Mitt-mentum?

February 6, 2012 By 27 Comments

As expected, Mitt Romney cruised to an easy win in the Nevada Caucuses on Saturday, more than doubling the vote of his closest rival Newt Gingrich, and leaving Ron Paul and Rick Santorum far behind.

Snafus in tallying the votes from Las Vegas and Clark County, the state’s most populous, delayed the final numbers, perhaps into Monday. As of Sunday night, AP is reporting that with 89% of the votes counted, Romney leads with 49%, Gingrich is second with 21%, Ron Paul will finish 3rd with 18%, and Rick Santorum last with 10%.

Gingrich, who declined to give a concession speech and held a press conference instead, continued his brutal assault on the frontrunner, while assuring the media he was in the race until the convention. “I will be a candidate for President of the United States, we will go to Tampa,” he told the assembled media in a half hour press conference. That may be his plan, but the immediate future does not appear favorable for the former speaker. The February 7 caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota are not likely to turn his fortunes around, while the Michigan and Arizona primaries at the end of this month are currently Romney strongholds as well.

It was the Mormon vote that propelled Romney to victory. According to entrance polls, one in four voters were LDS members and Romney won 91% of them. Fully 4 in 10 Romney votes came from Mormons — a fact that some observers believe made the results less significant than some of the entrance poll numbers would indicate.

The former Massachusetts governor gave Gingrich a significant drubbing across the board, winning self-identified conservatives, tea party supporters, evangelical Christians, and all income groups except those making less than $30,000 a year.

Romney also won big with voters who see defeating Barack Obama as the number one issues of the campaign. More than 4 in 10 caucus voters listed electability as their major concern and Romney beat Gingrich by 74-18. But he only won 5% of voters who saw choosing a nominee with the best conservative credentials as the number one issue as Ron Paul carried that group by 45-31 over Gingrich. However, the “True Blue” conservatives comprised only 17% of the electorate in Nevada. Much more numerous were the 48% of caucus goers who identified themselves as “very conservative.” Here, the Mormon vote came into play as Romney beat Gingrich among this group by 2-1. This is by far his best showing among this important demographic and can be attributed to strong support by LDS members who largely self-identify as “very conservative.”

It’s hard to overstate the importance of the Mormon vote to Romney’s victory in Nevada. Nowhere else save Utah will Mormons comprise such a large slice of the electorate and Romney’s dominance among LDS members slightly skewed some of his entrance poll numbers. But 27% of caucus goers identified themselves as evangelical Christians and Romney carried them by 45-29 over Gingrich. Skewed or not, there were some impressive results for Romney coming out of Nevada — results he can build on in the coming weeks as he tries to convince a skeptical party that he can not only defeat Barack Obama in the fall, but that he is conservative enough to represent the GOP at the top of the ticket.

Ron Paul scored with independents, secularists, and was even with Romney among voters under 30. Gingrich topped Romney in one significant category: those who self identify as “strong conservatives.” Otherwise, it was a dismal night for the former speaker whose Nevada campaign was hobbled by a late start and poor organization.

Therein lies a tale of the mountain Gingrich has to climb in order to get back in the race. Politico reports that 2 days before the caucuses began, the Gingrich phone bank operation consisted of 3 volunteers in a hotel suite making calls. His personal appearances were few, and many announced campaign stops were canceled due to lack of advance work. He had little paid media in Nevada prior to the caucuses and he made the blunder of scheduling a joint appearance with Nevada’s popular GOP Governor Brian Sandoval and then cancelling at the last minute.

This “seat of the pants” operation will likely be duplicated in Colorado and Minnesota, which will both hold their caucuses on Tuesday. Romney is far ahead in Colorado according to this PPP poll, leading Rick Santorum 40-26 with Gingrich in 3rd with 18% and Ron Paul with 12%. Pre-caucus polling is notoriously inaccurate but Romney has a strong organization in Colorado and appears a likely winner.

Pages: 1 2

Filed Under: Daily Mailer, FrontPage Tagged With: , , , , ,
About

Rick Moran is blog editor of The American Thinker, and Chicago editor of PJ Media.His personal blog is Right Wing Nuthouse.

