, he won't.

One thing you gotta say about the Tea Partiers is that they will in fact vote in Nov. They may have to hold their nose to vote for what they see as a Mormon flipflopping lefty. But they will vote en masse, and they will vote R.

So O's challenge is to get the left-wing base fired up to vote without awakening 2 right-wing lazies for each left-wing lazy he motivates.

[Ravenman]

One thing you gotta say about the Tea Partiers is that they will in fact vote in Nov. They may have to hold their nose to vote for what they see as a Mormon flipflopping lefty. But they will vote en masse, and they will vote R.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I think the Tea Party is going through exactly the same thing that Obama supporters went through in 2010: "It's been two years, where are the results? We voted for change! Why haven't we gotten rid of Obamacare yet? Where are my tax cuts? Why isn't the economy fixed and the budget balanced yet?!"

I think the odds are that Tea Partiers will be less energized in 2012 than they were in 2010, plus the Tea Party label on a candidate is going to be increasingly seen as a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for Gridlock and Not Getting Things Done, and will be repellant to independent voters.

[Exapno Mapcase]

The so-called moderates are not really up for grabs. And in darn few districts do they control the outcome.
The moderates are totally up for grabs. They're the ones who will decide the election.

The side which most enthuses their base to actually vote, not just fulminate online, will win. Obama won largely due to a groundswell of voting by groups, such as 20-somethings, who did not traditionally bother to actually, you know, vote.

IF Obama can get those same people out to vote again, he'll win. If not, he won't.

One thing you gotta say about the Tea Partiers is that they will in fact vote in Nov. They may have to hold their nose to vote for what they see as a Mormon flipflopping lefty. But they will vote en masse, and they will vote R.

So O's challenge is to get the left-wing base fired up to vote without awakening 2 right-wing lazies for each left-wing lazy he motivates.
Well, maybe. The 2010 election was an anomaly of historic proportions. In every other midterm election, the proportion of voters is cut about in half across the board. In 2010, right-wing conservatives increased participation over 2008, while all other groups dropped 50%.

There's no possibility of a differential like this happening in 2012. Both bases will turn out. As of today there doesn't seem to be much indication of highly motivated bases, but the campaign hasn't started yet. Motivated bases and holding one's nose are antithetical. You can have one or the other, not both. A party holding its nose doesn't go the extra mile to get the vote out. If you see Republicans holding their noses and voting for Romney, you are making the statement that the election will not be like either 2008 or 2012.

I still predict a billion dollars worth of promotion and advertising by each side. That will have a huge effect. Remember that a good-sized slice of the electorate doesn't make up their minds about who to vote for until the last few weeks of the campaign, and many wait until Election Day itself. Those are exactly the people that the advertising is aimed at. And they will decide the election. Not to mention that it doesn't matter if the bases vote blue in the blue states and red in the red states. Only the few swing states count. And you can't apply any blanket statements to them.

[a35362]

...Remember that a good-sized slice of the electorate doesn't make up their minds about who to vote for until the last few weeks of the campaign, and many wait until Election Day itself. Those are exactly the people that the advertising is aimed at. And they will decide the election....

I agree with this completely, and such voters make me nuts. What do they want that they can't make up their minds until the very last minute? SNL had a skit about undecided voters at a town hall type debate, and they just had no thoughts, no opinions about anything and believed everything they heard. :eek:

[Knorf]

Let Gingrich blow himself up. It's pretty inevitable.

[SeldomSeen]

I am still completely baffled that not only is Newt gaining momentum despite having every disadvantage that Romney theoretically has but is also picking up some of his support! WTF?

The right wing in America is not made up of deep thinkers. From their point of view Gingrich has one major advantage....the memory of Saint Ronald. He served in congress throughout the Reagan era, he played an influential role in the Reagan Revolution®, he wrote a reverential book about Reagan. Never having been known for excessive modesty, he is now comparing himself (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/28/the-next-reagan/)to both Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher. And of course, he led the charge against Clinton the antichrist. What better man to lead the country out of the darkness of antichrist v.II? Certainly better than some wishy-washy non-christian Morman!

