Will South Carolina Be The First To Secede From The Republican Establishment Tomorrow?

[Peter]

Would you care to Daunce wrote:

Yes, but everyone else is not a potential leader of the free world. We need such a person to have a good grip on assessing his own abilities.

end quote

My way or the highway? I am not always right, but I am never wrong. Uh uh. No. A leader of the free world must accept the most rational advice he gets. He must know he is fallible. Remember the portrayal of “President Adlai Stevenson” (which never happened, he never got elected) in “Doctor Strangelove?” I want a thoughtful President. I don’t want a Newt Gingrich who might think, “Well fuck ‘em, if they can’t take a joke - which is dark humor from the Viet Nam war,” then swear his decision was correct because he “thought it.”

I truly think Gingrich’s intelligence and rationality extend to the epidermis. Below that is the gut feeling, the hunch, the narcissistic certainty that he is always right.

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't want to jump into this because I think people are talking past each other. But before it escalates, here's a thought.

I'm pretty sensitive about racism and bigotry and I don't want it on OL, but I believe Peter's comment was an aside thrown against the media, not against Obama. I think he was imitating what he imagines is coming.

I think he pushed a button doing it because he's pissed Newt won the SC primary.

So the best thing would be for everyone to chill a little. Still, that's a choice for y'all to make.

It's just if you are going to fight, it's better to fight over something real, not over what one imagines the other is saying and intending when, from what I can see so far, it is inaccurate all the way around.

In my opinion, Peter was not being bigoted against Obama (despite our PC culture here in the USA determining people like him can't say the things he did), but neither does he understand where folks are coming from in their objections. Some people are not cowed by PC language. They just don't like the language of racism regardless of who says it or why. They actually do feel the issue deeply.

If the problem is the screwed up media, or disappointment that Newt won, or fear that Obama will be elected because the culture will barbecue Newt, or frustration at those who don't fear this, or whatever, it would be better to focus on that than get people riled up over words that don't mean the same thing people are getting angry about--or getting riled over bigotry that, underneath, isn't there.

Just a suggestion.

But chill--at least until the issues become clear to everyone--is a great idea at moments like this.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

What in the hell are you talking about? That was easily defensible, satiric humor based on Speaker Grinchgrinch’s remarks. People from “the South” have “code words” you idiot. They hide their racism behind euphemisms.

Which remarks? You’re now saying that the “back of the bus” line was your way of unmasking Gingrich’s racism? Typically, when quoted saying something so patently offensive, a writer will claim that their statement was taken out of context. What context did you provide that your fellow OLers missed?

[Peter]

Michael wrote:

But chill--at least until the issues become clear to everyone--is a great idea at moments like this.

end quote

Not a problem, Michael. I swear I think Ninth and others are pulling my leg and it is not important. I said, “Back of the bus,” Doctor Nth. Seriously, what does that mean to you? Christ, Ninth, grow a less hysterical brain.

It’s 23:48 Sunday night, WASHINGTON (AP) — Amid heightened tensions with Iran, an American aircraft carrier has sailed through the Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf. The Navy says it's a routine maneuver.

end quote

The giants just won. On the carrier, the Abraham Lincoln, they watch the game on satellite TV. The US Navy is ready. Our predator eyes are focused. Come on Iran. Make my day.

Peter

[Selene]

My, my...Ann Coulter is even mad at South Carolinians! Actually, she is just angry at Mr. Newt. She is still a tough, strong voice in the public forum.

On a Sunday morning appearance on “Fox & Friends,” conservative columnist Ann Coulter explained why Romney fell short in the South Carolina GOP presidential primary, blaming the priorities of South Carolina voters for Gingrich’s success.

“Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall,” Coulter, the author of “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America,” said. “We saw it in the debates when Gingrich would say things that didn’t really make sense. That is what you usually associate with Democrats, which I described in my last book, ‘Demonic,’ how mobs behave.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/22/coulter-with-newt-gingrich-you-throw-out-the-baby-and-keep-the-bath-water-video/#ixzz1kFdKyp6d

[Brant Gaede]

I truly think Gingrich’s intelligence and rationality extend to the epidermis. Below that is the gut feeling, the hunch, the narcissistic certainty that he is always right.

