Mitt Romney’s Bill White strategy
A single word can turn a campaign in the wrong direction. In the case of Rick Perry, of course, that word was “oops.” In the case of Mitt Romney, the word was “maybe”: Romney’s answer to the question of whether he would release his tax returns. It came across as arrogant and condescending. Whether it turned the tide in the South Carolina primary is impossible to say, but it definitely diminished Romney. Most people who go into electoral politics do so knowing that they will likely be called upon to release their tax returns. It is expected. Romney ducked and dodged the question, saying that he might release them in April. “Maybe” was as close as he came.
Romney’s inconsistent statements raised the issue of why he wouldn’t release them and whether there was something embarrassing that he didn’t want anyone to know about. This is exactly what happened to Bill White. He wouldn’t release his returns, and the Perry campaign used it as an excuse to keep from debating White, and to impugn White’s ethics. Romney’s “Maybe” was his Bill White moment. He let the issue fester, when he should have known that he was going to have to release the returns in the end. Now he finds himself in a dogfight with Gingrich, trailing in the polls, with no assurance that he can win in Florida. Another self-inflicted wound in a race that has abounded with them.
Tagged: bill white, mitt romney
AreYouKiddingMe says:
Romney should have put this back in Newt’s face by saying this: “I am a businessman. We are in business to MAKE MONEY and I am not going to apologize to anybody for my success. In order to run a successful business you sometimes have to fire people through downsizing and/or incompetence. Newt wouldn’t know this,because he has been on the government dole his entire life.” That would have been end of story… Maybe someone can send this to Mitt and he can use it in tonight’s debate.
Reply »
Willie James Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 2:00 pm
I like that. Mitt needs to take charge. This country does not need a disgraced idealogue with such terrible ethics as the GOP nominee,though I’m sure the Democrats would like it. Has this country forgotten who Newt is?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Yes, they have forgotten. And is no one going to point out of the two daughters defending Newt against wife #2, that one of them is Calista’s age and one is three years YOUNGER? I am ashamed of social conservatives – and I am one. Ethics matter just as much for Newt as they did for Bill Clinton. This is going to come back to bite Republicans in the ass big time if Romney doesn’t step up to the plate. I am sick of values Republicans who are full of talk but whose lives contradict everything they preach. And while I am on this rant, did not the tired old white guy break his contract with America?
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Dems lecturing on ethics, now thats funny.
Anonymous Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Not a Dem, John, I am one of you – apparently, between the two of us, the consistent one.
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Yes I could tell by your name.
Rick Perry Report Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
all about those evangelicals: http://rickperryreport.com/search/node/evangelicals
anita Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Democrats are wetting themselves over Gingrich. Newt has a 26% approval rate with the American electorate. By comparison, Obama has a 46% approval rate.
Democrats have typically been the party that devolves into factional battles, undermining our eventual nominee. It’s beautiful to watch the Republicans flog each other.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Its what happens during a campaign so the voter can make a choice. The difference is republicans argue/discuss/debate issues while democrats call each other racists, as demonstrated in 2008.
Robert Morrow Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Newt Gingrich is the suicide bomber of the Republican party.
"Red Dirt & Sand," blog. Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 10:28 am
The Republicans have given the American people a rich guy that doesn’t connect with people, a serial cheater and multiple marriage guy with ethics problems, Mr. sweater vest who doesn’t have a chance, and Paul who although consistent will not get the nomination or win against Obama.
Reminder Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 7:48 pm
He pretty much said that after “maybe” and between his other waffling.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 7:50 pm
youre right jbb, because the GOP has already agreed that theyre racists, so they move on to other issues.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 6:17 am
Dems have agreed they’re pedophiles and racists, why can’t a dem discuss issues?
Robert Morrow Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Here is a great web site on the skeletons in Newt Gingrich’s closet: http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
we attempt it daily here with you JBB, only to be shown time and again how futile it is.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 10:29 am
do you even know an issue?
Jed Reply:
January 27th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
some of my best friends are issues.
Rick Perry Report says:
Finally, something you cannot blame on Rick Perry. No wait. Never mind. Romney’s using Bill White’s strategy, which by association, is Rick Perry’s fault. I get it!
Reply »
Willie James says:
Them main thing to blame on Rick Perry is Rick Perry.
