First, I must confess my deep embarrassment. In a comment yesterday, I mistakenly suggested that Newt Gingrich was channeling Sylvester, he of “Thuffering Thuccotash!” fame, when he said “despicable.”
Obviously, I meant Daffy Duck, who does a much better job of representing the former Speaker’s demeanor and attitude.
I hate it when I get pop culture references wrong.
Forgive me, Sylvester.
And so in the end, it comes down to this: The only chance to prevent Newt Gingrich from going forward strengthened, with a chance of winning the GOP nomination, is to vote for the guy no one seems to actively like: Mitt Romney.
Staying home does no good. Voting for Ron Paul or Rick Santorum does no good, however much you may like them. They can’t deny this victory to Newt Gingrich, so a vote for them is a waste. (So is a vote for any of those who have dropped out, but are still on the ballot. I like Huntsman, too — but a vote for him doesn’t stop Newt Gingrich.)
Only Romney still has some slim chance of defeating Newt Gingrich today, so I’m urging everyone to get out and vote for him.
And don’t fool yourself into thinking it makes no difference. It makes a HUGE difference. Don’t fall for any of these rationalizations:
“It doesn’t matter; even if Newt wins South Carolina, Romney will win the nomination.” Don’t assume that. In fact, Gallup reported yesterday that what has happened in South Carolina over the past week-and-a-half has been happening, somewhat less dramatically, elsewhere in the country: Gingrich is catching Romney in national polls. The word Gallup used to describe what’s happening to Romney is “collapsing.”
“It doesn’t matter; Gingrich would never beat Obama, so the nation would be in no danger.” Don’t ever assume that — an infinite variety of things could happen to throw an election from the incumbent to the challenger. And by not voting to stop Gingrich today, you will have helped put him in the White House.
“OK, so maybe the Republican would win the election. In that case it still doesn’t matter, because I don’t like either Mitt or Newt.” This is the one on which you are most wrong.
Newt Gingrich would be a disaster for the United States of America. He would tear the country apart like nothing any of us have seen in our lifetimes. To say nothing of our relations with other countries.
Remember Bush Derangement Syndrome? (How could you forget? Republicans are suffering from a related disease today.) That was nothing. George W. Bush was just this guy, you know? Pretty average. A conservative guy, somewhat given to Texan swagger. That was about it. But Democrats hated him, practically spitting at the mention of his name.
But Gingrich would be all of the things that Democrats imagine Bush was, and on steroids.
None of us, in our lifetimes, have seen a president of the United States who would do what Newt Gingrich would do every single day in office: Try to infuriate and insult half the country, and most of the world. He delights in insulting, demeaning and belittling anyone who disagrees with him. And you know that right from the start, half the country would fit into that category. And that category would grow, as everything he says is magnified by the curvature of the presidential bubble.
All politicians occasionally say things that alienate a lot of people. But with rare exceptions, they don’t do it on purpose. The utter contempt and hostility with which Newt Gingrich regards most of the human race is a palpable thing, and it is intentional. When other politicians say something that alienates or demoralizes the country or inflames other nations, the try to do damage control. Newt Gingrich would instead strut about the stage, immensely pleased with himself.
He would be a complete disaster for this country. You may think that could be said with justice of other politicians you don’t like, but they are nothing to Newt.
Now, as for Mitt Romney — well, I can’t give you a ringing endorsement. About the only thing I can say I like about him is that he is not an ideologue. That’s what the most partisan Republicans — the one’s flocking to Gingrich — don’t like about him. They call him a flip-flopper. That’s because he is a manager, a turn-around artist. His goal would be to run the country well and efficiently, not to enact grand ideological schemes. That’s not enough to make anyone’s heart go pitter-pat, but it’s something. And it beats tearing the country apart.
Read The State‘s endorsement. It gives good reasons why Romney is the best — or at least the least bad — option, now that Huntsman is out of it. Read Cindi Scoppe’s accompanying column, as well. The headline on the endorsement is, “Romney has capacity to build bridges.” I think he does.
But at this point, Mitt Romney is more than the “least-bad” option. He’s the one guy who can stop Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich not only has the power to blow bridges up; he can’t wait to plant the charges.
