Newt will win big in SC today

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by John Mace

On a serious note, I wouldn't vote for Romney, but I wouldn't be too bothered if he won. Newt, OTOH, is honest to goodness scary. He's exactly the kind of guy you don't want in the WH. A big idea guy who thinks he's always right.

But here is what makes it okay for me: Newt wouldn't be a dictator. He would still have to get support from Congress to pass anything into law. I agree that Newt does have some bold ideas that tip the scale into craziness sometimes, but I don't think he's a "Fuck it, let's nuke Pakistan tonight, North Korea tomorrow" kind of crazy.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

All that and they are not born-again Christian.

As soon as the primaries go to states where Republicans are not as concentrated in this one minority sector of the party, the effect that Voyager points out will predominate.

Lost in all the horse-race verbal diarrhea is the fact that even a month or so ago, Romney was never expected to win either Iowa or South Carolina. The composition of the primary voting base in those states were thoroughly against him. That he tied in one and lost at the last minute in the other doesn't change that; in the long-term it'll be said those were indications that he was doing better than anyone expected.

Not that you'll hear this from media delirious that they have a horse-race to cover for the next couple of weeks until Super Tuesday.

It's a sign of the apocalypse: the Democrats will be toasting Newt Gingrich.

I have to agree with you about the TV punditry. They have been idiot shills throughout the campaign, totally distracted by each new dog with a fluffy tail as it comes along, not keeping any sense of perspective t all. And I mostly watch MSNBC, which you would THINK would have some perspective on the matter, generally not being conservatives. But no, ratings are the god they must appease, and to do that they pump up every primary as if it were the election itself, so they do.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by jtgain

But here is what makes it okay for me: Newt wouldn't be a dictator. He would still have to get support from Congress to pass anything into law. I agree that Newt does have some bold ideas that tip the scale into craziness sometimes, but I don't think he's a "Fuck it, let's nuke Pakistan tonight, North Korea tomorrow" kind of crazy.

If Newt wins, it will be because Republicans come out to vote in large numbers. That means that House and Senate are likely to belong to them. If Newt has the house and a 61 vote margin in the senate, say goodbye to the world. He'd probably crash the world economy as a first step.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Nope, never lived there. My wife lived in Statesboro for a year, though.

That'll get her a Distinguished Service Cross! I thought Gaganthundar was the OP. Oops.

[aceplace57]

How much did Gingrich's Southern roots play in the vote? Is he expected to carry most of the South?

I won't vote for him. But I can't vouch for my Southern neighbors.

[Exapno Mapcase]

It's fascinating that at the height of Conservative Christian domination of the right-wing of the Republican party, the ones most likely to vote in primaries, the three leading candidates left include two Catholics and a Mormon. Ron Paul is admittedly a Baptist and since he's running to spread a message rather than to win, he'll be there all the way through. But he's the one who makes a point of not publicly proclaiming his faith. And every contender who loudly pandered to the CC vote is out of the race. Who could have imagined that at the start?

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

Lost in all the horse-race verbal diarrhea is the fact that even a month or so ago, Romney was never expected to win either Iowa or South Carolina. The composition of the primary voting base in those states were thoroughly against him. That he tied in one and lost at the last minute in the other doesn't change that; in the long-term it'll be said those were indications that he was doing better than anyone expected.

Do you watch sports? Being a choker is worse, way worse, than being overmatched in the first place. Nobody praises the Yankees when they lose.

[Northern Piper]

I can understand Newt's appeal. Romney is a corporate suit. Corporate suits don't have much credibility since the crash. Newt, well, if you want a fire-breathing pit bull as your candidate, there you go!

[Locrian]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

The thing that really struck me is the huge number of Gingrich voters who decided to vote for him within a day or so of the election. Talk about a late-breaking curve!

I'm also shocked by 48% of Gingrich voters declare abortion "illegal in all cases" and I'm NOT shocked that 44% of his voters in SC are BAs or Evangelicals.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

It's fascinating that at the height of Conservative Christian domination of the right-wing of the Republican party, the ones most likely to vote in primaries, the three leading candidates left include two Catholics and a Mormon.

The mistrust of Catholics on the part of evangelicals/fundies went away 2-3 decades ago, when they got used to making common cause on all those 'family values' issues. One data point: the Supreme Court has had a Roman Catholic majority for several years now - all five of the Republican appointees are Catholics. Have you heard the least peep of objection to this situation from any evangelical leader? Me either.

They may go to different churches on Sunday, but evangelicals and conservative Catholics are thick as thieves the rest of the week.

Mormons are still a different matter, though. It'll probably take another decade or two for evangelicals to get over their distrust of Mormons, even though they're on the same side of most issues.

And every contender who loudly pandered to the CC vote is out of the race.

