It ain’t over ’til it’s over

Mitt, Newt, Rick and Ron

---

InsiderAdvantage Poll: Gingrich Surging, Race ‘Tighter Than Expected’

A new InsiderAdvantage poll conducted Sunday night of likely Republican voters in the state of Florida shows a significant surge for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The poll has former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leading with 36 percent of voters, followed by Gingrich at 31 percent.

The Sunday results of 646 likely GOP voters are as follows:

Romney 36 percent
Gingrich 31 percent
Santorum 12 percent
Paul 12 percent
Other/Undecided 9 percent

“The race will be tighter than expected,” Matt Towery, chief pollster of InsiderAdvantage told Newsmax.

Towery noted that his poll showed a surge for Romney on Wednesday, with him leading Gingrich by 8 points. The InsiderAdvantage poll was among the first to show Romney’s resurgence after his dismal showing in the S. Carolina primary.

The InsiderAdvantage poll was also the first to show Gingrich’s rise in S. Carolina and accurately forecast his win there.

“The trend is favoring Gingrich,” Towery said, noting that while Romney’s lead was still outside the margin of error of 3.8 percent, “It’s not by much.”

Towery said Gingrich is doing “substantially better” with men than Romney, 38 to 28, but the former House Speaker still faces a “gender gap,” as women are still favoring Romney.

“Men are moving in droves to Gingrich and away from Romney,” Towery said.

---

If Newt pulls out a win in Florida the fit will hit the Shan.

This is starting to remind me of the movie Jeepers Creepers, where the “good guys” were so stupid I began to root for the monster.

“Hey sis, I think that guy was dumping dead bodies into a pipe. Let’s go back and check.”

---

Sarah goes rogue again

---

Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

[...]

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.

I spoke up before the South Carolina primary to urge voters there to keep this primary going because I have great concern about the GOP establishment trying to anoint a candidate without the blessing of the grassroots and all the needed energy and resources we as commonsense constitutional conservatives could bring to the general election in order to defeat President Obama. Now, I respect Governor Romney and his success. But there are serious concerns about his record and whether as a politician he consistently applied conservative principles and how this impacts the agenda moving forward. The questions need answers now. That is why this primary should not be rushed to an end. We need to vet this. Pundits in the Beltway are gleefully proclaiming that this primary race is over after Florida, despite 46 states still not having chimed in. Well, perhaps it’s possible that it will come to a speedy end in just four days; but with these questions left unanswered, it will not have come to a satisfactory conclusion. Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney’s conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate. The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up. And, trust me, during the general election, Governor Romney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.

As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?

- Sarah Palin

---

One of the things that was so disturbing about 2008 was the lengths the Democratic party leaders were willing to go to to ensure that their pre-chosen candidate “won” the primaries. You would think in this modern era that the role of the party would be to ensure a fair and open process so that the party voters could choose the person they want to be the nominee.

The reality is that neither party’s leadership believes in democracy. They want Soviet-style sham elections.

This is not to say that the leaders of the two parties should have no input or influence. But they should not control the outcome. Right now we are facing the likelihood of a rigged election where both candidates are Wall Street favorites.

I am no fan of Newt Gingrich but I am a fan of principles. The GOP establishment should take their collective thumb off the scale and let the voters decide.

---

Put up or STFU

---

Pelosi On President Gingrich: “That Will Never Happen! There’s Something I Know.”

---

So what does Nancy know? Not this by Byron York, apparently:

Nothing happened with the Justice Department and the FBI, but the IRS began an investigation that would stretch over three years. Unlike many in Congress — and journalists, too — IRS investigators obtained tapes and transcripts of each session during the two years the course was taught at Kennesaw State College in Georgia, as well as videotapes of the third year of the course, taught at nearby Reinhardt College. IRS officials examined every word Gingrich spoke in every class; before investigating the financing and administration of the course, they first sought to determine whether it was in fact educational and whether it served to the political benefit of Gingrich, his political organization, GOPAC, or the Republican Party as a whole. They then carefully examined the role of the Progress and Freedom Foundation and how it related to Gingrich’s political network.

In the end, in 1999, the IRS released a densely written, highly detailed 74-page report. The course was, in fact, educational, the IRS said. “The overwhelming number of positions advocated in the course were very broad in nature and often more applicable to individual behavior or behavioral changes in society as a whole than to any ‘political’ action,” investigators wrote. “For example, the lecture on quality was much more directly applicable to individual behavior than political action and would be difficult to attempt to categorize in political terms. Another example is the lecture on personal strength where again the focus was on individual behavior. In fact, this lecture placed some focus on the personal strength of individual Democrats who likely would not agree with Mr. Gingrich on his political views expressed in forums outside his Renewing American Civilization course teaching. Even in the lectures that had a partial focus on broadly defined changes in political activity, such as less government and government regulation, there was also a strong emphasis on changes in personal behavior and non-political changes in society as a whole.”

