Mitt Romney picked a bad time to have his worst moment during one of the Republican presidential debates. Few will remember or care whether he was right that Rick Perry was misquoting what Romney wrote in his book about his Massachusetts health care bill. But Romney’s betting Perry $10,000 that he didn’t write what Perry said he did will linger in the public’s memory like Perry’s own “oops” moment when he forgot which government agency he wanted to shut down.
Romney’s flippant reminder of his wealth — he bet $10k as easily as most people would wager a $10 bill — at Saturday night’s ABC News/Des Moines Register debate was the most memorable moment at an event in which his goal was to put the heat on frontrunner Newt Gingrich. But instead it was Romney who looked shaky and Gingrich relaxed and confident. Every time the former Speaker found himself in the crosshairs of either his opponents or the moderators, he held his own easily. Though he was pressed hard on his record on health care, the Middle East, immigration and his marital infidelity, Gingrich never faltered. Coming as it did after two weeks in which his poll ratings had soared and Romney’s declined, Gingrich could not have asked for a better evening.
The debate illustrated again that the “new Newt” is a formidable debater. Though he is still capable of getting off message and saying controversial things, rather than fly off the handle, the former Speaker’s steady demeanor and cool ability to hit back every time he is challenged has served him well. And on Saturday night, it was Romney who looked flustered, not Gingrich.
Though the debate began with a discussion of economics, this latest edition of America’s favorite political reality show sometimes got bogged down in odd sidebars. Among the most curious was the lengthy discussion of whether or not Gingrich was right to say that the Palestinians are an “invented people.” Romney tried to position himself so as to seem to agree with Gingrich’s pro-Israel opinion but at the same time claim that his opponent was acting irresponsibly and causing unnecessary trouble for both Israel and the United States.
But true to form, Gingrich doubled down by asserting that he was merely stating a historical fact. Even better, Gingrich compared his willingness to tell the truth to the Arabs to Ronald Reagan’s calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” That was a bull’s eye with Republican voters even if Romney might be right that it was not a prudent thing for a potential president to say. Though Gingrich may not have gained many votes on this issue other than with the hard-line pro-Israel community and evangelicals, by standing his ground, he won the point.
Just as deft was his handling of the one of his biggest problems: his troubled personal life. Though many of his competitors claimed that character was an issue, with Rick Perry going so far as to assert that anyone who would cheat on his wife would cheat on a business partner, Gingrich was able to return serve even on this sore point. He did so by admitting he’d made mistakes and saying he’s asked God to forgive him. The implication was that if God could forgive him, where does anyone else get off having a problem with it?
Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann also had strong performances that may help one or the other toward a respectable finish in Iowa and might help them stay in the race. But the bottom line was that on a night when Romney needed to start taking Gingrich down a peg or two, he failed. Though Gingrich remains vulnerable on a host of issues, the Iowa debate lends credence to the notion his surge is far from over. That’s bad news for a Romney candidacy that right now looks to be in serious trouble.
NOTHING will help Newt. Regardless of polling reports. He'll never win the General Election and if he wins the GOP Primaries, that will be the final blow to the GOP. Period.
Rose, who will win the Superbowl? And by what score?
I am very proud of Newt (and profoundly disappointed in our self-appointed Jewish leaders for their silence and/or criticism of Gingrich) for speaking truthfully about the palestinians' lies, deceptions, misrepresentations, and teaching of hatred toward our people. Why is the arabs' narrative accepted, and tolerated, and any challenge thereto dismissed as pandering to "hardline" Israel supporters? Why can't we Jews stand tall with pride and self-respect and act as a people unafraid to challenge the truth of others' enmity toward us?
You mean, just like all the pros said Reagan andnever had a chance?! So much for conventional wisdom…newt is doing a fine job convincing the voters he needs to win: independents,like me.
Anyone who can leap from 2% in the polls to the front runner by 13% on a shoestring budget has my vote! Maybe he will apply that magic to the economy when he becomes president. You are showing signs of desperation. Maybe you need medication to help you.
Anyone who can leap from 2% in the polls to the front runner by 13% on a shoestring budget has my vote! Maybe he will apply that magic to the economy when he becomes president.
