Letters from the Lunar Outpost

Despite those titles, power, and pelf, The wretch, concentred all in self, Living, shall forfeit fair renown, And, doubly dying, shall go down To the vile dust from whence he sprung, Unwept, unhonoured and unsung.
- Walter Scott, Scottish Novelist and Poet (1771-1832)

When arch-conservative Ann Coulter goes all in for a moderate candidate like Mitt Romney, when conservative talk radio firebrand Michael Savage offers Newt Gingrich one-million dollars of his own money to “drop out of the presidential race for the sake of the nation,” you may wonder why so many high profile conservatives are urging the GOP to drop its front runner like a hot potato. Well, it’s no wonder really, it’s all about winning in November – they have their doubts about Gingrich and I have mine as well, so let me give you my own personal list of . . .

The Top Five Reasons Newt Would Lose to Obama:

1. Too many Independents are set against Newt Gingrich.

While there’s a bit of an enthusiasm edge on one side or the other from election to election, for the most part, American elections are split in thirds – there’s about one-third of America with its mind set to vote Democrat, about one-third with its mind set to vote Republican, and a middle-third which actually decides the election. It was the Independents who put Obama into the White House and it’s the Independents who seem poised to make him a one-term president, but when it comes to a choice of Gingrich vs. Obama, many Independents still remember the government shutdown of ’95 & ’96 and place the blame for it on Gingrich and not Clinton and many Indies see Newt as just too far right, the hardcore conservative Grinch, the Uncle Scrooge that the media painted him as, so is it any surprise when you look at the numbers?

Gingrich is 15-points underwater in approval with Independents. That’s not the fluid 15-points of a guy who’s new on the scene, either, Newt’s been around a long time, most people already have a set opinion on him and that 15-points, that’s going to be a hard 15-points for Gingrich to try to move.

2. The Obama State Media will be working overtime to vilify the GOP candidate, and Newt Gingrich gives them the biggest target.

The story that Newt demanded a divorce from his wife on her death bed is a lie, but a lie repeated so many times by the media that most people actually believe it to be true. If the MSM can get most of America to believe a lie about Gingrich, imagine what they can do with some of details of Gingrich’s life that aren’t in dispute. Adam O’Neal had a good read on why Gingrich’s personal scandals won’t carry as much weight as they might have in more prosperous times, but make no mistake about it, just look at these propaganda posters, er – I mean, magazine covers from the 90s and realize that mainstream media will have no shame in doing everything it can to demonize Newt once again and they’ll have a much easier time demonizing him than they would Romney.

How the Gingrich Stole Christmas Uncle Scrooge

3. Newt will lose those voters who vote on looks and charm.

If you’re reading this post, you’re probably a political junkie just the same as I am. Well, it may be hard for you and me to fathom, but the truth is, most Americans don’t even like politics, so when they go to vote, they could be locked into one party, or they might be capable of voting either way and even study the candidates’ positions out of a sense of civic duty, but never underestimate the amount of voters who don’t have the time to be bothered studying issues and who, whether consciously or not, cast their vote based on which candidate will look the best representing our nation. We all want someone pleasant to look at when they address the nation, but for some people, that’s really all they have to go by.

With Obama vs. Romney, the charisma factor might be a wash, but how much of a swing would it be for Obama vs. Newt? One out of twenty voters giving it up for Obama on looks alone? Just a wild guess, but I could easily see a 5-point swing for Obama here.

4. Nothing could fire up the Democrat base like the possibility of a President Gingrich . . .

Okay, maybe the prospect of a President Bachmann would inspire an equal amount of terror and determination in the hearts of Dems too, but – just visualize whatever amount of fight Democrats would have against a potential President Romney and then compare it to how they would fight against Gingrich tooth and nail, as if they were fighting against the end of civilization itself and it’s no contest, you want to inspire the despondent Democrats out of their doldrums, just nominate Newt.