The IRS also checked out the evaluations written by students who completed the course. The overwhelming majority of students, according to the report, believed that Gingrich knew his material, was an interesting speaker, and was open to alternate points of view. None seemed to perceive a particular political message. “Most students,” the IRS noted, “said that they would apply the course material to improve their own lives in such areas as family, friendships, career, and citizenship.”

The IRS concluded the course simply was not political. “The central problem in arguing that the Progress and Freedom Foundation provided more than incidental private benefit to Mr. Gingrich, GOPAC, and other Republican entities,” the IRS wrote, “was that the content of the ‘Renewing American Civilization’ course was educational…and not biased toward any of those who were supposed to be benefited.”

The bottom line: Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws. There was no tax fraud scheme. Of course, by that time, Gingrich was out of office, widely presumed to be guilty of something, and his career in politics was (seemingly) over.

---

Yeah, it’s a wingnut site. But if you have better facts let’s see ‘em.

---

---

Panic in the Pachyderm Party

Andrea Mitchell: Romney Adviser Said Party Elites Will Find Alternative If Romney Can’t Win Florida

“I talked to a top Romney adviser tonight who said, ‘Look, if Mitt Romney cannot win in Florida then we’re going to have to try to reinvent the smoke-filled room which has been democratized by all these primaries. And we’re going to have try to come with someone as an alternative to Newt Gingrich who could be Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, someone.’ Because there is such a desperation by the so-called party elites, but that’s exactly what Gingrich is playing against,” Andrea Mitchell said on NBC tonight after the debate.

---

Damn voters. What the hell makes them think they have any input in this process?

---

---

UCLA Political Scientist says Newt Gingrich is Biggest Threat to Obama

---

We hear a lot of speculation from journalists who are experts at . . . uh, . . . journalism. But there actually is an academic specialty on the study of politics. It’s called “political science.“

After watching in frustration as the nation’s press corps has written the history of one presidential election after another, UCLA political scientist Lynn Vavreck finally decided something had to give.

“It takes academics three years to analyze all the data and figure out what really happened in a campaign, and that is almost always in contrast to what has already been written into the record by journalists,” she said. “But by that point, nobody cares anymore.”

So she and research partner John Sides are foregoing the stately pace of scholarly journals — at least during the 2012 election.

“With technology being what it is, academics can survey people much more quickly than has been possible in the past, and we can put our assessments out there at the same time as journalists,” she said.

To that end, Vavreck, an associate professor of political science and communication studies at UCLA, and Sides, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University, will be surveying 1,000 people a week beginning Jan. 3 and ending on Election Day in 2012.

They will post findings from DATA POINTS 2012, as they’re calling their in-depth survey, on two blogs: The Monkey Cage and Model Politics.

---

Watch the video of Vavrek up above. It was made back in December. She talks about Gingrich starting at 1:58

---

UPDATE:

I apparently won’t be able to watch the GOP Debate in Florida tonight live and livesteaming is a little too much for my 5 year-old E-Machine (Dell clone) so there won’t be a separate debate thread tonight. Besides, I already drank my weekly ration of beer last night watching football.

I’ll probably follow the Drunk Blog at VodkaPundit and try to watch some of it later. If there is anything noteworthy I may post about it for the morning. I’ll be around for a while though.

Newt Notes

I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!

---

I had a dream last night. There was a primary somewhere and Newt Gingrich was closing in on the magic number of delegates needed to win the GOP nomination when suddenly they raised the number. I don’t know what it means but it may be prophetic.

I think last night was a game-changer. Ever since Newt first surged into the lead back in November he has been the target of a smear campaign coming from the Romney campaign and the GOP establishment. In Newt’s case most of the smears are true, but such an all-out attack on a Republican by other Republicans is unheard of in modern history.

Newt withstood the attacks and came back to win a decisive victory in a state that was not a natural stronghold. Most of the punditocracy is ignoring the 500 lb gorilla in the room – the GOP voters don’t want Mitt Romney. Just one week ago the experts were speculating that Mitt would run the table and essentially close the race with a win in South Carolina.

Then Newtmentum happened.