  • Geneww

    When the "One World Government" leaders endorse anyone … be ready for more of what we have seen since 2008! These leaders need communistic Obama type union thugs to control the masses and George Soros type capitalist to control the wealth. The press and media are owned by these leaders and you will never read this in print or on major networks. When Glenn Beck addressed this … he is off Fox New [the supposedly conservative network]]
    There is no room for Judeo-Christians bible believers or small government types like Ron Paul or Michelle Bachman. These are ignored, ridiculed and marginalized.

  • WildJew

    Led by Ann Coulter and Elliott Abrams, the Republican Establishment set out to destroy Gingrich and anoint Romney. We better not have another John McCain or these brilliant people will have egg all over their collective faces and the Republican party rank-in-file will have been duped yet again. I voted for Gingrich in our state primary – Romney looked like a moral midget next to Gingrich in the December 10 Iowa debate when the topic turned to the Palestinian terrorists who Romney defended. Like McCain, if Romney is the nominee, I will vote for him, albeit not enthusiastically. Coulter, Abrams, et al, had better be right.

  • tanstaafl

    It's Romney, Romney, Romney whether you want him or not.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    the Republican Establishment set out to destroy Gingrich

    Give me a break, if anyone is the establishment Republican in the race it is Newt, as the liberal establishment Republican Party have for years been advocating using amnesty as a bone to attempt to attract Hispanic voters. Hence, there is no way that under normal circumstances they would back an outsider like Romney and an outsider that is against amnesty under any circumstances.

    Indeed, if anyone is a liberal establishment Republican it is Newt, as he has been an establishment Republican, career professional politician, and long time Washington insider since 1978. However, because Newt is such a polarizing figure and because he burnt so many bridges when 88 percent of Republicans in Congress revolted against him in 1997 and again 1998 right before he resigned from Congress in disgrace, the establishment Republicans this time around are divided, as many of those Republicans that revolted against Newt still serving in Congress have said that they will not support Newt under any circumstances whatsoever.

    In addition, Newt backed George Soros' handpicked candidate Dee Dee Scozzafava last year in accordance with liberal establishment Republicans and has always remained very loyal to liberal establishment Republican priorities his entire career.

    He is also the least conservative candidate still in the race, as his actions betray his words. Indeed, Newt supports amnesty like Obama, supports a top down federal healthcare solution with an individual mandate like Obama, is against Congressman Paul Ryan's medicare reforms and supports letting it go bankrupt like Obama, and he supports global warming and cap and trade legislation like Obama, in which he not only conceded a well publicized debate on global warming to John Kerry but also videoed taped a George Soros funded PSA with Nancy Pelosi urging Congress to act on those issues.

    Indeed, there is more to being a conservative other than proclaiming that they are the most conservative candidate in the race and that their opponents are moderates. Indeed, conservatives don't propose putting a colony of 13,000 people on the moon by the end of their second term, when the national debt already exceeds 100 percent of GDP, and you can't proclaim that you are the Reagan conservative in the race when you have written in books that FDR is the best president ever in American history. Actions matter and Newt's actions speak louder than words and betray his campaign rhetoric. Indeed, true conservatives don't launch Alinsky like bogus anti-capitalist and class-warfare attacks against fellow Republicans and the free enterprise system. Newt is easily the most liberal Republican still in the race.

    We better not have another John McCain

    Give me a break, after GWB divided the Republican Party in 2005 and 2006 over amnesty for illegal immigrants, Romney was the conservative anti-amnesty and anti-McCain candidate in 2008. Uhm….I didn't vote in 2008 because I refused to vote for an amnesty supporting liberal. Instead, like most conservatives in 2008, I rallied in support of Romney, because he was the most conservative candidate in the race and because he was staunchly against amnesty. Then when he lost, I refused to vote for the liberal McCain.

    Nevertheless, it is interesting to note how the news media has attempted to manipulate the race this time around in 2012 by painting Romney as the moderate in 2012 when you consider that he was the anti-establishment conservative in the race in 2008 and when his platform and positions haven't changed one iota from 2008 to 2012.

    In any event, Newt can't win even if a miracle happens and he wins the nomination, because in all the battleground states that will decide the election, Obama has an insurmountable lead over Newt, as the bulk of Newt's support resides in the states the Republicans will win anyway. Meanwhile, Romney either is a couple of points ahead of Obama or only a couple of points behind Obama in those same battleground states. Hell, even Santorum and Paul's numbers in the battleground states are much better than Newt's.

    I voted for Gingrich in our state primary

    Talk about egg on your face!

