Spokane7
61°
December 15, 2011 in Nation/World
All eyes on Gingrich in last debate before caucus
SIOUX CITY, Iowa — All eyes on Newt Gingrich, the Republican presidential contenders assembled in Iowa today for the last debate before the state’s leadoff nominating caucuses, now less than three weeks away.
The former House speaker, leading in national and state GOP polls, set the stage by pushing back against criticism from chief rival Mitt Romney and pledged in a new ad to be positive in the race.
Romney was expected to test Gingrich’s pledge in the debate as he works to stall the Iowa front-runner’s momentum.
Also participating in the debate were Texas Rep Ron Paul, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. Huntsman is not campaigning for the Iowa caucuses but has recently gained on Romney in next-up New Hampshire.
Gingrich, who seemed an also-ran in the earliest stages of the race, has emerged as a leader heading into the final stretch of the pre-primary campaign. His decades in Washington and his post-congressional career as a consultant have been the subjects of tough critiques from Romney’s campaign in the past week.
Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican who has said he probably will not endorse a candidate before the caucuses, said Thursday that Gingrich needs to show he has discipline in the debate and in the next few weeks to convince GOP voters he has what it takes to be president.
“I don’t know. I don’t know,” Branstad said in an Associated Press interview when asked specifically if he thought Gingrich had the discipline to be president. “I think he’s a great idea person; I have a lot of respect for him. But whether he has the discipline and the focus, I don’t know.”
Branstad described the debate as critical for Gingrich to show poise, but he said the final days leading up to the Jan. 3 caucuses would be a bigger test.
“I think it’s volatile, that you could see big numbers switch,” he said. “External factors can have an impact, and how well the candidates handle them will matter.”
Romney has not begun running ads assailing Gingrich. But he has characterized the former speaker as “zany” for having endorsed mining the moon and lighting highways with mirrors in space.
Romney has increasingly looked to slow Gingrich in Iowa. Romney has campaigned lightly in the state, and some influential social conservatives there have doubts about his Mormon faith and changed positions on social issues.
In a new ad in Iowa, Romney is describing the need to reduce the federal deficit as a “moral responsibility.”
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
liberal_in_right_wing_land on December 15 at 2:38 p.m.
All I can say to the republicans possibility nominating Newt…….FANTASTIC!!!
monkeyman on December 15 at 3:22 p.m.
Yes, Newt would be a very good republican choice.
…so that Obama can be assured a second term ;)
Albert on December 15 at 4:24 p.m.
As a “former” Republican, I am appalled at the bottom of the barrel that continues within this money-driven party. It’s all about money isn’t it?? Newt and Mitt = sounds like a perverted comedy act in some back street theater.
Loudin on December 15 at 4:30 p.m.
Why is it so hard for the GOP to find a viable candidate? Granted, I’m not a Republican, but if there was a moderate choice out there who didn’t come across as odd or weird or moronic, Obama would get a run for his money.
Palin? ‘nuff said.
Bachmann? Nutty ambulance chaser.
Cain? Hands to yourself, Pizzaboy!
Newt? Flip-floppin’, philandering and Washington lifer.
Paul? Old as Moses, career politician, Mr. Magoo visuals.
Romney? 2-D personality, sells cars in alternate universe.
Get ready for it, angry locals: Eight years of Obama will happen…and it’ll be your own fault.
polistra on December 15 at 4:38 p.m.
Obama = 98% Wall Street
Newt = 100% Wall Street
Mitt = 300% Wall Street
No Americans are available. All Wall Street.
Of the three, Obama has shown a tiny glimmer of verbal independence now and then, though never any consequential rebellion against the speculators.
I think he may understand the actual problem even while lacking the authority (or guts?) to do anything about it. The others don’t see a problem at all, they just serve Goldman Sachs and love it.
ManleyPointer on December 15 at 4:59 p.m.
It’s a hoot to read comments from the Left about the type of candidate the Right should run against them.
misjustice on December 15 at 5:13 p.m.
I know Manley; sold any bibles lately?
I’m looking forward to the corn dog eatin’ contest tonight. I’ll have to stream it on my puter though, I don’t subscribe to cable teevee.
@ Albert, re: Newt & Mitt = back street theatre act…LOL!
; )
schleufer on December 15 at 5:26 p.m.
here is a guy shaped like a basketball saying he is a conservitave. he probable could conserve a flock of chickens and a herd of cows per year if he avoided that dinner table once inna while. i say give that guy a mic and a bucket of colonel sanders. how in the hell can he relate to poor people and hunger? i notice they get that jacket ironed out real smoothe so it dont show all his layers.
The_Seer on December 15 at 5:26 p.m.
The heavyweights in the GOP decided to sit this one out long ago. Probably about the time the Tea Baggers started flapping their mainly toothless gums.
I saw some interesting polls numbers recently that showed Obama and Romney in a near dead heat while Obama creamed Gingrich by double digits.
I thought the serial adulterer was abandoned last summer? I’m starting to think Newt is actually a Zombie.
When at the voting machine, GOP voters, please remember this maxim:
Always tap twice.
misjustice on December 15 at 5:31 p.m.
Seer, I agree; the better potential candidates decided to sit this one out. Let the wack-a-doodles battle for the nomination.
I mean, why would the better Republican’t candidates wanna try and fix the mess left by their “peeps” in the Cheney administration? They’ll leave that heavy lifting to the Ds and then obstruct, spin, and complain for 8 years…
Dazzeetrader11 on December 15 at 5:34 p.m.
