It looked like Romney had it in the bag, but Gingrich's firey invective managed to swing the vote heavily in his favor. A few weeks ago, intrade.com had Romney at something like 97% to win. Now it's down to 66%, with Gingrich at 25%. This is actually good news for your boy Ron Paul, who is banking on a brokered convention - meaning no candidate gets enough votes to win, hence 3rd and 4th place candidates can trade their delegates to the frontrunner in return for influence, veep status, cabinet positions, policy concessions, etc.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

In reply to this comment by Lawdeedaw:
Why is it that when an established front-runner starts to win is it a surprising turnaround? I hate our fucking news system...

How does one end up ahootin' and ahollerin' for Newt Gingrich at a Republican debate in South Carolina? What string of life choices amounts to this sum?

Your video, TDS - The Gingrich Who Stole South Carolina, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It certainly did in John Edwards' case, and it didn't even have to be brought up in a debate. So it goes with both sides of the aisle.

>> ^dag:

I think it's both cool and important. Speaks to character. I like to think I would feel the same way if it was a Dem. I hope so.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Still don't think it is cool to bring up in a debate (as it isn't debatable among all the candidates), but I'm upvoting because hes swine.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I take your point. maybe it should have been a broader question about family values and hypocrisy. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^dag:
I think it's both cool and important. Speaks to character. I like to think I would feel the same way if it was a Dem. I hope so.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Still don't think it is cool to bring up in a debate (as it isn't debatable among all the candidates), but I'm upvoting because hes swine.


Right, the subject of conversation, yes. But what is the point in a debate? A debate is about debating positions on issues; that isn't an issue someone could debate him on. Could unless we are going to have the other candidates pipe in on his failed marriages (failed in a most disgusting fashion). IMO, that is what the 24 hour news circuits are for, the debates are those few heralding places we get to try to see what their views are on issues (though this is mostly a farce too). Be that as it may, I like to compartmentalize my farces!

>> ^dag:

I think it's both cool and important. Speaks to character. I like to think I would feel the same way if it was a Dem. I hope so.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Still don't think it is cool to bring up in a debate (as it isn't debatable among all the candidates), but I'm upvoting because hes swine.



Right, the subject of conversation, yes. But what is the point in a debate? A debate is about debating positions on issues; that isn't an issue someone could debate him on. Could unless we are going to have the other candidates pipe in on his failed marriages (failed in a most disgusting fashion). IMO, that is what the 24 hour news circuits are for, the debates are those few heralding places we get to try to see what their views are on issues (though this is mostly a farce too). Be that as it may, I like to compartmentalize my farces!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think it's both cool and important. Speaks to character. I like to think I would feel the same way if it was a Dem. I hope so.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Still don't think it is cool to bring up in a debate (as it isn't debatable among all the candidates), but I'm upvoting because hes swine.

>> ^NetRunner:

I actually feel bad about posting something like this. The scandalous part of this is how Newt treated his wife, not the concept of "open marriage" itself, and I know that's not how the ensuing media coverage will talk about it.
There's nothing here that disqualifies Newt from the Presidency. What he's openly proclaiming in order to win support from the GOP base is what should disqualify him from elected office of any sort, let alone the Presidency.
But this, this will probably kill his chances of winning the South Carolina primary.
It's a mad, mad world.


Boy did I get that one wrong. Who knew playing the victim of the eeeevil liberal media would catapult him to a landslide victory in SC?

I need to remember that this is the Confederate party, not the Republican one.

"So without sucking up to this audience..."

followed by

"every 4 years south carolina I think shapes the presidential election more than any other state."

I know he's saying for Colbert to not suck up...but I just find it funny.

Anyone else notice how either the pundits or candidates have said at each state that THIS state is the one that shapes the process more than any other? Gotta love it.

I actually feel bad about posting something like this. The scandalous part of this is how Newt treated his wife, not the concept of "open marriage" itself, and I know that's not how the ensuing media coverage will talk about it.

There's nothing here that disqualifies Newt from the Presidency. What he's openly proclaiming in order to win support from the GOP base is what should disqualify him from elected office of any sort, let alone the Presidency.

But this, this will probably kill his chances of winning the South Carolina primary.

It's a mad, mad world.