There are two main keys to Newtmentum. The first is Not-Romney. Approximately 25% of the GOP (including the establishment) supports Mitt Romney. The other 75% want someone else. Part of it is that “Mormon” thing. I was telling people four years ago (when Mitt was considered by some to be a frontrunner) that there was no way the fundiegelicals were going to vote for a Mormon.

Anti-Mormon bigotry still exists in this country, and not just on the evangelical right – there are lots of lefties that hate ‘em too. I don’t want to discuss the reasons for AMB in this post, but it’s real. Last night’s exit polls showed that the people who said religious beliefs were very important to them voted overwhelmingly for Gingrich.

But that’s not the only reason the right-wing doesn’t want Romney. More than anything the opposition is ideological. They consider Mitt to be a RINO – Republican In Name Only. His record and statements from his days in Massachusetts are anathema to conservatives. And then there’s that Romneycare thing.

Last but not least, Mitt has baggage – money bags. This might seem a little counterintuitive because of the long-standing connection between the Republican party and big business, but the rank and file GOP is almost as leery of the 1%ers as the OWS crowd. That is the reason that the filthy rich who jump into politics have rarely been successful. And don’t forget – it was the House GOP that opposed the TARP bailouts.

Each of Mitt’s strengths is a double-edged sword. He is a successful businessman/he got rich as an investment banker. He has experience as a governor/he was elected in a blue state where he ran and governed as a moderate-to-liberal. He is devoutly religious/he’s a Mormon.

But being Not-Romney is only one of the keys to Newtmentum.

There is a lot of anger out there these days. That’s not surprising considering the economy. Millions of people are hurting. Millions more that aren’t hurting are scared they will be soon. Most of the anger is still unchanneled.

Anger was the key to the early success of OWS, but then they sacrificed their credibility when they took a hard left turn into Smelly Hippieland. Anger is a powerful emotion but it’s hard to successfully channel it into political action. The same anger that fires up the mob scares away the masses.

One of the things that made Ronald Reagan successful was his ability to mix anger and optimism. It might have been all bullshit but it worked. Newt Gingrich is a Reagan acolyte. Like Howard Beale he articulates the popular rage, but then he shifts gears and starts talking about a utopian future.

Watch this clip from the first South Carolina debate earlier this week:

Dirty Laundry

---

NBC News: Debate Crowd Booed Newt’s Ex-Wife Because They Were Sexist

Melissa Harris Perry:

“As a women whose been married, divorced and now re-married to the love of my life for a year and a half, I would like to say this…

…That cheer was not a question of marriage…

An ex-wife is the easiest thing to boo. A part of these was ‘Gender Politics’

The fact is when we look at the gender divide in the Republican and Democratic party. It’s not that women are so much likely to be Democrats… its that men are much more likely to be Republicans. There is a strong male dominance in the Republican party. And that cheer that you get is in part ‘How dare my ex-wife show up and have anything to say’ Part of what’s going on there is how “I’m going to demonstrate how I am a patriarch.”

Each one of them talk about how they are married and all their grandchildren…part of what they are saying is “I’m a good family man” but also what they are saying is “I am the great father” And don’t you want the “Great Father” of the country?

And the other piece of this is saying “We the guys here? We got this under control. We will be the great fathers”

---

Here’s the clip in question:

---

Watch the crowd in the background. You’ll see lots of women clapping and cheering. Yeah, I know, women can be sexists too (except when they do it they are still victims of The Patriarchy).

But this wasn’t about Marianne Gingrich’s right to be heard. She wasn’t at the debate last night. This was tabloid journalism and airing dirty laundry. This was the media playing “gotcha” two days before an election with information that has been around for years.

I spent several years working in family law. It’s like being an employee on the Jerry Springer Show. You get to participate in revealing people’s deepest, darkest secrets. Family court is (usually) the last place the participants in dysfunctional relationships get to fight with each other.

We already knew that Newt Gingrich cheated on Marianne with his current wife. He also cheated on his first wife with Marianne. Her recent statements shed no new light on that aspect of his character.

As for the patriarch thing, is being a good husband and father a bad thing? I’m not saying that Newt was either one, but do we really want to condemn those qualities? Is being a loving spouse and parent inconsistent with feminism and equality?

And let’s not forget how the progressive left distinguished itself on gender issues four years ago.

At least this time Melissa Harris Perry wasn’t calling Newt a racist.

---

---

Real Ratfucking

Kneel before Zod!

---

Fake CNN email used as dirty trick in South Carolina

In what appears to be a last ditch attempt to halt Newt Gingrich’s late momentum in South Carolina, a fake CNN Breaking News alert was emailed to state Republican activists early Thursday morning claiming that the former House Speaker pressured his ex-wife to have an abortion.