Reply »
anita Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 2:23 pm
C’mon — Rick Perry was his own personal circular firing squad. He self-imploded. He performed like an arrogant high school QB who talks trash all week, but then can’t handle the snap on Friday night — but over and over and over again. Game over.
Reply »
anita says:
I agree, to an extent.
Perry’s “oops” moment was not so much the word, but it became the symbol of what was a theme, a series of epic blunders that had come to define him in such a negative manner.
Romney’s “maybe” response was a word that showed a lack of comprehension of an issue that was a certainty to come up. It was out of character for his campaign, which had performed fairly well up to that point.
Reply »
Concerned Texan says:
If Romney wants to be a contender then step up and play with guts and fire. I understand if he wants to present himself as a calm in control President. Do that with Obama later. Not this crazy group.
I am grateful Perry messed up himself and dropped. We could be down to 4 with him as one. Noooooo
Reply »
Alan says:
What really confuses me is the fact that in the SC exit polls, Newt won a majority of voters who said electability and being able to defeat Obama was their chief concern.
Reply »
Dave Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 3:12 pm
As light shed on Romney’s ‘job creator’ schtick shows that it has large chunks of ‘job destructor’ in its stool, Mitt’s electability has been seriously damaged. Add in a conservative base that will be less than enthusiastic about working towards his election, and you start to see where Newt seems like the great white hope.
Reply »
Alan Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 6:03 pm
If Newt Gingrich is the GOP nominee, the Democrats ought to have a video tribute to him at every DNC for the rest of eternity, because he will destroy his party’s chances of winning the White House not just this year, but possibly in 2016 as well via collateral damage.
Can you imagine the spectacle of the first black American president being berated in a nationally-televised debate by a fat, old white man from the Deep South calling him a “food stamp president” and a host of other invective? The dog whistles would be deafening, and the GOP would devolve into the Angry White Men’s Party, consigned to a rump minority in the Deep South and in working-class exurbs around most major inland cities.
Reply »
Dave Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Shhhhh…
Robert Morrow Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 8:05 pm
“angry, fat old white man” is exactly what the Republican party has become. They don’t actually want someone to *beat* Obama, they just want someone to talk smack about Obama.
Newt Gingrich is the Ebola virus of the GOP; nominate him and the Republican party will die a bloody death oozing fluids from every orifice in its body.
Newt is still not gonna beat Romney in the end. Gingrich will win in Florida but he will run into problems everywhere outside the South.
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 6:19 am
how funny I’ve never met a dem who wasn’t angry.
Some like Michelle Obama have said they’ve never been proud of America.
Anonymous Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 7:52 am
Democrats have been in your mommy’s basement??
Blue Dogs Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Morrow, Obama will decimate Gingrich very easily by a margin of 64-34 in November IF the former House Speaker is the GOP nominee.
Frayed Knot says:
Concerning Newts daughters defense. In Texas “we don’t send women to do our fighting”.
Reply »
Willie James Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Funny, and true. Newt has no defense for being Newt.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 4:26 pm
democrats have been hiding behind Hillary’s skirts for years.
Reply »
ghostofann Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Still butt-sore because of Goodhair’s humiliating defeat, JBB?
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 6:20 am
what would you know about being buttsore? Is that a dem trait?
Brown Bess says:
When the chickens come home to roost, nobody wants to eat them.
Reply »
Carl says:
Mitt Romney for president?
Reply »
over seas tax haven? says:
So does Romney have money in the bank in the Cayman Islands? What is the deal with the ABC news story on that issue? Are we to believe he declares those accounts on his tax returns?
Reply »
Whoa Nellie! says:
Oh my. It’s so very, very easy for me to say, “A plague on BOTH their houses.” I might as well say it.
Reply »
Eye of Newt says:
GOP voters had better be very careful who ends up the party’s nominee.
Beating Obama in November will NOT be a piece of cake.
While Romney is certainly not perfect, putting up someone like Newt could all but guarantee four more years of Obama–even more so if Ron Paul ends up running as a third General Election candidate.
Can this nation stand four more years of Obama?
Reply »
Reminder Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Can the country stand four years of “any of the above”?