“ROCK ME LIKE A HERMAN CAIN!”
Stephen Colbert To Hold Rally With Herman Cain In South Carolina On Friday

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/stephen-colbert-to-hold-rally-with-herman-cain-in

I don't take recitation of those statistics as being racist in itself. Again, I'm using context. I know people who actually work in poor and ethnic communities that use such stats as a benchmark or as a reason to call folks to positive action.

If he has good at heart, when has Newt actually worked for positive change in this community that he so soundly criticizes? Obama was a community organizer in poor areas of Chicago. As a legislator he sponsored bills that directly helped people in poor areas and people in the black community. So, when he uses such stats--and he actually does have a history of telling all types of crowds to stick to a work ethic--Obama doesn't come off as a ne'er-do-well.

I know people who work at youth outreach centers and soup kitchens in DC. Noone has ever seen ol' Newt drop in to help. I've never heard of him sponsoring a bill to help the poor of DC, though he can rattle off all the problems those people have. As a longtime legislator and one-time speaker of the house and someone who lived in the DC area at least part time, he's had plenty of opportunity to lend a hand, but hasn't chosen to do so.

The guy's a professional speaker, but I've never heard of him browbeating poor whites. Hell, he's in South Carolina; he has plenty of chances to tell white people to get off welfare and food stamps. He could have used the stage in the video to do so. But, no, he has to pick on blacks to play to a white crowd.

Newt has such a well known public, political and legislative history that you don't have to troll youtube to see where he's coming from. The people who gave him a standing ovation certainly know.

>> ^Diogenes:

@longde
you may be right, though i do try my best to see the 'big picture' re looking at things in a broader perspective... you could even say that that's one of my hobbies
forgive me if i don't (probably can't) take up your challenge on providing the asked-for video... though i'll happily buy the rounds myself
i think the media (including youtube, et al) is inherently sensationalist, and as such, gravitates to coverage of what's wrong with the message rather than the basis of the message itself
perhaps this seeming focus on the plight of minorities stems from the basic statistics we have: iirc, there are more whites at or under the poverty level than all minorities combined... yet as a % of total population, they are outnumbered by both hispanics and and african-americans - more sadly (yet perhaps more indicative of newt's focus), is the fact that african-americans outnumber hispanic citizens, yet as a % of total population, the former has more people at or under the poverty line
now, you could take my recitation of those statistics as being 'racist' even though i don't think i am and also don't have a dog in this race
so perhaps newt's message is figuratively loudest where he believes the most help is needed (nation-wise)... but this focus can be skewed to seem a blatant criticism of the race of those affected
here's an 8-year-old quote from gingrich: "It is impossible to maintain civilization with 12-year-olds having babies, 15-year-olds killing each other, 17-year-olds dying of AIDS, and 18-year-olds getting diplomas they can't even read. Yet that is precisely where three generations of Washington-dominated, centralized-government, welfare-state policies have carried us."
taken broadly, many would agree and likely take no offense... but applied to a specific audience of specific ethnicity, would likely seem insensitive
i think newt's been fairly consistent in his views on poverty, which we can trace back to his seminal 'contract with america' in the '80s
but again, i could be wrong...

>> ^moodonia:

Is that a fact that Obama put more people on food stamps or is it careful phrasing, rather than saying he gave more people access to food stamps?
Either way I dont see how giving people food is such a bad thing.


The way I'd relay the facts is that the economy started crashing in 2008 (before Obama was elected), and lots of people lost their jobs, and because lots of people lost their jobs there was a sharp increase in the number of people applying for food stamps.

Part of the stimulus bill in 2009 increased the benefits provided by SNAP (aka the "food stamp" program), and made unemployed adults without children eligible for benefits.

So the way I'd put it is "Obama saw more people needing food stamps, and made sure they got them, while also doing his best to fix the mess Wall Street made of the economy."

I think that's missing the forest for the trees though. This comment isn't really about food stamps. It's about floating several racist memes in the birthplace of the Civil War (South Carolina), and then trying to whitewash them as being "truth" or "common sense," even though they're neither true nor sensible.

States Rights for South Carolina!

Your video, Colbert SuperPAC Releases Romney Attack Ad In South Carolina, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.