CNN did not send out the email alert.

[...]

The email alert was sent from fake account made to look like a CNN breaking news email address: “BreakingNews@mail.cnn.com.”

“A source close to Marianne Gingrich tells CNN that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich forced her to abort a pregnancy conceived during the affair that preceeded her marriage to Gingrich,” the fake email reads.

Marianne Gingrich, who went public this week with charges that Gingrich once asked her for an “open marriage” while he was having an extramarital affair, has not made that claim.

“An ABC News interview with the Speaker’s ex-wife aired Thursday evening which detailed the candidate’s request for an open marriage and their subsequent divorce,” the fake email alert adds.

---

I don’t want to be pointing fingers, but it would be irresponsible not to speculate. The GOP invented ratfucking and one of the original practitioners of that dark art is still in business.

During the 2000 Republican presidential primary, Senator John McCain was the target of a whisper campaign implying that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock. (McCain’s adopted daughter is a dark-skinned child from Bangladesh). Voters in South Carolina were reportedly asked, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew that he fathered an illegitimate black child?”. McCain would later lose the South Carolina primary, and the nomination, to George W. Bush.

---

This particular individual is supporting the GOP establishment candidate, Mitt Romney. A win by Mitt tomorrow could well end the primary race. A win by Newt could signal a big upset.

Coinky-dink?

---

---

Newt goes nuclear

---

The most brutal verbal ass-whipping I’ve ever seen.

---

Newtmentum?

---

Gingrich leads Romney on 1st night of tracking

Newt Gingrich led Mitt Romney 34-28 in PPP’s South Carolina polling last night, the first of what will be three nights of tracking. Ron Paul at 15%, Rick Santorum at 14%, Rick Perry at 5%, and Buddy Roemer at 3% round out the field.

This is not a case of Romney imploding. His support has been pretty steady in the 28-30% range in our South Carolina polling so far. But Gingrich has risen from 23% to 34% over the last two weeks, benefiting from declining support for Santorum and also from undecided voters moving into his camp.

It’s clear that the debate Monday night did a lot to help Gingrich’s prospects in the state. 56% of voters say they watched it, and with those folks Gingrich’s lead over Romney is 43-27. Romney still has a 29-22 advantage on Gingrich with those who didn’t tune in.

Gingrich is starting to consolidate his support with some of the more conservative parts of the South Carolina electorate. He has a 50-18 advantage on Romney with Tea Party voters. He’s up 39-23 with those describing themselves as ‘very conservative.’ And he even has a 37-20 advantage with evangelicals.

Gingrich is clearly flying high. The big question now is whether ABC’s interview with his ex-wife tonight will stifle all this momentum. For instance, will his strong support from evangelicals remain intact after they hear accusations that he wanted an ‘open marriage?’

---

and:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has now surged ahead of Mitt Romney in the final Rasmussen Reports survey of the South Carolina Republican Primary race with the vote just two days away.

The latest telephone survey of Likely GOP Primary Voters in the state finds Gingrich with 33% support to Romney’s 31%. Two days ago, before the last debate, it was Romney by 14 percentage points.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul now runs third with 15% of the vote, followed by former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum at 11%. Paul’s support is steady while Santorum’s support has dropped five points since Monday. At the beginning of the month, just after Santorum’s strong showing in the Iowa caucuses, he ran second to Romney with 24% of the vote.

---

Newt was here before, but the the GOP establishment and the establishment media rose up to smite him down. But he’s been left for dead before, and now here he is again.

So what changed?

---

---

Newt takes off the gloves

---

I was hoping for a food fight. One serving of mashed potatoes and gravy, coming at ya.

Maybe the lesson here is the one about those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. If Newt can’t run for President then his political career is over. During the past month the GOP establishment made clear that they’ll let him run but won’t let him win.

They must have forgot that Newt practically invented the politics of personal destruction and if his career is over he’s got nothing to lose.

Technicality: This 28 minute video wasn’t made by Newt, it was made by his Super Pac. (Plausible deniability, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.)

Watch the whole thing here.

(Via Hot Air)

---

---

Tears of Newt

---

Gingrich tears up over his mother

Newt Gingrich choked up while discussing his mother’s struggle with mental illness during a town-hall meeting in Des Moines.

Gingrich was asked to speak about a time his mother affected him at the event sponsored by CafeMom, a social networking website for mothers.