    • WildJew

      I remember when this Gainesville, Fla. pastor (Jones) threatened to burn a Qur'an or some Qur'ans a couple or so years back. Several conservative radio talk show hosts in Florida and the south became hysterical! They went nuts. I called in to one of them telling him he was only helping the enemy. It was like they all fell under shariah law. They became dhimmis!

      The same thing happened when Gingrich won S. Carolina's primary. Republicans became hysterical, led by Elliott Abrams, Ann Coulter, etc. I don't want to get into a debate, who is more conservative, Romney or Gingrich. Reputable conservatives and Libertarians believe Gingrich is at heart a conservative, even if he strayed a few times. Romney is unquestionably a liberal Republican. I know men like Romney. I was an activist in the party for eight years. I know these RINOs.

      For heaven sake, he called himself a "progressive" and a "moderate." Romney went so far as to say judges should be able to over-rule the wishes of minor's parents to have an abortion.

      The point I am addressing is the hysterics in the GOP Establishment over Gingrich when he was rising. It was pathetic. It's indefensible.

      • Stephen_Brady

        "The point I am addressing is the hysterics in the GOP Establishment over Gingrich when he was rising. It was pathetic. It's indefensible."

        I agree, and it's quite similar to the Establishment's reaction to Barry Goldwater, in 1964. But in that case, Goldwater won the nomination. The reaction of the Establishment was to abandon him, and hand the election to Lyndon Johnson.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        I don't want to get into a debate, who is more conservative, Romney or Gingrich

        Of course, you don't want to, because it is a debate you can't possibly win.

        I was an activist in the party for eight years. I know these RINOs

        With all due disrespect, you don't know your you know what from a hole in the ground.

        • WildJew

          OK, you've forced me. You appear to be a dishonest low-life, so let's discuss these two.

          How do you address Romney's position that jihad has nothing to do with Islam? That jihad is "an entirely different entity" from Islam, that is in "no way a part of Islam"? Romney: "Islam is one of the world's great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker." When has Gingrich said anything approaching this politically correct nonsense?

          Dr. Andrew Bostom wrote in part: "During an interview with US News reporter Dan Gligoff published June 3, 2009, Mitt Romney offered the following bizarre observation about the living Islamic institution of jihad, ostensibly to “clarify” remarks made during an earlier speech at the Heritage Foundation:

          Romney: I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam.

          Bostom: "Romney—notwithstanding this distressingly ridiculous pronouncement—remains, for now, the front running contender for the Republican Presidential nomination.

          "Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, in stark contrast to the muddled and craven nonsense uttered by Romney on jihad during his US News interview, delivered an astute and courageous address at The American Enterprise Institute, July 29, 2010, which provided an irrefragably accurate, if blunt characterization of the existential threat posed by Islam’s living, self-professed mission: to impose Sharia, its totalitarian religio-political “law,” globally.

          With vanishingly rare intellectual honesty and resolve, Gingrich described how normative Sharia—antithetical to bedrock Western legal principles—by “divine,” immutable diktat, rejects freedom of conscience, while sanctioning violent jihadism, absurd, misogynistic “rules of evidence” (four male witnesses for rape), barbarous punishments (stoning for adultery), and polygamy:

          Gingrich: "Sharia in its natural form has principles and punishments totally abhorrent to the Western world, and the underlying basic belief which is that law comes directly from God and is therefore imposed upon humans and no human can change the law without it being an act of apostasy is a fundamental violation of a tradition in the Western system which goes back to Rome, Athens, and Jerusalem and which has evolved in giving us freedom across the planet on a scale we can hardly imagine and which is now directly threatened by those who would impose it."

          How do you address Romney's support for judges overruling the wishes of minor parents on abortion? What legislation has Gingrich supported that even approached that?

          Watch: http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-torches-romney-…

          • ObamaYoMoma

            How do you address Romney's position that jihad has nothing to do with Islam?

            Because exactly like Newt, Romney believes in radical Islam and moderate Islam and in radical Muslims and moderate Muslims, because all our political elites on both sides of the political spectrum get their information on Islam from the same exact source, the MESA Nostra controlled Middle East Studies Departments of our elite colleges and universities that have been hijacked, co-opted, and usurped by a cabal of Muslims and Leftists since in the 70s.

            When has Gingrich said anything approaching this politically correct nonsense?

            Where and when? I've either read or listened to all of Newt's speeches and articles about Islam and everyone one of them has left me exceedingly disappointed, as his understanding of Islam is identical to that of Romney's and all other political elites, again because they all acquire their information from the same exact source.