The right wing will not be much bothered by Newt's moral & ethical lapses....those can be easily explained away. And anyway they only count when when said lapses are by a democrat or a RINO®. Remember, these are the people who are still cursing "those women" for bringing down that good man, Herman Cain. Who still say the godly Sarah was shafted by the liberal media.

Newt Gingrich is a far more credible threat to Obama than Romney, not because he's smarter or morally superior (he isn't) but because he has the potential to energize the political right.
SS

[BrainGlutton]

I'm a Dem, but there's still a problem for Obama here.

Like in 2008, the party which gets out the vote wins. The so-called moderates are not really up for grabs. And in darn few districts do they control the outcome.

The side which most enthuses their base to actually vote, not just fulminate online, will win. Obama won largely due to a groundswell of voting by groups, such as 20-somethings, who did not traditionally bother to actually, you know, vote.

IF Obama can get those same people out to vote again, he'll win. If not, he won't.

One thing you gotta say about the Tea Partiers is that they will in fact vote in Nov. They may have to hold their nose to vote for what they see as a Mormon flipflopping lefty. But they will vote en masse, and they will vote R.

So O's challenge is to get the left-wing base fired up to vote without awakening 2 right-wing lazies for each left-wing lazy he motivates.

Well, to do that, he might have to . . . somehow associate himself with OWS.

[Chronos]

Hasn't Obama already lauded the Occupy movement?

[bengangmo]

I'm a Dem, but there's still a problem for Obama here.

Like in 2008, the party which gets out the vote wins. The so-called moderates are not really up for grabs. And in darn few districts do they control the outcome.

The side which most enthuses their base to actually vote, not just fulminate online, will win. Obama won largely due to a groundswell of voting by groups, such as 20-somethings, who did not traditionally bother to actually, you know, vote.

IF Obama can get those same people out to vote again, he'll win. If not, he won't.

One thing you gotta say about the Tea Partiers is that they will in fact vote in Nov. They may have to hold their nose to vote for what they see as a Mormon flipflopping lefty. But they will vote en masse, and they will vote R.

So O's challenge is to get the left-wing base fired up to vote without awakening 2 right-wing lazies for each left-wing lazy he motivates.

I feel like this attitude is sometimes overstated.

Fair enough I am not a 'Mercan, but most people are at least reasonably reasonable right? Are people really that wedded to what letter is behind the pres? In general I am pretty much a tory but I would get behind Obama against what I have seen of the republican candidates in a heartbeat.

[Untoward_Parable]

Well some people who voted against Obama for fear that he would be something new and scary might now vote for him realizing he's just like the rest, and maybe a little less scary than the possibility of a new personality. It's not so simple as treating it like he's running for the first time with more negatives. Incumbents have a lot of advantages and while the economy is still awful and Obama has done more harm than good (as any R or D tends to do) I see his odds as being at least 2/3rds for reelection with the most ideal of R nominees (the only one that has a personality and appearance anything like any of the presidents since TV was invented?). Gingrich would have to luck out big somehow to have more than zero chance. (Maybe Obama is seen running back into the white house in women's undergarments?)

[StusBlues]

It looks like this has a possibility of happening. If Gingrich is the candidate what's the game plan for Obama?

Show up.

[BrainGlutton]

Show up.

With garlic and holy water.

[The Great Sun Jester]

Show up with garlic holy water.

Do not rise to any of the bait Newt will be chumming the debate with. Just give lots of quizzical looks, maybe even say, "There's so much wrong with what you just said it doesn't even merit a thoughtful response."

And most of all, work in his successes, even if it means claiming to have slain the jabberwock before it actually got to the village for all to see, because his 2008 supporters need to be reminded what happens if they don't vote.

Personally I think Newt is the GOP's formal admission of defeat in 2012. It's hard to beat an incumbent, and they don't have any talent to put forth that can do it easily. May as well throw Newt on the fire.

[Shodan]

Do not rise to any of the bait Newt will be chumming the debate with. Just give lots of quizzical looks, maybe even say, "There's so much wrong with what you just said it doesn't even merit a thoughtful response."What a great idea - show up for a debate and then don't debate. That won't look like having no substantive response - oh no, not at all.