And that’s why any South Carolinian who cares about the country needs to vote for Mitt Romney today.
Republicans are so busy jumping on the Gingrich bandwagon at the last minute that they aren’t taking time to notice what I pointed out earlier today: Apparently, Democrats are completely fine with having Newt as their opponent in the fall. It’s Mitt Romney they worry about, which is why they continue to engage in the rhetorical equivalent of carpet bombing of the former Massachusetts governor.
Take a moment to read these comments from former SC Gov. Jim Hodges at a press conference in Columbia this afternoon:
Thank you for joining us.
Last night we heard closing arguments from the remaining Republican Presidential candidates before South Carolinians head to the polls.
Sadly, with less than 24 hours to go before voting begins South Carolinians remain left in the dark about Mitt Romney’s real record. Exactly when will we get to see his tax returns? He didn’t say. Exactly how many jobs were created during his time as CEO of Bain Capital? Again more of the same evasive answers we’ve all heard before.
Since Mitt Romney wouldn’t come clean with South Carolinians about his real record as a corporate buyout specialist or about exactly how he made his millions or how much he’s invested in overseas tax havens while paying a lower tax rate than middleclass Americans – I’ll set the record straight today.
Last night Mitt Romney again staked his entire candidacy on his “real world experience” as CEO of Bain Capital, this time claiming to have created 110,000 jobs. He again struggled to provide any proof to back up his claims.
That’s because the truth is Mitt Romney spent more time bankrupting companies, outsourcing jobs and laying off workers than creating jobs-all while making millions for himself and wealthy investors.
If South Carolinians want to know the truth about Romney’s “real world experience,” look no further than his time as Governor of Massachusetts. Ask yourself what the people of Massachusetts got for Mitt Romney’s service. Mitt Romney didn’t say it last night but I’ll say it here. During his time as governor Massachusetts was 47th out of 50th in job creation and manufacturing jobs were loss at twice the national rate.
He railed against government investments to help grow the economy and create jobs but didn’t mention that Bain Capital frequently received subsidies and tax breaks from state governments. Let’s take Staples, a supposed success from Romney’s time at Bain. In touting Staples, Romney never mentions that in 1996, Staples chose to move its distribution center to Maryland in exchange for a $4.2 million subsidy deal – the same type of subsidies Mitt Romney says he’s against.
He again dodged questions on when he would release his tax returns, again defying a standard practice that all previous presidential candidates have followed – including his own father when he ran for President in 1968. When asked if he would follow his father’s example and release multiple years’ returns, Mitt Romney couldn’t shoot straight with South Carolinians – only offering an awkward “maybe.”
What’s he hiding? Why does he feel South Carolinians can only know what’s in his tax returns after they have cast ballots? Here’s what we know without seeing Mitt Romney’s taxes and there is a lot South Carolinians have questions about.
We know that Mitt Romney has invested millions of dollars in offshore tax havens that have cost the federal government about $100 billion every year. We know that despite being a quarter-billionaire, he pays a lower tax rate than most middle class families.
What else will we find out when, and if, he finally releases his returns?
Mitt Romney has given voters plenty of reasons not to trust him while making plenty of far-right promises to the Tea Party. A political stunt that will weigh him down in the general election where we see already he has begun hemorrhaging support from moderate and independent voters.
It’s time for Mitt Romney to level with South Carolinians and finally get the message that he can’t play by a different set of rules when it comes to his record or his taxes.
Now think about this: If you were commenting on the day after Newt Gingrich stole the show at the Charleston debate, and your comments purported to be a reaction to the performance of “the remaining Republican Presidential candidates” in that debate, don’t you think you’d at least mention Gingrich in your remarks? You would. Unless you had reasons not to.
The reason, I believe, is that Democrats are completely unworried about Gingrich being the GOP nominee. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if they welcomed the prospect.
Now it can be told: The source I spoke with a week ago tonight from Key West, who called Mitt Romney a “plastic banana rock ‘n’ roller,” was Bob McAlister — communications consultant, former chief of staff to Gov. Carroll Campbell, occasional op-ed writer par excellence, and former blogger.