            Indeed, I challenge you to post a sentence either quoted from Newt in a speech or written by Newt when he doesn't preface Islam with the word “radical?” Indeed, any politician that doesn't preface Islam with “radical” will be relentlessly attacked by CAIR, the Left, and the news media. Is Newt being attacked by the aforementioned? Hell no! Meanwhile, Lt. General William Boykin had to cancel an appearance at West Point because of what he said in the past about Islam, and its been in the news for about two weeks now.

            Dan Gligoff published June 3, 2009,

            OMG, not this crap again. Okay, it is now 15,001 times that you have spammed FPM with this exact same crap now! I should have known!

            delivered an astute and courageous address at The American Enterprise Institute,

            I listened to that astute and courageous address at The American Enterprise Institute that Newt gave with great hope and anticipation myself I must add. In fact, I was the one that informed Robert Spencer about it so that he could republish the speech and add a link to the video on his Jihadwatch.org website, and I was left extremely disappointed after getting my hopes up for what ended up being for nothing.

            Like I said, the chronic institutional blindness that befalls our news media, our federal government, and our political elites and on both sides of the political spectrum, is because they all get their information on Islam from the same exact source, which is the MESA Nostra controlled Middle East Studies Departments of our elite colleges and universities, which have been hijacked, co-opted, and usurped by a cabal of Muslims and Leftists since in the '70s.

            which provided an irrefragably accurate,

            This is pure utter hyperbole. This is how impossible it is to refute Newt's speech on Islam: The existence of radical Islam, extremist Islam, peaceful Islam, and moderate Islam, exactly like the existence of radical Muslims, extremist Muslims, Islamist Muslims, and moderate Muslims are all false PC multicultural myths. In reality, there is only MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX ISLAM and MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS. Anything else is political correct nonsense originating from the halls of academia. You see…that wasn't so hard.

            Indeed, if Newt differed from the political correct narrative as set forth in the halls of academia, he would be relentlessly attacked by CAIR, the Left, and the news media, but there are no attacks. I rest my case.

            How do you address Romney's support for judges overruling the wishes of minor parents on abortion?

            How can you be dumb enough to believe such nonsense let alone repeat it?

            Meanwhile, Newt was on Greta last Friday night and was asked what he would do regarding Iran. He responded that he would support Israel's attack on Iran logistically. Clearly shocked by his answer, Greta asked Newt if he wouldn't be a little concerned with Israel leading the attack on Iran. Newt again indicated that he would support Israel via logistical support. Still shocked by Newt's response, Greta asked him a third time, and Newt's final response didn't differ one iota from his first two responses.

            Like me, Greta was shocked that Newt wouldn't insist that any attack on Iran be led by America.

            Yet, the only reason you support that RINO is because he supposedly is a staunch supporter of Israel, but as Romney demonstrated in the last debate, he also staunchly supports Israel. In fact, Gingrich's rich Las Vegas benefactor and wife, the same ones who collectively gave Newt $10 million combined before South Carolina, are strongly considering switching their support now to Romney at the same time that Newt's campaign is $600,000.00 in debt.

          • NorthStar

            Romney is a strong supporter of Romney

          • ObamaYoMoma

            And you are a moonbat! So what?

          • NorthStar

            You're the only moonbat here and you know it

          • WildJew

            "Like me, Greta was shocked that Newt wouldn't insist that any attack on Iran be led by America….."

            Why?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            "Like me, Greta was shocked that Newt wouldn't insist that any attack on Iran be led by America….."

            Why?

            Because if Israel attacks Iran, Iran will not only retaliate against Israel, it will also retaliate against the USA as well. Even if it doesn't retaliate against the USA, it will still force our hand by doing something stupid like mining the Strait of Hormuz or unleashing its proxies against Israel, or probably both. Not only that, but Iran is not only Israel's enemy; it's America's enemy as well, as Iran has been killing Americans with impunity for years in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

            In addition, although Israel has a very capable military, the the best that Israel can hope for, however, is to delay and set back the nuclear program. Indeed, only the USA has the capability to wipe out the ruling Mullahs and obliterate their nuclear weapons program.

