Last night, Rick Santorum outperformed the other three candidates. He came on strong. Ron Paul made a nice impression with his one-liners, but little else. In contrast to South Carolina, Romney took it to Newt Gingrich, who just didn't shine like he has in the past. Of course, he (Romney) suffered a gotcha moment when it was revealed that he had put his "I approved this message" statement on that Spanish ad that accused Gingrich of referring to Spanish as a language of the ghetto. (The truth is that these candidates don't really review each and every ad before they let that statement go on. There are too many.)
One thing I have noticed that doesn't help Gingrich. When Romney is addressing Gingrich or vice-versa, he (Romney) looks directly at him. Gingrich, on the other hand, never looks at Romney when he is attacking him even though they are standing next to each other. A small point, perhaps, but non-verbal communication and body language do leave an impression.
I sure liked the answer Newt and Romney gave to the Palestinian gentleman. I don't think he liked it much. Why didn't Paul and Santorum have a chance to comment on that point about Israel and the Palestinians?
I am coming to the conclusion that Gingrich, with all his brilliance and debating skills, is too volatile. It bothers me. Right now, I favor Santorum, but if he can't come up in the polls, it looks like Romney will be the guy. I haven't made a final decision yet, but it comes down to who is the most conservative candidate that can beat Obama in a debate and win the election.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
None of them are coherent enough to be recognizable as "conservative," and none of them can beat President Obama. Try Hunstman in 2016.
Incidentally, assuming arguendo that President Obama exemplifies "malignant narcissism," Next Gingrich makes the president look like Mother Teresa by comparison.
Both of them are competent and accomplished men. Newt got my support because he is so articulate and can express conservative values and issues so welll. Romney, on the other hand, walks the walk. He has held executive positions in the private sector. That is a hell of a lot better experience than Obama, even after four years as President. Romney can learn to express conservative values but Gingrich cannot create a business success story.
Santorum, to me, is a good compromise and you get more family values on the one candidate and more conservative background on the other.
Don't forget that the more conservative wing of the Republican Party swept the last national election, including sweeps of state elections. Those voters haven't gone away. Those new Republican governors like Walker, Christie, and Kasik are turning their states around. This is while the Democratic governor of Illinois is leading the state into a disastrous situation with a 46% tax increase on individuals and an even higher one on corporations. Companies are fleeing the state. Illinois has been downgraded by Moody's and their continued borrowing will cost even more.... Just like Obama.
.
Walker will be gone before the fall Miggie. And Kasik's attempt to gut Ohio labor laws was rejected by the same voters who elected him, by a 2:1 margin.
Nobody who gets elected generally has a clue what voters really wanted. Democrats don't, neither do Republicans. Liberals don't, neither do conservatives.
Walker for instance, managed to eke out a 52 percent to 48 percent victory by being the fresh youngish face running against a tired old pol, talking vaguely about taking his lunch to work in a brown paper bag, and creating 250,000 new jobs (who could be against that?) while saying nothing about what he actually meant to do if he got his hands on the levers of power.
The voters who elected Barack Obama in 2008 are "still around" too. Some of them are the voters who went Republican in 2010. And some of those will abandon the GOP in 2012. Welcome to America.
Post a Comment