A student of history will be hard to beat. I am hoping that someone of the caliber of King David, or Alexander the Great will step forward, out of history, and lead us from this Swamp of Corruption, and candidates holding worthless, self serving, degrees from Socialist leaning colleges and universities. In these times of trouble, that our Nation is presently experiencing, how about a leader who is a Warrior rather than another guy with the Socialist degree? How about an Allen West or a Paul Vallely? Talk is cheap, we need a President and a Congress that is Action motivated. nLord Howard Hurts freedomfiles.blogspot.com
Great Howie. Do you have a secret plan to convince Allen West or Vellely to run? Why is it that the "best" candidates like West and others have seemingly not grasped the historical significance of this election and are sitting on the sidelines? It does no one any good to moan about people who are not running. We have to deal with what we've got.
I don't agree with Rose. nI think Newt would be so impressive in any debate with the President that Newt wouldl win handily.
Liberals love Romney the Rino knowing full well thatr nhe cannot even come close to beating Obama. A truer nconservative candidate will a tough opponent for Obama.r nGingrich fits that bill and would be more than a matchr nfor Obama in a debate which is sure to happen. I hoper nRomney gets booted out early so that, conservativesr ncan unite behind one true conservative candidate.r nThe so-called independent votes are actually closetr nliberals who voted for Obama in 2008. They will notr nunder any circumstance vote for a Rino like Romneyr nbecause he is not liberal enough for them! They onlyr nwant Romney to be the Republican nominee becauser nconservatives will desert Romney in droves like ther nconservatives deserted McCain in droves in 2008! Thatr nwould guarantee an easy win for Obama.
I don't know. It's hard to see Gingrich as more conservative than Romney. They both have supported man-made global warming, big government solutions, individual mandates to buy health insurance, stem cell research… Newt has also supported amnesty for illegals… It's fine for you to say that Newt doesn't support those things *now* but the same can be said for Romney. To me, the question is whether either Newt or Romney would really abandon their big government ways and do the only thing that can save us from crushing debt and that's a radically reduced federal government.
It's almost like we didn't watch the same debate last night…. Gingrich got knocked down at least three times( Palestines are an invented race, No credible answer for fleecing tax monies from Freddie, and maintaining he is not a Lobbyist when he spoke of testimony on specific legislative issues and he has a plush office on K street)…. And Perry becomes a proven liar, AGAIN. n nYet Romney somehow lost???
With regards to Palestine, Santorum, Romney and Paul all conceded that Gingrich was technically right, but that it was "imprudent" to say what he did. Problem is, Repub voters, myself included, want a fighter. Prudence is all well and good in normal times, but it is undeniable that at this time, being the imprudent truth teller is far better than being the prudent moderate. Romney and Santorum evoked timidity, Gingrich invoked Reagan. Its just that simple. n nThe Wall Street lobbying was the only shot which really landed, delivered well by Paul. But it wasn't enough. Gingrich's performance on Palestine, NASA (supporting the space program is usually a win-win), and his own infidelity (ironically) which sealed the debate in his favor. n n
lobbyist n : n someone who is employed to persuade legislators to vote for legislation that favors the lobbyist's employer n. nconsultant n : n 1. One who gives expert or professional advice. n 2. One who consults another n. nA lobbyist is a person hired by an individual or group to represent them in Washington D.C. (or a state capital for that matter) by speaking directly to legislators and other government officials to pursuede them to vote or act in their favor. n. nIf a person lays out a strategy for doing so, but at no time engages in the actual activity, they are, in fact, NOT Lobbyists. Providing such professional advice would actually qualify as, Consulting! n. nI have not read or heard anything to suggest that when Newt was employed by Fannie May and Freddie Mac that he spent any time actually speaking to members of congress regarding any legislation affecting Fannie or Freddie. (Gingrich has also suggested that the agencies actually ignored his advice when all was said and done.) n. n
There is nothing unethical about what Gingrich was hired to do nor what he did in the employ of the federal agencies. Neither does contracting with the Federal Government turn a Private Sector Business into a Public Sector Business; or every construction company that ever contracted to build a road or bridge would suddenly become Public Sector employers. n. nUnless it can be shown that Newt was paid to represent those agencies before lesislators or regulatory offices to influence the outcome of legislation or regulation, I suggest that it is time to dispense with the accusations of lobbying.