I called him this evening because he appears to be part of an interesting trend. Rick Perry threw his support to Gingrich. Huntsman did not, yet several of his key supporters seem to be breaking for Gingrich, too. Bob is one of them.
One element in Bob’s decision is what he sees as Romney’s phoniness. “That Ken and Barbie exterior.” Which means roughly the same thing as the plastic banana description (which, although I thought he’d made it up himself, Bob acknowledges having lifted from Rush Limbaugh).
So, I asked, what decided him in favor of Gingrich?
“The debates made up my mind for me.”
“I have never seen a candidate for public office own a debate the way he did the last few.”
Bob views this with an expert eye, having “prepped a lot of candidates” for debates himself over the years. But no one he ever coached performed like this.
He repeated to me the observation he shared when I called him last week, before he had made up his mind — that the relationship between Gingrich and the other candidates on the stage is like that between a professor and his students. He says the former speaker displays “an uncanny knowledge of every issue thrown at him.”
There’s something else operating here, however, beyond professional appreciation. There’s a relish for Newt’s combativeness. Bob liked that “he didn’t take any crap from the liberal media. He threw it right back at them.” He would like to have a president who doesn’t take… grief… from either such domestic adversaries or “our international enemies.”
Realizing how he had juxtaposed the the media and, say, terrorist states, Bob laughed and said, “I’m not necessarily equating the two, by the way.”
But he remains enthusiastic about Gingrich: “He’s tough; he’s resolute; he is absolutely brilliant.”
Now, before my more liberal correspondents here decide that Bob is the sort they would never wish to meet, let me run counter to your expectations and assert that you are wrong. I think if you spent enough time talking with him to gain each others’ trust, you would get along fine. When I first worked with Bob when he was Campbell’s communications director, there was a distinct wariness on his part. But somehow I earned his trust, and I found him to be a guy who was straight with me, and we got on fine. We’ve had occasion to work together on community projects since those days — such as the local board of Habitat for Humanity — and have become friends.
Those who appreciate this blog have reason to thank him. When I was laid off from the paper, Bob took me to lunch. When I told him I’d bought this domain from GoDaddy, he volunteered to host me for a year. I’m quite grateful for that.
And while I was appalled at some of the very elements in last night’s debate that pleased Bob, I can see his way of looking at it. Leading off the debate — a debate, after all, for president of the United States, an office that actually deals with some pretty significant public policy issues — with that question was obnoxious, and unnecessary. Bob thought of the questioner, and the school of thought he represents, as deserving a comeuppance. Newt delivered. I don’t disagree. The difference is that in my view, Gingrich’s rebuke was entirely over the top, and revelatory of a temperament that is entirely inappropriate in one who would hold that office. And I found the self-serving nature of his whipping up the crowd’s resentment toward news media as, quite frankly, contemptible.
So we’re not going to agree there. But we can agree on something else, something that seems just as important to Bob as Gingrich’s poise, breadth of knowledge and combativeness: the fact that he doesn’t come across as a phony.
I see that as an element in why different people like Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. All have a naturalness, a humanity (often with all the weakness that humanity implies) that Romney fails to project.
Bob’s gotten to know Gingrich recently, and “from everything I can see, he’s the real deal.” And I think he’s right. I don’t think Newt Gingrich would exert an iota of energy in trying to pretend to be something he is not. Newt is too pleased with who he is to make the effort. But that’s the way I see him, which is not quite the same as my friend Bob McAlister does.
The only local campaign event in these parts today so far was held at Hudson’s Smokehouse out toward Lexington. It was for Rick Santorum, and it bore all the earmarks, mainly a crowd liberally (is it OK if I use that word?) sprinkled with small children, strollers, a grandma or grandpa here and there, with everyone looking like they’d probably brought a covered dish.
The place was packed — almost as tightly as when I went to hear Mike Huckabee there four years ago. But this crowd was calmer, less electric.
Earlier, I had received a memo from a Santorum campaign worker that stood in contrast to the slick, professional media releases I get from the other campaigns:
His message was also homey, being based in a bedtime story — specifically, Goldilocks and the three bears. It was a tale of three candidates:
It’s not clear who Ron Paul is in this fable. Maybe Goldilocks, I don’t know.