“You’ll get me all teary-eyed — Callista will tell you, I get teary-eyed every time we sing Christmas carols. My mother sang in the choir and loved singing in the choir,” Gingrich said, referring to his wife, as he fought back tears.

“But I identify my mother with being happy, loving life, having a sense of joy in her friends, but what she introduced me to, is late in her life she ended up in a long-term-care facility. She had bipolar disease, and depression, and she gradually acquired some physical ailments, and that introduced me to the issue of long-term care, which I did with [Former Nebraska Sen.] Bob Kerrey for three years, and that introduced me to the issue of Alzheimer’s, which I did with Bob Kerrey for three more years, and my whole emphasis on brain science comes indirectly from dealing with the real problems of real people in my family,” the former House Speaker continued, at moments stopping to cry.

---

It was actually a humanizing moment – any guy who wouldn’t shed a tear for his own mother is a psychopath.

So how did the media treat it?

Molly Ball / The Atlantic Online:
Frank Luntz Always Makes Newt Gingrich Cry

Discussion: C-SPAN Video Library, The Raw Story and Guardian

Howard Fineman / The Huffington Post:
Iowa Caucuses Offer Tale Of Two: Gingrich Laments, Romney Basks

Discussion: Hullabaloo

Ginger Gibson / The Politico:
Memories of mom push Newt to tears

Discussion: Ballot Box, Gawker and Daily Kos

Alexander Burns / The Politico:
Newt weeps at Iowa stop

Discussion: The PJ Tatler

---

FWIW – I think Newt’s tears were real. He’s just not that good an actor. I still won’t vote for him though. Not in this lifetime.

Via Legal Insurrection, here is what Mitt Romney said today:

Newt Gingrich should hire these guys

---

Occupy protesters heckle Newt Gingrich at Iowa event

In an ornate room of the golden-domed Iowa Capitol building this morning, Newt Gingrich stepped before cameras to thank two state House speakers for their endorsements. Kraig Paulsen of Iowa and William O’Brien of New Hampshire had just given their blessings to his quest for the Republican presidential nomination.

But Gingrich had barely gotten a sentence out when a young man who had been sitting behind him — perfectly positioned for the cameras, it must be said — leaped out of his chair, moved toward Gingrich and yelled, “Mike check!”

That signaled to three other youngish adults who had been sitting behind Gingrich and his wife, Callista, to leap to their feet. They began clapping and chanting “Put people first! Put people first!”

Occupy Des Moines, which similarly interrupted New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s news conference on behalf of Gingrich’s rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, had struck again.

The Gingriches didn’t flinch. They turned their backs to the cameras to watch the commotion behind them. The protesters were gently hustled out by security men in suits. When they were gone — or seemed to be — Gingrich turned back to the assembled members of the media and noted:

“You just saw the one-tenth of one percent. I was at the University of Iowa the other day and that same tenth of one percent — all noise, no thought — tried to drown out conversation, so I appreciate you all putting that in perspective.”

---

If whatever you are doing makes Newt Gingrich look good in comparison, you need to stop doing it. These pinheads are just giving Newt a chance to look rational and reasonable, as well as providing him an opportunity to tell jokes at their expense. Not to mention the free publicity.

On the other hand, if you watched that clip and thought “Yay! They really showed him,” then you need to Occupy Rehab.

Seriously.

Put down the Koolaid and step away from the punchbowl.

---

Self-inflicted foot thrust

---

Gingrich ramps up objections to judicial branch’s power

Newt Gingrich is giving fair warning to judges and courts across the country: If he becomes president, the judiciary won’t reign supreme.

The former House Speaker and current Republican presidential front-runner convened a conference call with reporters on Saturday to expand on his call for Congress to subpoena judges or even abolish courts altogether if they make wrong-headed decisions. Those arguments from Gingrich at Thursday’s debate in Iowa drew scrutiny and criticism from his rivals.

Far from distancing himself from the issue, however, Gingrich said he was “delighted” that it came up and directed reporters to a 28-page white paper on the judiciary on his website.

Then, in what amounted to a 35-minute seminar on constitutional history, Gingrich argued that the judicial branch has grown far more powerful than the nation’s founders ever intended and said it would be well within the president’s authority as commander in chief to ignore a Supreme Court ruling that he believed was incorrectly decided.

He cited four examples in presidential history, including Abraham Lincoln, whose administration, Gingrich said, refused to enforce the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court on slavery and then actively flouted it by emancipating the slaves with an executive order.

