Image 01 Image 03

They know who the real threat is

They know who the real threat is

Via The Hill:

Restore Our Future, a super PAC backing Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, will run full-page ads attacking Newt Gingrich in the Manchester Union Leader and The State in Columbia, South Carolina, the most prominent newspapers in the next two states to vote….

The decision to attack Gingrich is a curious one as Rick Santorum has emerged as Romney’s top rival for the GOP nomination after he virtually tied Romney in Iowa’s caucuses on Jan. 3. Post-voting analysis shows much of Gingrich’s support in that state ended up going to Santorum.

Maybe I will be proven wrong about Santorum’s staying power, but I don’t think so.

Team Romney and its sycophants in the conservative establishment media have known, at least since October after the Perry crash, there is only one candidate who could defeat Romney in the primaries.

They didn’t dump everything including the kitchen sink on Newt’s head not for nothing.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I don’t think Santorum has staying power. This election is not about social issues, and to the extent it is, while I respect his values, I don’t see them playing well elsewhere.

My liberal friends, watching the debates, have consistently been impressed and even won over by Gingrich, loved Herman Cain, or become Ron Paul supporters. Not one has had anything to say about Santorum except that he is too uptight.

Ron Paul will bring in the most crossover voters. It’s too bad he also comes across as a lunatic, and his defense stance is terrifying.

Santorum? No. Sorry. Although I will vote for a box of rocks over Obama, with Romney and Santorum I will do it without joy.

I don’t have a problem with most of Santorum’s policy positions, but his rhetoric stinks. I just can’t see him winning any arguments with Obama, which may be part of the reason he lost his last Senate election so badly. I don’t think he would be strong enough against Obama, although I would certainly vote for him over Obama.

    logos in reply to JayDick. | January 6, 2012 at 11:35 am

    I can’t see Obama agreeing to debate Gingrich because even a TelePrompTer can’t think as fast as the intellectual Gingrich. Obama would come up with some b.s. excuse to sidestep a debate with Gingrich. But, I think he’d be on level ground with Romney – and maybe Santorum.

    But, as Rush said Thursday, the sum total of a Presidency is more than per-election debates. I think we should shake this dream of seeing an authentically intelligent/smart man rip the lazy Obama to shreds in a forum on television. His handlers are not going to let it happen.

    If the GOP candidate wins, how will he govern post-debate should be the basis of those casting their vote in the primary – especially as the field narrows.

      Conrad in reply to logos. | January 6, 2012 at 12:02 pm

      I agree. The GOP certainly shouldn’t base its nomination on on an expected debate matchup. Obama could either dodge the debates completely (not out the question, especially where can drum up some kind of national emergency for cover) or insist on rules that would Newtralize Gingrich’s advantage.

      Also, let’s not forget to take into account the media expectations game. If Newt goes into the debates being heralded as the greatest rhetorician since Cicero, and then Obama merely survives the encounter, Newt will be tagged the loser and criticized for missing an opportunity to do real damage to Obama.

Romney knows that Santorum has enough baggage that the regular liberal MSM will tear him to pieces as soon as he got his front runner status. Santorum has no support except for (I really hate to say it because it makes me sound like a Democrat) the fringe Right. Romney knows once people get to know Santorum, they peal off. Basically, I’m agreeing that Santorum has no staying power except as the anti-Romney, which is exactly why Romney is going after Gingrich, the only viable anti-Romney.

    logos in reply to Justin. | January 6, 2012 at 11:49 am

    I hate to say it because I will vote for Romney in the general election, but Romney will help the MSM tear Santorum (or Gingrich) to pieces without a qualm.

holmes tuttle | January 6, 2012 at 11:29 am

I admire the persistence, but objectively time is running out for Newt.

He’s already faded big nationally and now a recent SC poll shows him falling far below Romney and Santorum. It’s time to acknowledge that all the attacks in December proved fatal.

A 4th or 5th place finish in NH(my money’s on 5th) isn’t going to help and will only make things worse.

No one has won the GOP nomination who hasn’t won either IA or NH. At this rate, that puts Romney in a very good position.

Santorum is really the only non-Romney left at the moment. Sad? Perhaps. But true. He’s the only left who even has a chance at beating Romney.

Still thinking Newt has a shot is like still thinking Perry does. Neither of them do.

So, if conservatives really want to beat Romney…then their best bet at this point is to rally behind Santorum with all they have and go for bear. I think Santorum could win a 1 on 1 with Romney.

If Newt really wants to hurt Romney, he’ll drop out after a disappointing finish in NH and endorse Santorum. That would pretty much guarantee Santorum wins SC and give him lots of momentum heading into FL.

I’m still angry with Santorum crawling into bed with The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a most vile group. He angered every reputable dog breeder in the country with that big government, one-size-fits-all policy.

I’ve been critical of Gingrich before but I do believe people can change. He would make mincemeat of Obama and I do believe we need someone who understands what it will take to drain the swamp that FoggyBottom has become. Takes one to know one…

    logos in reply to JoAnne. | January 6, 2012 at 11:44 am

    No one is perfect and there’s bound to be at least one issue voters strongly disagree with any given elected politician – unless the politician has voted present most of his career.