5. Rich Lowry said it well enough, allow me to allow him to make the final point: “All that is predictable about Newt is that he is unpredictable, and, irresistibly, an election that should be about President Obama and his record will become about the heat and light generated by his electric performance. That’s the way it was as speaker, too. Eventually, he wore out his welcome in epic fashion.”

Newt Gingrich is a truly exceptional mind, I used to watch his college courses on TV with my eyes welling up with tears of pride over Gingrich’s stirring lectures and the way he could articulate so perfectly everything that is good about America and all that could be better about America, but as much as I love the professor and former Speaker of the House, there is only one thing Republicans should be focused on right now and that is nominating the candidate with the best chance at winning in November. Gingrich, as brilliant as he is, gives Obama way too many opportunities to make the election about the challenger instead of being a referendum on him and his dismal presidency.

Click here to subscribe and never miss out!


24 Responses to Top Five Reasons Newt Would Lose to Obama

  • Very interesting perspective. I only hope that the Democrats can match the “end-of-civilization” approach the Republicans have taken with regards to preventing President Obama from being elected to a second term. If anything, Newt getting the nomination will even the playing field in this regard.

    The caveat about voting on looks is very interesting as well, but when it comes to Newt, we might say: “well, beauty really is only skin deep.” What he lacks in looks he surely doesn’t make up for in the personality department.

    But in my heart of hearts, and no matter who the GOP nominates, I think the upcoming election will be the most true election in a generation. The economy will have a great deal to do with it, but there are fair amounts of hatred, vitriol, good spirited competition, and strong beliefs coming from both sides that no expense will be spared and it will be hard fought. May the best candidate win – and if you’re pulling for trickle-down economics to prevail just hope that the economy stays in the proverbial toilet.

    • Awesome reply.

      — I only hope that the Democrats can match the “end-of-civilization” approach the Republicans have taken with regards to preventing President Obama from being elected to a second term. —

      It’s not hysteria when applied to Obama, though. LOL. Republicans do have the enthusiasm edge right now though, and you’re right, I think Gingrich would probably bring the Dems up to the same level where the GOP is right now.

      — when it comes to Newt, we might say: “well, beauty really is only skin deep.” What he lacks in looks he surely doesn’t make up for in the personality department. —

      Too funny. He does have big brains though, you can’t deny him that fact.

      It should be a real knockdown, drag-out battle of an election, and I dig the fact that you look forward to it, relish the thought of just how hard the fight is going to be for both sides.

      Re: trickle-down, that’s not how I see it. I’m not too far from the poverty line myself, but I’m a true believer, I believe that with a rising tide, all boats rise.

      • – “Re: trickle-down, that’s not how I see it. I’m not too far from the poverty line myself, but I’m a true believer, I believe that with a rising tide, all boats rise.” –

        But haven’t we tried that already, and for quite some time no less? Please read my piece about the “Tale of 2 Nations,” http://politic365.com/2011/12/13/on-newt-beating-barack-a-tale-of-two-nations/. It’s a bit of a scatter plot, but has an interesting bit about voting against our own economic interests. Even your metaphor betrays you: if tides did rise from above it would be more feasible to think making wealthy people wealthier would mean we could all be better off. I’ve known and been close to a lot of wealthy people – the only benevolent ones are the 3 or 4 that are asking that their taxes be raised.

        I absolutely look forward to a hard fought race. Since the 2000 election, a lot of candidates have come and gone. What I like about Barack Obama that I haven’t seen from any other candidates – agree with his policies or not – is that he genuinely seems to care about the American people, even those he doesn’t agree with. There is a certain humility about him, like he respects the opportunity to be in the position. Maybe that is what makes him not seem presidential, or like a strong leader, to those who don’t agree with him. But all the GOP candidates in this cycle, and GWB all seemed to feel entitled to the positions. I just don’t get the sense that my children and grandchildren are headed towards imminent doom with Barack Obama at the helm; above all, I feel like he is a leader that wants to work with the American people to help us find our stride again en route to reclaiming the greatness that we’ve known. In all honesty, I think any failure for him falls back on us, or at least the people who voted him in. We believed in his message of change, but WE didn’t change. You can go back to his campaign speeches, he told us to expect it to be hard, and to make sacrifices, for us to strap it up and put our game faces on. Having been a starting college quarterback that is a message that resonates with me, but I don’t see my teammates – my fellow Americans – accepting and rising to that challenge. It’s easier for us to obscure our failures and shortcomings by projecting them onto someone else.