Peter

Probably true--the next Herbert Hoover.

He may be blasted in the election campaign, but he's capable of blasting right back.

--Brant

[Mikee]

Yes, but everyone else is not a potential leader of the free world. We need such a person to have a good grip on assessing his own abilities.

Yes, agreed, and I think Gingrich is much better that Romney in this respect. I will enjoy watching Gingrich eviscerate Obama in debate if he becomes the GOP nominee and I would have no qualms about voting for him for president. I don't think Romney can beat Obama.

[Selene]

Yes, but everyone else is not a potential leader of the free world. We need such a person to have a good grip on assessing his own abilities.

Yes, agreed, and I think Gingrich is much better that Romney in this respect. I will enjoy watching Gingrich eviscerate Obama in debate if he becomes the GOP nominee and I would have no qualms about voting for him for president. I don't think Romney can beat Obama.

This is funny. A Super PAC backing Newt Gingrich imagines a general election debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama in a new animated ad.

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=mv078A36t7Y

grrr

[Selene]

January 22, 2012

Why Florida Could Be Tough for Romney

Mitt Romney has two advantages as the Florida primary approaches on January 31: money and early voting. Romney and an aligned Super PAC have spent more than $7 million of airtime already in the state and nearly 200,000 Republicans have already cast their votes.

But Politico notes Newt Gingrich heads into Florida "emboldened by two assets that will test Romney's organization and money there: the momentum from a double-digit victory and a conservative base that appears to be coalescing. But the results here revealed Romney's weakness as much as they hinted at Gingrich's potential. The establishment favorite didn't just lose South Carolina - he got thrashed,"

First Read adds that the GOP electorate in Florida "has the potential to be unkind to Romney. Think South Carolina but with Cuban Americans in Miami thrown into the mix. According to the 2008 exit polls, 61% of Florida Republican primary voters considered themselves conservative (68% said they were conservative in South Carolina last night). And remember: Florida's primary is closed, meaning that independents don't get to vote. After all, it's the same electorate that picked Rick Scott in 2010 over establishment favorite Bill McCollum."

Adam Smith: "As important as money, television advertising and organization are here, momentum tends to trump everything else in widely watched presidential campaigns. Romney easily outspent and out-organized John McCain in Florida in 2008 and still lost."

[George H. Smith]

But chill--at least until the issues become clear to everyone--is a great idea at moments like this.

Michael

Okay, but can you get Peter to stop using that annoying 18 point Comic Sans font -- the one that screams Look at me!

Good luck with that project.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

LOL...

Just feelin' the luv...

Michael

[Peter]

This type style and size is so I can easily read it. It connotes no hidden meaning. When I cut and past it to a thread it sometimes comes out larger than I intended. I bring it to OL as 14 point comic sans.

Some wags think the Gingrich win cuts deep.

Washington Examiner columnist Timothy P. Carney wrote:

Party leaders -- center and right -- no longer can move the base. The best they can hope to do is hitch a ride on the base's passion. That's what Gingrich has done. He has kept his distance from the party establishment, and taken dead aim at the mainstream media, another institution that has lost credibility with the American public.

Gingrich's regular scolding of debate moderators has been at times silly or disingenuous, but the journalists often deserved a rebuke. Gingrich rightly chided CNBC's Maria Bartiromo for demanding a health care reform plan packed into 30 seconds. ABC's George Stephanopoulos persisted in rehashing a moot 1964 Supreme Court case on Connecticut's contraception laws. In South Carolina, Gingrich got standing ovations for counterpunching Fox's Juan Williams and CNN's John King . . .