Reply »
ghostofann Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 8:32 pm
Is there an alternative? (Ron Paul doesn’t count)
Reply »
Willie James Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 9:27 am
Can this nation stand 4 years of Newt Gingrich? Are we so gullible? Are we fools? Maybe….but I’d take 20 more years of Obama over 30 seconds of Newt.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 10:57 am
With regards to the 2012 election:
Eye of Newt: Gingrich is too divisive and will almost certainly alienate Indys, Moderates, Latinos, Asians, African-American and guarantee Obama’s re-election in a landslide closer to 1964 if the GOP nominates Gingrich.
However, I still see Romney eventually becoming the GOP nominee when all is said and done.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Unless we’re going to talk about the irony of having previously elected someone with the middle name “Hussein” after being at “war” with “Hussein” and the fact that the Teapublicans are about to elect a FREDDIE MAC lobbyist, an entity that was a major actor in the economic crisis, I am done with this conversation. In fact, I’m done.
Let’s talk about state politics, for the love of Christ, Burka.
Reply »
Julie says:
Romney has already broken the promise he made to voters during a nationally televised debate in South Carolina.
He said he’d release income tax returns for several years: “I’ll release multiple years, I don’t know how many years,” Romney said. “But I’ll be happy to do that.
So what will he really do?
He now says he’ll release a tax return for just one year, 2010, and release a tax estimate for this year.
So what happened to his pledge to release tax returns for several years?
He lied to us.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 6:22 am
He released 2010 and his estimates for 2011, pay attention.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 7:48 am
Read what she said in her post. Pay attention
Reply »
Julie Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 11:33 am
Try reading before you criticize, JBB.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 6:49 am
I did he released multi tax returns pay attn.
Reply »
Julie Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 10:03 am
Romney released one tax return for 2010 and an estimate for his 2011 taxes. He provided no tax return for 2011, just the estimate, which IS NOT A TAX RETURN.
You are the one who needs to pay attention to the facts, which you instead completely ignore.
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 10:31 am
Julie he hasn’t filed for 2011, so he can only release the estimate. I know this is hard to grasp.
Julie Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 11:28 am
You are the one who is having difficulty grasping things, since you say in one comment that Romney has released multiple returns and then in a followup comment, you concede he has released just one tax return.
My point is that he’s broken his promise to release actual tax returns for several years.
Anonymous says:
Who cares.
Reply »
"Red Dirt & Sand," blog. says:
Everyone should care and vote Democratic Independent, Libertarian, Republican, or how ever they choose.
Reply »
rw says:
The debates have profoundly changed the nominating process. Organization is not as important as your ability to make your case on TV. Burka should have also given some credit to Gingrich – who is by far the best debater. The tax returns aren’t the only reason Romney is now in trouble.
Perry was right. South Carolina was available for the taking. Republicans have been looking for an alternative to Romney all along. Iowa and New Hampshire should be ignored. South Carolina is much more important in determining the Republican nominee.
Thank God. We now have a race.
Reply »
rw says:
Then again maybe the Republican nominee is not yet in the race….
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/calling-mitch-daniels/
Reply »
"Red Dirt & Sand," blog. says:
I would enjoy a brokered convention however that is just wanting the race to continue. Who will lead the GOP? I don’t think anyone knows yet.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
To the extent Newt threatens the Establishment, it’s because of his electability-or lack thereof. The GOP’s mandarins see Gingrich’s nomination as a sure way to blow their chance of deposing Barack Obama.
** They see Gingrich as the political equivalent of a Fukushima nuclear plant worker, with polls showing him to be lethally irradiated by his negative approval ratings.**
Whereas Mitt Romney is running about even with Barack Obama in head-to-head polling, Newt loses by double-digit margins. Sure, those numbers could change if Gingrich beats Romney and wins the nomination, with all the accolades it entails. On the other hand, his grandiosity syndrome may kick in, as it has before, and render him a laughing stock. Hence the many Establishment Republicans now saying things like, ‘Newt means losing 45 states.’”
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/01/23/why_the_gop_establishment_fears_gingrich.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalWire+%28Political+Wire%29
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks says:
If you want to know who not to vote for watch the democrat State of the Union tonight.
Are you better off than you were 3 years ago?
Reply »
W. B. Travis Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 9:30 am
Probably. We are not having our kids die in Iraq, our taxes are lower and the Bush Economy is being repaired. The stimulus worked and it recipients are paying back the money. We have more respect around the globe. The mistakes of the Bush/Cheney years are being corrected. I’ve lost no freedons, still have my guns. Yeah, were better off.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 9:57 am
lemme see, dems thinks having their kids in the streets of LA, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit is honorable but defending the US isn’t?
