Hey, man, you've given up on your Texas pretty boy? Rather sneaky, eh? Why don't you say something first about his intellectual prowess that you so much touted in the past, before we move on to another subject, like Newt?
To go back to Tecumseh's [original] question; "Maybe Gingrich after all"?
Yeah, he's running a relaxed, sharp, intelligent campaign [very unlike the last, which was nervous in all directions]. In the debates he's been impressive. My issue with him had been/is "electability", but as it is shaping up I do believe he is a stronger candidate than Mitt "Pretty Boy Lubed Up in the Village by the McCain People" Romney.
I am in agreement here, aa. Of course things could reverse yet again, but I am hoping that Americans this cycle will come back from confusing policy agreement (with principle) pandering.
Clearly, Newt is the only one giving Mitt a run for his money. He's better in the debates, most of he time (though not overwhelmingly so). Experience counts, of course.
Now, he really got on the wrong foot in his campaign, what with his "right-wing social engineering" jab at Paul Ryan, and his troubles with his campaign flunkies (some of which defected to Perry). A lesser man would have imploded after that, but he kept plodding, and got better at it.
Now and then, Newt messes up, quite inexplicably. He also did something strange (and uncharacteristic) with the Lybia intervention -- he was all over the place with that one, kind of incoherent.
I think he has moments when his mind gets ahead of himself. Reminds me of good profs who mess up a lecture (or a paper) once in a while.
12 comments:
Hey, man, you've given up on your Texas pretty boy? Rather sneaky, eh? Why don't you say something first about his intellectual prowess that you so much touted in the past, before we move on to another subject, like Newt?
While waiting for an answer, here is Rabinowitz musing about Newt.
What if Mitt falters? Let's call in Jeb Bush, says Brooks.
I am supposed to answer to drivel including "pretty boy"?
There, there, Mr Rot. Did I hurt your feelings?
Nah. Laughing at you. If Perry is a pretty boy, Romney then is a lubed up member of the Village People.
To go back to Tecumseh's [original] question; "Maybe Gingrich after all"?
Yeah, he's running a relaxed, sharp, intelligent campaign [very unlike the last, which was nervous in all directions]. In the debates he's been impressive. My issue with him had been/is "electability", but as it is shaping up I do believe he is a stronger candidate than Mitt "Pretty Boy Lubed Up in the Village by the McCain People" Romney.
I am in agreement here, aa. Of course things could reverse yet again, but I am hoping that Americans this cycle will come back from confusing policy agreement (with principle) pandering.
Clearly, Newt is the only one giving Mitt a run for his money. He's better in the debates, most of he time (though not overwhelmingly so). Experience counts, of course.
Now, he really got on the wrong foot in his campaign, what with his "right-wing social engineering" jab at Paul Ryan, and his troubles with his campaign flunkies (some of which defected to Perry). A lesser man would have imploded after that, but he kept plodding, and got better at it.
Yeah, WTF got into him on that RW social plan? I had forgotten it out of the fact what the assertion is gibberish.
Now and then, Newt messes up, quite inexplicably. He also did something strange (and uncharacteristic) with the Lybia intervention -- he was all over the place with that one, kind of incoherent.
I think he has moments when his mind gets ahead of himself. Reminds me of good profs who mess up a lecture (or a paper) once in a while.
Lowry's take.
Post a Comment