Reagan's statement on tearing down the wall was directed towards Gorbechov (our cold war foe)… Gingrich's comment was incendiary towards the Palestinians and Arabs in general and Palestine shares a border with Israel…whether it is true or not makes no difference… What does matter is if it stirs up more violence and whether in increases Rocket and Suicide Bomber attacks on Israel… A President and especially a President wanna be have no business putting our allies in that kind of vulnerable position… It's needless, careless and stupid and I am tired of Gingrich getting so many free passes….
I agree with you exactly – Newt had no answer to some really glaring issues in his record – Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac, immigration, and he completely avoided the family value question – which is obvious why – cheated on two wives, one of which was during president clinton's scandal – and he had the nerve to reprimand Clinton publically while he himself was cheating. Newt is scum and anyone of you conservatives who think all we need is a historian and great debater is the biggest of mistakes – there is more to running a country with our problems than debating Obama. Guess what, all the democrats wanted in 2008 is someone who could beat Bush and that landed us – Obama. So grow up and start acting like you really care about this country. Voting Newt is a bad idea.
n nWhy yes, yes he did, unequivocally, and completely. On what planet do you reach out your hand to wager US$10k during a televised debate to try to score points? Which of Romney's many highly paid consultants advised the hapless non-candidate that his awkward gesture would be interpreted as anything other than lunacy?
He throws out a common line to Perry (that we all use except our wager is usually for a million bucks) in order to shut down the guy's lies (which have factually been proven to be lies and reported on ABC after the debate) and somehow Romney's the goat??? Your views are warped and representative of a deeper problem within our party…. n nThe truth is that this is only a "problem" or "Gaff" for the Perry and Gingrich supporters who don't want to see Romney get the nomination and for the Libs who don't want to see Obama have to face him in the November General Election…. And,To those folks I simply say … "Nice try but get over it." n
This is why we are headed off a cliff. People like you care more about gaffes and gotchas more than real issues. The presidential election has turned into American Idol. No wonder we are laughed at across the world.
The status quo was maintained last night, and that is undeniably in Gingrich's favor. He has the nomination unless he puts his foot in his mouth again.
Last night the GOP candidates really missed a couple of opportunities to nail him (i.e. push him more on the Pelosi,Coach and Global Warming thing and let him know that by simply saying "that was the stupidist thing that I ever did" doesn't cover; or when he told Romney that had he won the election against Kennedy he would have also been a career politician to which Romney should have responded "and had you not been asked by your own party to vacate the Speakership" you might have been a President before now; or not following up on the betrayal and Hypocrisy that Gingrich showed in his personal life and in leading the charge for Clinton's impeachment when he was guilty of the same sleezball sins; or not going after him more for the $1.6 M heist of Taxpayer money through Freddie Mac, etc.). n n
First let's take of the facts…yes, I know after three years of this "administration", people are unused to that; "Palestinians" ARE invented people. There was no such thing as "palestinians" before 1948, and even after while finding the concoction useful, both Egypt and Jordan (or Trans-Jordan, also known as Transjordan Palestine) ignored it where it mattered – in administering Gaza, Judea and Samaria. Only after 1967 the term "Palestinians" was widely used, mainly as a PR weapon against Israel. nNow to the debate, Mitt Obamney "looked" flustered, because he of all people knows very well, that there is not proverbial "there" there. He is not a conservative, not even a "flip-flopper" (there would be nothing wrong with a man maturing in his views and adopting grown-up ideas); he simply says what he thinks he needs to say to get through the primaries, before reverting to his liberal self; and is deathly afraid that the jig is up. You'd look flustered too, in that circumstance. nGingrich, OTOH, is the ONLY Republican EVER that had actually, really, moved the needle of the government rightward. Everyone else, even Ronald Reagan, sought simply to slow the liberal nightmare down, limit the damage to the country and the people. Gingrich pushed back and won (and the cost of personal destruction). Nothing else matters. As president, he can, and will do it again. So all those "issues" that you media people have "against him" do not amount to anything at all with real people. And that's why he will win.