    Is the candidate principled, conservative and policy driven (which is bound to anger some one, sometime) or changeable, depending upon which way the political wind is blowing?

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to JoAnne. | January 6, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    Dog breeders ?

    I gotta go think about that.

    Have to admit I have not factored in Dog Breeders .

    I did not know about Santorum & The Humane Society. For many Americans this would be a huge plus.

      It would be a huge plus only if you are a brain-dead big government devotee who wants all ownership of animals banned – and you’re probably one of those…

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to JoAnne. | January 6, 2012 at 9:41 pm

        I think you are not THe Joanne that Mike Nesmith sang of. She would definitely be a Humane Society member & a dog lover.

        I guess this is not a good time to bring up Seamus ‘ road trip?

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 6, 2012 at 11:45 am

To count either Gingrich or Perry out at this point is foolish. They both have campaign cash they are still sitting on, they both know that often times the key to the primaries is hanging in. There has been exactly one primary caucus so far… in campaign time frames it’s going to be a long, long path to the nomination. A lot of things can and will happen between now and the cinching of the nomination by someone.

I remember the wonder of the mid-90’s, so Newt is my guy. I am, however, unable to get real excited about the primary action.

Since the President has returned from vacation, he has done plenty of bad stuff: Non-recess recess appointments, gutting the military. It is really hard to get upset about unfair practices in the Republican primary battles. I am getting desperate for really good arguments of which one is best to defeat our current dictator-in-chief. I am also worried about the “backup plan”. I have plenty of Republican senators and congressmen here, but I don’t see much warrioring going on.

    logos in reply to BillyTex. | January 6, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    “Since the President has returned from vacation, he has done plenty of bad stuff: Non-recess recess appointments, gutting the military.”

    We ain’t seen nothing yet. My outrage meter went off the scale in February 2009 and it’s gone downhill since. The next twelve months are going to be nothing to the first three years. Obama actions will make the lame duck months between the election and the Inauguration seem like child’s play.

Gingrich knows what makes Washington tic, and he knows how to make it WORK. Pelosi, eta l won’t be able to pull the wool over his eyes or pull any sneaky end runs. Plus Gingrich will know which pin to pull out of the Obama house of cards to bring his whole disastrous mess to an end. From getting rid of the Czars to REALLY repealing the light bulb ban.

That’s what worries me about Romney, our guys can’t even effectively repeal the light bulb ban. Can he really be effective?

Maybe Romney’s people think Newt is the real threat, but I wonder if the threat that concerns them is Gingrich’s ability to challenge Romney for the nomination or if it’s that Gingrich seemingly wants to exact revenge against Romney for roughing him up in Iowa. The real objective of turning the guns on Newt could be to try to marginalize him as a figure within the GOP so that Newt sees there is a price to pay for being a sore loser.

Also, I don’t see where Mitt benefits at all from going after Santorum. Santorum is perceived as a good guy, just the wrong guy to be the GOP standard-bearer in 2012. Rick has plenty of support from social conservatives particularly, and Romney doesn’t need to p.o. invite any further ill will from that sector of the electorate. So, if they want to keep things reasonably civil with Santorum, what better use of their money than to go after Newt some more?

Henry Hawkins | January 6, 2012 at 12:41 pm

I would not be at all surprized to see Santorum do far better than predicted in NH, a state given to urinating all over conventional wisdom in its primaries.

Romney is attacking Gingrich because of two factors: One, more debates are coming and this has been Gingrich’s strength so far, the vector (vector, not the reason) for his earlier surge. Two, when Romney firebombed Gingrich with negative ads in Iowa, Gingrich did not yet have the money to retaliate. He now does. A Gingrich ad campaign coupled with debates likely to be rejuvenating for Gingrich are seen as the preeminent threat to Romney at present. Team Romney thinks these two factors will bolster Gingrich’s support at Santorum’s expense, that former Gingrich supporters gone over to Santorum will return.

I disagree a bit with that analysis. I don’t think Romney has the staying power and the race will end up between Newt and Santorum and maybe Perry as a spoiler for one or the other. Romney has not shown he can garner any more support than he had 4 yrs ago and we have not yet entered a good conservative state to test his viability.

Add to that the fact that the Conservative powerhouse Sarah Palin and former candidates Bachmann and Cain have yet to endorse anyone. I can bet that Romney would not be the recipient of endorsements by any of the above.

Then again maybe I’m just conservatively optimistic 😉

    Conrad in reply to iambasic. | January 6, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    Romney could lose, but I don’t see how you can say he doesn’t having staying power. He’s got money, organization and a lot of support from Republican office-holders and media types. Also, the only other perceived “moderate” in the race is Huntsman, so Mitt has that bloc pretty much to himself.

      William A. Jacobson in reply to Conrad. | January 6, 2012 at 1:34 pm

      Ths “staying power” comment was with regard to Santorum.