And most of all, work in his successes, even if it means claiming to have slain the jabberwock before it actually got to the village for all to see, because his 2008 supporters need to be reminded what happens if they don't vote. Also a fine idea - mention how he got the lobbyists out of government, cut the deficit in half, reduced the unemployment rate to under 7%, ended no-bid contracts over $25,000, ended the income tax for seniors making less than $50,000, closed Gitmo, increased the minimum wage, reduced earmarks, etc.

Actually, maybe that is not such a great idea after all. Better to stick to jabberwockies.

Regards,
Shodan

[BrainGlutton]

Also a fine idea - mention how he got the lobbyists out of government, cut the deficit in half, reduced the unemployment rate to under 7%, ended no-bid contracts over $25,000, ended the income tax for seniors making less than $50,000, closed Gitmo, increased the minimum wage, reduced earmarks, etc.

Or he might run on his Obameter Scorecard, (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/) it ain't a bad record for promises-kept, all things considered.

[The Great Sun Jester]

What a great idea - show up for a debate and then don't debate. That won't look like having no substantive response - oh no, not at all.C'mon, substituting outrageous BS accusations for substance has been the hallmark of the reactionaries for at least 20 years now. Going into a public forum with one of that strategy's paladins is foolhardy to begin with, legitemizing the BS is not a winnable fight.
Also a fine idea - mention how he got the lobbyists out of government, cut the deficit in half, reduced the unemployment rate to under 7%, ended no-bid contracts over $25,000, ended the income tax for seniors making less than $50,000, closed Gitmo, increased the minimum wage, reduced earmarks, etc.

Actually, maybe that is not such a great idea after all. Better to stick to jabberwockies.Hm, I thought I'd said "work in his successes." You know, repealing don't ask/don't tell and letting gays play war; ending torture by US personnel and foreign parties on behalf of the US; expanding housing vouchers program for homeless veterans; expanding loan programs for small businesses; giving tax credits to those who need help to pay health premiums; increasing the Veterans Administration budget to recruit and retain more mental health professionals; End the war in Iraq; "Get" Bin Laden...Hell, he might even be able to get a jab in there about successfully not fucking women who aren't his wife.

ETA, damn you BrainGlutton, I was gonna pull the entire crib! :) Awesome resource, ain't it?

[elucidator]

Rope a dope.

[Shodan]

C'mon, substituting outrageous BS accusations for substance has been the hallmark of the reactionaries for at least 20 years now. Going into a public forum with one of that strategy's paladins is foolhardy to begin with, legitemizing the BS is not a winnable fight.I see you are one of those who agree that Obama is likely to lose a public debate with Gingrich. You may or may not be right, but Obama hasn't any real choice. If he refuses to debate, or shows up and refuses to respond to anything Gingrich says, he loses by default, and rightly so.

Hm, I thought I'd said "work in his successes." You know, repealing don't ask/don't tell and letting gays play war; ending torture by US personnel and foreign parties on behalf of the US; expanding housing vouchers program for homeless veterans; expanding loan programs for small businesses; giving tax credits to those who need help to pay health premiums; increasing the Veterans Administration budget to recruit and retain more mental health professionals; End the war in Iraq; "Get" Bin Laden...Hell, he might even be able to get a jab in there about successfully not fucking women who aren't his wife.If Gingrich mentions the deficit and Obama's promise, and Obama responds by mentioning that he hasn't fucked anyone but Michelle, he loses, and, again, rightly so.

No doubt you are correct to some extent, and Obama will change the subject and start talking about how he killed Osama bin Laden whenever some one mentions the economy. That may or may not be a winning strategy. He is the incumbent, after all. But if he behaves the way some of his more rabid supporters would like him to do, he comes across as an arrogant asshole. That's rather opposite to the Rorschach image of hope and change he relied on in 2008.

I realize some of this is wish fulfillment on the SDMB's part, where Obama says what they think of saying if they were ever in a position to slag on Gingrich or another Republican in public. But if Obama is not smart enough to resist that temptation, he will lose. I suspect he is smart enough, but I hope that he is not.

Regards,
Shodan

[StusBlues]

Personally I think Newt is the GOP's formal admission of defeat in 2012. It's hard to beat an incumbent, and they don't have any talent to put forth that can do it easily. May as well throw Newt on the fire.