I know I know “its Boosh’s fault”
useful idiots for Obama mantra.
Reply »
Col. Mike Kirby Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 11:00 am
Please answer the following question. If an arsonist had set the Bastrop fire, at what point would he no longer be responsible for the damage? After the fire burned for a day, a week, a month, 2 months? At what point is he no longer liable for the damage caused by the fire he started??? I’d love to know your answer to that question. Also, you realize that all of Boosh’s disastrous policies didn’t end on January 20th, 2009.
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 10:33 am
you’re comparing fighting a war to a fire? Seriously?
Col. Mike Kirby Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 10:39 am
have mommy read and explain my post to you. your reading comprhension problems are getting much worse. try laying off the cheesy poofs and see if that helps.
Tom says:
If Mittens gets elected, can he govern from prison? After all, the Supreme Court has ruled a corporation is a person, and Romney has killed a number of corporations, so I’m expecting him to be brought up on murder charges by the strict law-and-order right wingers.
Reply »
anita Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 9:33 am
True. And when is the moment of conception for a corporation? If a group discusses forming a corporation, but then chooses another business form, are they guilty of infanticide? Is the corporate lawyer that was brought in an abortionist? Shouldn’t the potential corporate partners have to see the corporate documents, be counseled by their attorneys, prior to aborting the corporation?
Who knew Mitt was hell-bent in dedication to corporate homicide, and likely infanticide, a corporate abortionist. Doesn’t he know he’ll come down with breast cancer from having so many corporate abortions?
Reply »
W. B. Travis Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 8:59 am
Interesting way to put it Col. Kirby. Very good!
Reply »
retrocon Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 11:09 am
Col. Kirby doesn’t quite provide the appropriate analogy.
Say some arsonist has started a fire, then Barry shows up with his team claiming to know how to put the fire out. After three years, the fire still rages. Then Willard shows up with an alternative plan and experience in fighting fires.
Do we renew Barry’s contract? We’re not talking about whose fault it is, we’re talking about who’s competent in getting the fire out.
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
shhhhhh….
Col. Mike Kirby Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
nice try. but don’t forget to include that Barry has to deal with ankle biters like jbb and the republicans who are cutting his hoses, turning off the water and oh yes, starting more fires. And then, like you, they point and say: See, he’s doing a bad job.
Anonymous says:
Thanks for asking, JBB. The answer is a resounding “yes.” A little homework on your part would show that the Bush term ended with 12 consecutive months of job losses, over 800,000 in December 2008 alone. Today, we have logged 22 consecutive months of job gains. With any cooperation on your part, I believe the recovery would have been stronger and faster.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 9:58 am
glug….glug….glug watching the koolaide drinker.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Yes. And you Teapublicans should come up with a fresher rhetorical question than the “are you better off..” song and dance. We were on the brink of a world-wide depression during a Republican administration.
Reply »
ghostofann Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 10:20 am
Don’t waste your time. Poor JBB is allergic to facts.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 10:34 am
watching the koolaide drinker tapdance….
Reply »
Blue Dogs says:
Burka, if Romney gets the GOP nomination, who do you see him picking as VP especially helping in critical swing states:
A. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R)
B. US Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL): although he continues to “deny” it.
C. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (R)
Or maybe the wild-card VP pick could be former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R): if Papi Bush has his way.
Reply »
AreYouKiddingMe says:
Christie said Sunday morning he would listen if Mitt came calling. If I were Mitt, I would announce at the next debate that Christie would be my running mate. End of campaign, Mitt is the nominee… Why no presidential candidate has ever done that, I will never know. Is it illegal, or just not politically correct?? I have often wondered that…
Reply »
longleaf Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 4:33 am
Ronald Reagan did this in 1976 with a fellow named Richard Schweiker, although it was not this early when he announced him as veep pick. But it was well before the convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#1976_presidential_campaign
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Paul, are you insinuating in this thread that the primary reason Ginrich overtook Romney in SC was due to Mitt’s “Maybe” answer, or are you thowing it in there as a secondary or tertiary one?
Gingrich won because he grabbed all the undecided’s votes when he crammed King’s opening question back down his throat. He won because the audience was allowed to show their visceral emotion and pass it on, through the tube, to people sitting in their dens. They liked it. They liked it alot.