“They just ignored it,” Gingrich said. He said the principle applied most recently to the 2008 Supreme Court decision finding that the Bush administration had exceeded its constitutional authority in handling suspected terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“A commander in chief could simply issue instructions to ignore it, and say it’s null and void and I do not accept it because it infringes on my duties as commander in chief to protect the country,” Gingrich said of the Guantanamo ruling.

Gingrich, a former history professor, also stood by his statement that Congress could abolish certain courts altogether, although he clarified that it should be a last resort to counteract judicial overreach.

“There are many remedies, there are a number of steps,” he said. “I’m not suggesting that’s the only recourse or even should be the primary recourse. There are a number of in-between steps.”

He added later in the call: “I think it’s important to say, that’s the last choice, that’s the last place you’d want to go.”

When pressed as to whether a president could ignore any court decision he didn’t like, such as if President Obama ignored a ruling overturning his healthcare law, Gingrich said the standard should be “the rule of two of three,” in which the outcome would be determined by whichever side two of the three branches of government were on.

He also indicated it would be rare for a president or Congress to challenge or ignore a court decision, and said in more than 99 percent of cases “you want the judiciary to be independent, you don’t want the Congress or anybody to be able to rewrite cases, per se.”

Another branch would step in, Gingrich said, when a judge or a court makes a decision that is “strikingly at variance with America.”

“I think it’s important to have a discussion: Do we have a balance of power between the three branches, or do we have a judicial supremacy in which they can dictate to the rest of us?” he asked. “I think the country will overwhelmingly conclude you do not want a court which is capable of dictating.”

---

Newt’s a man of ideas. Most of them are bad.

The federal judiciary is the smallest of the three branches of government. They don’t make law, they interpret it. They don’t control their budget and other than bailiffs they have no power to enforce their rulings. The controversial part of their job is interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

Their rulings have been inconsistent and often frustrating, and occasionally newer courts have reversed earlier rulings. But with rare exceptions their rulings have been obeyed. If the executive and legislative branches disagree with the judiciary they can amend the Constitution. If a judge abuses his/her power he/she can be impeached.

In a nation ruled by law, it is only natural that judges will have the final say. Our system works. Not perfectly, but it works.

One last thought – if you look through all the SCOTUS rulings where they ruled a law unconstitutional, they were acting as a brake and/or limit on government power. They didn’t tell the other branches of government what to do, the court told them what NOT to do.

---

You missed one

Published in 2005

---

WaPo:

Editors’ note: This posting contains multiple, serious factual errors that undermine its premise. Mitt Romney is not using “Keep America American,” which was once a KKK slogan, as a catchphrase in stump speeches, as the posting and headline stated. In a YouTube video that the posting said showed Romney using the phrase, Romney actually used a different phrase, “Keep America America.” Further, the video that the blog posting labelled “Mitt Romney 2012 Campaign Ad” is not actually a Romney campaign ad. The video itself states “Mitt Romney does not actually support this ad.” The posting cited accounts of Romney saying “keep America American” at an appearance last week. Independent video from the event shows him saying “Keep America America.” The Post should have contacted the Romney campaign for comment before publication. Finally, we apologize that the posting began by saying “[s]omeone didn’t do his research” when, in fact, we had not done ours.

[...]

Romney’s isn’t the first campaign mishap that came out of a borrowed slogan. While a candidate’s political slogan can be key to an effective campaign — as President Obama’s “Yes We Can” slogan was — many politicians have shown by example how precarious slogans can be if you don’t do your research.

[...]

When former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich announced his presidential run earlier this year, he launched his official campaign Web site using the slogan “Win the future.” It was a phrase used in some variation or another 11 times by Obama in his State of the Union speech this year.

---

Uh, I don’t think Obama can claim dibs on that phrase. Newt used “Winning the Future” for the title of a book he wrote six years ago, and I’m pretty sure he didn’t invent it either.

---

BTW – I am having problems accessing the intertoobz this morning. It’s like I’m using an early 90′s dial-up modem and a Commodore 64 PC. I plan to talk more about the whole Romney/KKK fiasco when I get things straightened out.

---

---

Zombie Newt

He who laughs last . . .

---

Lucienne’s Idiot Son:

“How do we stop Newt?”

I’ve now been asked that question by a lot of conservatives. It’s not that I’m the go-to guy for that sort of question. Rather, one gets the sense that many “establishment” conservatives are asking everybody that question — in staff meetings, at the chiropodist, even at the McDonald’s drive-through.

[...]

