Mitt Romney Leads in New Survey From New Hampshire

At Los Angeles Times, "Poll: Mitt Romney in command in New Hampshire":

Christmas brought good news for GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney, who is holding on to his double digit lead in the critical early primary state of New Hampshire.

This morning’s Boston Globe poll shows the former Massachusetts governor leading the Republican field with 39% among voters likely to cast ballots in the Jan. 10 Republican primary. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has led in some national polls, was tied with Texas Congressman Ron Paul in second place with 17%.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who has spent virtually all of his time campaigning in New Hampshire, won the support of 11% of likely GOP voters. All of the other candidates ranked in the low single digits. (The University of New Hampshire Survey Center conducted the poll of 543 likely 2012 Republican primary voters. The margin of error within that group was plus or minus 4.2%).

Romney’s potential path to the Republican nomination relies on a sizable win in New Hampshire, where he owns a summer home and has been laying the ground work for his run since he withdrew from the 2008 presidential race. Though Iowans will be the first to cast ballots on Jan. 3, Romney spent three days touring New Hampshire last week in his campaign bus – hitting as many as six stops in one day.

We'll see how it goes. Romney should be okay with a New Hampshire win, and if Ron Paul takes Iowa we all can prepare for an epic attack campaign launched by the GOP political establishment. After that we could see Newt Gingrich raise a challenge in some key states. But the former House Speaker failed to qualify for the Virginia ballot, where the election is scheduled for March 6, which could cause problems for Gingrich if the campaign drags out to the later months of the season.

More a the Boston Globe (via Memeorandum).

Merry Christmas From Newt and Callista Gingrich

Well, here's a little equal time:

And at Los Angeles Times, "Gingrich may be too arrogant for Iowa."

Wall Street Journal Weekend Interview: Mitt Romney On Taxes, 'Modeling,' and the Vision Thing

It's amazing that Newt Gingrich dropped back down in the polls so quickly. The negative attacks took their toll and the Newt-phoria on the Iowa campaign trailed cooled off rather decisively. Now it's Ron Paul's turn to start fading in the less-than-two weeks we have left until the caucuses. All the attention to the racist newsletters should take some of the luster off Paul's campaign, although he's got the ground game in place so who knows? If Romney can hold on for the win in New Hampshire he'll be able to match whatever momentum emerges for the Iowa winner, and with his fundraising edge he'll likely be able to compete more effectively in the number of upcoming contests through January.

In any case, an interesting interview at WSJ, at the link:

Does Mitt Romney have a governing vision, a dominating set of political principles? It's the big question many voters say they have about the GOP presidential candidate. So when the former Massachusetts governor visited the Journal editorial board this week, we put it to him squarely, if perhaps tendentiously.

Voters see in him a smart man, an experienced executive, plenty of managerial expertise, great family—but they also see someone with the soul of a consultant who has 59 economic proposals because he lacks a larger vision of where he'd take the country. What does he think of that critique?

Mr. Romney has been garrulously genial for an hour, but here he shows a hint of annoyance. "I'm not running for president for 59 ideas," he says. "I'm not running for president because the country needs a management consultant or a manager. I'm not even the world's greatest manager. There are a lot better managers out there.

"People who know me from my years at Bain Capital, Bain and Company, the Olympics and Massachusetts wouldn't say he was successful because he was a great manager. They'd say I was successful because I was a leader, that I had a vision of how to change the enterprise, any one of those three enterprises, to make it greater."And that vision is? Mr. Romney says he's running "to return America to the principles that we were founded upon." He goes on, expanding on his campaign theme, Believe in America: "We have a choice in America to be remaining a merit-based opportunity society that follows the Constitution, or to follow the path of Europe.

And I'm the guy who believes in the former. I believe America got it right. I believe Europe got it wrong. I believe America must remain the leader the world. . . . I am absolutely committed to an American century. I see this as an American century."

He concludes with even more force, "America doesn't need a manager. America needs a leader. The president is failing not just because he's a poor manager. It's because he doesn't know where to lead."

Continue reading.

New York Times Decries 'Right Wing Extremism' — Again

Well, since I've been reading the Times' editorials, here you go with the latest attack on the "extremist" right, "The Race to the Right":

The toxic effects of right-wing extremism in Washington were vividly on display during the payroll-tax fiasco — even to the right wing. On the campaign trail, though, those lessons are being ignored. The leading Republican presidential candidates are overtly competing for the title of Most Conservative, distorting their own records and advocating increasingly radical positions.

Candidates often move to the ideological edges to win a primary, because that’s where the primary voters are, but the frenzied efforts of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are particularly hard to watch. Neither has a record as a dogmatic conservative, and they are competing with candidates like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann who have much longer and more consistent conservative records. That makes their rush to the right all the more desperate and convoluted.

Last week, Mr. Romney blasted Mr. Gingrich as “an extremely unreliable leader in the conservative world,” citing specifically Mr. Gingrich’s criticisms of Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan and his appearance with Nancy Pelosi in a commercial against global warming. Mr. Gingrich, in turn, claims he’s “a lot more conservative” than Mr. Romney.

