#Newt, it's your turn to slip

Fig Newton Gingrich

Ron "Who Am I?" Paul

In what could be called regression to the mean within the GOP, or just regression to the mean GOP, Newt Gingrich is doing the same thing Rick Perry, Herman Cain and others did: sliding backward in Iowa after a quick peek.

How bad? Bad enough the caucuses could be a three-way tie, with every establishment GOPer's nightmare of Ron Paul being one of those three.

Per the first link, Newt's relative lack of time in Iowa plus his past support for a Mitt Romney/Barack Obama individual health care mandate are both becoming stumbling blocks. The latter? "Newt Romney" comments are starting to bite. The former? A campaign thin in staff and budget can't change that a lot in the few days left.

Besides that, Newt may be having his Freddie Mac connections about to blow up in his face, with an SEC fraud lawsuit filing against former Fannie and Freddie execs.

I would sooo laugh my head off if this happened, a three-way tie. I'm sure someone at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would chuckle a bit, at least, two. Odds of the top three candidates all finishing within 4 percentage points, from first down to third? One in ten, right now, I'd say.

And, there's Newt-vs-Newt: National Review still doesn't trust him as a flip-flopper. And I don't think it is alone.

I think, viscerally, Paul probably dislikes Gingrich most of all the GOP candidates. We've not seen any fake cameraderie, like Romney's approach to Perry, between the two. I would suspect that die-hard Paul-tards write off Romney's shellacked slickness as part of his package, but, really reserve their fire for Gingrich as a man trying to have it both ways.

Meanwhile, for those Paul-tards boo-hooing that their candidate doesn't get enough media attention, watch out: You might just get what you wish for, and, per this analysis, he might have his own meltdown. But, he's already been outspoken on war and civil liberties issues at one debate, at least; contra Dean Baker, I doubt more media spotlight on Paul would shake up the GOP much.

More fun: Tricky Ricky Perry, acknowledging he's not gaining new traction in Iowa, says finishing fourth won't push him out. I'm sure he's betting in part on Texas keeping at least its presidential primary on the date now set. More fun yet: Jon Huntsman has passed Paul in New Hampshire.

That could lead to the GOP's worst nightmare yet: Paul winning Iowa and crossover votes pushing Huntsman to No. 2, at least, in the Granite State. Huntsman's still got a ways to go to move to No. 2, but, it's possible.

If that happened, could we have Chris Christie rethink again? A "favorite son" candidate elsewhere? Stay tuned!

Meanwhile, my comments on the last pre-caucuses debate below the fold.

It's Newt's turn to implode

First, Rick Perry was surging past Mitt Romney, then he crashed and burned. Herman Cain then passed the Mittster only to start self-destructing (an ongoing process).

And now, a known serial adulterer has passed an alleged serial groper as the GOP's preferred candidate.

So, how long before Fig Newton implodes? And, over what?

Another Tiffany's charge account, this one covered by the People's Republic of China?

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac sweetheart mortgages for his "historic perspective" advice?

A mistress we don't yet know about?

Please, Newt, give us something new and original.

In other news from that poll, it's nice to see that the one real libertarian in the GOP race, Gary Johnson, is now actually drawing polling numbers, and at least equal to Santorum. Will we see him in the next debate?

And, Huntsman rising? This is all too rational. We can't have that.

Gay sex with Rush Limbaugh would be fantastic.

The worst GOP debate yet

Let's skip Rick Perry's amnesia, whether from alcohol, pain meds or just being an idiot.

The GOP debate Nov. 9 was the worst so far of the ones I followed.

How bad? I actually agreed with Michele Bachmann on something, namely that Obama's wrong to continue to have a Social Security tax cut. When that, Rick Perry's amnesia and PizzaMan's 9-9-9 chorus are the highlights of the nigh, it's bad.

And, speaking of 9-9-9, ave you heard about the new version of the #9-9-9 plan from #HermanCain? Nine women, nine lawsuits, nine settlement deals. Yeah, not the best joke, either.

But, let's look at Tricky Ricky, since many are arguing (including wingers) that he's now officially toast:


I've said for some time now that his money plus his many other issues had given Perry the potential to be a new Phil Gramm, and he's getting closer and closer to that point.

As for GOP candidates clamoring that we could be just like Europe if we don't fix the deficit, tosh. Romney and Huntsman actually know better, so they're pandering. The rest of the GOP field probably actually believes that, so they're idiots.

The always-readable Gail Collins weighs in, saying every candidate played to type. Yep, and that's part of the problem. (That, and no Gary Johnson on the dais.)

