S. Carolina Republican Primary

[WSUwatcher]

I'm a Republican, and Newt is not my favorite. The reason it's good for him to lecture the media, though, is because it gives voice to what millions of people think but Republican candidates often lack the cojones to say. Either they're too mesmerized by their wimpish consultants or they're too hungry to be loved by the Beltway / NY media who have no use for them anyway.

I agree it doesn't make him any more qualified -- although the current President long ago eliminated qualification as a reason for voting; he's the least qualified guy nominated by a major party in at least 100 years, and millions bought his snake oil anyway --but it may make him more appealing. And at least he's on our side, unlike the incumbent.

[pinstripers]

Our choices are now, Obama, Newt, or Mitt. My goodness.

[pogo]

Our choices are now, Obama, Newt, or Mitt. My goodness.

Just makes your heart well up with pride don't it.

[JJClamdip]

I agree it doesn't make him any more qualified -- although the current President long ago eliminated qualification as a reason for voting.

Very true words, the current one has no qualifications for the office.

[pinstripers]

Well, he was formerly a community organizer.

[Maggie]

Newt’s win in S.C. was, in part, a result of his ability to attack the premise of debate questions. That is what he has been doing all along – he won’t let the questioner place the argument on his or her own chosen ground. Conservatives approve because they rightly believe in media bias. Romney doesn’t or can’t follow suit – maybe it is his nature but suspect it is because of his preparation.

Also, Newt is more prepared to answer tough questions during a debate with specifics; Romney sticks, largely, to platitudes – he doesn’t want to make a rhetorical mistake.

Now I am confident that Newt could according to Queensbury Rules soundly defeat Obama in a debate; but in the real world I am not sure it would matter – for many reasons.

This was a good answer by Newt:

Newt

[Maggie]

What I find funny about this is that SC is supposed to be the litmus for what candidate "evangelicals" will support. And it appears they love a really good forgiveness story. Unfortunately, they are also gullible enough to think that Newt is any different than he was 10 or 20 years ago. From all the recent scandals it is apparent that the beltway elite feel they are above the social norms of the rest of the country. I personally believe his ex-wife's allegations. And exactly how does lecturing the media in a debate make him any more qualified to be president than before his rant?

I wish I could say I'm mystified, but sadly, I expected it.

Royal –

I don’t know to whom you are referring to as the beltway elite because they didn’t vote for Newt. And I know “evangelical”, as it is politically understood, doesn’t apply to you. I think this outcome has more to do with frustration with the current administration and the media and the lack of a voice for conservative positions. I also find it curious that you question the votes of people who may have discounted Newt’s personal past because you seen to ignore Rep. Paul’s past – not what he is saying publically now, mind you, but what he embraced (or at least tolerated) for 5, 10, 20 years. Unless, of course, you agree.

Do I think so-called social conservatives have taken a risk, politically, in voting for Newt – yes I do – I don’t think Newt is or can be a “nice” person; I don’t know why Rick Santorum didn’t do better in their ranks – though he has many, many flaws.

You play with the hand you are dealt – we will see how it goes.

[shockmonster]

That a Moderate Northeastern Republican is doing well in South Carolina is telling.

Romney is no more a moderate republican than Kathleen Sebelius was a moderate democrat. They had to govern that way because they had to work with (Romney a liberal democratic state legislature and Sebelius a conservative republican state legislature) the other party in order to get anything done. Romney is a conservative and Sebelius is a liberal.

[wu_shizzle]

Romney is no more a moderate republican than Kathleen Sebelius was a moderate democrat. They had to govern that way because they had to work with (Romney a liberal democratic state legislature and Sebelius a conservative republican state legislature) the other party in order to get anything done. Romney is a conservative and Sebelius is a liberal.

He's hiring staff and consultants with ties to McCain and Charlie Crist. Dig a little and you'll find his "moderation" comes honestly, he's no conservative.

[shockmonster]

He's hiring staff and consultants with ties to McCain and Charlie Crist. Dig a little and you'll find his "moderation" comes honestly, he's no conservative.

These Republican consultants are nothing but hired guns and have worked for past republicans, nothing more or less. Ann Colter isn't a moderate. Nikki Haley isn't a moderate. Judd Gregg isn't a moderate. Tom Colborn isn't a moderate. Bey Buchanan isn't moderate. John Thune isn't moderate. Gov. Christie isn't a fiscal moderate. They all support Romney. At least Romney has earned his own money.

Gingrich doesn't have very many consultants, but he has one who have worked for politicians such as Dan Quayle, who some would term a moderate. That means nothing. You probably think that Gingrich is more conservative and that is just idiotic. Freddie Mack and the housing crisis. Gingrich working with the dems on global warmin. His backing of granting citizenship to illegal immigrants. Gingrich has gotten rich off of being a politican and has nothing else to show for his success. He's as entrenched in Washington as anyone and he's trying to say he's an outsider. Whenever he gets a question he doesn't want to answer, he blames the press.

Ginrich can't and won't win against Obama. If we want to get rid of Obama care, we don't want Gingrich.