Not surprising then that there are more knives out for Gingrich than in a Ginsu infomercial. For instance, former New Hampshire Gov. John H. Sununu has been nurturing a grievance against Gingrich since he was White House chief of staff in 1990. For two decades he’s been like Inigo Montoya in “The Princess Bride.” “Hello, my name is John Sununu. You destroyed my boss’ presidency; prepare to die.”

But Sununu’s barbs bounce off Gingrich, as has George Will’s more brutal rhetorical artillery fire. Conventional weapons are useless against Newtzilla.

First, what are you going to say about the guy that people don’t already know? Just as it’s OK to speak openly about the fact that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father, Gingrich’s backstory provides no spoilers. Herman Cain was undone because people were still forming their first impressions of him. Everything bad about Gingrich — the flip-flops, the wives, the ego — is known. Once voters have convinced themselves they can overlook that stuff, it’s hard to change their minds simply by repeating it.

Moreover, conservative voters distrust the conservative establishment — variously defined — almost as much as they distrust the liberal establishment (that’s why David Brooks, the notoriously moderate New York Times columnist, leveled the most vicious charge he could against Gingrich: He touted their similarities!)

Also, Gingrich benefits enormously by being the last obvious “not-Romney” candidate. Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Cain were all well to Gingrich’s right, and many voters assume that Gingrich is being attacked for the same reason that his not-Romney predecessors were.

---

Way back in 1992 we first heard rumors that the Big Dawg was an Arkansas Leghound. Ever since then it has been tabloid grist and the fodder for late-night jokes. In the meantime Bill Clinton won two elections.

So when the story broke in January 1998 that Slick Willie didn’t come clean in his Paula Jones deposition, people were somewhat less than shocked. The GOP (led by Newt Gingrich) thought they finally found the smoking gun that would end Bill Clinton’s career. But most voters didn’t care anymore. Bill was innoculated against that kind of attack.

So is Newt Gingrich.

Thirteen years ago he left office in disgrace, with enough ethical and moral baggage to end several careers. But he didn’t go away.

Now he’s back from the dead, and his baggage has been turned to armor. It says a lot about Mitt Romney that so many Republicans now view Newt Gingrich as their savior.

I have to disagree with Uppity. Newt might pull it off.

I got a feeling I’m not gonna get a happy ending no matter how it turns out.

STANDARD DISCLAIMER:

This is not an endorsement of Newt Gingrich. This is an assessment of his political skills and chances of winning. If you held a gun to my head and told me to choose between Newt and Obama, I would tell you to pull the trigger.

Why Newt could win

---

Dave Weigel at Slate:

They like the idea of Gingrich facing Obama, and they think he provides a stark contrast. He says so. His last full-on grapple with Romney came when the former governor attacked him, in a sort of more-in-sorrow-than-anger way, for saying that the Palestinians were an “invented people.” That, said Romney, was complicating things for Israelis.

“The Israelis are getting rocketed every day,” snorted Gingrich. “We’re not making life more difficult. The Obama administration is making life more difficult.” Plus, he sounded like he was right on the facts. “Palestinian did not become a common term until after 1977.” That’s the sort of knowledge-bomb that Republicans dream of dropping on Obama—they feel like this is right, but here’s a candidate who can say so.*

And then Gingrich closed the loop.

“I’m a Reaganite,” he said. “I’m proud to be a Reaganite. Even at the point of causing some confusion with the timid.”

Who was “the timid?” Whoever viewers thought it should be. Obama. Romney. The media. All of them, as far as they’re concerned, would lose in a showdown with Newt Gingrich. And this is how he won the debate.

---

There are basically three modes of thought on the Israel/Palestine issue in this country. Some people are strongly pro-Israel. This group includes both Jews and fundamentalist Christians.

There are some people who are strongly pro-Palestine (or anti-Zionist). This group is the smallest and tends to be left-wing. Then there is the group I belong to – the people that either don’t care about the issue or give it a fairly low priority on their personal care-o-meter.

So a couple days before the debate Newt drops a bomb and refers to the Palestinians as an “invented people.” (If you want to debate whether that is true or not go ahead but that’s not the point of this post.) This was not an accident or coincidence. This statement guarantees he will get questioned about it during the debate. He is prepped and ready when it happens.

Your reaction to his statements depends on which group you belong to. You will either agree, disagree or not really care.

If you don’t care then it’s “no harm, no foul” as far as Newt is concerned. He didn’t gain anything with you but he didn’t lose anything either.

On the other hand, if you are pro-Palestine you probably object rather strongly to what he said. But then you’re probably a lefty and weren’t going to be voting for Newt anyway.