Given his record, it may be implausible that Gingrich can pose as anti-establishment. But the establishment is certainly anti-Newt. And for South Carolina's voters, that was an endorsement enough.

end quote

Contrarily, Ann Coulter was quoted as saying:

Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall,

end quote

And Michael suggests the press and State Run Media “might” barbecue Newt. A good analysis will show that Newt and Mitt will both be barbecued, and Romney’s past record as Governor does more closely mirror Obama’s. But, other than saying their stances WERE similar, and Romney flip flopped, the left wing media cannot criticize a past Romney stance without criticizing the President’s current stance on abortion, gun control, or health care. It’s a bit of a media tightrope walk than will last a few news cycles.

Newt’s record is more vulnerable. I can see Nixon’s face in an Obama ad morphing into Newt’s as he says, “I am not a crook.”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

Newt can't talk about health care reform in 30 seconds because he thinks he can tweak it into usable shape.

--Brant

after the Obama disaster comes the next-President disaster--will we call him Newt or Mitt or Herbert Hoover?

[Mikee]

"And Michael suggests the press and State Run Media “might” barbecue Newt."

The ignoramus's in the press will themselves be barbecued when faced with historical fact and principle which Newt is very capable of elucidating.

[Peter]

Mikee wrote:

The ignoramus's in the press will themselves be barbecued when faced with historical fact and principle which Newt is very capable of elucidating.

end quote

Newt sure is exciting. Though he may not practice what he preaches, Newt could very well be THE SPOKESMAN for the Tea Party, an Objectivist Government and its core values.

It’s time to start a Florida Primary thread if no one else has done so already.

Peter

[George H. Smith]

Ghs

[caroljane]

Mikee wrote:

The ignoramus's in the press will themselves be barbecued when faced with historical fact and principle which Newt is very capable of elucidating.

end quote

Newt sure is exciting. Though he may not practice what he preaches...

And as we know, he's sure excitable.

Non Ignorami carborundum!

[Selene]

Mikee wrote:

The ignoramus's in the press will themselves be barbecued when faced with historical fact and principle which Newt is very capable of elucidating.

end quote

Newt sure is exciting. Though he may not practice what he preaches...

And as we know, he's sure excitable.

Non Ignorami carborundum!

Good one Carol!

Vinegar Joe Stillwell and Barry Goldwater...who knew!

Illegitimi non carborundum is a mock-Latin aphorism meaning "Don't let the bastards grind you down". (Carborundum, also known as silicon carbide, is an industrial abrasive material.)

History

The phrase originated during World War II. Lexicographer Eric Partridge attributes it to British army intelligence very early in the war (using the plural dative/ablative illegitimis). The phrase was adopted by US Army general "Vinegar" Joe Stillwell as his motto during the war.^[1] It was later further popularized in the US by 1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.^[2]

Generations of Harvard students have taken the phrase into the world, as it is the first line of an unofficial school song Ten Thousand Men of Harvard, the most frequently played Fight song of the Harvard Marching Band. This is, to some extent, a parody of more solemn school songs like "Fair Harvard thy sons to your Jubilee throng" etc. The first verse goes: Illegitimum non carborundum; Domine salvum fac. Illegitimum non Carborundum; Domine salvum fac. Gaudeamus igitur! Veritas non sequitur? Illegitimum non carborundum—ipso facto! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum

[caroljane]

Mikee wrote:

The ignoramus's in the press will themselves be barbecued when faced with historical fact and principle which Newt is very capable of elucidating.

end quote

Newt sure is exciting. Though he may not practice what he preaches...

And as we know, he's sure excitable.

Non Ignorami carborundum!

Good one Carol!

Vinegar Joe Stillwell and Barry Goldwater...who knew!

Illegitimi non carborundum is a mock-Latin aphorism meaning "Don't let the bastards grind you down". (Carborundum, also known as silicon carbide, is an industrial abrasive material.)

