I just can’t resist. Mitt’s performance in Jacksonville is being so widely hailed as a success I just had to update my prior post.
CNN’s Bill Bennett: Mitt is “No Shrinking Violet”
In an opinion piece, CNN’s William Bennett used as his title a line rumored to have been heard uttered by Mitt as he came off the stage in Jacksonville, that if he’s attacked, he’ll attack back, and that he’s “no shrinking violet.” Much of what Bennett says was already covered in my prior post, so I’ll let you go there to catch the rest of his message. But the drum beat is becoming clear: if the GOP is looking for someone to beat Obama, and if they believe Newt that the ability to debate Obama is key to doing so, Mitt is every bit as capable as Newt, if not more so since Newt relies much more on emotion and crowd participation while Mitt can succeed with or without both.
Politico’s Martin and Burns
In perhaps the strongest of the articles I’ve seen today, in Politico authors Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns called Newt’s debate a “no-show.” Their opening shot:
With Florida and perhaps his presidential hopes in the balance, Newt Gingrich turned in an oddly passive debate performance that left his supporters scratching their heads and illustrated his unpredictable and even whimsical style.
It served as a reminder of the essential trait of the Gingrich campaign: It is entirely dependent on the candidate’s impulse or mood…
All told, Gingrich’s performance was more a throwback to the last days of his Iowa campaign — a floundering, listless, message-free affair — than an extension of his Palmetto State victory tour.
One unaligned commentator viewed this as evidence of Gingrich’s overall lack of discipline:
His somnolent showing left other November-minded Republicans with a mix of shock that the famously hard-charging politician would go soft at such a high-stakes moment and relief that he may not be able to capitalize on his South Carolina win.
“Speaker Gingrich showed everyone tonight that he does not have the discipline to run a presidential campaign,” said unaligned GOP strategist Curt Anderson. “He clearly came into this debate with no plan and no strategy to win it. If he had won this debate tonight, he would have won Florida, and pandemonium would have set in within the Republican Party.”
Even Newt’s supporters were at a loss as to why he was so flat:
“I can’t answer those questions, you’d have to ask him,” said Bill McCollum, Gingrich’s Florida chairman, when asked why his candidate wouldn’t highlight his differences with Romney …
Former Sen. Fred Thompson, a recent Gingrich endorser, offered the same answer to the same question.
“I don’t know, you’ll have to ask him,” said Thompson….”Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond was more succinct when pressed about why Gingrich didn’t reprise his aggressive performance from last week.
“I don’t know,” he said.
Meanwhile others, not just Romney supporters, pointed out this is evidence of Newt’s inconsistency. How could he lead the party if he performed as poorly against Obama?
“He looked deflated to me,” crowed Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom. “He’s an erratic personality. He bounces around from pillar to post. I think over the last 24 hours he’s become more and more unhinged.”
“Newt’s campaign has lived and died by debates and the adoration of a casino billionaire,” said Nick Ryan, who heads a pro-Rick Santorum super PAC. “When Newt has an easy moderator as a foil, he can attack the media and win. When Newt has to defend his own record or ability to articulate a conservative message, he loses, even to Romney. Tonight both Santorum and Romney took Newt to task, and he looked like the wounded and flawed candidate that Iowa voters saw. It makes one wonder if Juan Williams and John King had more effect on South Carolina voters than any ad or any campaign.”
Floridians should notice: if job one is to defeat Obama, the polls continue to show Mitt performing best against him. And Newt’s only argument, that he can debate Obama, has been completely deflated.












Hannity is spinning it on his show that the quality of the debate last night was so much better and elevated due to the prior contributions of Gingrich.
Hannity has lost so much credibility as objective among the Republicans.
I think it’s pretty easy to understand why Newt Gingrich hasn’t done well in the past two debates. He doesn’t have a strong core or a strong vision and he is dishonest. How can anyone have a strong vision when they are walking back their positions or doing and saying whatever is politically expedient. People with these kinds of character flaws can be shown up in a debate. For Romney to show Newt up wasn’t a problem. Romney is a principled and skilled debater with a clear vision.
I can’t get through 15 minutes of Sean Hannity. Tonight he announced Rich Santorum as the winner of the Thursday debate. I think he’s hoping if Newt self destructs, the so called true conservatives will rally around Santornum for the nomination.
Regarding FOX news, I used to like Hannity, was somewhat neutral on O’Reilly, and detested Greta VanSusteren. After his obvious bias against Mitt Romney in favor of whomever is the “flavor of the month”—currently Gingrich, and perhaps soon-to-be Santorum—I literally can not stand Hannity. What a hypocrite and blind pride-filled egotist talking head he has proved to be.
The debate Thursday night was a brilliant display of Romney’s capabilities and suitability to be POTUS. He brushed aside the lies being foisted upon him by Gingrich and answered the question expertly that Santorum seems fixated on a false premise that there are no differences between the Massachusettes Health Care Plan and Obamacare. Santurum’s false idea of top-down forced programing blinded him to what Romney explained so very well. Therefore, Santorum kept hammering the point which Romney had already elucidated so well showing Santorum his error.
Afterwards, the talking heads kept saying how well Santorum had done because he was loud and wouldn’t give up his point. To me, this again illustrated how blind or deliberately obtuse (stupid) the talking heads are. They wouldn’t give Romney his just due; instead they just kept and keep repeating the big lie and continue to confuse the people Ann Coulter tells us don’t look more than 3 seconds into any issue.
I agree with Annette that I also can’t get through 15 minutes of Sean Hannity. Unbelievable to me, I now go to CNN rather than FOX to get a semblance of balance in reporting. I never thought that would be even remotely possible. Thank goodness for Mitt Central. Planet Romney and the other Mitt sites like Evangelicals for Mitt, American Needs Mitt, Moma for Mitt, etc., etc.