Why Gingrich Could Win

[scandal 951]

I think Gingrich's chances for winning the GOP nomination are about as good as his chances of winning Miss Congeniality.

But I did like this article, especially the part about Ron Paul, bolded.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190704577026041280212400.html

Why Gingrich Could Win

Herman Cain's prospects were good until this week brought accusatory testimony from a woman who showed up in person, with detail.

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

Newt Gingrich's rise in the polls—from near zero to the third slot in several polls—should come as no surprise to people who have been watching the Republican debates, now drawing television viewers as never before. The former speaker has stood out at these forums, the debater whose audiences seem to hang on his words and on a flow of thought rich in substance, a world apart from the usual that the political season brings.

"Substance" is too cold a word, perhaps, for the intense feeling that candidate Gingrich delivers so coolly in debates. Too cold too, no doubt, to describe the reactions of his listeners, visible on the faces of the crowds attending these forums—in their expressions, caught on C-SPAN's cameras, in the speed with which their desultory politeness disappears once a Gingrich talk begins. Their disengagement—the tendency to look around the room, chat with their neighbors—vanishes. The room is on high alert.

The Gingrich effect showed dramatically at the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition forum last month—an occasion for which most of the candidates had, not surprisingly, prepared addresses focused on the importance of religion in their lives. Michele Bachmann told how, after struggle and indecision, she had found her way to God. So did Rick Perry. Rick Santorum provided a lengthy narrative on his personal commitment to the battle against partial-birth abortion—a history evidently from which no detail had been omitted. Ron Paul offered quotes from the Old and New Testaments where, it seems, he located support for his views on the dollar.

There were two exceptions to the lineup of speeches embracing religious themes. One was Herman Cain, who concentrated on the meaning of American freedom and admonished the crowd to stay informed, "because stupid people are running America." The other was Mr. Gingrich. No one else's remarks would ignite the huge response his talk did.

He began with the declaration that Americans were confronting the most important election choice since 1860. America would have the chance in 2012, Mr. Gingrich said, to repudiate decisively decades of leftward drift in our universities and colleges, our newsrooms, our judicial system and bureaucracies.

He would go on to detail the key policies he would put in place if elected, something other Republican candidates have done regularly to little effect. The Gingrich list was interrupted by thunderous applause at every turn. The difference was, as always, in the details—in the informed, scathing descriptions of the Obama policies to be dispatched and replaced, the convincing tone that suggested such a transformation was likely—even imminent.

Mr. Gingrich predicted, too, that late on Election Night—after it was clear that President Obama had been defeated along with the Democrats in the Senate—the recovery would begin, at once. His audience roared with pleasure. No other Republican candidate could have made the promise so persuasive.

Finally, Mr. Gingrich announced that as the Republican nominee he would challenge President Obama to seven Lincoln-Douglas-style debates. "I think I can represent American exceptionalism, free enterprise, the rights of private property and the Constitution, better than he can represent class warfare, bureaucratic socialism, weakness in foreign policy, and total confusion in the economy."

When it came time to answer questions from a panel of journalists, he was asked first about energy, one of those vital subjects that don't tend to yield lively commentary. How would Mr. Gingrich's policies differ from those of the current administration?

Mr. Gingrich launched into a lethal thumbnail description of the Obama administration's energy policy. The president, he said, had gone to Brazil and told the Brazilians he was really glad they were drilling offshore and that he would like America to be their best customer. "The job of the American president," Mr. Gingrich told the panel, "is not to be a purchasing agent for a foreign country—it's to be a salesman for the United States of America."

Presidential candidate and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich

The former speaker of the House is a dab hand at drawing listeners in, for good reason—he showers them with details, facts and history in a degree no candidate in recent memory has even approached. Audiences have a way of rewarding such trust.

No one listening that night to candidate Gingrich's reflections on the menace of radical judges from Lincoln's time on down could have ignored the power of his fiery assessment—including the Dred Scott decision, others by courts today that threaten our national security, and much in between.

The Iowa contest ahead is all important for Mr. Gingrich. The same is truer still for Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. Ms. Bachmann has been looking increasingly aware that her hopes are fading. Mr. Santorum now seems to inhabit a world so nearly exclusive in its focus on family and family values that it's hard to imagine him a successful contender for the presidency of a large and varied nation of Americans with other concerns, the non-family kind included.