I came away from the event convinced of something I had been halfway thinking ever since I saw him the middle of last week. Of the remaining candidates in tomorrow’s primary, he is the one I like the best, as a person. I didn’t expect to. I remembered him as that unrelenting culture warrior who got crushed by Bob Casey in his own state. And I don’t set much store by culture warriors, even when I agree with them. Not as people to lead our federal government. (You know how Mike Huckabee describes himself as a conservative who, unlike others, isn’t mad at anybody over it? I had assumed Santorum was the other kind.)
Which is not the same as saying I’m going to vote for him, by the way. More about that later.
Despite historic animosity toward the press in our state, I was still amazed that the audience in Charleston last night was simple enough to swallow Newt Gingrich’s claim that the ex-wife story was brought up by the media because, being the wicked liberals they are, they’re trying to hurt him because they want President Obama to be re-elected.
That was simple-minded on several levels. But let’s just consider one of them. Note my last post, which demonstrates conclusively that the Democratic Party has been and continues to devote all of its firepower attacking Mitt Romney, not Newt Gingrich. So if the media are in cahoots with the Dems, they must not have gotten the memo.
Here’s a modest proposal (meaning it the way Swift did, not the way Ron Paul does): Perhaps there is a deep, dark media plot regarding Gingrich. But if there is, there is only one credible motivation: The media would love, would absolutely adore, covering a campaign between Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama. Whereas they want to bang their hard little heads against a wall at the thought of months more of covering the astronomically boring Mitt Romney.
So it is that the media are working in cahoots with the Democratic Party and Gingrich himself (who would seem to a casual observer to have stolen the Democrats’ playbook on these issues) in covering the heck out of the “vulture capitalist” angle and Mitt’s invisible tax returns.
Under this supposition, rather than being a plot to deny him the nomination, that ex-wife story was just a case of one of the networks jumping the gun. The prospect of reporting on Newt’s history, not to mention all the wonderfully careless, explosive, politically suicidal things he will say several times a week on the trail, has the media hugging themselves in delightful anticipation.
But some idiot at ABC just couldn’t wait. The media have never been strong on delaying gratification.
In the past week alone, I have received 35 email releases from Democratic Party sources — the Obama re-election campaign, the DCCC, the state party — attacking Mitt Romney with everything the Dems can think of to throw at him. There have been videos, and ICYMI links to media stories, and — this is the biggest category — releases about press conferences being held by prominent Democrats to attack Romney. Some sample headlines from the releases:
And so forth and so on.
At the outset of all that, I received a release telling me it was coming:
DEMOCRATIC COUNTER-PROGRAMMING. Democrats plan what they are calling a “full-time presence” in the Palmetto State this week, starting today. Democratic Governors Association Chairman Martin O’Malley and Democratic National Committee Communications Director Brad Woodhouse will react to the GOP/FOX News Debate on Monday in Myrtle Beach with a 2:00 PM press conference at the Breakers, one on one interviews with national cable outlets and local and national newspapers before and after the debate. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Vice Chair and Minneapolis Mayor RT Rybak and DNC Executive Director Patrick Gaspard will all be in the state later in the week to offer their perspective on the GOP race.The DNC says it will be “using a new visual to tell the story of Mitt Romney as the incredible shrinking job creator.” View it here: http://bit.ly/x9nvFZ
That sort of made it sound like the Dems would be commenting on the whole GOP field. But it’s been pretty much all Mitt, all the time.
Occasionally, there’s a Democratic Party release about something else — maybe two or three in the whole week. But of those, only one is even indirectly about Newt Gingrich: A release from Dick Harpootlian demanding that Attorney General Alan Wilson investigate Lt. Gov. Ken Ard for writing an endorsement of Gingrich on official stationery (except that Dick spelled it “stationary”) “with his seal attached.”
And I think you can fairly say that that one was about Ard, not about Gingrich. There has not been a single Democratic press release, that I’ve seen, that directly attacks Gingrich the way all of those others attack Romney.
The unrelenting hammering on Romney has continued yesterday and today, even as it has become increasingly clear that Newt Gingrich has pulled ahead of him, and has the momentum going into Saturday.