History

The phrase originated during World War II. Lexicographer Eric Partridge attributes it to British army intelligence very early in the war (using the plural dative/ablative illegitimis). The phrase was adopted by US Army general "Vinegar" Joe Stillwell as his motto during the war.^[1] It was later further popularized in the US by 1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.^[2]

Generations of Harvard students have taken the phrase into the world, as it is the first line of an unofficial school song Ten Thousand Men of Harvard, the most frequently played Fight song of the Harvard Marching Band. This is, to some extent, a parody of more solemn school songs like "Fair Harvard thy sons to your Jubilee throng" etc. The first verse goes: Illegitimum non carborundum; Domine salvum fac. Illegitimum non Carborundum; Domine salvum fac. Gaudeamus igitur! Veritas non sequitur? Illegitimum non carborundum—ipso facto! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum

"Non illegitimi" is the Canadian variant I guess. Negative on the left.

[Mikee]

Ghs

So, evidently Newt doesn't have a problem with article 3...

I note Pelosi claimed today to have "something" on Newt and "knows" for certain he cannot be elected president. Gee, that tells me Newt is the person they're most afraid of. I think Gingrich would rise up to the office rather than dragging the presidency into the gutter like Obama has.

[Selene]

Mikee:

Mr. Newt has made a plethora of statements over his four (4) decades in politics. Many of these utterances are contradictory. He is certainly not an objectivist, nor a libertarian. At best, he is an intelligent conservative with certain libertarian streaks.

At this point in time, with the choices left, he would be the clear lesser of the evils to choose from. My making this statement is with the premise that Dr. Paul will not be permitted to get the nomination.

Therefore, amongst Romney, Santorum and Mr. Newt, the choice is clear for me.

If it is a brokered convention all bets are off. I would have to reevaluate at that point because, obviously, there would be more names in the mix.

Finally, I would love to see some sourcing on the quotes and positions in the very clever Constitution piece presented by George. I am going to try to source them myself.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think Gingrich would rise up to the office rather than dragging the presidency into the gutter like Obama has.

Mike,

That's a gamble, but I'm in.

In the Newt of today (but not of before), I sense a spirit aged and tempered by a wish to be wise above all else.

I might be wrong, but from what I see with my own eyes, I'll run with that. And I don't like the alternatives.

Michael

[Mark]

Regarding GHS’s reprint of a poster of the Bill of Rights with Gingrich’s contradictions superimposed, some of the contradictions are exaggerated, which is a pity since the unexaggerated truth is quite bad enough.

For example, "Calls for the death sentence for possessing two oz. of marijuana." exaggerates the fact that he sponsored H.R. 4170, the "Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996." That bill (it didn’t pass) would have made it a capital offense to transport a certain quantity of contraband into the U.S.

If http://2012.republic...h/Marijuana.php can be believed this is from H.R. 4170:

Section 1010 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(e)(1) ... the court shall sentence a person convicted of a violation of subsection (a), consisting of bringing into the United States a mixture or substance--

(A) which is described in subsection (b)(1); and

(B) in an amount the Attorney General by rule has determined is equal to 100 usual dosage amounts of such mixture or substance; to imprisonment for life without possibility of release. If the defendant has violated this subsection on more than one occasion and the requirements of chapter 228 of title 18, United States Code, are satisfied, the court shall sentence the defendant to death.

Get rid of the CIA’s competition you might say.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... some of the contradictions are exaggerated, which is a pity since the unexaggerated truth is quite bad enough.

Mark,

This is a major problem in our political culture. Since the Internet and cable TV have expanded so much, people are now able to choose their pockets of influence for nuturing and fostering their ideas through repetition by like-minded people.

The control freaks don't like that at all. They want to control what people think. Look at Joe Scaraborough, for instance:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DiajoemGSeE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here's a direct quote from that video, which I think is one of the most godawful things he has ever said:

I think the bigger problem with new media is, people can select what they want to hear at all times and go searching for a media outlet that conforms with their ideology 100%. So they wake up in the morning and turn on a news channel, a cable channel, that repeats everything they believe and doesn't question any preexisting prejudices. And then they get in the car and they drive and turn on a talk radio show that does the same thing. And then if they are like my mother, they then, at night, will just sort of surf the web. For her it's right wing websites...