I realize Santorum's fading, but he's still in the race.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

I realize Santorum's fading, but he's still in the race.

Every loudly conservative protestant is out of the race. There's no such thing as a born-again Catholic.

Though the two groups aren't overtly antagonistic, they aren't the same either. The much talked about "Reagan Democrats" that have mostly stayed switched since have a large percentage of Catholics among them. My hunch is that as we get to states with larger Catholic populations, we'll see them going more for Romney.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Locrian

It just scares me watching these "family values" loving right wing theocrats actually holding Gingrich 2012 sign and cheering until they're red faced and more dizzy than usual (if possible).

Seriously, do we need any more visual displays of hypocrites?

I am looking for a decent candidate to run against Barack. But so far, my vote will be for Barack for same reasons as all elections I've voted in= candidate I despise the least. So, with all the putzses the GOP threw at us, looks like Barack gets the Locrian support again if The Reptile is the candidate.

Originally Posted by NDP

I said this before in another thread but any member of the Religious Right and/or anybody else who feels the need to preach about "family values" who supports Gingrich automatically forfeits his or her right to speak on the topic without being met with a loud chorus of guffaws.

Well they can always point to King David...

Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar

I can see it now; A Gingrich/Santorum ticket, the very suicide of the American right. Such a ticket might carry Oklahoma, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arizona one or two other states.

Utah, Idaho, and Alaska but in such a landslide Arizon's definiately going Democrat.

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

The thing that really struck me is the huge number of Gingrich voters who decided to vote for him within a day or so of the election. Talk about a late-breaking curve!

Sort of like Dewey and Truman in 1948-Romney unfortunately is just as dull as Thomas Dewey.

Originally Posted by Locrian

I'm also shocked by 48% of Gingrich voters declare abortion "illegal in all cases"

That's aint gonna happen even if Newt's POTUS.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

Every loudly conservative protestant is out of the race.

Santorum's pretty much indistinguishable from one, though. Besides, what you said was:

"every contender who loudly pandered to the CC vote is out of the race."

Did he, or did he not, loudly pander to the conservative Christian vote?

There's no such thing as a born-again Catholic.

Just like there are no Catholics who use birth control: RCC doctrine denies the one, and forbids the other, but there are lots of Roman Catholics who've been 'born again' - I knew more than a few in my younger days - just as there are lots of Catholics who use birth control.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

I can understand Newt's appeal. Romney is a corporate suit.

The main difference between Gingrich and Romney is that Gingrich knows how to fake sincerity and Romney doesn't.

[NDP]

Originally Posted by Marley23

The main difference between Gingrich and Romney is that Gingrich knows how to fake sincerity and Romney doesn't.

That reminds me, I'm reading Nixonland right now and the similarities between Gingrich and Nixon are disturbingly creepy.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by NDP

That reminds me, I'm reading Nixonland right now and the similarities between Gingrich and Nixon are disturbingly creepy.

I actually think Nixon was more charming and personable. And far less crooked.

THAT is disturbingly creepy to me.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

I actually think Nixon was more charming and personable.

I dunno, they both have that permanent scowl line etched into their foreheads.

[MEBuckner]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

I actually think Nixon was more charming and personable.

I dunno; Nixon could only persuade one woman to marry him.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I dunno, they both have that permanent scowl line etched into their foreheads.

Yeah, but you know what? Nixon really loved his wife. They were apparently very close. RMN barely lasted 10 months after Pat's death.

I'm pretty sure Newton sees the greatest love of his life every time he looks in a mirror.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

I actually think Nixon was more charming and personable. And far less crooked.

Man, did you ever listen to those tapes, or read the transcripts? Nixon was filled with hate and rage; he was just better at controlling it in public. (As President, and as Presidential candidate in 1968, he handed over the job of attacking enemies publicly to Spiro Agnew.) And by all accounts, he was never charming or personable; he didn't seem to know how to relate to other human beings because he wasn't much of one himself.

I think one could have an enjoyable conversation with Newt Gingrich. But I can't imagine having anything like a normal conversation with Nixon.

[a35362]

No. A conversation with Gingrich would be him talking and you listening.

[BrainGlutton]

Dick Cheney learned his politics in the Nixon WH, and, as Veep, spent eight years fighting for Nixon's vision of an unaccountable "Unitary Executive" Imperial Presidency.

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Dick Cheney learned his politics in the Nixon WH, and, as Veep, spent eight years fighting for Nixon's vision of an unaccountable "Unitary Executive" Imperial Presidency.

Would you please turn that into a Star Wars reference?



ETA: You did, thanks!

[elucidator]

Dear God, we are a nation of Jar-jar Binks!

Nurse? More drugs, please. Nurse?