A week ago, or a little earlier, this campaign made all the sense in the world. It seemed obvious that, having won in Iowa (as was then thought) and New Hampshire and comfortably leading in the polls in South Carolina, Mitt Romney was definitely going to be the guy that Barack Obama would face in the fall.
But the situation is very different today.
Now… I can think of four possible explanations for Democrats continuing to pursue this course:
What do you think it is?
This morning I was on Tom Finneran’s Boston radio show for the second time this week (Tom is the former speaker of the Massachusetts House; I met him in Key West last week), and was asked what the nation should make of the roar of approval that Newt Gingrich got last night when he blamed the media for bringing to light his second ex-wife’s allegations.
I explained that historically, the media got off light on that one. Playing to resentment to those “nattering nabobs of negativism” in the media is of course an old Republican pasttime across the country. But in South Carolina, it can get you everywhere.
Getting away with asking for an open marriage is nothing. This is a ploy that will enable you to get away with murder.
Literally.
So I regaled the Boston audience with the tale of N.G. Gonzales and James H. Tillman. Most of you know the story, but for those who don’t…
N.G. and his brother founded The State in 1891 for a specific purpose: to oppose the Ben Tillman machine. N.G. wrote the editorials, which lambasted the Tillmanites with a vehemence that would shock most newspaper readers in my lifetime, but which was par for the course in those days.
One of the targets of editorial vitriol was James H. Tillman, Ben’s nephew. James was the lieutenant governor, and aspired to be governor. N.G. wasn’t having it, and criticized him heavily during the 1902 campaign. Tillman lost. Not long after that, on January 15, 1903, N.G. was walking home for lunch. The newspaper office then was on Main St., and Gonzales had to turn the corner of Main and Gervais to get home. As he approached the corner, Tillman headed his way, coming from the Senate side of the State House with a couple of senators.
Tillman went straight up to Gonzales, drew a gun, and shot him in cold blood. He did this in the presence of many witnesses, including a policeman.
As N.G. fell, he cried, “Shoot again, you coward!” As one who inherited his mission of writing editorials for The State, I’ve always been proud of him for that.
He died four days later.
Tillman was arrested and charged with the murder, of course, but the defense obtained a change of venue to the friendlier Lexington County. A strategy of self-defense was attempted, but didn’t seem to be getting anywhere. Then, the defense entered N.G.’s editorials into evidence.
The jury acquitted Tillman. The ostensible reason was self-defense, but since there was nothing to support that — Gonzales was unarmed and not threatening Tillman in any way — it has always been assumed that the jury let him off because the son-of-a-bitch editor had it comin’.
A postscript:
Early in 2003, a number of events were held to mark the centennial of Gonzales’ murder. At one point, Solicitor Donnie Myers, an avid student of the case, was asked to present his popular lecture on the subject to employees of The State. I introduced him, and stood to the side as he enthusiastically launched into it.
At the critical point in the narrative, channeling Tillman, Donnie reached dramatically into his briefcase and, pulling out a .45 automatic pistol, brandished it menacingly in my direction. Me being the editor.
I grinned at him, enjoying his act (I had seen it before). But our then-publisher, Ann Caulkins, who admitted to a greater-than-usual fear of firearms of all sorts, practically gasped aloud. She later admitted that for a split second there, she actually feared the solicitor was going to shoot me.
If that had happened, it wouldn’t have been the first time.
OK, I pretty much said my intro in the headline. Here’s an excerpt from the story:
Former S.C. First Lady Jenny Sanford is not a Newt Gingrich fan…
(Mrs.) Sanford said voters need to consider at Gingrich’s personal history that includes three marriages with his last one ending after he was having an affair with his current wife, Callista. Gingrich’s poll numbers have spiked after a strong showing in Monday’s debate in Myrtle Beach.
“It does call into question his character on a personal side,” (Mrs.) Sanford said. “As a voter, I encourage people to look at both sides, the personal side, and if you’re going to overcome somebody’s moral failings or infidelities, you also have to see where they fit ideologically, and how much their rhetoric meets their reality and in my mind, Gingrich falls short on both fronts. So he wouldn’t get my vote.”
She said a candidates personal history has an impact on the job they can do in office.