        No, I was replying to Iambasic, who said ROMNEY lacked staying power. I agree with you that Santorum will have problems sustaining his current momentum. Santorum seems like a very unlikely candidate to emerge as a contender at this point: sort of bland, legislative rather executive background, been around for while (despite his relative youth), “loser” image from his defeat in Pa., not especially attractive or charismatic, and no resonating theme or idea to define his candidacy. His profile is more befitting a vice-presidential pick, but even at that, it would be a pick people would criticize as timid and uninspiring.

      iambasic in reply to Conrad. | January 6, 2012 at 1:55 pm

      the “staying power” I’m talking about is what really matters – votes.

      conservative PAC’s can, and will, take up much of the slack in regards to money for Santorum and Newt.

        Conrad in reply to iambasic. | January 6, 2012 at 2:44 pm

        I think I’d define staying power as literally the ability to stay in the race, i.e,. to outlast other opponents. Again, he may lose, but he should have money, organization, and a sufficient core level of support to stay in the game a long while other guys are dropping out.

    logos in reply to iambasic. | January 6, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    Any ideas as to why Rick Perry remains in the race? Is he trying to benefit Romney by splitting the votes, thus draining votes from the not-Romney Newt and Santorum?

      Conrad in reply to logos. | January 6, 2012 at 2:48 pm

      Why should he drop out now? If he could somehow claw his way into 2d or even 3d in SC, it’s a whole new ballgame for him. That may be a tall order, but he’s in it this far, so why not at least give a conservative Southern state a chance to redeem his candidacy.

      I doubt very much he’s staying in to help Romney.

No matter who the Republicans run there is going to be a significant enthusiasm gap between support for that Republican and the Democrats support for Obama.

    logos in reply to Anchovy. | January 6, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    Hmmmm. True,Republicans seem to be strongly attached to “their” candidate, but I pray that the ANYBODY BUT OBAMA will prevail over the marked reduction of enthusiasm among Democrats for Obama since 2008.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 6, 2012 at 2:28 pm

“Any ideas as to why Rick Perry remains in the race? Is he trying to benefit Romney by splitting the votes, thus draining votes from the not-Romney Newt and Santorum?”

Nope… He”s sitting on a pile of cash and he knows that one caucus and today’s poll numbers do not a nominee make. It’s still early for anyone with campaign cash. He still has plenty of chances yet, as does Newt.

Ernst Schreiber | January 6, 2012 at 2:48 pm

Maybe I will be proven wrong about Santorum’s staying power[.]

Everyone is familiar with the joke about trying to outrun an angry grizzly bear, right?

I think the report’s of Newt’s death have been greatly exaggerated. Remember that Newt’s surge in the polls was not coincidentally synchronized with a flurry of televised debates. When Newt talks about the issues that affect our country people nod their heads and say, “yes, that’s it.” That’s why National Review and others had to jump in and tell us that Newt is an optical illusion. It’s in a vacuum of no meaningful debate that Romney’s negative ads take hold. Now there are TWO debates before NH voting, an opportunity to talk directly to the people. Newt has shown his hand, “I’m a Reagan conservative and Mitt is a Massachusetts moderate.” I know there’s a lot of people who would argue the former is false but the latter is certainly true. On the continuum, Newt clearly has more conservative instincts (though he’s wandered from the reservation, especially after leaving office). Bottom line is this thing ain’t over and I don’t think Santorum is a viable candidate. I just don’t think that social issues are going to be important in this election. I’m a 42 year old man who considers himself a Reagan Republican and I honestly don’t care about gay marriage and some of those other divisive hot button issues. I think arguing about that is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We’re drowning in debt and spending. Priorities.

    Ernst Schreiber in reply to conductor. | January 6, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    Just because Newt has wandered back on to the reservation don’t expect him to stay there.

    Hope Change in reply to conductor. | January 6, 2012 at 11:23 pm

    Hi conductor, I agree. I consider myself Reagan type in most ways, sort of a Reagan libertarian if there can be such a thing. I support Newt 100%. I believe Newt is trying to empower the American people to take back the power that the federal government has been grabbing for some 80 years. Newt for the new! Newt’s plans give us a fighting chance to shrink government, lower taxes, make regulations clear and fair and take back self-government to the local level, to name just a few. He has a clear plan to get rid of the czars and repeal obamacare. I am in favor of these plans 100%.

    I don’t want to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic either, and to fight about divisive social issues right now feels like that. Peace. Jobs and prosperity will get us through all problems better than social issues fights will get us through times of no jobs and prosperity.

BannedbytheGuardian | January 7, 2012 at 3:16 am

I bet Newt reads LI.

Hey Newt -I have written many positive things about you here. Before you I thought Tiffany’s was a restuarant. When I heard about your $500,000 credit line I figured whatever it was it had to be good. So I looked it up & found one in a big city. I went in & had a look around.

Very nice. If you do not bankrupt yourself please could you think of me .

Thanks Newt & good luck.