I will be very surprised if it comes to this. The nominee will be Mitt Romney (though I wouldn't quite bet the house against Perry yet). Newt Gingrich types sometimes make noise in the early going; the electorate eventually errs on the side of sanity.

[The Great Sun Jester]

I see you are one of those who agree that Obama is likely to lose a public debate with Gingrich.Thank you for the example. I said nothing of the kind, I said "substituting outrageous BS accusations for substance has been the hallmark of the reactionaries for at least 20 years now. Going into a public forum with one of that strategy's paladins is foolhardy...." Point being, smart money is on Newt tossing out cowpies with the hope of Obama slipping on one, rather than him legitemately engaging the debate points. Ergo, the likelihood of a "public debate with Gingrich" is slimmer than Sasquatch showing up to moderate it.

[Chronos]

No doubt you are correct to some extent, and Obama will change the subject and start talking about how he killed Osama bin Laden whenever some one mentions the economy.Or he'll just mention how under his policies, the economy improves, while under Republican policies, the economy gets worse. Or he'll point out that the reason his policies didn't do even more good is that the Republicans in Congress have been following in Gingrich's tradition of obstructionism, the same tradition that caused the government shutdown during Clinton's presidency. It's not like Gingrich has exactly covered him in glory on that score. Or, well, on any score.

[John DiFool]

I will be very surprised if it comes to this. The nominee will be Mitt Romney (though I wouldn't quite bet the house against Perry yet). Newt Gingrich types sometimes make noise in the early going; the electorate eventually errs on the side of sanity.

I don't know about that-currently Iowan Tea Partiers prefer Gingrich over Romney by 35% to 4%. Read that again, slowly.

[Ravenman]

No doubt you are correct to some extent, and Obama will change the subject and start talking about how he killed Osama bin Laden whenever some one mentions the economy. That may or may not be a winning strategy. Please. When the economy comes up, there's no need for Obama to change the subject. He's going to run against the most hated Congress in history, and pointing out the failures of Republican leadership to pass anything having to do with job creation will have particular appeal should it be Gingrich, a veritable poster child for partisanship and obstructionism in Congress.

Having a disgraced former Speaker of the House running for the presidency when the Legislative Branch is probably the most reviled institution in America is a wonderful strategy for Republicans. I whole-heartedly endorse this novel political strategy.

[Death of Rats]

His best stratagy is to point out that Newt is leading with Iowa Republicans which makes him, by definition, completely insane and incapable of winning the nomination, let alone a general election.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Fair enough I am not a 'Mercan, but most people are at least reasonably reasonable right?
It would be nice to think so, but this election season is proof to the contrary.
Are people really that wedded to what letter is behind the pres?
Yes. A minimum of 80% of the electorate votes for the letter. The campaign is partly to rev them up to ensure that they will go to the polls and partly about persuading the 20% - who are mostly not moderates or independents but apathetic, uninvolved, and uninformed - to move to their side.

I don't know about that-currently Iowan Tea Partiers prefer Gingrich over Romney by 35% to 4%. Read that again, slowly.

What a perfect example of a fact that appears important and overpowering and yet probably has no meaning at all, because of the lack of context.

Mitt Romney was never going to get a large - or moderate or even pathetic - percentage of the Tea Party. (Any choice in any poll for anything will get 4%. It's noise, not an opinion.) It doesn't matter which of the many right-wing favorites have risen against him this year, the percentage would be about the same. So as soon as you say "Tea Party", I have to come back with "so what"?

And the fact that it's the Iowa Tea Party lessens even the tiny amount of value it has. Romney hasn't been running in Iowa. He wrote the state off a long time ago. It's too Christian conservative for him to make any headway, and the caucus nature of the vote where everybody knows who you're voting for makes a counter vote even more socially unacceptable. Iowa, of course, has a lousy record of predicting nominees. A win there is mostly for the media and the attention it brings, because donations follow attention. The candidates with money, like Romney, can afford to slight Iowa. He's starting his big push in New Hampshire, where he is still the favorite, despite Gingrich being the latest flavor of the month there.