“I think it comes down to the simple question of character,” she said.
And that’s something she knows about. Hear her.
I think that if people were waiting to make up their minds tonight, Newt just won the primary.
What do y’all think?
And why do you think Romney can’t just go ahead and release his stupid tax returns? All his responses on that are so lame.
Mind you, I don’t think Gingrich should win this. It’s just looking more like he might…
The Perry team is apparently going along with him in backing Newt Gingrich now. The Gingrich campaign is touting this new endorsement, from SC House Speaker Bobby Harrell. Harrell said:
“Cathy and I make these decisions together. We believe Newt Gingrich is the right choice for South Carolina, and for the United States. His commitment to the conservative principles of lower taxes, smaller government, and economic development are key to restoring America to greatness. Speaker Gingrich is the only candidate with proven leadership experience, which is what we need to effect real change in Washington.”
And the SC Democrats were the ones who brought it to my attention that Katon Dawson was now pressuring Mitt Romney — in a sort of passive-aggressive manner:
At Perry’s announcement here, former South Carolina GOP Chair Katon Dawson, who had endorsed Perry, also called on Romney to “do the right thing” and make his tax returns public:
KEYES: He’s been pretty vocal about calling on Mitt Romney to release his tax returns.
DAWSON: All us politicians have to do it and eventually you do. It’s either pay me now or pay me later. That’s what’s going to happen.
KEYES: So you think Romney is going to have to release them?
DAWSON: You’re not going to run a race without having to do it. It’s going to be a continued question mark. I’m sure that Governor Romney will do the right thing.
Of course, the Democrats have been all over Romney in recent weeks, convinced he will be the nominee. If Newt pulls off an upset, he can expect to have a lot of attention lavished on him.
I think history was made today. In my memory, anyway, The State has never had occasion to endorse a second choice, in a second editorial, before the actual vote. That’s because an endorsed candidate has never dropped out between the endorsement and the vote.
(We had one or two occasions over the years when a state primary candidate didn’t make it into a runoff, but that was very rare, and in any case is entirely different, since that happened after a public vote.)
Fortunately for The State, the second editorial was easier to arrive at, since the editors had already clearly said in their Jon Huntsman endorsement that Mitt Romney was their second choice — in fact, the only other choice to be seriously considered.
And so it was that the paper endorsed Gov. Romney today. Here’s the critical point in the piece:
But we take comfort in the fact that Mr. Romney always has been less interested in philosophy than in problem-solving. As The Washington Post summarized the views of his friends: “obeisance to ideology would impose a rigidity that would inhibit Romney’s real talent, which is forging new ways to fix old problems.”
In other words, the thing that makes the most extreme Republicans despise him is the one characteristic the editorial board values most.
The endorsement went on to express the hope that Romney would start acting more like that on the campaign trail sooner, rather than waiting for the fall campaign. The paper’s main beef with him, and the reason it preferred Huntsman, was his penchant for stooping to conquer and pandering to ideology.
My favorite part of the endorsement, though, wasn’t the endorsement. It was Cindi’s accompanying column. In it, she did something I’ve done a lot over the years — provide insight into how endorsements are arrived at. While questions about some burning issues of the day are asked, they are only sometimes the core of the process. The really critical questions tend to be the ones meant to discern how the candidate understands the job, and would approach decision-making. You can pick up on that in the column.
But here’s my favorite passage:
Finally, I got this: “It’s not a change, but there are positions I have that are not popular with the conservative base in our party. The most obvious is the health-care plan in Massachusetts. Many advisors told me I needed to abandon my conviction that it was the right thing … and that I should say it was a mistake. … Like you, I’m willing to change my mind if presented with facts that show I’m wrong, but with regard to the health-care plan, I’m steadfast.”
I’d like to hear him stand fast behind what he did for healthcare a bit more boldly. To me, it’s his main relevant accomplishment. His work at Bain, and salvaging a sporting event, seem far less relevant to me.
Too bad that the portion of the electorate that he’s trying hardest to appeal to hates Obamacare too much. It prevents him from putting his best foot forward.
Man-oh-man — has a woman scorned EVER had an opportunity like this?
