Story #1 talks about the Romney team and how they can’t understand Newt. #2 looks at the case of Gingrich’s electability. #3 shows us that Newt is more popular than the MSM. #4 discusses the change in poverty statistics during the Obama Administration.
1. Romney’s Team Can’t Understand Why Newt Won
They won't say it publicly -- they don't want to appear churlish or disrespectful on a night they took a serious beating -- but it's no exaggeration to say that even after losing the South Carolina primary to Newt Gingrich, members of Mitt Romney's circle find it absurd -- almost crazy -- that the former House speaker has even a ghost of a chance of becoming the Republican Party's presidential nominee.
In their view, Gingrich has barely run a campaign. As they see it, Team Gingrich doesn't have the money, professionalism, brains, or organization of the Romney campaign. They see the former Speaker as somewhat unstable and vulnerable to continued attack on issues of ethics and morals. And most of all, they see Gingrich as a candidate who owes his very existence to the never-ending series of Republican debates -- and not much more.
From Romney's perspective, the situation is almost like the Saturday Night Live skit from 1988 in which another Massachusetts governor, Michael Dukakis, stood onstage at a debate with a bumbling George H.W. Bush, looked at the camera and said, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy….
… Gingrich's success here in South Carolina shows more than just skepticism toward establishment Republicanism. It also shows a hunger for real substance in the campaign, for a candidate who will talk to voters and give them more than phrases like "I believe in America." Mitt Romney's team of seasoned campaign professionals may not think Newt Gingrich has any business playing a deciding role in the race. But they better believe it, and they better take seriously what the Gingrich challenge represents -- before it's too late.
To hear the “experts” on Gingrich, he’s not electable because people don’t like him. If they want the most likeable candidate, Obama is in good shape as the polls always show people still like him. But if they want someone to come in and fix what is wrong, Obama is in big trouble and Newt is in a good position.
2. The latest: Newt is Unelectable
Republicans have such good candidates this year, I do not know who to pick. But liberal Republicans like David Brooks provide a guide. Whoever they dump on most must be the best candidate. Remember, four years ago they steered us toward John McCain. And 32 years ago, what they said about Ronald Reagan…
But I am jumping ahead of myself. David Brooks went on PBS and dissed Newt Gingrich. From the Daily Caller:
“I think, at the end of the day, it is,” Brooks said. “The guy has, I think, a 27 percent national approval rating. He’s just unelectable. And when you talk to people down there, they disagree. And maybe I’m just an elite pundit out of touch, but I can read numbers. And if the vast majority of the country doesn’t like somebody, and they form a very negative opinion about somebody, it’s very unlikely that person is going to be elected president. So I still think, at the end of the day, that he probably will win in South Carolina. I think it’s hard to see Gingrich running the table.”
We shall see on that “Gingrich running the table.”
I do not know anyone who would say that, but I am not saying it cannot happen.
What I do know is that on June 16, 1980, Time magazine reported this:
Reagan gets a sunny welcome from an old opponent
While President Carter confronted Ted Kennedy at the White House, a much more amiable encounter reunited the two most eminent figures in the G.O.P. They had never been friends, and as recently as last March, Gerald Ford had described Ronald Reagan as “unelectable.” But as they strolled out of their meeting near the 13th hole of the Thunderbird Country Club in Palm Springs last week, Ronnie and Jerry looked as if they had been lifelong pals. Smiling and relaxed in a blue blazer and beige slacks, Ford called the talks “very, very constructive.” Said he: “We are establishing a relationship that is vitally important. I pledge myself to campaign wholeheartedly.”…
Is Newt electable? The question the press should be asking “Is Obama electable?” The answer to the first is yes, while to the second is probably not.
3. Gingrich Beats the Media
(CNSNews.com) - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has defeated the national media in South Carolina by a margin of 54 percent to 14 percent, according to a survey conducted by a Democratic polling firm.
The Poll, conducted by Raleigh, N.C.-based Public Policy Polling (PPP), interviewed 1,540 likely South Carolina Republican primary voters from Jan. 18 to Jan. 20. It showed that 54 percent of those voters said they had a favorable opinion of Gingrich while 37 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion of him.
At the same time, only 14 percent said they had a favorable opinion of the media, while 77 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion of the media.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gingrich-beats-media-south-carolina-54-14
It almost goes without saying if you read liberal blogs they go on about Fox News and how bias and worthless it is. They like to use the term Faux News. However, it is the MSM less Fox News that rational people deplore.
4. Under Obama Poverty is skyrocketing
…Thus, it was foreordained that, using this new standard, the Census folks "discovered" that almost half the population is living in "near-poverty" conditions. That is, if you define "near poverty" as an income roughly equal to the median, that means that by definition nearly half the population will always be "poor" or "near poor" - regardless of any changes in actual living standards.
Obama's new poverty measure will produce very odd results. For example, if the real income of every single American were to magically double overnight, the new measure would show no drop in poverty or "near poverty," because the poverty- and near-poverty income thresholds would also double.
In other words, the president has introduced a statistical trick that gives new meaning to the saying that "the poor will always be with you."
The shift seems designed to promote Obama's obsession to "spread the wealth." By suggesting that many more Americans are poor or near-poor, the Census generates political pressure to raise taxes and expand the welfare state…
My title for this article is the mistake the Democrats are making. Looking to spend more money and make people more dependent, the Democrats are making statistics look bad—for them. I believe the correct description for this is “being hung on their own petard.”
No comments:
Post a Comment