Then there's Congressman Ron Paul, who last weekend let it be known that if he doesn't like the views of the person who wins the nomination, he won't support the Republican candidate. This is a good reason—one of many—for Mr. Paul to retire himself from further debates. It's a certainty, to put it mildly, that he's not going to be the nominee.

It would be passing strange to have as a candidate for the presidency of the United States an envenomed crank who regularly offers justification for the 9/11 attacks that resulted in the annihilation of 3,000 Americans. It was an act, Mr. Paul explains in these exculpatory sermonettes, to which the terrorists were driven by American policies. Mr. Paul may get all the fond buddy treatment in the world from his fellow debaters, but few Americans outside of his devoted army of isolationist fanatics will forget these views.

That leaves Mitt Romney, and Messrs. Perry, Cain and Gingrich heading the list of competitors for Iowa. Mr. Cain's prospects were good until this week brought accusatory testimony from another woman—one who showed up in person, with plenty of detail. Charges of lies, financial motives and conspiracies notwithstanding, it's hard to see how Mr. Cain weathers this disaster. No outsider can know what actually did or did not happen. But all the snorting in the world about Gloria Allred, the accuser's attorney, isn't going to change the impact of this highly specific accusation.

Whoever his competitors are in Iowa and beyond, Mr. Gingrich faces a hard fight for the nomination. His greatest asset lies in his capacity to speak to Americans as he has done, with such potency, during the Republican debates. No candidate in the field comes close to his talent for connection. There's no underestimating the importance of such a power in the presidential election ahead, or any other one.

His rise in the polls suggests that more and more Republicans are absorbing that fact, along with the possibility that Mr. Gingrich's qualifications all 'round could well make him the most formidable contender for the contest with Barack Obama.

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal's editorial board.

[luckytxn 2,263]

It is Romney's nomination to lose. Very strange to have a Mormon running. Obama the Socialist is going to make it a huge centerpiece to defeat him because of it.

[mawilson 2,133]

I think Gingrich's chances for winning the GOP nomination are about as good as his chances of winning Miss Congeniality.

"(Newt Gingrich) Let me put your unpopularity in context for you - you're a Republican and you're polling behind a black guy"

--Bill Maher

[웃 910]

"(Newt Gingrich) Let me put your unpopularity in context for you - you're a Republican and you're polling behind a black guy"

--Bill Maher

The headline for this gif (not visible) is....

Herman Cain: One evil motherfvcker

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It is Romney's nomination to lose. Very strange to have a Mormon running. Obama the Socialist is going to make it a huge centerpiece to defeat him because of it.

Obama will not make Romney's religion an issue in the campaign. Doesn't need to. And he won't have time to. Obama will be busy figuring out which Mitt to run against. Short of support for same sex marriages, Mitt is presenting himself as an advocate for every conservative and every liberal policy proposition ever made. That will be the nail in the coffin of his Presidential aspirations.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

Obama will not make Romney's religion an issue in the campaign. Doesn't need to. And he won't have time to. Obama will be busy figuring out which Mitt to run against. Short of support for same sex marriages, Mitt is presenting himself as an advocate for every conservative and every liberal policy proposition ever made. That will be the nail in the coffin of his Presidential aspirations.

Obama wouldn't do that anyway. He's just better than that. It's really that simple.

[Captain Oates 910]

Good evening, my name is Willard and I am a Mormon - have you ever felt like you needed to turn to ....................... (sound of door closing)

Edited November 10, 2011 by Ashud Cocoa

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Good evening, my name is Willard and I am a Mormon - have you ever felt like you needed to turn to ....................... (sound of door closing)

[slim 1,514]

The headline for this gif (not visible) is....

Herman Cain: One evil motherfvcker

If Herman Cain wins do you think he'd have Samuel L. Jackson as his press secretary?

"Which one of you muthaf$@kers is next? What the f$@k do you want to aks, b!tch?" followed by, "F@#kin A right the motherf#$kin economy is f#$ked up but President Herman muthaf@#kin Cain gonna clean that s#!t up with his motherf#$kin 9 motherf#$kin 9 motherf#$kin 9 plan, gotdammit. Don't motherf#$kin aks me that motherf#$kin sh!t again."