Just as he’s picking up the Big Mo, she torpedoes him by the simple expedient of telling what she knows about what he’s really like.
And there’s no defense against that, if you’re Newt Gingrich. I mean, when it comes to temperament and character, how many strikes does this guy already have against him? And how many does he get?
OK, never mind that stuff about Gingrich’s big mo.
The ex-wife has dropped the big one:
Marianne Gingrich, Newt’s ex-wife, says he wanted ‘open marriage’
Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich in 1999 asked his second wife for an “open marriage” or a divorce at the same time he was giving speeches around the country on family and religious values, his former wife, Marianne, told The Washington Post on Thursday.
Marianne Gingrich said she first heard from the former speaker about the divorce request as she was waiting in the home of her mother on May 11, 1999, her mother’s 84th birthday. Over the phone, as Marianne was having dinner with her mother, Gingrich said, “I want a divorce.”
Shocked, Marianne replied: “Is there anybody else?” she recalled. “He was quiet. Within two seconds, when he didn’t immediately answer, I knew.”
The next day, Gingrich gave a speech titled “The Demise of American Culture” to the Republican Women Leaders Forum in Erie, Pa., extolling the virtues of the founding fathers and criticizing liberal politicians for supporting tax increases, saying that they hurt families and children….
I don’t care how many endorsements he gets. South Carolina’s not going with this guy. But hey, the way things are swinging back and forth, check with me again in five minutes.
It shouldn’t be a big deal — we all know that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum basically tied in Iowa.
But now we know that technically, Santorum won.
Why is this meaningful? Because it changes the narrative.
Before, Romney was the guy who’d won both Iowa and New Hampshire, and was inevitable in South Carolina.
Now, he’s the guy who only won in the state next to his home state (and one dominated by Boston media), and looks like he’s being overtaken by Gingrich in South Carolina.
Makes him look like a whole other guy, doesn’t it?
Whoa. Wow. Everything’s shifting on us. Boy, am I glad I started hedging my predictions in recent media interviews. (And I wish I’d hedged them even more during an interview with a Virginia radio station at 7:30 this morning.)
Newt Gingrich has major mo in South Carolina, just hours away from a debate that may be the highest-stakes encounter we’ve seen here in many a year.
This morning’s developments:
OK, that last one’s weak, but in light of the first two — wow. This is happening fast.
He’s turning us into a Newt! The question is, will we get better?
Will the Gingrich mo subside sufficiently for South Carolinians to do what they’ve always done since 1980 — settle down and go with the eventual nominee? Because even if history is made and South Carolina goes with an insurgent, Romney still seems almost certain to be that nominee. Gingrich creating some last minute excitement with a touchdown in SC doesn’t mean that over the coming weeks and months, when they sober up, Republicans won’t go, “Whoa! Wait a second! This is Newt Gingrich we’re talking here…”
Here’s an ad the Gingrich campaign unleashed after midnight. The release that went with it:
Atlanta, GA – The polls in South Carolina are tightening and Mitt Romney’s attacks against Newt Gingrich are getting more desperate and more dishonest.
We’ve seen this play out before. The last time Mitt Romney ran for president, he ran equally dishonest and desperate attacks against John McCain and Mike Huckabee when he fell behind in the polls.
To remind voters of Mitt Romney’s history of launching desperate and dishonest attacks against his rivals, Newt 2012 released a new web ad, “Desperate.”
The ad features clips of John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson remarking on Mitt Romney’s desperate attacks against them as well as his multiple positions on multiple issues.
Watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHapuEmt2xw
And turn about being fair play, below is an ad that Romney put out yesterday.
Wait! I forget — which one’s desperate, and which one’s unreliable?
When Cindi Scoppe joined the editorial board in 1997, I discovered that all of a sudden I didn’t have to write a lot of the state politics editorials that I would have written in the past — because, after the briefest of conversations, she wrote them they way I would have. This freed me up for important stuff — like blogging.