That stuff stopped in SC. Gloves off now. Newt is going to be reduced to yelling, “who you going to believe…me or your lying eyes?”.
His anwers are beginning to look like verbal Swiss cheese.
Reply »
texun says:
Newt would be a God-sent blessing for Democrats, who would probably retain the Senate and improve their numbers in the House.
Speaking of the Almighty: perhaps She encouraged Perry to run because She wanted to see him humiliated. Presumably, that outcome was foreseeable from that height.
But, let’s be generous. The next legislature should authorize a suitable recognition of his long-time officer-holding. Perhaps a life-size nude statue, with Glen Maxey to judge the accuracy of the work. It would be appropriate if it contained a “water feature”, akin to the famous Belgian Boy because that’s what Perry has been doing to Texas for twenty years.
Reply »
Glen Maxey says:
texun: I haven’t seen the thing so I can’t vouch for accuracy. I do, however, know of a couple of dozen guys who do, so I could possibly put together a committee.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks says:
Kool aide drinker are you better off than 3 years ago? glug glug glug….
Reply »
Col. Mike Kirby Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 8:37 am
Oh little cult boy, why do you hate irony so?
Reply »
donuthin says:
I think we probably are better off. We were in a state of decline 3 years ago and today we may have bottomed out and be coming back. The cause of the decline may go all the way back to Clinton, continued by Bush. Time will tell.
Reply »
W. B. Travis says:
No question we are better off. Business is picking up, kids are getting jobs. No onei is dying in the desert. For the GOP to question this is disingenious (sp?) and dangerous for them. It shows, as usual, that BS trumps truth.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:08 am
Might want to hold off on that opinion until we find out if Europe goes tits up.
Reply »
Dave Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Keep hope alive!
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks says:
Democraqts are so much better off than they were 3 years ago, that Rahm advised Obama to not run on his record but on what he promises to do if re-elected.
I wonder why?
Reply »
Sweeney Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
If you are not better off today than 3 years ago it is your own fault and inability to compete.
Obama has done his part to fix the Bush Economy and get jobs going in spite of a “no” house. In general, things are quite a bit batter.
Reply »
Tom says:
Clearly, not everyone is better off than they were three years ago. Osama bin laden, Saddam Hussein, Pakistani terrorists to name a few.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
oh yes and Israel, they just don’t know it yet
Reply »
W. B. Travis Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Israel does not pay taxes. Or vote.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
good thing or that vote would be lost.
retrocon says:
Here is another reason for Gingrich’s surge in SC: Sarah Palin coming on national TV to tell a certain segment of the SC electorate (heavily evangelical) to vote for Gingrich. These are some of the same people who constantly tell us they are “tired of the media telling us who our nominee should be” and “We’re tired of the establishment telling us how to vote.”
These people have demonstrated they have to be told how to vote before they know whom to support.
Palin did not explicitly endorse Newt for President, but claimed everyone should vote for Newt “in order to keep the process going” so “we could continue the vetting process”. I’m going to call Palin’s bluff. Now that Gingrich has surged, will she now recommend that Florida voters switch to Santorum or Paul or Romney so that we don’t settle the nomination process too soon?
As a commentator, Palin is a disingenuous hack and she does not pull the weight she thinks she does across the nation, but in SC she knows she can dictate to a large segment of the voters.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Palin is an IDIOT and will never win political office ever again.
Reply »
Cowboy Bill Weed Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Sarah Palin is a national joke, much like our governor. She only carries weight among the most radical of righties and only in SC and maybe Texas. Fox News is the right place for her.
Reply »
retrocon says:
Some conservative commentators (particularly Sean Hannity) have characterized the Newt media smackdown of John King in the SC debate as something that essentially sent King off with his tail between his legs.
His analysis is flat wrong. Everyone and their dog could predict how Gingrich would respond to such a question about his adulterous affairs. Every debate Gingrich has looked for any opportunity he can, warranted or not, to blast the media. John King and his CNN team knew exactly what they would get, and they wanted it. After Newt launched into King and his team for deigning to bring up the issue to begin the debate did King feel ashamed and humbled by Gingrich? Hardly. He prodded Gingrich for more. Then he went to the others on the same issue. Blasted by Gingrich? King teed it up for Gingrich. When Gingrich subsequently surged in the polls and won SC, John King and his team were high-fiving each other all around.