ETA - No matter who the press secretary is, Dave Chappelle will have his show back on the next day.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

You know, if we protect the religious rights of people and allow same-sex couples to get married based on their personal choice, I personally have no problems with allowing Mormons and Muslims to have more than one wife , based on their religion, if it's is a consentual agreement between all parties involved.

Given the choice between a Mormon and a Christian who is of the world-record holders in divorces and banging new girlfriends while the current wife is sick as sh*t and lying in the bed, I go with the Mormon any day.

[scandal 951]

Perry’s Painful Performance Opens Door Wider For Gingrich

“Oops.”

-- Texas Gov. Rick Perry at CNBC’s presidential debate after being unable to recall that his plan called for the elimination of the Department of Energy.

Poor Rick Perry.

It’s hard to imagine a more excruciating moment in public life than his 53 second brain-freeze on a big, simple point: the third federal agency his government overhaul plan would abolish. That it was Energy – his pet issue – only made it worse.

It was especially painful for Perry’s supporters because he had been giving, up to that point, his best debate performance by far. An email at that moment to Power Play from a prominent Perry backer and fundraiser said it well: “NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!”

And while Perry gamely tried to recover in the final portion of the debate, the thought of having to do it all over again in two days in what promises to be a little-watched, but still perilous Saturday debate on foreign policy has to be absolutely shattering.

Had smooth-talking Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich been the freezer, you could imagine how they might be able to turn it into a joke – make light of themselves for the next couple of days and then move on – but for Perry, whose previous debate performances have ranged from dire to barely adequate, it is an awful blow.

Perry has had tremendous success as Texas governor and is hailed by many in his home state as a wise leader, but a man caricatured by his detractors as another dumb conservative and a redneck can’t afford to provide the most jarring debate moment since Adm. James Stockdale’s questions of Oct. 13, 1992: “Who am I? Why am I here?”

Perry told “FOX & Friends” this morning that he’s pressing on and won’t quit, but he has to be wondering how much longer he has to endure this agony and when he’ll be allowed to go home.

Surely Davy Crockett’s line from his 1834 Tennessee congressional bid is running through Perry’s mind: “You may all go to Hell, and I will go to Texas.”

Herman Cain didn’t have to talk much about the scandal he is now dragging around with him, but neither did he seem to rise to the occasion of what should have been his strong suit: a debate on the economy in Michigan hosted by CNBC. He showed some chops when talking about European sovereign debt, but “Nine-Nine-Nine” is starting to seem like a crutch.

And his line about “Princess Nancy” Pelosi may have been an applause getter when he was still giving paid speeches to conservative groups and hosting a radio show, but isn’t the kind of thing that a man facing allegations of workplace sexual harassment wants to say. Pelosi may have earned the barb with her cut-flower, jet-set lifestyle and imperial reign as speaker, but that’s not how presidents talk about opposition leaders.

Whether Cain fades fast or gradually will depend on the potency of the charges against him and the credibility of his accusers, but he is certainly fading and was definitely not in command on Wednesday.

Romney turned in an almost perfectly modulated performance. His barking and overweening responses in the previous debate, a bear baiting arranged by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, were gone and Romney was back at cruising altitude. Romney faced no attacks and therefore wasn’t tempted to get snippy with anyone.

Except for his weird calls for a trade war with China (which seem to be part of an even weirder feud with fellow moderate Mormon Jon Huntsman), Romney sounded every bit the president straight out of central casting.

But Romney was outshone by the ever-puckish Newt Gingrich, who has now perfected his running critique of the debates themselves. It’s like “Mystery Science Theater 3,000.” Gingrich points out absurdities in real time.

Maria Bartiromo offered up the perfect question for Gingrich: “You have all said that you will repeal President Obama's health care legislation. Down the line, 30 seconds, if you repeal Obamacare, what's the answer?”

That’s not really a “down the line” question. That would be like saying “Pakistan. What’s up with that? 30 seconds.” Power Play sympathizes with Bartiromo, though, because with seven candidates still auditioning for the part of “Not Mitt Romney,” it’s hard to do substance in less than two hours.