        • Quite interesting that you would write an article on Newt beating Obama the day before I wrote one on Obama beating Newt. Your statement that there are only 3 or 4 benevolent rich people you know (the ones who want their taxes raised) seems borderline bigotry, that is just such a crude stereotype, but I left a reply over at your post.

          By the way, checked out your career as a Wildcat – pretty cool man, pretty cool.

          • Mike, I apologize for the offensive comment stereotyping wealthy people. You are absolutely right – that was unjustly prejudiced and inarticulate. What I was trying to say is that I don’t think believing in the political ideologies that cater to wealthy necessarily assist one in becoming wealthy. It seems the goal of the wealthy – especially considering how many people land there by happenstance and with enumerable environmental good fortune – is to maintain the exclusivity of the club. If you get there they welcome you, but when was the last time a wealthy person lent a hand simply because you share their political cosmology? That may be bigoted too, but it’s not my aim.

            Thanks for the complements… I look forward to reading your comment on my post. 🙂

        • Wow, Damion, we really do see the world through different lenses. For me, the thing I hate the most about Barack Obama is his sense of entitlement, his arrogance, his obvious contempt for all us “bitter clingers” in the heartland, his insistence on imposing his Marxist ideas on us all — even to the point of openly doing end runs around Congress with executive orders and regulations. He regards the Constitution as an annoyance, and those who try to defend it as troublemakers. He and/or his Attorney General ordered federal agents to NOT interdict or track thousands of weapons headed for Mexican druglords — all so he could use increased gun deaths in Mexico as a justification for more gun control over law-abiding citizens in our own country. Obeying and enforcing the law is for us little people, not for him and his minions.

          He has publicly humiliated the prime minister of Israel, the queen of England and even the Dalai Lama. He constantly lectures — hectors, really — us, the American people. He demonizes independent entrepreneurs and targets small businesses. He imperiously barks at Congress to stop being lazy, even as he himself jets off for a 17-day vacation in Hawaii, or just takes off for another weekend at the golf course. He refuses to release his college transcripts as every other political candidate is forced to do. He encourages his followers to use aggressive tactics against conservatives, he demonizes the Tea Party, and he constantly sounds a class-warfare theme. Many Occupy Movement protesters have threatened to do violence, and Obama has said not one thing to discourage them from it — indeed, has subtly egged them on.

          Speaking to his followers, he once referred to everyone who voted Republican in the ’08 election as “our enemies.” He’s made it very clear that he is NOT the president for all Americans, but only for the ones who support him and his policies. When Republicans tried to work with him on health care and then on the budget, he insulted Republican leaders, stomped out of at least one meeting, and threatened to shut down the federal government rather than cut funding for his pet project, Planned Parenthood. His Homeland Security Director has referred to veterans, pro-lifers, Christian conservatives and 2nd Amendment defenders as “potential terrorists.”

          His policies are absolutely loathsome and totally out of sync with the vast majority of the American people, but he barges on with them anyway — demonizing Israel; aiding and abetting terrorism-funding groups such as CAIR and ISNA; militarily intervening in Libya without Congressional authorization; using his State Department to help foment unrest all through the Middle East and thereby aiding radical Islamists to increase their power there; forcing all Americans to pay for abortions with their health-insurance premiums even if they deeply conscientiously object.

