&feature=related What a hysterical ad. Since it isn't directly paid by Romney's campaign I guess you can't technically say he is panicking, but that sure is the way it comes across. Romney calling Gingrich a flip flopper? That is like David Duke calling Archie Bunker a bigot. Now some Fox analysts who must be on crack are predicting Perry can make a comeback. No he can't. Perry's money for commercials won't help him at all, particularly with goofy commercials like the one in the previous post.
Being the big political thread here, I figured I'd post this whack ad here.
EDIT - Don't know why it won't let me show the video. Here is the link.
Isnt that the same jacket that Heath Ledger wore in brokeback mountain?
&feature=player_embedded
__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.
Charles Babington
AP
WASHINGTON -Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's rapid rise in presidential polls has left veteran Republicans scratching their heads.
They're trying to figure out why Gingrich is supported by GOP voters who think he's not particularly honest and doesn't share their values. They wonder why Iowa evangelical Christians are flocking to a man who was unfaithful to two wives and who paid $300,000 in House ethics fines.
Some analysts say conservatives are willing to overlook Gingrich's faults because they love his willingness to confront the media, Congress and President Barack Obama.
Others say Gingrich may suffer if voters learn more about his record and past.
He is rising because there is no longer a viable alternative to Romney among the second string candidates. Ron Paul's appeal is too limited, Santorum is unlikeable, and Bachmann and Perry are too extreme and too prone to make verbal gaffes. Romney has been less impressive lately. I think he knows he is headed for another collapse. He seems to be incapable of speaking from the heart. He is all talking points. If the economy continues to mildly improve the vapid, hollow way he has been attacking Obama isn't going to work. Sure, Gingrich has flip-flopped, but he is an amateur compared to Romney. At least Gingrich is willing to take a position against the party mainstream to show he has some conviction. Romney always plays it safe and playing it safe before you are the nominee is often a recipe for disaster because you don't create any excitement among voters by doing that. Gingrich has a lot of negatives as the nominee, but at least he doesn't come across as a wind-up toy.
CNN Political Ticker reports that Perry campaigned in the Hawkeye State, stopping in Ames. He focused on energy, taking shots at the Obama administration's handling of government spending.
"No greater example of it than this administration sending millions of dollars into the solar industry, and we lost that money," Perry said. "I want to say it was over $500 million that went to the country Solynda."
I agree with Perry. Cut off aid to Solynda, and Latvaria also. Doctor Doom is not our friend.
I still think Gingrich will win Iowa despite the poll. I think Romney's voters are not committed enough in a caucus vote and will desert him for other candidates. If Romney wins it, however, the nomination is his. I still think Gingrich takes Iowa, then has a surprisingly strong second finish in New Hampshire, or even wins, then takes South Carolina. Gingrich is making a big mistake not going after Romney. Apparently, he wants to reign in his dark, nasty side until after he gets the nomination to go after Obama. At least the nation doesn't have to worry about that buffoon Rick Perry getting the nomination.
People criticize Romney for flip flopping, but look at what Perry has done. Because he needs the religious Christian vote to have any chance of doing well in Iowa, he has reversed himself and now is opposed to abortion without any exception, even rape and incest and to save the life of the mother. How does being against abortion to even save the mother make sense? Why should the mother's life be more important? Perry is pathetic.
Posted by: Joshua Green on December 29, 2011 It’s getting hard to imagine a plausible scenario in which Mitt Romney does not wind up as the Republican presidential nominee — he has the money, experience, and staff the other candidates lack, and enough dull appeal to remain competitive throughout. Plus, the Republicans who surpass him have the . The latest is Texas Representative Ron Paul, who holds a narrow lead in most recent polls of Iowa and so stands the best chance of beating Romney next Tuesday. Paul’s late emergence is universally regarded as a stroke of good fortune for Romney, and a Paul victory in Iowa would be seen as merely delaying, rather than denying, Romney’s eventual coronation. In fact, many commentators are already dispensing with the usual pretense of calling him a ”long shot” and stating outright that Paul won’t become the nominee. They’re probably right — but at the same time, Iowans famously cherish their status as the first to weigh in on presidential candidates, and few would knowingly waste their vote. So what’s going on? The best explanation could be that the diverging views of Ron Paul actually reflect different understandings of what a vote for him would signify. Members of Congress and the national press view Paul as an amiable crank, more willing than most to stick to his libertarian principles - he once cast the lone vote to deny Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal because the Constitution doesn’t expressly authorize the expenditure - but chiefly concerned with making a point. As David Fahrenthold noted in the Washington Post, Paul has sponsored 620 measures in his lengthy congressional career, only four of which even made it to the House floor, and just one of which became law. Paul also embodies the implacable extremities of the Tea Party, a fading movement inside the Beltway that last week lost the big fight it had provoked over the payroll tax, and has come to be regarded as slightly passe. Furthermore, many of Paul’s positions, such as his isolationism, are out of step with today’s Republican Party. These positions, along with his ties to the political fringe, would probably disqualify him were they better known. Just this week, a number of newspapers highlighted the vile, racist newsletters that Paul published in the 1990s, which, among other things, accused blacks of ”racial terrorism” and asserted that AIDS victims ”enjoy the attention and pity that comes from being sick.” (Paul claims he did not write them.) And as the caucuses loom, the other candidates have started drawing attention to these weaknesses. Paul has been written off because Washington observers assume that no one could survive such ugly revelations. But most Republican caucus-goers in Iowa don’t have the same familiarity with Paul and still hold firm to the values that gave rise to the Tea Party. According to a recent Iowa State University poll, the most important issues to the respondents were ”jobs and the economy” (35 percent), ”the size and role of the federal government” (24 percent), and “the national debt and the deficit” (22 percent). By a healthy margin, respondents were also looking for a nominee who would ”take a strong stand” over one who seemed more electable in November. Not surprisingly, Paul was the voters’ first choice. Even those who do not support him routinely say they view him as the most consistent potential nominee. In light of how the race has developed, it’s also unsurprising that Paul’s support has been steadily building up. Candidates like Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, who were initially touted as staunch conservative alternatives to Romney, have been exposed as apostates on issues ranging from immigration and individual liberty (Perry) to health-care mandates, lobbying, and the government’s role in the housing market (Gingrich). Paul is the natural repository of support from voters frustrated by these revelations. But influential as these voters are in determining who wins the caucuses, they’re only a sliver of the electorate - historically, about 3 to 5 percent of Iowa’s adult population. That may be why, as seriously as Iowans take their duty, the caucus winner rarely goes on to seize the nomination, and is more likely to spontaneously self-combust like that unfortunate Spinal Tap drummer. Joshua Green writes a weekly column for the Boston Globe. Follow him on Twitter
So now Rick Santorum is the new flavor of the month.
Romney is looking like an incredibly weak candidate because he can't move beyond twenty-four or some percent. Too many Republicans don't like him and want someone, apparently anyone, else.
Now every candidate has been the anti Romney candidate except Huntsman who should just give it up. Santorum has been the last because he is the weakest. It is too bad Gingrich didn't have any money to counter the anti Gingrich ads that blanketed Iowa because with all of his weaknesses he is still a stronger candidate than Santorum. it is interesting every time a candidate opposing Romney has dropped in the polls he has never had a comeback. Even Perry's money has been unable to revive his campaign.
Even if Santorum comes in first or second in Iowa he has nowhere to go. He has been campaigning strictly in Iowa. He has little presence in New Hampshire. If Romney needs to go after Santorum with negative ads in South Carolina he will and he will be in the same boat as Gingrich. Florida he has no chance at all.
Closed Thread