Vote for competency….funny thing about Obama, he’s doubled the spending and there is nothing to show for it….30 rounds of golf this year…and he’s lousy at that too. Newt can’t see his feet but he’s competent…not well liked but competent.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on December 15 at 5:45 p.m.
Huntsman is the one candidate in this whole bunch who is not crazy, scary, and/or mean. (He’s also the one who never gets mentioned when people are lamenting — or celebrating — the poor quality of Republican candidates this year, so I guess that’s a good thing for him.) (He also never gets mentioned when people are talking about candidates who could win, so I guess that’s a bad thing for him.)
He’s the one candidate that I could imagine (A) holding his own against Obama in a debate; (B) shaping the conversation by having actual intelligent, sensible ideas; and (C) not being a total joke as a president if he should win.
But he’s not a psychopath, so he will never make it through the primaries. That’s really a loss to everyone, since whoever does win the nomination is going to be a crazy person and unable to shape the debate in any useful way.
A Gingrich candidacy would be pretty freakin’ hilarious though, so I kind of hope it happens.
RedCedar on December 15 at 6:15 p.m.
That sounds like praising with faint damnation, compared to what you said about the other Republican candidates, who are either synthetic or buffoons. Let’s look at those criticisms again:
“Old as moses”. There are several good things about this:
1) His testosterone levels have diminished to the point where he’s not likely to launch wars just to prove his manhood
2) He can’t have any grand ambitions of ruling the world eventually because he knows he won’t live long enough for get to use the US presidency as a stepping stone to anything else
3) If you’re in favor of term limits, death is the ultimate term limit. It would be unlikely that Ron Paul would get a second term.
“Career politician”. I realize a lot of people don’t like politicians, just on principle, but the fact is that our Government will be comprised of politicians for the foreseeable future, and there’s something to be said for having a President who knows the players and how to work with them. Obama came in like he just fell off the turnip truck, and it took the “career” political team of Clinton and Clinton to give him a crash course in how the system works.
“Mr. Magoo visuals”. In the age of TV, maybe that’s a killer right there. Maybe Americans really want a coifed, dressed, blow-dried, made-up, plasticized leader figure who’s nearly as embalmed while still alive as Mao and Stalin are in their sarcophagous immortality. On the other hand, if our President isn’t a surrogate for our own insecurity about our own unimpressive looks, why do we care what he or she looks like. They say Abe Lincoln wasn’t much of a looker either, and at least to my eye, Dick Nixon even looked crooked. Does is really matter if a man’s skin is wrinkly, if his hair is sparse, if he wears glasses (rather than getting LASIK like anybody’s campaign adviser would advise)? Maybe it does, and if that’s the case, a Romney or a Perry would probably be a better choice.
“
misjustice on December 15 at 6:24 p.m.
@ thatoneguy, I agree about Huntsman. He’s the best of the current crop of Rs but too sane and centrist to win in the primary…so what does that say about the Rs?
I do like Paul’s latest attacks on Getrich’s Viet Nam military deferments…nothing like a chickenhawk; especially a Republican’t chickenhawk!
BlondeSquawker on December 15 at 6:41 p.m.
Hey, MisJ! Howz everything in da hood? Glad to see you holdin’ down the fort!
I got some special Newt tees printed up. He’s posing at an anti gun rally! Pubs gonna love it! Lol.
misjustice on December 15 at 7:10 p.m.
Blondie…is your daddy in the pic with Newtie?
Lol!
; )
BlondeSquawker on December 15 at 7:38 p.m.
How did you guess?!
Just Say No!
Rod_Foss on December 15 at 7:45 p.m.
This is so much fun! Are you people really that bored?
Obama hasn’t got a snowball’s chance of ….losing! No Republican candidate can beat him. It might be closer this time, but that is completely inconsequential. The minute he accepts the nomination, he has at that exact moment won the election. The actual voting will be a meaningless sham.
There’s only one way your “messiah” can lose — if he doesn’t run. Not gonna happen. And don’t be surprised (I’m sure you won’t be) if you recapture the house while holding onto the Senate.
So all your semi-gleeful chortling is actually a snore-fest. You’ve won the culture war (who can dispute it? I can’t) and you’ll win the elections (enough of them to matter, anyway), and everything else there is to win. So why waste so much of your potent brain energy on it?
misjustice on December 15 at 7:51 p.m.
^ Someone had a steamy bowl of grouchy for dinner!
Shadedmuse on December 15 at 8:03 p.m.
If Newton the srial aldulter is the answer then the question must of been a dumb one. Obama will have no problem beating this white fat old guy who has stayed to long at the fair.
jddavis on December 15 at 10:37 p.m.
“There’s only one way your “messiah” can lose — if he doesn’t run.”
Actually Rod, there is another way…if Jimmy Carter throws his hat in for the Democrat nomination!
Shadedmuse on December 16 at 11:36 a.m.
If Hilary ran for President this year she would still loose because Hillary is to conservative to win the Democratic Nomination and that is why she LOST in 2008. She took Democratic voters for granit and we Democratic voters told her to go pund sand we are supporting the hawaiian,
What do you call an Obama Pizza? a hawaiian served in Deep dish chicago style.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on December 16 at 3:41 p.m.
^ ^ ^ I have had that thing you call “Obama Pizza.” It’s freaking delicious.
mmspowaus on December 17 at 4:03 a.m.