          He imposed ObamaCare on us against our will by bribing and threatening members of Congress. He denied school vouchers for poor black children in Washington, DC, even though he sends his own kids to a very fine private school. He has publicly made fun of everyone from the president of France to children with Down syndrome. He has ignored the military and their sacrifices, made a joke of Memorial Day, refused to participate in the National Day of Prayer and yet celebrated Muslim holidays at the White House. He has repeatedly either mocked or threatened everything that I hold dear. How you could see such a hateful, arrogant man as humble and open to all Americans is impossible for me to comprehend.

          • I agree totally with your comments. Obama is not what America represents. He’s socially re-configuring this country. It may take a decade to undo this nonsense. He’s ALWAYS on the wrong side on what makes America, America. His time would be best spent going to Cuba, Venezuela, or some other communist country where he will feel more at home.

  • As silly as the process has been, I’d vote for Charlie Mansion if it meant getting Obama kicked out of office. Let Charlie run the country from prison. (I’m being facetious, but only a little bit!).

    • We couldn’t do any worse . . .

      Charles Manson - Hope and Change

      • Damn skippy! As long as Charlie remain behind bars, let him run the country. The results may actually improve.

    • Wow Vikki! That’s a little fanatical, no? And you’re only half-joking. I believe in your right to free speech, but I also strongly believe that sentiments such as this are the reason our discourse by and large is useless and lacking in articulation; intelligence; meaning. We can’t move forward when our conversations are founded on how outrageous a metaphor we can come up with to show disdain for whatever the current situation is we need to be melodramatic in our complaining about.

      The equivalent would be me saying: The EPA needs to lobby the federal government to finance a $25 trillion commission of Gay/Lesbian/Transgender scientists to complete the genetic mapping of a hybrid clone of Karl Marx, Che Guevera, Ghandi, and Jesus Christ (the ultimate liberal…. how’s that feel evangelicals?) from the embryonic stem cells of aborted fetuses. The project would be undertaken in a newly created laboratory powered completely by solar energy all backed by Chinese currency and the result would be the new president of the global world agenda meant to enslave only the conservatives in the USA.

      The only difference is, my saying some outrageous dumb s*** doesn’t make me feel better, or like I’m more in control. Studying and researching ways to be more financially efficient and ways to make wise investments in order to protect my child’s future in spite of who is running the government (since bootstrapping is the American way I don’t expect the government will be responsible for ruining my kids’ futures) is how I solve any problems I have with the current regime.

      • I understand what you’re saying, and I thank you.

        My comments were a momentary release of pent-up frustrations for an administration that should have never been put into office in the first place. Obama got elected because of the so-called GQ look. Women and men alike voted for him because they thought he was the most lovely thing they had ever seen. They overlooked his peculiar associations (i.e., Rev. Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Farrakhan, etc). They did not care that he had never ran anything. He still refuses to release his records from academia. Why? My comments were a brief spouting off because I thought that the electorate had more sense than to vote for someone who was vetted inappropriately. Apparently, in this day and age, common sense is frowned upon. How sad.

        Again, thanks for your comments!

        • Vikki, I like your phrase “the GQ look.” Otherwise known as “metrosexual.” I also think you’re correct. An appalling percentage of American voters vote on the basis of looks rather than issues.

          But that bugs me on more than one level. To be brutally frank, I’m bemused that any woman would find Obama — or any other “metrosexual,” for that matter — attractive. But earlier this year, I was given some insight into this. There was a scientific study that showed that being on the Pill — which is, after all, a massive dose of hormones — changes women’s biopsychological programming in such a way that it alters their perception of what is attractive — i.e., women on the Pill have less desire for “manly” men and are more attracted to less “masculine” men. When I read that study, I immediately thought: Well, that partly explains the Obama phenomenon. (Personally, I find him so effeminate as to be creepy.)

          • Thank you, Heartlander! At the risk of sounding bitchy, I prefer manly men. They have more grit, and a little feist to them.