I've said from the beginning that Romney will be the nominee. Nothing has happened to change that.

[StusBlues]

I don't know about that-currently Iowan Tea Partiers prefer Gingrich over Romney by 35% to 4%. Read that again, slowly.

I'd rather not.

[otternell]

I don't know about that-currently Iowan Tea Partiers prefer Gingrich over Romney by 35% to 4%. Read that again, slowly.

In 2008, Iowa also selected Huckabee, who clearly didn't go anywhere nationally. Huckabee got 32% McCain got 12%. Granted, its not as large of a difference as Gingrich over Romney, but its still Iowa, and our R's don't have a very good predictive record.

[That Don Guy]

Light a cigar and prop his feet up on the desk, and wait to be re-elected in a landslide.
Don't forget the buttons and bumper stickers that say just "President Obama 2012".

(Who was the first incumbent to use just "President <name>" as a slogan? The earliest I remember was Nixon in 1972.)

[kaylasdad99]

I will be very surprised if it comes to this. The nominee will be Mitt Romney (though I wouldn't quite bet the house against Perry yet). Newt Gingrich types sometimes make noise in the early going; the electorate eventually errs on the side of sanity.Not really talking about the electorate in general here, though. This discussion is about Republicans who play a role in the process of selecting a Republican nominee.

Not a lot of sanity among that bunch this season.

[StusBlues]

Not really talking about the electorate in general here, though. This discussion is about Republicans who play a role in the process of selecting a Republican nominee.

Not a lot of sanity among that bunch this season.

Not a lot of choice, mate. It's not like they have a slate of Eisenhowers, Kemps, Connellys, and Doles to choose from. Romney and Perry are the only ones who wouldn't have gotten a collective "yeah, right" thirty years ago.

[Baker]

I'd remind people that Newt divorced his wife on her deathbed.

[China Guy]

I'd remind people that Newt divorced his wife on her deathbed.Was that his first divorce or second?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Interesting bit at the end of this article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070881/Mitt-Romney-announces-NOT-participate-Donald-Trumps-debate--new-runner-Trump-pal-Newt-RSVPd-yes.html?ito=feeds-newsxml) (that describes the 3-ring circus that is Trump's upcoming debate hosting):

Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi hinted Monday that she has major dirt on Mr Gingrich that could tarnish his White House hopes.

She suggested she would reveal 'thousands' of pages of an ethics committee investigation into the GOP frontrunner 'when the time's right.'
'I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff,' Mrs Pelosi told Talking Points Memo Friday in an interview published Monday.

Mr Gingrich reacted to Mrs Pelosi’s remarks by thanking her for an ‘early Christmas gift’.
He brushed her off, telling The Hill that revealing such info would be 'abusing the ethics process’.


So.... By revealing his ethical breaches, Pelosi herself would then be guilty of an ethical breach, thus nullifying any wrongdoing on his part! Very clever, Mr. Gingrich.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Gingrich just simply does not have the capacity to rouse the affect of people. He cannot fire people up, has no charm, and (relatedly) has a smug, superior condescending tone that he seems unable to turn off.

Secondly, his policy positions and ethics are a nightmare. Even if previous decades never happened, this is a guy who got millions from Freddie Mac, and is also pushing a suggestion that we should put more 9 year olds to work.

Obama shouldn't take it all lightly, but if Newt wins the nomination, it will be a devastating blow to the Republican chances.

[Steve MB]

Gingrich just simply does not have the capacity to rouse the affect of people. He cannot fire people up, has no charm, and (relatedly) has a smug, superior condescending tone that he seems unable to turn off.

Secondly, his policy positions and ethics are a nightmare. Even if previous decades never happened, this is a guy who got millions from Freddie Mac, and is also pushing a suggestion that we should put more 9 year olds to work.

Obama shouldn't take it all lightly, but if Newt wins the nomination, it will be a devastating blow to the Republican chances.

He doesn't even seem to have projected any clear notion of why he wants to be president (other than "I want to ride in the front of the plane this time").

[elucidator]

I'd remind people that Newt divorced his wife on her deathbed.

She was recovering from surgery, and did not die. Don't make me do this again.