That did not change when I left the paper. I don’t have to write yet another piece urging every thoughtful, conscientious South Carolinian to vote in Saturday’s primary, because she’s already done it, using more or less the very words I would have used. Excerpts:
If you care who our next president is, vote Saturday
Saturday’s Republican presidential primary is our speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace moment.Sure, we get to vote in November. But, at the risk of committing civic heresy, how you and I vote then isn’t going to matter. Yes, yes, everyone who’s paying attention and cares about our republic needs to vote, simply because it’s our duty to do so. But we all know that the Republican candidate is going to carry our state. And all of our Electoral College votes are going to him, whether he wins by a landslide or just eight votes.
So if our vote in November isn’t going to make any difference, and the Democratic nominee already has been chosen by default, then our only opportunity to participate in the election of the next president is to vote on Saturday.
This idea makes some partisans nervous. Indignant, even.
Some Upstate Republicans are so opposed to our open primaries that they sued their state in federal court, arguing that South Carolina is violating their right to freedom of assembly by allowing people who won’t take a blood oath to the party to sully their primary; they worry that independents will stymie their efforts to wrest party control from the reasonable officials they dismiss as Republicans in name only…
Such paranoia is not merely a Republican affliction. In 2004 the state Democratic Party announced it would require voters to sign a loyalty oath to vote in its presidential primary, but wisely backed down before primary day. The only reason we won’t hear from paranoid Democrats this year is that they don’t have a presidential primary to keep pure…
(T)he candidates who do better in open primaries tend to be the ones who can appeal to the sensible center of our nation — that is, the ones the partisans would be better off nominating if they want to win the general election. But the partisans are right about one thing: People who look at the world the way they do shouldn’t vote in the other party’s primary…
And she is. She is having a high old time stumping for Mitt Romney. That’s because there are national news TV cameras on him all the time. And when she’s on the podium with him, guess what — she’s on national TV, too! Which is the end-all and be-all for her.
So let’s be happy for her.
Of course, it’s not doing Mitt Romney a bit of good. I wonder if he knows that? I wonder if he’s thinking, Here I am, stuck on the stage with her again, and she’s introducing me and introducing me and introducing me, and how much longer do I have to keep this phony grin on my face, the one I’ve patented, the one in which my teeth are smiling but my eyes look like I’m frightened?
Or, is he thinking, She’s the governor! Of this critical state! Her standing up with me here is good, right? Right!
Well, he doesn’t have to trust his gut any more, because the numbers are in:
The poll found 89 percent of likely primary voters knew Haley had endorsed Romney. Of those who did know of Haley’s endorsement, the overwhelming majority — 71 percent — said it made no difference in who they support. Of the rest, 21 percent said Haley’s endorsement made them less likely to vote for Romney; only 8 percent said it made them more likely to vote for the former Massachusetts governor…
So what’re you gonna do, Mitt? You’re kinda stuck, huh?
Here’s what he’s gonna do: Keep grinning that ungrin or his, and keep telling himself he’s far enough ahead in the polls that it doesn’t matter.
It always stumps me when libertarians say things like this:
SPARTANBURG — Madison Evans cupped her cell phone with her sparkly blue fingernails and shot photos of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas during a campaign stop here Tuesday.
“It’s the first time I’ve seen him, and it’s awesome,” said Evans, a 20-year-old Greenville waitress, subtly bouncing on her tiptoes with excitement.
“We young people are awake,” said Evans, who posts articles about the long-shot Republican presidential candidate on Facebook daily. “We are all a big family when it comes to Paul. He’s talking about peace. He’s talking about giving us back our rights that have been stripped from us.”
Let’s run that last bit again:
He’s talking about giving us back our rights that have been stripped from us.
Say what? I have no idea what she’s talking about. What rights? What happened? Who’s bothering you now, dear?
This is why I’m not a libertarian. These things that bother them so much are not even visible to me. I don’t feel harried, picked on, bullied. Government in no way threatens me. I marvel at these people (the Paulistas) who think it threatens THEM. People who don’t get it that they are the government, who instead see as something OUT THERE menacing them.
I ask again, what rights that have been stripped from you? What is that you used to have, and don’t have now? To me, that sort of statement demands explication, but to Paulistas, it’s just an article of faith. They don’t have to explain, because they all FEEL it. They are put-upon, picked on, by the big, bad “they” out there.
And I don’t know what the stimulus is that provokes that response.