  • Vikki, I understand that you’re frustrated. However, a lot of us are, even those of us who believe President Obama is good for the country. First of all, your team can have the best quarterback, but if the line doesn’t block, and if the receivers drop passes on purpose, he’ll have a shitty season. I would rank the play of the President’s team at an all-time low among supporting casts.

    Second of all… where is the perspective? Since when has there been a premium on Presidents either having run corporations or having been governors? There are plenty of presidents that don’t fit those criteria. Ownership and governance do not necessarily precede leadership.

    Furthermore, I also contend that if we end up hiring a GOP candidate to be president, we’d better not be motivated by “common sense.” Regardless of which side you’re on, the current GOP approach is anything but common or displaying an abundance of sense (or pragmatism). That brand of politics is a brand of politics based on money and based on playing to whatever the “flavor-of-the-month” interest is that they can wield to galvanize people who are socially motivated to vote against their own economic interests. But in the end, we all ‘plan’ to win the lottery, or think that promotion to CEO is imminent, so in that sense maybe voting Republican is the thing to do.

    As for “improperly vetting” the president; where have those relationships played a part in this presidency? If the vetting was so improper why do you know about the “associations?” Why did you know about them before Barack Obama made it out of the Democratic primary? Calling that improper vetting just doesn’t add up. Hiring an “evangelical” (Jesus loving) president that was a deserter, alcoholic, poor student (George HW, George W and I all attended Phillips Academy Andover, so I can say that ;-)), coke head sounds more scandalous than the nebulous connections that folks attempt to pin to Obama. Even still, the most important question is: how have the supposed connections mattered to this presidency? I’ve missed the memo if they have.

    As for his academic records, I don’t know why they haven’t been released. I know this, he didn’t come from the kind of money to buy his way in to being the President of the Harvard Law Review. That satisfies me.

    Common sense is thoughtfully and carefully considering someone’s positions and ideology. Obama has been lambasted by his own party for not lacking common sense in this way. Common sense is not going on national news shows and inciting the fanatics by essentially saying that the majority leaders in congress would drive the country into the ground before giving Obama any help towards a measure of success to prevent his re-election. Common sense is not seeing that for what it is, when GOP campaign contributors would be largely unaffected by such a derisive, destructive, and detrimental course of action.

    • Again, I will utilize common sense.

      Obama’s associations. A question should be posed here. Whether an individual has children or not, would they want Obama’s associations hanging around children? If the answer is No, then why would anyone vote for Obama? A person is judged by their associations. Again, common sense.

      Rev. Wright & Farrakhan hate this country, all the while getting fat off the land. The latter exploits people, and has so much hatred I’m surprised a blood vessel hasn’t exploded in his brain. Rezko and that land deal. He’s going to the big house. Ayers and his wife were involved with the killing of police officers. They and co-horts engaged in destroying public property. They were public enemy number one back in the day.

      The media (that is the drive-by media) vets these candidates. They gave Obama a pass on so many levels it’s ridiculous. They coddle him, and are actually suggesting that they know he really isn’t up to the task. As a result, they’re treating him like an utter twit! But of course, they have buyer’s remorse. It’s truly a sad state of affairs when members of the electorate utilize superficial reasons for electing someone into office. If I were a recruiter at an organization, Obama would never have been hired for anything. Why would I? No school records. He’s a slacker, a surfer dude!

      Sorry Damion, but I utilize clarity. And that has always served me extremely well in life.

    • Damian, I knew about the associations because they were in the media a year before the general election. Week after week, there were so many stories through various forms of the media about these terrible associations it sent my head spinning. But let me add another element. I, and millions of others knew that Obama was wrong for America. His countenance revealed alot about him. He bull****s his way through life. But then Again, that’s what clarity does. Clarity allows a person to make wise decisions, instead of those they end up deeply regretting!!!