The fact that Newt brought this up at a very sensitive juncture shows a lack of leadership on Newt's part. A group of people lived in present day Israel prior to the forming of that country. It doesn't matter what we call them, they lived there. Saying they are invented is a slap in their face. What if this same thing were said of United States citizens? We too, like the Israelis, took land from a group of inhabitants. Are we any less invented because it happened in a more distant past? n nFurther, if Newt was truly about limited government his record would demonstrate this. It doesn't. He is the epitome of the establishment – profiting millions upon millions through the connections he made as a member of congress.
Pathetic! n nRomney's performance? n nNo, YOU guys on here that take issue with Romney saying he'd bet $10,000 if Rick Perry could find what he claimed Mitt Romney wrote in his book. Romney simply was saying "B.S." to what Perry said and nothing more. n nWant more proof of that? n nHow many times have YOU guys said to someone "I'm going to kill you!" or to your kids "I've told you a million times to (fill in the blank)". Did you REALLY intend to kill that person? Did you REALLY tell your child a million times to correct that specific behavior? n nOr were your utterances nothing more than a figure of speech? n nYou guys are the kings of clowns…..you want Romney to display emotion but when he does all you do is pile on him.
The problem here is that both Romney and Gingrich are serial flip-floppers. It's a choice between two different shades of sh*t. Perry has decent ideas, and a record that seems to hold up well . . . but he has an awful time articulating his positions, and in a media-driven age, this is crucial, fair or not. Bachmann would have zero chance against Obama. The media would tear her to shreds . . . she is a female conservative who is a bit too Jesusy. Santorum . . . same thing. And he comes off like an arse half the time. This leaves the two candidates who I believe represent the ideas that are going to carry the Republican party into the future, and to electoral success – Jon Hunstman and Ron Paul. Each have shown themselves to be consistent and steadfast in their beliefs (this is called integrity – something in such short supply that it's difficult to recognize these days), have very realistic and sagacious view of foreign affairs, and have promoted ideas that would dramatically boost economic growth in this country. Too bad the establishment disdains both of these fine men.
Romney’s 10k bet means NOTHING to anyone except the mindless liberal media who are desperate for something to say.
Reply to Rose – Anyone who can leap from 2% in the polls to the front runner by 13% on a shoestring budget has my vote! Maybe he will apply that magic to the economy when he becomes president.
Do you even think? Don't pretend that you care about this country. You vote for president like you vote for a reality television show. You should be ashamed.
I’m disgusted with our citizens. The public cares more about gaffes and gotcha questions than real issues. You pretend to care about your children’s and grandchildren’s future and then you go on and on over a candidate forgetting something or a joke about a bet. No wonder this country is headed off a cliff.
I agree that Gingrich may be a little better debater than Romney. n nGingrich is one of those guys that can think well on his feet and he's very good with words, so yes he's a good debater….. However, if that is the soul criteria we use to select our nominee then we are indeed in trouble….. Things like Honesty, Trustworthiness, Integrity, Organizational Skills, Leadership Skills, Consistency, Personal Energy, Job Creation, and Focus are also some very important Characteristics that should be examined in making a choice for the Presidency ….. and these skills just so happen to be the weak suits of Mr. Gingrich… n nGingrich, might in fact win the Nomination, but if he does you can count on 4 more years of Obama and his policies and you can count on Obamacare becoming permanent and a bigger entitlement drain than Social Security.
Romney is too timid and weak to be President. Newt has the bravado and knowledge to do what it will take to restore America’s greatness. Romney reminds me of Senator Scott Brown, another double talking RINO who lacks a spine. Newt did some very good things in the 90s while Clinton was in office and our economy roared as a result. Newt has the leadership skills we badly need so he’s the best man for the job! Newt all the way in 2012!!!
I am surprised by the absence of comment about Gingrich's and Bachmann's observations of palestinian educational inculcation of hatred toward Jews.
There is something to the fact that the voters are tired of bland same ole Dem lites. That is not Newt and many are finding that out. He is smarter than Obama who needs a prompter to spew Ayers-Wright-Alinsky-big govt. socialist baloney. A look at polls in varied states show now,with unemployment today called at a real rate of 11%, show Obama is not a lock in the Electoral College. So, it shows me that an aggressive free enterprise anti-socialist campaign could really draw some guilty voters from their 2008 votes,away to the Pubs and on down the ticket.
Ron Paul is a lunatic? Do explain . . . without trotting out the old anti-Semite canard.