            Hence, even if Israel's attack is successful at setting back Iran's nuclear weapons program, which is a pretty big if, the USA is going to have to finish the job one way or the other, and the longer we wait to do it, the more expensive it will cost. In fact, this is a job we should have already accomplish 10 years ago. Plus there is always the possibility that we don't know as much as we think we know, and the ruling Mullahs end up with nukes anyway.

            Further, if our hand gets forced and we have to enter the fray, which is probably inevitable, we not only give up the element of surprise, but Iran's defenses will be on full alert at the same time.

            Moreover, since oil prices will inevitably skyrocket, let's ensure that oil prices only skyrocket one time.

            In any event, apparently even Greta is smart enough to figure that out, but Newt can't, which is why she was so shocked. Indeed, that's why shocked she asked him the same question two more times thinking he was accidentally misspeaking and that he would eventually catch his head, but he never did.

            In that same interview, Greta also mentioned to Newt that Pakistan arrested the Pakistani doctor that provided valuable assistance in helping us to find OBL and asked him what he would do about, and Newt said that there is an internal struggle between the moderates and radicals going on inside Pakistan and said to the effect that we have to make sure that we side with the moderates over the radicals.

            Indeed, in other words, Newt is an incompetent loon with respect to Islam and like all the other political elites on both sides of the political spectrum, he doesn't have the first clue.

          • WildJew

            You say I spam when I quote Romney on jihad having nothing to do with Islam. You wrote: "Okay, it is now 15,001 times that you have spammed FPM with this exact same crap now! I should have known!"

            If these are the precise words from Romney's own mouth, why do you call it spam? Why do you call it "crap?"

            Romney: "I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam…. Islam is one of the world's great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker."

            You wrote: "Because exactly like Newt, Romney believes in radical Islam and moderate Islam and in radical Muslims and moderate Muslims…."

            I'm trying to get a handle on what Governor Romney actually believes about Islam. I'm looking for the term "radical Islam" from Governor Romney. I see articles titled "Mitt Romney, radical Islam," etc. but I've not seen it from Romney, "yet." Can you produce anything? Romney seems to distinguish what he calls "jihadism" or jihad from Islam as though jihad is not a tenet of Islam.

            For example, I found the following:

            "….Now, in a down economy and during a time during which Americans seem to be focused more intently on what’s going on domestically, Romney’s priorities — like those of his fellow candidates — have changed. BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski summarizes this evolution in campaign rhetoric and themes:

            "Mitt Romney has all but stopped talking about something that was once a central part of his stump speech: radical Islam. During the 2008 campaign cycle, a major cornerstone of Romney’s campaign was the need to fight ***** “radical jihad.” **** He warned of the threat of radical Muslims wanting to “united the world under a single Islamic caliphate.” That he‘s dropped the subject marks a recognition that we’re no longer in the 9/11 era, politically speaking."
            http://www.theblaze.com/stories/flashback-romneys…

            What is "radical jihad?" Is jihad itself not radical? But Romney says jihad has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. Does Gingrich say this?

            Watch: http://www.myspace.com/romneyforpresident/blog/20… (scroll to approximately 2 minutes 15 seconds where he talks about "radical jihadists." What is a radical jihadist? Why does he use the adjective "radical" to describe jihad?

            True, Gingrich uses the term "radical Islam" or "radical Islamists." Your point is valid, but where does Romney ask the questions Gingrich asks in terms of "where in the Muslim world…." "where is the condemnation?" for all these terrible things that are done in the name of Islam? Why are they silent?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHUHDcbVV6A

            (Scroll approximately 1 minute 25 seconds)

            Romney says: "Islam is one of the world's great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker."

            Gingrich has been clear about the danger and the threat posed by shariah. Why do you mock Dr. Andrew Bostom?

            Mitt Romney on Sharia Law in US Courts

            Mitt Romney
            June 13, 2011

            "Well, first of all, of course, we're not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts. That's never going to happen. We have a Constitution and we follow the law."

            But we do have shariah law applied in U.S. courts, do we not? We do have shariah law applied in our institutions. Don't we?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            I just realized, apparently you are incompetent with respect to Islam yourself too. Please forgive me, I thought you were more knowledgeable on Islam than you are since you are a regular visitor to jihadwatch.org. I know…that's what I get for assuming. My bad!

            Like I already told you, I already watched, listened, or read all of Newts garbage before and Newt is just as incompetent when it comes to Islam as Romney and Santorum also both are. Alright, I'll give him the edge over that kook Paul though.

