#rsrh This… should have been about half as long, and 1/10 as bitter.

(H/T: Hot Air Headlines) It’s an extremely sarcastic exercise in spleen against Newt Gingrich by John Ziegler, and it needs some rather drastic editing for length.  And then even more editing to avoid gratuitously insulting the conservative base.  And the entire population of South Carolina.  Probably should have avoided suggesting that Gingrich is some sort of ritual magician, come to think of it.  All in all, two things to take away from this article: the first is, this is not how you convince people that you’re right and they, specifically, are wrong.  This is instead how you convince people that you’re being a petulant jackass.

The second, somewhat contradictory thing is even petulant jackasses can have a point, sometimes: in this case, that Gingrich will have more difficulties with winning the general election than a lot of his supporters seem ready to concede. I hear a lot of people talk about how they’d rather lose with Gingrich than lose with Romney, which is… well, kind of defeatist, actually, but never mind that right now.  But I also hear some people talk about how they’d rather lose with Gingrich than win with Romney, which is frankly absurd.  To quote somebody or other: this is what defeat looks like.

Avoid it.

Moe Lane


  • NotSoBlueStater says:

    Brit Hume pointed out that Newt has (something like) a 29-59 approval/disapproval split nationally, which makes him basically a non-starter in the general. He’s a bit of a cad, and he’ll be up against a man who presents as a good husband and father. Suicidal, I think.

  • Skip says:

    @notsobluestater, thing is you can say similar things about all the candidates – Romney can’t win because the conservative two-thirds of the Republican party distrusts him, Santorum lost badly in his last election in a state we’d need to flip, Ron Paul is Ron Paul… We simply don’t have the candidate to ‘win’ the election. With this slate it’s pretty much guaranteed that we’re going to have to rely on folks voting ‘not Obama’, and folks doing that probably aren’t going to care much which not Obama they vote for. Given that the only victory I see is one by default, I’d rather put up the most conservative choice possible. And now you can argue which candidate fits that role, but you cannot possibly argue that the candidate that fits that role is Romney.

  • Free-range Oyster says:

    This came to mind as an instructive tangent:
    “No matter what point you are trying to get across, lesson you are trying to instill, or argument you are trying to make, it is entirely possible that the single biggest and indeed most important thing you will teach your audience, subject, or opponent is that you are an asshole.” LabRat, of the Atomic Nerds
    Good for us all to remember, but particularly in things political. Up the Republic!

  • DaveP. says:

    Isn’t it amazing that a candidate with such “non-high negatives” as Mitt Romney can’t even pull a third of his own party?
    Either there’s something wrong with Romeny… or there’s something wrong with the whole “negatives” concept.

  • Catseye says:

    To Quote “There’s your Problem” -Mythbusters.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com