Newt-onian Physics (Edited for Precision)
Any candidate, named Mitt Romney, at rest will remain at rest in the hearts of true patriot Christian ‘mericans, and any candidate. not named Mitt Romney, in motion will remain in motion unless they move up in the polls and get a little media scrutiny.
Newt’s got a watch with a minute hand, a millennium hand, and an eon hand.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHgziac87-Y[/youtube]
“The latest castoff from ‘Dancing With the Stars,’ Herman Cain, is here with us tonight. No, wait, I’m sorry. That’s a joke from next year.”
—Jimmy Kimmel
Nate Silver on Newtmentum. His take: it’s real and he’s taking support from Cain and Romney. Cain I understand, but why Romney? Romney hasn’t had a major gaffe this week as far as I know. Probably a sign of how volatile the GOP primary is, but still.
Private to RWNJs: please don’t nominate Newt, we are scared of him.
I second that PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!! RWNJ’s Don’t Pick NEWT !! He is a modern day Demosthenes.
Republican base is still in Anybody But Romney mode, and I think — according to them — Romney made all of his gaffes when he was Gov of MA and running for Senate for MA.
Good. Gingrich is unelectable in a general election. The fact that Romney has failed to move past the 22-25% range despite Trump, Bachmann, Perry and now Cain either imploding or declining should be very troubling to the former Massachusetts governor. Eventually the race will come down to a one-on-one match up among legitimate candidates, with Ron Paul likely sticking around as a third protest candidate. Given Romney’s vulnerabilities and seeming ceiling, the lion’s share of Republicans will flock to the anti-Romney when it becomes a two person race, regardless of who it is. Romney’s two hopes are: 1) he amasses a massive delegate lead prior to this occurring 2) He dominates so much the party unites behind him a la Kerry 04′.
Newt, Mitt, Herman, … As Yoda would say: strange first name, all.
Those with normal first names, Rick and Michelle: out.
My guess is considering that maintaining a “no tax” policy in light of the past 11 years is both bizarre and unreasonable, that the core of the Republican Party is more comfortable with a first name that is also bizarre and unreasonable.
Precisely ‘how’ is Newt NOT electable in the General?
Regardless, the man with the strangest name and the thinnest resume will be kicked out in 2012. Weep on, losers.
So true. PLEASE don’t pick Newt, we weeping losers beg you!!! Have a heart.
Gingrich has ridiculously lopsided favorable/unfavorable numbers and has had so for well over a decade. Plus he is a confirmed hypocrite…
Que Pasa, it has been amusing to see Republicans invoking resumes and experience so much lately. Since when did Republicans care about those things? It is true President Obama had one of the lightest resumes in presidential history when he was elected in 2008 but why the sudden faux interest in resumes by Republicans? George W. Bush had 6 years of elective experience and had no foreign policy experience, other than minor dealings relating to the Texas-Mexico border. Bush also displayed no intellectual curiosity, no interest in grasping matters of policy or ideas. In short, he was unqualified to be president and we suffered a terrible price over 8 years as a result. Let’s look at some other examples:
2012: If Republicans truly cared about resumes Romney and Cain would not be leading the GOP field. If Cain were elected he would have the weakest resume of any president in history. Romney? He has only 4 years of governing experience–and he has repudiated his gubernatorial record anyway so one cannot place much stock in what Romney himself likes to pretend never happening. Your nominee should be either Gingrich due to his depth of experience and policy knowledge or Huntsman due to the breadth of his experience in foreign policy, business, and as a successful governor. Yet your front-runner is the man who is unaware that China has had nuclear weapons since the 1960’s, not the former ambassador to China…
2008: McCain had the best resume, although relative to a weak field in terms of experience.
2004: Surely a better candidate could have been fielded…
2000: Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander and McCain all clearly had resumes superior to Bush.
1996: Richard Lugar, Pete Wilson and Arlen Specter were not even seriously considered…Dole had a strong resume but if we are playing the resume game Wilson, a two-term governor of California, a former senator, a mayor of a major city (San Diego), and state legislator should have been the Republican nominee.
1988: Bush had the best resume.
1980: Bush clearly was the most qualified Republican yet Reagan defeated him.
Of course this is only at the national level. A party that nominated Christine O’Donnell over Mike Castle against Chris Coons cannot be taken seriously when it comes to discussing the importance of having qualified candidates…