    • It would appear you have a deep animus towards the wealthy. I don’t. They are the ones who create employment. The wealthy are the ones who contribute to foundations. The wealthy are the ones who sponsor sporting events. The wealthy are the ones who step in, anonymously, when they hear about someone experiencing tragedy. Are all of them perfect? No. But the wealthy are not the enemy.

      Also, common sense, as I know it, means it does not matter which party affiliation a person belongs to. It also means NOT voting for someone who is guaranteed to prove to be a total embarrassment for a country. Obama has a lack of regard for Americans, so it stands to reason that he would show a lack of respect towards America’s global friends.

  • Mike, your points are all well taken, but what Andrew Breitbart accurately refers to as the Democrat Media Complex will shred to ribbons WHOMEVER the GOP nominates. Sure, they’ll tear Newt Gingrich to smithereens. But here’s what you need to realize about the Left: It doesn’t matter whom we pick, the Left will destroy them. I find it hard to believe anyone else would fare any better than Newt. Romney would be painted as a millionaire flip-flopping cult member. Santorum would be painted as a gay-hating, chauvinistic overbreeder. Allen West has already been painted as a violent, bloodthirsty Uncle Tom race traitor. And that decent, caring, compassionate man Paul Ryan, whose personal life history has imbued him with a deep passion for guaranteeing the longterm fiscal solvency of Medicare, was perversely painted by the Democrats as a heartless, unfeeling monster pushing a disabled, elderly woman over a cliff to her death.

    This is what the Left DOES. Leftism is demonic, and so, diabolically, they go after precisely our GOOD points, our virtues, and then twist them into their exact opposites and use them as weapons against us.

    The “long march through the institutions” advocated by Gramsci, the Frankfurt School and others is basically at an end, with the coup de grace having been the coup d’etat that took place in 2008. The Left OWNS this country now. They will not give it up just because We The People have rejected their agenda. No way. They now have the power they believe they have always been entitled to, and they will lie, cheat, steal, defraud, defame, vandalize, commit arson, violently assault people, and possibly go as far as murder to hold on to the power they finally hold in their hot little hands, after a century of struggle to get it.

    Consequently, the “election” of November 2012 — if it is allowed to take place at all — will be not so much an election, as a last desperate attempt to reverse the coup that took place 3 years ago. For that, we will need someone as fierce, tough and persistent as Winston Churchill. A bulldog. A warrior. Someone who is EAGER to FIGHT. Someone who will never, never, never, never give up. I frankly cannot visualize anyone OTHER THAN Newt Gingrich who would fill the bill.

    • You couldn’t be any more right about how hard the media is going to be working for Obama, but despite their most heartfelt cheerleading and despite all their propaganda, I still think we need to go with the guy who’s beating Obama in the polls vs. the guy who is at a -30% on favorability ratings in three different polls. The difference is between Romney being able to hold his ground in where he’s standing or Gingrich turning around a -30% favorability rating against the media’s most concentrated propaganda campaign.

    • Newt certainly is a better brawler, I’ll give you that, and it certainly plays well with the GOP faithful but I don’t think that’s going to be enough for him to turn things around as far as the rest of the voting public goes.

      • Huge events could change ALL our assumptions overnight. Anything could happen in the next ten months. The great Ann Barnhardt feels that all this primary/campaign stuff is like having a beauty pageant on the Titanic — that the whole thing’s going down and will make all our current political calculations moot. I hope she’s wrong, but she could be right. My motto is: Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. Occupy “movement” has got big, showy, VIOLENT battles planned a few months from now. Europe could collapse. Iran could finish developing their nuke. Who knows? My other motto is: Pray. Prioritize. Prepare. Just got a copy of “How to Survive the End of the World As We Know It” (http://amzn.to/wTD31w) by James Wesley Rawles, a former Army Intelligence guy who is very practical, down-to-earth, readable and helpful. I highly recommend it.

Currently Listening To:

Team of Rivals
Doris Kearns Goodwin