          • WildJew

            I've got a few / several books and authors on Islam, Islamic history and law, here in my library and on audio; Audible.com. What have you read about Islam OYM? What authors? What scholars? Name them. Whose books do you have on your shelf?

            I've not seen this name ObamaYoMama on jihadwatch, have I? What name to you go under on the site? If you posted as an apologist for Romney on Jihadwatch, as you have here, I cannot say I've seen you. Then what name do you post under?

          • NorthStar

            ObamaYoMoma is a dishonest Taquiya Troll pretending to attack us from the right

            He never proves anything he says and uses namecalling all the time

  • Woofula

    Newt's ungracious comments following the Nevada vote revealed, once again, his mean streak. Newt is an angry man, and American's don't elect angry men as president.

    • WildJew

      I missed it. What did he say? There's bad blood between these two men. Romney was repeatedly mocking Gingrich down here in Fla. just before the vote.

  • mrbean

    To the the RINOs of the GOP country club set, Mitt Romney passes muster as a graduate of the Harvard Business school, is better looking than Newt Gingrich therefore more sexually acceptable to women, not the threatening alpha male that demands strength and honor from those who prefer can't we just all get along, and Mitt Romney didn't cheat on his wife. Most men preferred Newt who has a track record of balance budgets and the cajones to take on the Denocrats. Romeny's record of collaboration with and caving in to the Democrats and their liberal agenda is a matter of record totally as a governer in MA – and he busted the budegt and raised taxes there as well.

    • WildJew

      I can't dismiss the arguments from those who say Gingrich might not get the vote from women; from many women. I have a female neighbor (Mary, a registered member of the National Rifle Association, patriot, fan of George Washington,etc.) who – for that very reason – says women should not have been given the vote. She is an exception, no question about it. I might add, radio talk show host, Neal Boortz, takes the same position. The jury has been out for me.

  • michealle

    Its ashame that people ignore Romneycare. He bankrupted his state with this and the people don't like it. Now, how can he run the country folks?
    http://patriotstatesman.com/2011/05/romneycare-ba… http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/10/romneycare-and… http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/pr… http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://n…

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Its ashame that people ignore Romneycare. He bankrupted his state with this and the people don't like it. Now, how can he run the country folks?

      Bankrupted his state? Romney inherited a $3 billion budget deficit and left a $2 billion surplus while cutting taxes 19 times. Give me a break.

      So-called Romneycare was based on the Heritage Foundation's healthcare model. In fact, Heritage Foundation's lead scholar on healthcare matters attended the signing ceremony. In case you are too ignorant to know, the Heritage Foundation is considered to be the leading conservative think thank in the country.

      Not only that, but when Romney signed that healthcare reformation bill, Newt Gingrich wrote op-eds endorsing it 100 percent, in which the Wall Street Journal recently republished just the other day.

      In addition, it is also supported 3 to 1 by the citizens of Massachusetts. Now many people have tried to blame other chronic problems long inherent in Massachusetts' healthcare system on so-called Romneycare to attempt to pin the blame on Romney, but none of those things are a part of so-called Romneycare.

      Meanwhile, Newt has backed a top down federal solution that included the individual mandate for almost 20 years. In fact, during his appearance on NBC's Meet the Mess just last May, Newt Gingrich was still backing that same top down federal healthcare solution that included an individual mandate.

      Romney, on the other hand, unlike Newt has only supported the individual mandate on a state by state basis and only when it makes sense, because it is unconstitutional under the US constitution. While again Newt supports it as part of an overall top down federal solution.

      Hell, he claims Congressman Paul Ryan's proposed medicare reforms are right-wing social engineering and favors letting the system inevitably go bankrupt like Obama.

      Indeed, unlike Romney who advocates shutting down federal bureaucracies to return their authority back to the states, Newt believes in the efficacy of a big federal government. As a matter of fact, Newt has written that FDR and not Reagan is the greatest president in US history. Thus, if you believe that Newt is a conservative, you are sadly mistaken. On other hand, if you are the typical liberal establishment RINO Republican, then it is understandable why you support him.

      • mlcblog

        This writing of yours I really enjoyed.

  • WildJew

    Does that mean if you were faced with a choice between Gingrich and Obama, you would vote for Obama – or at least not begrudge those women who do – because "looks do matter" and because Gingrich does not measure up to the Obama family model?

    • Jim_C

      Gingrich doesn't measure up to a heck of a lot.