PDA

View Full Version : Mitt vs Newt by Charles KrautHammer.....



MMC
12-15-2011, 09:24 AM
It’s Iowa minus 32 days, and barring yet another resurrection (or event of similar improbability), it’s Mitt Romney vs. Newt Gingrich. In a match race, here's the score card.
Romney has managed to weather the debates unscathed. However, the brittleness he showed when confronted with the kind of informed follow-up questions that Bret Baier tossed his way (http://video.foxnews.com/v/1301527875001/) Tuesday on Fox’s “Special Report” — the kind of scrutiny one doesn’t get in multiplayer debates — suggests that Romney may become increasingly vulnerable as the field narrows.

Enter Gingrich, the current vessel for anti-Romney forces — and likely the final one. Gingrich’s obvious weakness is a history of flip-flops, zigzags and mind changes even more extensive than Romney’s — on climate change, the health-care mandate, cap-and-trade, Libya, the Ryan Medicare plan, etc.

Two ideologically problematic finalists: One is a man of center-right temperament who has of late adopted a conservative agenda. The other is a man more conservative by nature but possessed of an unbounded need for grand display that has already led him to unconservative places even he is at a loss to explain, and that as president would leave him in constant search of the out-of-box experience — the confoundedly brilliant Nixon-to-China flipperoo regarding his fancy of the day, be it health care, taxes, energy, foreign policy, whatever.

The second, more obvious, Gingrich vulnerability is electability. Given his considerable service to the movement, many conservatives seem quite prepared to overlook his baggage, ideological and otherwise. This is understandable. But the independents and disaffected Democrats upon whom the general election will hinge will not be so forgiving.

Obama’s approval rating among independents is a catastrophically low 30 percent. This is a constituency disappointed in Obama but also deeply offended by the corrupt culture of the Washington insider — a distaste in no way attenuated by fond memories of the 1994 Contract with America.

This is a weak Republican field with two significantly flawed front-runners contesting an immensely important election. If Obama wins, he will take the country to a place from which it will not be able to return (which is precisely his own objective for a second term).

Every conservative has thus to ask himself two questions: Who is more likely to prevent that second term? And who, if elected, is less likely to unpleasantly surprise?.....snip~

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Staff-Bio/Images/charles-krauthammer-114x80.png

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-vs-newt/2011/12/01/gIQAtSfOIO_story.html


Krauthammer's assessment.....agree/disagree? Also this past weekend The Krauthammer went after Gingrich for his remarks over the weekend. Attacking Gingrich who went on a attack of Capitalism.

Obama is down to a 30% approval rating with Independants. Yet is is apparently clear that despite the weak individuals that are running for the GOP. That All Republicans must come out and support whoever that candidate is. Which does truly suck! It should not be something that Republicans have to do. But we have no choice in this matter.

Obama talked about transforming this country. But he never did say into what. Now, we know. He is systematically Europeanizing our Country with European Ideology and Socialistic endeavors. The Demos sold out so for them its all about those entitlements and bringing those specialty laws into play with their socialistic passions.

Conley
12-15-2011, 09:29 AM
I was under the impression Ron had a chance to win this primary...he's not as popular in other states but the people love him in Iowa from what I've read. And he did win the straw poll, did he not?

MMC
12-15-2011, 09:42 AM
I was under the impression Ron had a chance to win this primary...he's not as popular in other states but the people love him in Iowa from what I've read. And he did win the straw poll, did he not?

Nope not in Iowa.....Bachmann did. He came in Second. Meaning Paul. I heard some of this scenario played out this morning. I dropped a bit by the KrautHammer that he gave up on Fox about Gingrich over the weekend and this week. Guess it would apply here.

Krauthammer was saying even if Paul won Iowa.....they still expect Romney to take NH. Pual is not that taken in with the Southern Cons. Plus in the Carolina's are a lot of Military bases and he suspects Romney has the edge there. Course KH is already counting Paul out from getting any support from the Neo-Cons. So he doesnt even expect Paul to win his own state if it came down to him and Romney.

MMC
12-15-2011, 09:45 AM
The pundits say Newt Gingrich’s flip-flops, immigration stance, and messy personal life will doom him. Michael Medved on why that’s wrong—and only the wholesome family values of Romney and Obama pose a threat.
With Romney taking heat from every direction for his many reverses and reconsiderations, it seemed only a matter of time before Gingrich drew withering fire of his own for an even more prolific record of ideological alteration. After all, in nearly 35 years in public life, Newt has changed his thinking on everything from climate change to health-care mandates, accumulated embarrassing footage of now disregarded bipartisan initiatives with the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, and even switched his personal religious faith from Baptist to Catholic. Why, then, has the flip-flopper label attached itself so much more firmly to Romney than to the equally flexible Gingrich?


The answer involves both context and style. Romney never tires of reminding the public that he spent most of his life as “a conservative businessman,” but ever since his failed Senate race in 1994, he’s also been a high-profile candidate for public office. The changes in his positions involved his pitches for votes, not his decisions in governance: he held an elective post for a mere four years. Newt, on the other hand, served 20 full years in Congress and engaged in the give-and-take, the daily deals and compromises, that represent the heart and soul of the legislative process. He can say that many of his switcheroos arose from the demands of governance rather than a bid for votes; after all, since his first election to the House in 1978, he never faced a fiercely competitive race for reelection.....snip~

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/28/why-newt-gingrich-is-a-stronger-presidential-candidate-than-he-looks.html.....<<<<<More Here!

This is what Medved has to say about the Eye of the Newt and Romney. But some things are still dead on. He also dismisses Paul even tho he does state Paul has supporters and served as active Military! His play was maybe Independants go for Paul. But then the rest of the GOP won't! Which then counts him out! As he will not be able to attract the Big Supporters within the GOP.