[BrainGlutton]

Hasn't Obama already lauded the Occupy movement?

Judge for yourself. (http://www.thenation.com/blog/164996/osawatomie-obama-embraces-new-populist-moment)

[Damuri Ajashi]

Suddenly, the former Speaker's whole campaign has snapped into focus for me. "Let's do this! Poor people can't work! Citizenship for illegal immigrants! I made $1.8 million from Freddie Mac! Leeeeeroy Giiiiiiingrich! At least I ain't chicken."

I think the words were "At least I have chicken"

[Kobal2]

Yes. A minimum of 80% of the electorate votes for the letter.

I think you might be overstating things - an authoritative source (http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html) puts the crazification factor at a mere 27%.

[PhillyGuy]

-try and blame Newt for the perceived increase in hostility in Congress due to his bomb throwing while he was a rep. in the 90's, and link that to current Congressional gridlock


Looking through the thread, this is the one I like the best.

It's not just a matter of beating Gingrich. If more than a tiny portion of the electorate decides that the problem is Newt personally, rather than an obstructionist GOP, the Republicans will win the Senate, enlarge their House majority, and generally create a situation where Obama might as well have lost.

If Barack Obama does lose, I think it will be so obvious that it was due to a world-wide economic meltdown, rather than him personally, that the Democrats should nominate him again in 2016 (especially if the depression lasts until then, and that can't be ruled out).

[The wind of my soul]

He doesn't even seem to have projected any clear notion of why he wants to be president (other than "I want to ride in the front of the plane this time").

Do you think the other candidates have done this (projected a clear notion why they want to be president)?

[rocking chair]

gingrich had the goverment shut down twice. while that may make some tea party types happy, it was seen and is still seen as a failure.

obama may have been at the brink of it, he and boehner didn't have a shut down.

obama can easily point to that.

[Chefguy]

He also needs to do what all of those other dickweed candidates have been afraid to do up to this point: bring up the ethics and corruption violations that got him booted from Congress in the first place. Do we really want a criminal in the White House?

[Fear Itself]

Hire a bevy of 24-year-old bleach blonde bimbos to volunteer in Gingrich offices in every swing state.

[John Mace]

He also needs to do what all of those other dickweed candidates have been afraid to do up to this point: bring up the ethics and corruption violations that got him booted from Congress in the first place. Do we really want a criminal in the White House?

Re-write history much?

Gingrich was brought up on ethics charges over whether a college course he ran was for political purposes or not. It was deemed to be not eligible by the House Ethics Committee, but was later cleared by the IRS as being OK.

He was never convicted of any crime nor found by the ethics committee to be "corrupt".

And he wasn't booted from Congress. Some Reps (including Boehner) attempted a coup to take over House leadership, but they failed.

He did squander his party's majority position with his witch hunt impeachment action against Clinton, and that, almost certainly, caused him to leave Congress, but the decision was his.

I don't want to see him in the WH because he is overly confident of his own world view, is brash and quick tempered, and is often wrong without realizing it (or being open to criticism). No need to make up things about him to paint him in a negative light-- the truth is more than adequate for that purpose.

[Martin Hyde]

Realistically Newt is unelectable and has way too many problems to ever be the nominee let alone President. That's what people were saying in 1996 and it's just as true now as it was then, I think Newt felt time might heal his wounds but unfortunately memory has proven longer than a decade for him in the political world.

If by some stroke of misfortune (for the Republicans) Newt was the nominee and I was Obama's campaign manager I'd advise a "rose garden" strategy in which the President just says a lot of platitudes, maintains the high road, highlight achievements and ignore negative campaigning. Newt is such a disaster the only job of the Obama team would be to keep the President from getting bogged down in debates on issues where the public is strongly against Obama, just look Presidential and kiss babies, don't get down in the mud with Newt and he'll have made his own noose a dozen times over before election day.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Re-write history much?

Gingrich was brought up on ethics charges over whether a college course he ran was for political purposes or not. It was deemed to be not eligible by the House Ethics Committee, but was later cleared by the IRS as being OK.
I appreciate your pointing this out: I'd incorrectly remembered his departure from Congress as being directly related to his $300,000 penalty. So I just read up on his ethics violations, and they're deliciously ironic.