And, there were plenty of whoppers being told (along with Romney's flip-flops, speaking of playing to type.) And, per the comment below, I think of Steve Miller: "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right."

Wingnuts, real world agree: GOP debate, Perry sucked

First, there's the booing of the gay solider. Anybody with a conscience, including perhaps one GOP Congresswoman, agrees that was just ridiculous.

Then there was the debate itself. Wingnuts agree it sucked, too. Erick Erickson thinks Herman Cain won and Jon Huntsman did well! Whoa, Erick, don't sprain your brain slouching toward non-wingnuttery. The Weekly Standard also slouches toward non-wingnuttery, reprinting a GOPer email that says, "We all sounded like crazy people."

And, it agrees that Rick Perry sucked:

But no front-runner in a presidential field has ever, we imagine, had as weak a showing as Rick Perry. It was close to a disqualifying two hours for him.http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/278127/my-quick-take-rich-lowry

No surprise to those of us who know that he's coasted with weak opposition in general elections, and that in the last primarily, a light-on-experience, light-on-brains Debra Medina actually skewered him a few times.

Per many others, I think the moment where Perry tried to nail Romney as a flip-flopper and wound up making George W. Bush sound intelligent was the key:



Even Faux's soft bigotry of low Perry expectations was underwhelmed.

Oh, and Perry told another lie related to the Gardasil vaccine.

I'm disappointed that nobody hammered Perry more on illegal immigration; I guess the new study of how it's been the only true part of the "Texas miracle" didn't get out in time. Or else, non-nutbars actually aren't so different on illegal immigration from him.

Michelle Bachmann, who had the most to gain from a Perry meltdown? Per this story, via Ed Brayton, she appears to be toast. It's still a two-person race, with wingnuts not liking Romney and Perry becoming ever more clear to non-Texans as being a nut, but not a true tea party nut.

Weekly Standard is still pushing for Chris Christie, it's getting that bad. And, the time isn't that urgent yet. Christie would be smart to avoid Iowa, anyway, and get a late-starting campaign focused on New Hampshire and Romney.

Is Huntsman planning a third-party run?

Beyond saying he believes anthropogenic climate change is real and that he supports civil unions for gays, former Utah governor and current GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman now says he wants the rich to sacrifice.

At the same time, he insists, with a straight face, he can win the GOP nomination.

And, when a lifelong Dem does an ad buy for you, you're clearly seen as spoiler material.

That all said, Ross Douthat says we shouldn't believe all the "moderate Huntsman" spiel. And, the American Conservative article to which he Douthat links says and shows that, outside of civil unions, Huntsman holds few socially moderate positions.

That said, the likes of Teapot Tommy Friedman have been touting a "centrist" third party, Americans Elect.

Huntsman could be their ideal candidate.

Would he do it? I don't know enough about Huntsman to answer that for sure, but I could certainly see it as a possibility. He's got plenty of DC Villager/NYC Annexer touters already. But, given the above, while it's a possibility, it's well, well below 50 percent likely in my book.

That then said, if we had, say a Perry-Huntsman-Obama race, plus Libertarian and Green candidates, who wins? And, how many more dirty tricks than normal do both Dems and GOP direct at the Green candidate, or even more, if he enters, "ego" candidate Ralph Nader?

(Or place a "generic" candidate on the Americans Elect ballot.)

George Will basts 4-5 on 2012 GOP field

George Will is spot-on when he says Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich probably can't gain enough public trust to run a lemonade stand, let alone the White House.

As for five five relatively sensible GOP candidates? I agree on Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman. But, after numerous gaffes already by the Mouth of Mississippi, if Will thinks Haley Barbour is a viable candidate, his picker's still a bit broken.

Huntsman move could backfire on Obama

Former Utah Gov. John Huntsman, now Barack Obama's ambassador to China, is making noises about entering the presidential race.

At the time Obama nominated him to go to China, it was rumored this was in part to get him out of the U.S. and the presidential hunt. Huntsman, definitely conservative, javascript:void(0)but definitely sane, or sane-sounding, compared to much of today's GOP, was rumored to be a serious worry for Obama.

Instead, Obama may have given Huntsman an out, or cover, for avoiding much of that GOP nuttery while being an "above the fray" type candidate on things such as tea partiers, etc., while also allowing Huntsman to burnish foreign policy credentials.

That said, if he does enter, how hard will other GOPers hit him on Mormonism? As hard as Mitt Romney? Harder?

And, seriously, given his positions on things like gay rights, does he really expect to be able to win the GOP nomination?