Doctor Fate wrote:Anyone else get the sense that Newt Gingrich has somehow turned into some kind of caricature from a WW2 propaganda film? I watched most of the debates Sat/Sun and have seen him in numerous interviews. It seems to me he's gone "kamikaze." There is a purpose, a fixation, and almost a glee at the idea of blowing up the USS Romney, no matter what happens to him.

In a word, he seems "crazed."

Well, he pretty much said that is what he was going to do last tuesday in his post caucus speech.

Doctor Fate wrote:Would you agree though that Newt has sort of taken leave of his senses? It's just bizarre.

Did he ever have any senses to being with? He's a smart guy no doubt, but I've seen nothing that contradicts the idea that he's a political sociopath.

Newt has a lot of experience in the public eye. And he's tried on almost every ideological position that there is. He's sort of a political sociopath. He constructs arguments to defend whatever he's doing at the moment. If he's working for Fannie or Freddie or, you know, the publicly-financed mortgage companies, then he has an argument for why what he's doing is different from President Obama taking money from people who worked there. It's fascinating, and it goes back to when he first ran for the House in Georgia in the '70s, all the way through his career. He constructs these very elaborate arguments that will support whatever he's doing at the moment, and there's absolutely no consistency (Dee Dee Meyers on Meet the Press back in November.)

It's always been about Newt. It's never been about anything else, has it?

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Anyone else get the sense that Newt Gingrich has somehow turned into some kind of caricature from a WW2 propaganda film? I watched most of the debates Sat/Sun and have seen him in numerous interviews. It seems to me he's gone "kamikaze." There is a purpose, a fixation, and almost a glee at the idea of blowing up the USS Romney, no matter what happens to him.

In a word, he seems "crazed."

Well, he pretty much said that is what he was going to do last tuesday in his post caucus speech.

Yes he did. At the time, I hoped it was hyperbole. I guess I just imagined he would want to maintain a semblance of Presidentiality. I was wrong.

geojanes wrote:Did he ever have any senses to being with? He's a smart guy no doubt, but I've seen nothing that contradicts the idea that he's a political sociopath.

I will have to agree. I guess I'd never seen it in full bloom. This week he removed his mask entirely. It's not a pretty picture.

Name a politico that is not a diva. They all are, just varying degrees based upon their level of position.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely applies here with human nature.

I look for Santorum to gain more traction

Why? All the polls show him sliding to 4th in New Hampshire. Are you refering to SC or Florida?
I find it interesting that Quinnipac shows Gingrich still 2d in Florida. Maybe his bitter old man act goes over well in flordia?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Come to think of it, with only 12 delegates to the convention, how relevant isNew Hampshire?

Guapo wrote:Come to think of it, with only 12 delegates to the convention, how relevant isNew Hampshire?

Only in that it shows momentum or lack thereof. It's difficult for someone to not do well in Iowa and New Hampshire and go on to win the nomination.

I think Huntsman's comeback on Romney's criticism of his government service was fantastic, and may focus the minds of voters in a place like NH, where even the Republicans are pretty independent. I'm looking for him to do better than expected today.

The early primaries are important due to their timing, not their size. They are test-beds for campaigns and as Steve says they show momentum. Also candidates can focus on them in a way they can't for the bigger Super Tuesday states.

Their main effect is to show who cannot win - no-one outside Iowa need consider Bachmann and by the time Florida is digested there will be a few more exits.

It's not that they are determinative, but they are indicative. Winning Iowa and NH would set a pattern for Romney that it will be hard tn break. If he gets a strong 2nd or better in SC and Maine, wins Nevada, Minnesota and Michigan and puts in solid results elsewhere (Co and Az), then as March opens he'll have validated the polls. Even if that's only a small proportion of the delegates, and even if he has less than half, he will look like the winner and that alone is worth a bucket of votes on ST.

In other words, his opponents need to do a lot to just stay in the race if they are not beating him, and that applies to each of them.

Latest polls show a surge for Huntsman in NH (getting close to 2nd!) and for Romney in SC.

The wackaloons are gonna have to up their game!

It's interesting that Gingrich (sorry, a totally unrelated PAC that Gingrich has no control over whatsoever, no sirree....) is spending over $3m dollars on a 25 min attack ad running in SC that rips into Romney's record as an asset-stripping, job exporting corporate raider. You'd have thought that this would have been the Dems line of attack, and it may well be come the election, but if his fellow Republicans are jumping on board with that line of attack as well then it suggests that it's likely to have traction.

It could also serve up ready-made points for the Democrats if the question of endorsement comes up:

a) Newt endorses Romney - 'but this is what he said 6-10 months ago.'

b) Newt doesn't endorse - 'see, the GOP are divided'

Dixville Notch has voted the same way as the national GOP nomination every time since 1968. This time Romney and Huntsman tied on 2 votes while Paul and Gingrich got 1 each.

geojanes wrote:I think Huntsman's comeback on Romney's criticism of his government service was fantastic, and may focus the minds of voters in a place like NH, where even the Republicans are pretty independent. I'm looking for him to do better than expected today.

I just don't think Huntsman wears well. Even if he finishes second in NH, he comes across as an arrogant jerk.There is not a bit of humor or humility about him. Romney can at least manufacture an "aw shucks" look.

If Huntsman and Obama debate, everyone else in the room will need oxygen masks.

Sassenach wrote:It's interesting that Gingrich (sorry, a totally unrelated PAC that Gingrich has no control over whatsoever, no sirree....) is spending over $3m dollars on a 25 min attack ad running in SC that rips into Romney's record as an asset-stripping, job exporting corporate raider. You'd have thought that this would have been the Dems line of attack, and it may well be come the election, but if his fellow Republicans are jumping on board with that line of attack as well then it suggests that it's likely to have traction.

I don't see it having traction at all. We'll see. Democrats are even paying some guy to follow Romney around.

To me, the idea that someone went in, fired people, reorganized things, and turned around a number of businesses is EXACTLY what we should be looking for. Our country is bloated in bureaucracy and spending and in dire need of streamlining.

I think the point is that on several occasions they took over a business with a relatively small 'investment', sucked out 5 or 6 times what they put in double quick time and then simply left it to go bankrupt, putting all the staff out of work while they made lots of money. Gingrich this morning was hammering on about a particular example (which apparently isn't unique) where Bain bought a company for $30 million, took out $180 million over a short period and then the company went broke. Everybody lost their livelihoods except for Romney and his pals, who made a 600% return on their initial stake. People are not going to like that, and if the story keeps getting repeated there's every chance it could stick, which would go a long towards undermining Romney's main selling point as a candidate.

Doctor Fate wrote:To me, the idea that someone went in, fired people, reorganized things, and turned around a number of businesses is EXACTLY what we should be looking for. Our country is bloated in bureaucracy and spending and in dire need of streamlining.

Sure, but at one point he seemed to be saying that he enjoyed firing people. That's not quite as attractive a quality.

If what Gingrich is talking about is on the money, Romney was not simply going in to 'turn around' businesses but to destroy some of them for profit. That would imply leaving them in a better position than when he found them - more productive, more profitable, less debt-laden, greater market share, stuff like that. Not leaving them as empty husks while asset-strippers made out like bandits. Including Mitt.

Sometimes, his acumen was indeed used to build up companies (Staples is an example of a new start that Romney helped and was very successful), and that's fine. But essentially it seems to have been what was best for the bottom line regardless of what the effect was on the actual company employees or suppliers or whoever.