He wasn't fined so much because of the college course issue, as you imply. The House Ethics Committee came down on him so harshly for lying during the investigation.

Which makes me think of another politician around that same time who got in trouble for lying during an investigation. What was his name? And who was it in the House who spearheaded the charge against that politician? Lemme think, lemme think....

[Euphonious Polemic]

Which makes me think of another politician around that same time who got in trouble for lying during an investigation. What was his name? And who was it in the House who spearheaded the charge against that politician? Lemme think, lemme think....

Oh, oh, I know this one! The guy who spearheaded the charge was the same one that was banging Congressional staffer, Callista Bisek (while he was married to Marianne Ginther, who he was banging while still married to Jackie Battley)

Who's he banging now, while still married to Callista?

[Chefguy]

Re-write history much?

Gingrich was brought up on ethics charges over whether a college course he ran was for political purposes or not. It was deemed to be not eligible by the House Ethics Committee, but was later cleared by the IRS as being OK.

He was never convicted of any crime nor found by the ethics committee to be "corrupt".

And he wasn't booted from Congress. Some Reps (including Boehner) attempted a coup to take over House leadership, but they failed.

He did squander his party's majority position with his witch hunt impeachment action against Clinton, and that, almost certainly, caused him to leave Congress, but the decision was his.

I don't want to see him in the WH because he is overly confident of his own world view, is brash and quick tempered, and is often wrong without realizing it (or being open to criticism). No need to make up things about him to paint him in a negative light-- the truth is more than adequate for that purpose.

That'll teach me not to do my homework. Retracted.

[Sitnam]

The StarTribune (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/135418943.html)

One of Gingrich's favorite campaign trail topics is the threat of an EMP pulse from a detonated atomic weapon above the United States. Forget that Yousaf Butt a nuclear scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists who completed a lengthy analysis of EMP for the Space Review and said "If terrorists want to do something serious, they'll use a weapon of mass destruction not mass disruption. They don't want to depend of complicated secondary effects in which the physics aren't clear." Newt says, "it's like going aboard the Titanic and knowing it's going to sink and not putting on the lifeboats".

No Newt. It's like going aboard the Titanic and being worried a whale will hit the ship. The incredible improbability combined with the low level of inconvenience if it did occur isn't the most pressing issue here. But Newt knows his audience, highlight a new relatively unknown fear (real or imagined) and promise to protect us from it. That's how the debates are going to go and it's just so fucking sad.

[kaylasdad99]

Oh, oh, I know this one! The guy who spearheaded the charge was the same one that was banging Congressional staffer, Callista Bisek (while he was married to Marianne Ginther, who he was banging while still married to Jackie Battley)

Who's he banging now, while still married to Callista?Well, he's making a play to fuck over the entire country. That's kinda the same thing...

[StusBlues]

Hire a bevy of 24-year-old bleach blonde bimbos to volunteer in Gingrich offices in every swing state.

The sad part is that such a thing might well work.

[Kolga]

One of Gingrich's favorite campaign trail topics is the threat of an EMP pulse from a detonated atomic weapon above the United States. Forget that Yousaf Butt a nuclear scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists who completed a lengthy analysis of EMP for the Space Review and said "If terrorists want to do something serious, they'll use a weapon of mass destruction not mass disruption. They don't want to depend of complicated secondary effects in which the physics aren't clear." Newt says, "it's like going aboard the Titanic and knowing it's going to sink and not putting on the lifeboats".

No Newt. It's like going aboard the Titanic and being worried a whale will hit the ship. The incredible improbability combined with the low level of inconvenience if it did occur isn't the most pressing issue here. But Newt knows his audience, highlight a new relatively unknown fear (real or imagined) and promise to protect us from it. That's how the debates are going to go and it's just so fucking sad.

What, is he basing his defense policy on One Second After (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Second_After)?

[a35362]

That's it, right there! He sees the movie Boys' Town and wants to bring back orphanages. He reads a science-fictiony book or sees a movie and decides there is a threat to the U.S. somewhere, somehow, based on what he read or saw. That's like seeing Star Trek and trying to tell people we are at risk from attack by Klingons (or Cardassians, or...). Yeah? Prove it isn't so! Can you? Hah, thought not!