There was only one group where Newt could hope to win votes using this issue, and his statements were directed at them. And he knew what he said would be controversial, thus guaranteeing lots of replay and discussion. He set himself up for a fat pitch over the plate and then hit it out of the park.

Well planned and well executed.

---

STANDARD DISCLAIMER:

This is not an endorsement of Newt Gingrich. This is an assessment of his political skills. If you held a gun to my head and told me to choose between Newt and Obama, I would tell you to pull the trigger.

Sunday Morning Pop Quiz

6-6-6

---

666 points to whoever answers these two questions:

1. Did you watch the GOP debate last night?

2. Who do you think won?

---

I watched the first 20-30 minutes. I think Newt won because it was his debate to lose and nobody landed any really good shots. I’m beginning to believe it will be Obama vs. Gingrich.

I am making out a bucket list.

---

---

Whatever happened to Reagan’s 11th commandment?

---

Ronald Reagan once said:

The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It’s a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.

---

Whatever happened to Reagan’s 11th commandment? The reason I ask is laid out here in this post at Legal Insurrection:

It’s not always framed using the word “crazy,” but that’s the theme — he’s erratic, can’t be trusted, has a personality defect which makes him dangerous.  TPM sums up the Romney theme:

Launching an aggressive attack on rival Newt Gingrich, the Romney campaign is engaging a character-assassination strategy, painting the former speaker as unfit for a position of leadership.

We hear it every day from David Frum (“A Gingrich presidency, if such a thing can even be imagined, would be a chaotic catastrophe”); Jennifer Rubin (“Gingrich’s mind  is an attic of  throwaway, unusable and downright goofy ideas, piled high like newspapers in the room of a troubled subject on “Hoarders”), Ramesh Ponnuru (“he is temperamentally unsuited for the presidency”); Peggy Noonan (“He’s a trouble magnet”); Ann Coulter (“Not only were they completely crazy, but Newt’s grand schemes didn’t quite fit the Republican model of a small, unintrusive federal  government); and other pro-Romney media types.

We’re also hearing it from Romney campaign surrogates like John Sununu (“He all but called Gingrich crazy”) and Peter King (“doesn’t have the discipline and doesn’t have the capacity to control himself”).

This strategy is the same as the Democrats’ “strategy of crazy” launched against the Tea Party movement in 2009 and crystallized as policy after Scott Brown’s election in January 2010.  Your opponent isn’t simply wrong, or not the best choice, or a flip-flopper, he’s nuts.

At Slate, one prominent left-leaning blogger comes right out and says what his “conservative” compatriots have been saying implicitly, Is Newt Nuts?

I really don’t see how the Romney supporters using the strategy of crazy have left themselves an exit strategy if and when their candidate loses to Gingrich.  If they have convinced themselves that Newt really is crazy, then there is no way they could support him even over Obama.

And frankly, I don’t expect them to.

Update:  Add David Brooks (h/t Ben Smith) to the team (“He has every negative character trait that conservatives associate with ’60s excess: narcissism, self-righteousness, self-indulgence and intemperance”).

---

Ol’ Smilin’ Mitt has cruised through the past few months without breaking a sweat or getting his hands dirty. Now his campaign is stirred up like a bunch of scared chihuahuas.

All’s fair in love and war and politics ain’t beanbag. I’m not gonna shed a tear if Naughty Newty gets torn limb from limb by the media lapdogs. But I’ve never seen the GOPers air their laundry in public like this before. It’s like they would rather see Obama win then face the prospect of President Gingrich.

Personally I think Bush – Obama – Gingrich is the trifecta of bad. Maybe the Mayans were right about 2012.

---

---

Romney’s “accidental” anti-Newt ad

---

Pro-Romney group accidentally leaks ad attacking Gingrich

A well-funded group backing Mitt Romney accidentally posted a campaign ad that harshly attacks Newt Gingrich.

The ad said Democrats are hoping for Gingrich as the nominee because all of his “baggage,” including ethics violations while he was Speaker of the House and earlier support of climate change legislation, “amnesty” for undocumented immigrants, and a requirement that everyone buys health insurance.

The group, Restore Our Future, announced a $3.1 million ad buy in Iowa earlier in the day, and released an ad praising Romney’s record in the private sector and slamming President Obama.

The anti-Gingrich ad was put on YouTube on Thursday night but was quickly taken down. Brittany Gross, a spokesperson for the group, said that “it’s an unfinished ad” and that the group would not comment further on it at this time.

---

Mitt doesn’t have the balls to do it himself.

“But screw your courage to the sticking place . . .”

---