2012 GOP Presidential Campaign -- "This individual's going to accuse me of an affair for an extended period of time."

I think alfred was talking about the gay-vet clip

yes

Mittens comes off decently; he answered the question without her eyes crossing, as Bachmann did when that kid programmed by lesbian parents questioned her.

*HIS eyes crossing, heh

Oops--I meant the one just above.

without her eyes crossing, as Bachmann did when that kid programmed by lesbian parents questioned her.

her eyes weren't crossing. they were summoning a righeous blast of hellfire from the lord.

and now for a funny little story about Mittens' dad:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jR1D9gmHyL8/TuepsEKfc2I/AAAAAAAAAO4/I9LGdawDEbU/s1600/GroganRomneyNYT.jpg

Man, bring back the days when Republican presidential candidates actively campaigned in San Francisco.

"articulation is a key identifier of intelligence (esp to me)."

?? i don't get this, its an identifier of a certain kind of intelligence but certainly a very limited one

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/un-newtening.html

:/

that poll detail is terrific. his boom was so fast it didn't even happen

Trump debate off; my condolences to you all.

If they give up on Newt before he even has a chance to engineer a spectacular flame-out, I will be very angry. (Honest to god--what do these people want!?)

was honestly hoping Newt would get to spout a few more totally insane things before shrinking back into ignominy

newt will always spout totally insane things; you may just have to work harder to hear about them

Back to point #2 on a list I posted of reasons why I wanted Newt to win: the sheer boredom of an Obama-Romney campaign.

boredom with a fraudulent choice helps the 99%, not that you in the Great White North need care.

We don't have rich and poor people here--just a Tim Horton's on every corner.

canada just backed out of kyoto! the circus headed north too i guess

man and just after Gingrich secured the coveted Giuliani endorsement

xp

This staple remover has emerged as the newest Republican frontrunner. It's fiercely anti-mandate, a proven job creator, and (surprisingly) has just received Rick Perry's endorsement.

http://www.mozenamedical.com/images/25-716.jpg

"articulation is a key identifier of intelligence (esp to me)."

No it ain't not.

very sad to see the gingrich boomlet dying out.

RIP Newt, we'll always have the first week of December, 2011

f---g a.

so, it's romney?

PROGRESSIVE ROMNEY?

FLIP/FLOP MITT/ROM?

George Will column on Gingrich sure is ... something

ron paul picked up a key gay-beardo-limey endorsement today

ron paul boomlet next.

why did newtmania die? did america remember who he is?

If there's any un-Newtening, it's marginal (margarine/shortening, etc.). That poll had fewer than 300 respondents, and is probably worthless.

why did newtmania die? did america remember who he is?

relentless drumbeat of negativity from pundits/press probably didn't help but who knows

seems pretty clear the GOP "establishment" made the call to flex some media muscle against li'l Newtie

From the NY mag article linked above:

Ron Paul has decided, for reasons known only to Ron Paul, to unleash his moneybomb in the form of a brutal advertising assault on Gingrich, also in Iowa.

It's clear to me that Paul expects to become the next anti-Mitt darling and hopes to veer the stampede towards himself at the strategic moment, just before the caucuses and several days before Iowans experience their fifth or sixth case of buyer's remorse.

yep yep

kinda doubt that's gonna work tho

I can see why Ron Paul would think that though, because the rise of Cain and Gingrich have been improbable.

can't imagine why any evangelical would give Paul the time of day

Because he is not Mitt. Nor is he Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, or Newt. Oh, and he's not a mormon.

Paul's chock full of the non-gredients voters are yearning for.

evangelicals need more specific commitments tho, like "hates sex/homos"

Ron Paul has decided, for reasons known only to Ron Paul, to unleash his moneybomb in the form of a brutal advertising assault on Gingrich, also in Iowa.

reasons known to a lot of people! ron paul has hated newt gingrich ever since newt campaigned for a democrat-turned-republican against paul in the 90s. newt had these crazy dreams about a permanent GOP majority (led by him) and wanted to signal to democrats that he'd protect them if they switched party-affiliations. this one did, and ran against ron paul, so newt felt compelled to support him. ron paul was not happy. not happy. and now is the moment of revenge that Mister Mxyzptlk was waited for.

-Paul is rabidly pro-life, and most likely isn't above signing some kind of fucknut "pledge" proving it

-also thinks there's no basis for a "rigid separation between church and state" in the Constitution or the writings of the founders.

-and at one of the earlier debates he intimated that churches should provide health care (haha what?), like in the good ol days

-he doesn't have mistresses and ex-wives

so really the only mark against him is his ZOMG ANTI-ISRAEL stance and the fact that he sees little benefit in blowing up brown people wearing turbans. which is admittedly a pretty big mark with evangelicals i guess.

no, the marks against him are many. see, e.g., what his newsletters from the 90s said about black people. it's outrageous.

i meant wrt evangelicals. evangelicals (around here anyway) would most likely have very little problem with some of those newsletters.

oh, i didn't realize that was the limit of yr comment. still, i doubt evangelicals would approve of those type of comments (at least openly?).

paul gets by because he has a longstanding and committed small base of support, and a variation of his critique of gov't has become fashionable for the modern GOP (in response to obama's approach to the ecnomic crisis). but that would all be obliterated in an instant if his opponents decided to attack him.

I don't think that newsletter stuff has gotten widespread exposure tbh. the first place I saw it was actually here on ILX, where people were berating Morbius for voting for Paul at one point.

the story has kicked around some. if paul were a more serious candidate, it would get more attention.

i think the official Paultard line is that he didn't write the objectionable stuff in those newsletters, that they were put out without his knowledge, etc. not sure how well that would sell if he became the front-runner though.

Josh Marshall seems to think that Newt's position is strong, <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/12/entrails_1.php";>at least half of the way</a>.

Kind of surprised to see no-one working the "Well he says that he's faithful now because he's found proper religion. And if you can't trust a Catholic in power, then where are we?" angle