He says this stuff in a serious, I-dare-you-to-call-me-on-this authority figure voice and he seems to have some credibility. Just the fact that the Liberal Media will give him airtime gives him credibility.

[elucidator]

trying to tell people we are at risk from attack by Klingons (or Cardassians, or......

The Kardashians scare the hell out of me! I hear they can estimate your net worth from twenty yards away by the twitching in their clitoris!

[CJJ*]

At the rise of Obama's candidacy in 2007 and through 2008, the media highlighted his intelligence, oratory and debating skills--to a (sometimes) fawning and hyperbolic degree (and I'm an Obama supporter). I think the right-wing base has reacted to this by overly discounting all three of these as a myth; Ross Douhat--whom I usually find worthless--actually finds a nut with this analysis (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/opinion/sunday/douthat-professor-gingrich-vs-professor-obama.html?_r=1&ref=rossdouthat):
[E]ver since the 2008 election, the right has embraced a sweeping counternarrative, in which the president’s eloquence is a myth and his brilliance a pure invention. Take away his campaign razzle-dazzle and his media cheering section, this argument goes, and what remains is a droning pedant, out of his depth and tongue-tied without a teleprompter.
This leads Douhat to conclude that the base is pining for a candidate who can finally outsmart and out-orate Obama, and in the process expose Obama's true weakness, a kind of "conservative revenge fantasy".

The problem with this strategy, of course, is that (1) elections don't usually turn on debates--polls may move briefly based on debate outcome, but this effect tends to dissipate after a few weeks--and (2) even if an election could be swung by a debate, it's unclear that Gigrich's debate performance in these primaries--where he was usually ignored and never really challenged by his opponents--would translate well to taking on Obama.

Obama then would be wise to coax Gingrich into this arena. Gingrich would almost certainly take the bait, leaving him less time for things like defining his own initiatives (i.e. forcing Obama to play on Gingrich's terms). I get the sense that a war of words would end up (at best for Newt) as a wash, and if your perceived strength can only gain you a draw, you're not going to win the election.

[Chronos]

Wait, Gingrich is concerned that the terrorists will set off a nuke high enough to EMP the entire country? With what space program? Al Qaeda certainly has trucks, probably has ships, and just might even have a few planes of their own, but there's no way they have their own ICBMs.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Wait, Gingrich is concerned that the terrorists will set off a nuke high enough to EMP the entire country? With what space program? Al Qaeda certainly has trucks, probably has ships, and just might even have a few planes of their own, but there's no way they have their own ICBMs.

You fool! All they have to do is get a missile from Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Jeez man, don't you even read?

[BrainGlutton]

Of course, if they have even one nuke, they can deliver it to any major port city in a sailboat. Even to Chicago, if they wish.

[kaylasdad99]

Of course, if they have even one nuke, they can deliver it to any major port city in a sailboat. Even to Chicago, if they wish.Irrelevant to any discussion of a transcontinental disruption of communications due to EMP. As pointed out above, that requires a high-altitude air burst.

[BrainGlutton]

Irrelevant to any discussion of a transcontinental disruption of communications due to EMP. As pointed out above, that requires a high-altitude air burst.

Wasn't the Internet originally specifically designed to weather that? At least, as I recall, the original purpose was to facilitate government and military communication the Day After, and they can't have overlooked the possibility of EMP disruption.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Someone should alert Newt to the dangers posed by sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads.

[BrainGlutton]

Someone should alert Newt to the dangers posed by sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads.

No. No. Let's not. Let him find out on his own.

(You did install the trapdoor, didn't you? Throw me a bone!)

[Chronos]

Wasn't the Internet originally specifically designed to weather that? At least, as I recall, the original purpose was to facilitate government and military communication the Day After, and they can't have overlooked the possibility of EMP disruption.
Not specifically. The Internet was designed to survive loss of large amounts of infrastructure, but what form those losses take wasn't really a consideration. More often, the sort of damage that ends up getting routed around is from some idiot with a backhoe digging where he shouldn't be.