Reply »
More Paul, Paul! Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Totally agree with retrocon here. CNN knew exactly what they were doing by teeing up that question to Newt.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
John King looked like he wanted to go home and cry after Gingrich ripped him to shreds. Don’t forget about he went after Juan Williams by using racially-coded attacks towards him during the Monday debate.
Reply »
Cowboy Bill Weed Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Sean Hannity is a joke, should be on the Comedy Channel….wait, he is. John King did look a bit put back, but Newts response was carefully planned, knowing the question (a totally legit one by the way)was coming. He had his audienced prepped for his response.
I think it was agood question.
Reply »
retrocon says:
@Blue Dogs
My point exactly. Newt has used the debates to blast the media, as with Juan Williams. And everyone knows that the crowds go wild when he does.
But you’re wrong that John King looked like he wanted to go home and cry. Remember, after Gingrich turned on the mock flames, King asked Newt if there was anything more he wanted to add. King wanted to milk it for all he could get.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
King said he had discussed when to pose the quesiton with others, but decision was his alone. It was the major news story of the day and he said he thought he was justified in asking it first. No back down from him, but he should have known what he was going to get back in return…from both Newt and the crowd.
As far as “crowd participation” goes…Newt knows that those watching on the tube are swayed by how a live audience is responding. I, personally, want to determine how I feel about any given response without the outside influence. I liked how this last NBC debate was conducted. Sheep listen to other sheep go “ba-ba” and then fall into line.
Reply »
W. B. Travis says:
Note that the Fox debates were all softball questions to the very weak field. CNN had the guts to ask what voters want to know. I’m sure The Newt anticipated the question and had the deflective answer ready, and his supporters were ready to hollar.
How about Newt/Nugent? The two biggest knotheds in American popular culture?
Reply »
Blue Dogs says:
BREAKING NEWS: KXAN-TV, NBC 36 Austin reported that Governor and Mrs. Perry plan on moving back into the Governor’s Mansion in June once the renovations are finished.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
I just read an article that reminds me of Newt Gingrich:
“My narcissistic wife is ruining my life: She has affairs without remorse. If we divorce, she wants my money plus our three kids:”
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/26/my_narcissistic_wife_is_ruining_my_life/
Reply »
Texian Politico says:
Its Thursday. We need a new blog post, or at least something to move the comments along. We’re over 100 here now and it has devolved into more of the Robert Morrow Theater of the Absurd.
Hey, did you know that Richard Nixon and Bebe Rebozo were gay lovers? You didn’t? Well, let Morrow bring you up to speed!
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
Texian Politico,
I think you don’t really think that much or seek out the truth… or you get most of your information from the crawl at the bottom of CNN. You don’t seem fact oriented; kinda going with what you feel or think or what is a comfortable lie.
For years and years, I did NOT think Rick Perry was gay. That changed this summer when a lot of credible sources started contacting me about Perry being *very* gay.
For years and years, I did NOT think Richard Nixon was gay. He seemed to be a “square” in his sexual life and a “crook” in his personal one. That changes now that I have *new* information. I think I now know why his wife Pat Nixon was an alcoholic – “our drunk” as the staff used to refer to her. She was married to a closeted homosexual.
Bebe Rebozo married his first wife… then divorced her 4 years later without consumating it. That is something a homosexual would do. He had a job as a flight attendant … (gaydar ringing). He would cuddle with Nixon and was spotting holding hands with Nixon under the table (you don’t even need gaydar for that).
http://laist.com/2011/12/28/was_richard_nixon_gay.php
Yep, it appears that Richard Nixon was YET ANOTHER bisexual/homosexual yet “married” American political leader. I am going to buy Don Fulsom’s book “Nixon’s Darkest Secrets: The Inside Story of America’s Most Troubled President” and see how he makes the case for Tricky Dick being a switch hitter.
I go where the facts lead me … not with “assumptions.”
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
It looks like that Newt Gingrich – thank God – is not going to win the Florida primary after all:
Romney at 91% chance of winning. I guess the voters don’t want moon colonies or a higher dosage of grandiose in the White House:
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=751748
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
January 27th, 2012 at 8:04 am
Marriages are 40% more open on the moon due to less gravity. That’s why Gingrich supports the moon base.
Reply »