But Gingrich made her pay for being sloppy:

“To say in 30 seconds what you would do with 18 percent of the economy, life and death for the American people, a topic I've worked on since 1974, about which I wrote a book called "Saving Lives and Saving Money" in 2002, and for which I founded the Center for Health Transformation, is the perfect case of why I'm going to challenge the president to seven Lincoln-Douglas style three-hour debates with a timekeeper and no moderator, at least two of which ought to be on health care so you can have a serious discussion over a several-hour period that affects the lives of every person in this country.”

Boom.

Gingrich may want to lay off on the Lincoln-Douglas stuff since it makes him sound even fustier, but the former speaker has found his gear, and just in time.

With Cain staggering, Perry stumbling and the rest of the right – Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Sen. Rick Santorum – not in position to take advantage, Gingrich is in the catbird seat. Power Play predicted a “Newt Boom” after his Oct. 11 performance in the Bloomberg/Washington Post Debate, and now is the moment to see him rise.

Gingrich had his period of (self-inflicted) agony early on, while Cain and Perry are in trouble just seven weeks before voting begins. While Gingrich’s nearly 40-year career as a politician will provide his foes lots of fodder (personal and policy-wise), it will be hard to make them seem fresh.

Perry’s vacancy comes at the best moment for Gingrich. As conservatives work through the seven stages of grief surrounding Cain’s campaign, Gingrich is standing there with open arms while Perry is again defending his intellect.

Conservative Republicans are growing increasingly anxious that Romney is unstoppable, but have so far been unable to settle on a suitable alternative. The irony, of course, is that suitability is entirely dependent on their support. The only requisite to be the anti-Romney is to have the united support of the right.

As Perry’s brain vapor-locked on stage, Power Play pictured Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour throwing up their hands at the television and asking “Really?”

Either Daniels or Barbour, the conservative governors who flirted with presidential runs and then opted out for personal or political reasons, would have been in prime position to grab the Republican nomination right now with a politically hobbled Democrat in the White House.

Daniels’ family asked him to spare them the suffering of having his divorce and remarriage to wife Cheri pored over by the prurient press and Barbour was deemed too damaged by his work as a lobbyist and too much of a “fat redneck” to appeal to a national audience.

Funny for them that the three remaining contenders to topple Romney are the thrice-married Gingrich, former lobbyist Cain and the twangtastic Perry.

[^_^ 5,021]

twangtastic.. i like that word

If Herman Cain wins do you think he'd have Samuel L. Jackson as his press secretary?

"Which one of you muthaf$@kers is next? What the f$@k do you want to aks, b!tch?" followed by, "F@#kin A right the motherf#$kin economy is f#$ked up but President Herman muthaf@#kin Cain gonna clean that s#!t up with his motherf#$kin 9 motherf#$kin 9 motherf#$kin 9 plan, gotdammit. Don't motherf#$kin aks me that motherf#$kin sh!t again."

ETA - No matter who the press secretary is, Dave Chappelle will have his show back on the next day.

+1

Edited November 11, 2011 by \

[Captain Oates 910]

You know, if we protect the religious rights of people and allow same-sex couples to get married based on their personal choice, I personally have no problems with allowing Mormons and Muslims to have more than one wife , based on their religion, if it's is a consentual agreement between all parties involved.

Given the choice between a Mormon and a Christian who is of the world-record holders in divorces and banging new girlfriends while the current wife is sick as sh*t and lying in the bed, I go with the Mormon any day.

Wishing more than one wife on anyone is hate speech in my book

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Stewart did a number on Perry - hilarious. The Perry piece starts at 6:10.

http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-rick-perry-oops-2011-11

[Captain Oates 910]

I think the Richgrinch will get nominated eventually

Been reading about him on wiki

He was bonking his schoolteacher 8 years older than him ! and then rogering anyone he could get his hands on all through his life

He says it was his love of country that made him have bad judgement at home

I bet he has felt more knees that Cain has had pizzas

I don't hold that against him - just his squashed mush

Actually, he is by far the most qualified and he is clever. Trouble is the pilgrims in SC don't want a bonk artist or a catholic (he is both) so it's going to be fun