Note well. Scaraborough thinks it is a bad thing for his own mother to choose the ideas she wants to look at!

Dayaamm!

Now here's the thing.

You will find his exaggerated scenario in some people. But there's an awful lot of people out there who are getting sick and tired of the exaggerations and media manipulation. So rather than be influenced, they are simply taking what little information they can glean and tuning out the rest.

Scaraborough ignores those people. Just like the guy who made the exaggerated claims in the poster about Newt.

There is a huge opportunity here for a major figure to start telling the truth. This is how Glenn Beck became so popular. But now he is exaggerating so much about Newt that nobody even listened to him in South Carolina. He is scratching his head wondering what the hell happened. And I guarantee he will blame everyone and everything except himself--that he lost his influnece through his own hamhanded campaign where he "massaged" the truth.

The point is that people are not tuning out all together. They are just becoming so used to institutional dishonesty that they look to other indicators to inform their decisions (but elaborating on those indicators deserves another discussion). They can't trust the people who are supposed to feed them facts.

This gives a savy politician a HUGE leg up if he knows how to project himself. Just like what is happening with Newt.

But for as much as I look at it, I can't tell if Newt is doing this on purpose because he is cunning, or because he just stumbled on it as a result of a change of heart.

I suspect a little of both.

The takeaway is that nobody is going to be able to promote total spin and get away with major influence anymore. They have to learn how to play a new game. Either that or be satisfied with a small tribe of people who act in the manner Scaraborough lamented. (Except, since he believes his own BS, he claims this is the public at large.)

If the spinners want to keep spinning, they have to learn how to spin within that ever-narrowing space of a huge chunk of people who do not believe them by default. People are now accepting the fact that media people--ALL media people--constantly tell bald-face lies and this is just how things are. And this attitude in the public is growing.

(btw - I celebrate this. People who think for themselves might get some things wrong, but not nearly as much as a manipulated people will.)

Newt's critics don't know how to present a case that will destroy him. The ironic part is all they have to do is present the facts--both good and bad--without the spin. Find a messenger who can present this, one who has not trashed his reputation yet, and just keep doing it. The solution is right there in front of them, but they have corrupted their brains so much they can't see it.

The weird part is this is exactly what Newt is doing for the most part--presenting facts and views, good and bad, without strategic ommissions and exaggerations--and it is working for him even though he is a tainted figure.

People hunger for that more than they do any particular ideology right now. But will an ideologue ever see that? Hell no. So the world spins on and on...

Michael

[Selene]

The weird part is this is exactly what Newt is doing for the most part--presenting facts and views, good and bad, without strategic omissions[sic] and exaggerations--and it is working for him even though he is a tainted figure.

People hunger for that more than they do any particular ideology right now. But will an ideologue ever see that? Hell no. So the world spins on and on...

Good observations Michael:

Apropos to the above, Mr. Newt responded:

...to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, who said on Wednesday night on

CNN's John King

that Mr. Gingrich would never become President of the United States.

"There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him that's their prerogative," said Congresswoman Pelosi. "I don't even think that's going to happen."

Mr. Gingrich appeared on The Washington Times affiliated radio program "America's Morning News" and forcefully responded to Rep. Pelosi.

"There's almost a level of hysteria about the prospect of somebody who really wants to change Washington," said Mr. Gingrich to host John McCaslin.

"I have a simple challenge for Speaker Pelosi...you know, put up or shut up. I mean, I have no idea what she's talking about. I don't think she has any idea what she's talking about, but bring it on," he said.

"My life has been looked at by lots of people and I've been around a long time. And I just think that when you are a left-wing Democrat, the prospect of a Gingrich presidency is really sort of like a nightmare," Mr. Gingrich added.

(listen here)

As far as Joe Scarborough, I spent a lot of time in the "Redneck Riviera" which formed much of his Congressional District. I was intimately connected to that community at a number of levels.

I cannot explain what happened to Joe. Some argue that the MSLSD paycheck changed him. Maybe, but that does not suffice to explain his change to me.

Good post Michael.

Adam