Conley
12-15-2011, 10:04 AM
Nope not in Iowa.....Bachmann did. He came in Second. Meaning Paul. I heard some of this scenario played out this morning. I dropped a bit by the KrautHammer that he gave up on Fox about Gingrich over the weekend and this week. Guess it would apply here.

Krauthammer was saying even if Paul won Iowa.....they still expect Romney to take NH. Pual is not that taken in with the Southern Cons. Plus in the Carolina's are a lot of Military bases and he suspects Romney has the edge there. Course KH is already counting Paul out from getting any support from the Neo-Cons. So he doesnt even expect Paul to win his own state if it came down to him and Romney.


That's right, he did come in 2nd, but only by 150 votes. I remember now (and I looked it up. :grin:)...I think he could give Newt a run for his money in Iowa, I really do.

Conley
12-15-2011, 10:05 AM
The pundits say Newt Gingrich’s flip-flops, immigration stance, and messy personal life will doom him. Michael Medved on why that’s wrong—and only the wholesome family values of Romney and Obama pose a threat.
With Romney taking heat from every direction for his many reverses and reconsiderations, it seemed only a matter of time before Gingrich drew withering fire of his own for an even more prolific record of ideological alteration. After all, in nearly 35 years in public life, Newt has changed his thinking on everything from climate change to health-care mandates, accumulated embarrassing footage of now disregarded bipartisan initiatives with the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, and even switched his personal religious faith from Baptist to Catholic. Why, then, has the flip-flopper label attached itself so much more firmly to Romney than to the equally flexible Gingrich?


The answer involves both context and style. Romney never tires of reminding the public that he spent most of his life as “a conservative businessman,” but ever since his failed Senate race in 1994, he’s also been a high-profile candidate for public office. The changes in his positions involved his pitches for votes, not his decisions in governance: he held an elective post for a mere four years. Newt, on the other hand, served 20 full years in Congress and engaged in the give-and-take, the daily deals and compromises, that represent the heart and soul of the legislative process. He can say that many of his switcheroos arose from the demands of governance rather than a bid for votes; after all, since his first election to the House in 1978, he never faced a fiercely competitive race for reelection.....snip~

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/28/why-newt-gingrich-is-a-stronger-presidential-candidate-than-he-looks.html.....<<<<<More Here!

This is what Medved has to say about the Eye of the Newt and Romney. But some things are still dead on. He also dismisses Paul even tho he does state Paul has supporters and served as active Military! His play was maybe Independants go for Paul. But then the rest of the GOP won't! Which then counts him out! As he will not be able to attract the Big Supporters within the GOP.

I think Medved is right on. I didn't know Gingrich switched from Baptist to Catholic. That strikes me as a little odd...not that people don't change, but to do so this late in life. Many kids switch once they've gotten out on their own and are no longer in their parents' home but this is different.

MMC
12-15-2011, 10:12 AM
I think Krauthammers remarks are echoing thru all the GOP corridors about Gingrich now. Especially his bit about Gingrich attacking Capitalism Principles. Seems most of the pundits and independant economists are saying the same thing about Obama Europeanizing the US. Course those from the EU are all excited that their recession will be mild with an Obama Election. So again there is no choice other than Obama has to go.

Every President we have had for the last 6 each of their second terms were worse than their first. We cannot afford to have this happen now at this point in time. Already they are trying to fudge the numbers for the fourth quarter. Saying things are better than they expected.

Conley
12-15-2011, 10:16 AM
Good point MMC...once they're in their second term they don't have to worry about reelection and that's when the wheels really come off.

jgreer
12-15-2011, 10:20 AM
ITs so funny how the right wing media destroys their own people. They are always tearing down Newt and Romney and it is really obvious no one is happy with either one of them

MMC
12-15-2011, 10:28 AM
As I hear it Obama is cavin on the Millionaire Tax.....plus he will use Foreign Policy as a strength for the Election. Already he has made the Error of saying look at what he has done and ask those AQ operatives if he is appeasing them.

Conley
12-15-2011, 10:30 AM
As I hear it Obama is cavin on the Millionaire Tax.....plus he will use Foreign Policy as a strength for the Election. Already he has made the Error of saying look at what he has done and ask those AQ operatives if he is appeasing them.

Why is it a mistake to bring up AQ? Don't you think we've had success in disrupting their network and killing their leaders?

MMC
12-15-2011, 10:46 AM
Why is it a mistake to bring up AQ? Don't you think we've had success in disrupting their network and killing their leaders?

Yeah thats good for the rest of the World.....I meant Obama is using as a strength over the GOP. Due to them saying he was appeasing our enemies etc etc. Citing how many members of AQ he has got to. How he handled Libya and some of those other Mid East Countries. How he has sanctioned Iran more severely, put N. Korea on Hold, and directly engaged the Chinese over the Currency Issue.

MMC
12-15-2011, 10:50 AM
ITs so funny how the right wing media destroys their own people. They are always tearing down Newt and Romney and it is really obvious no one is happy with either one of them

Morning JG.....lets not forget the Demos would be doing it to if they had someone who thought about serving this country rather than their party! :wink:

BOOMSTICK
12-15-2011, 10:51 AM
The biggest problem with Obama and foreign policy is that he makes demands he can't back up. Demands of Syria, demands of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran too. He barks a lot but doesn't back it up. We all know people like that in our lives and they get no respect. It is an embarrassment.

MMC
12-15-2011, 11:01 AM
Not to mention Egypt and Yemen isnt looking to hot with what he pulled there. There is also the other factor of allowing the French to dictate terms for us or to speak for us. Having his UN Ambassdor outwitted and outplayed by the French. Then his complete and utter failure with Mexico!