[jsc1953]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

The right wing in this country seems to have come around to the belief that Newt might be the guy who can do that, only on a national stage - that if you put Newt and 'Barry' in a debate, Newt will turn him into chopped liver, and liberalism in America will have a stake driven through its heart.

No, really: that's what they're hoping for.

Perhaps it's because they truly bought into their own myth-making, that Obama is helpless without a teleprompter.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

But I can't imagine having anything like a normal conversation with Nixon.

Of all people, Hunter Thompson did. 'Course, it was about football.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Frank

Of all people, Hunter Thompson did. 'Course, it was about football.

Sheesh, I'd forgotten about that!

[BrainGlutton]

What about the doomed, Mr. President?!

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

I think one could have an enjoyable conversation with Newt Gingrich. But I can't imagine having anything like a normal conversation with Nixon.

I doubt I would find having a conversation with either of them enjoyable in a normal sense.

The difference for me is, as wrong as he was, I believe Nixon thought the things he was doing were necessary and in the best interests of the country.

I don't think Gingrich could give a shit about anything like that. He is motivated purely by his ego and the desire to attain power and wealth.

In the end, Nixon was a pathetic, amoral man. Gingrich is a loathsome, immoral egomaniac. YMMV of course.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

The difference for me is, as wrong as he was, I believe Nixon thought the things he was doing were necessary and in the best interests of the country.

Look, I hate to flirt with Godwin, but believing one's doing what's "necessary and in the best interests of the country" is not any sort of excuse. All of the great monsters of the 20th century - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and, yes, Hitler - surely thought they were doing what was necessary and in the best interests of their countries.

Not to mention, I doubt it's particularly true in Nixon's case. Whether we're talking about instituting economy-wide wage and price controls (yes, he did that) or creating a burglary unit, it's hard to believe that he had anything in mind with a great number of his activities besides getting re-elected.

[Slithy Tove]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Sort of like Dewey and Truman in 1948-Romney unfortunately is just as dull as Thomas Dewey.

Supposedly, Alice Roosevelt Longworth ruined Dewey by describing him as "the little man on the wedding cake."

Could someone please do us the same service by fixing Newt's image as "the fat pindick kid in the high school locker room?"

[BigT]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Look, I hate to flirt with Godwin, but believing one's doing what's "necessary and in the best interests of the country" is not any sort of excuse. All of the great monsters of the 20th century - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and, yes, Hitler - surely thought they were doing what was necessary and in the best interests of their countries.

Not to mention, I doubt it's particularly true in Nixon's case. Whether we're talking about instituting economy-wide wage and price controls (yes, he did that) or creating a burglary unit, it's hard to believe that he had anything in mind with a great number of his activities besides getting re-elected.

still doesn't change that someone who is doing it for their country is less evil than someone who is doing it for themselves.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

...believing one's doing what's "necessary and in the best interests of the country" is not any sort of excuse.

I agree it is not any sort of excuse; sorry if you got the impression I was trying to offer a defense of Nixon. I was alive and vividly remember his time as President. The original point I was attempting to make was - as damaging as the Nixon Presidency was for the country, I believe a Gingrich Presidency would be worse.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Never mind.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Slithy Tove

Could someone please do us the same service by fixing Newt's image as "the fat pindick kid in the high school locker room?"

How about Dwight Schrute?

[New Deal Democrat]

By the time this primary is over there will be so much bitterness between Gingrich and Romney that the Republican nomination will not be worth having. Meanwhile each will have exposed vulnerabilities in the other that Obama will exploit in the general election.

I'm loving it.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Lets not get too optomistic. Unemployment is high, the fed announced plans to keep interest rates low until 2014 (signalling that they believe the economy will continue to suck), Obamacare is still unpopular, we aren't goign to get the deficit under control anytime soon.

Obama can lose this to anyone that was on that stage.

[jsc1953]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

By the time this primary is over there will be so much bitterness between Gingrich and Romney that the Republican nomination will not be worth having. Meanwhile each will have exposed vulnerabilities in the other that Obama will exploit in the general election.

I'm loving it.

Replace Gingrich, Romney and Obama with Obama, Clinton and McCain respectively, and this logic would have applied to 2008.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by jsc1953

Replace Gingrich, Romney and Obama with Obama, Clinton and McCain respectively, and this logic would have applied to 2008.

You must watching a differnet campaign if you think Obama v. Clinton was as vitriolic as Romney v. Gingrich. And we are only just getting started...

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

The original point I was attempting to make was - as damaging as the Nixon Presidency was for the country, I believe a Gingrich Presidency would be worse.

Yeah, but that's more or less a given at this point - any Republican would be worse for the country than Nixon. GWB was way worse than Nixon, and every candidate for the GOP nomination this year, quite frankly, makes Shrubby look good by comparison.