Real conservatives, in their columns and magazines, say neither of them qualifies, noting that both have previously called themselves “progressives” when appealing to very different audiences than the ones in Iowa and New Hampshire. Mr. Romney once supported abortion rights, though now he says he has changed his mind. Mr. Gingrich fiercely opposes the government’s role in the housing market, but worked for Freddie Mac. Both have supported an individual mandate for health insurance, as well as the TARP bailout of Wall Street.

To make up for their lapses in orthodoxy, each has now adopted positions at the far end of the ideological spectrum. Mr. Romney wants to send home all 11 million illegal immigrants and make them wait many years to return. He equates the president’s goal of raising taxes on the rich with redistributing wealth until the government achieves “equal outcomes” for everyone, all but calling President Obama a Marxist. Rather than demonstrate prudence after the death of the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il, he recklessly demanded that the United States now push for regime change there. (Without feeling any need to explain just how that might be done, just as he has failed to explain precisely how he will end Iran’s nuclear ambitions once and for all.)

Mr. Gingrich, meanwhile, is now dispensing with the Constitution in his call to drag federal judges before Congress to explain their decisions...

Continue reading.

Call me a right wing extremist, because I don't think any of that stuff from Romney is that exceptional. Sure, both Romney and Gingrich are pandering to the base, but frankly, the concerns of the tea party and others at the grassroots aren't going to be easy to ignore heading into the general election. Republicans have to stay on  message on the economy. They have to hammer this administration for painting extreme economic conditions  in order to seize more power for a massive bureaucratic response to the recession. It hasn't worked. Just keep plugging away on that and in no time the payroll tax debacle will be ancient history and Obama will have to run on his economic record fair and square. And screw the New York Times' editors. These people are pathetic losers cheerleading for more of the same old failed policies. Progressives suck like that.

Mitt Romney Highlights His Marriage in New Hampshire

This is part of Romney's bid to batten down the hatches in the Granite State.

At Los Angeles Times, "Spotlight on Romney's marriage casts shadow on Gingrich's past":

Reporting from Lancaster, N.H.— It was a simple errand, a husband buying a Christmas gift for his wife. But in this case it was Mitt Romney buying for Ann Romney, the woman he introduces alternately as "my bride," "my sweetheart" and occasionally "the boss."

And with 13 days before the first votes are cast — with thousands of voters to win over — the former governor brought more than a dozen reporters, cameramen and photographers along for the holiday excursion.

Taking his wife of 42 years by the hand, the former Massachusetts governor led the way Thursday around the outdoor outfitter Simon the Tanner: "Ann, keep your eyes open here."

They reminisced about the best Christmas gifts he's given her — a horse, which he called "the gift that keeps on giving" — and the worst.

"For the first, I don't know, 10 years of our marriage, I would buy her clothing of various kinds," the candidate told reporters at the store, "and she would say, 'Ohhhhh, this is so nice,' and then it was gone a week later."

The candidate suggested presents along the shelves without much success. Finally, Ann Romney tried on a sleek white ski jacket and modeled it for her husband as he looked on approvingly.

"Christmas accomplished," he beamed. After picking up the $300 tab, which included socks for his eldest granddaughter, he joked to his wife that she was lucky he hadn't picked out her gift at the next stop, an Agway farm store.

Continue reading.

Romney denies that he's playing the marriage card to hammer Newt Gingrich, but with this latest video narrated by Ann Romney --- featuring nostalgic pictures of the early family --- it's undeniable that the value of family is central to Mitt's persona. And no doubt he has a nice family. He seems genuinely doting. But some have already indicated that Romney will get hammered for suggesting his family's better than Gingrich's. Divorce is a fact of life in this country. The issue is whether Newt cheated during his first and second marriages. Perhaps so, although there's considerable dispute on the details. Either way, it's a potential minefield. Gingrich has admitted his mistakes and signed a pledge to "uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others." Romney will look like he's browbeating if he keeps harping on the issue.

Gingrich Berated as a 'F-king A-hole' in Iowa

It's hard out there.

At Talking Points Memo, "Newt’s Campaign Comes Down To Earth As Iowan Calls Him ‘F—king A—hole’ To His Face."

RELATED: At New York Times, "Conservatives Remain Suspicious of Gingrich."

Newt Gingrich on 'The O'Reilly Factor'

O'Reilly spends a lot of time on Gingrich's aggressive stand against activist judges. That's just not that controversial to me and seems like a diversion from a lot of other issues, like the economy. At the second half of the clip Gingrich responds to his decline in the polls and whines about running an exclusively positive campaign. O'Reilly mentions the piece from yesterday's New York Times, "In Murky Republican Contest, the Clearest Target Is Gingrich." I wish O'Reilly would have mentioned Marc Thiessen's essay at Friday's Washington Post, "Gingrich’s abortion contortions." Mitt Romney, speaking to O'Reilly earlier, made a pretty good case for his pro-life bona fides. It would been nice to hear Gingrich make the case for his.

Gingrich Lead Evaporates With Just Two Weeks Until Iowa Caucuses

Scholars of the primaries will remember the run-up to 2012 as the most fluctuating pre-primary season in a long time. We've seen the rise and fall of one candidate after another, briefly challenging Mitt Romney for frontrunner status for the Republican nomination. As I noted at my Pajamas piece last week, things would likely change. But I'm surprised at how quickly Newt's surge has deflated. I guess Mitt really does have the momentum at this late date. The question now is how quickly he'll be able to wrap up the nomination. Remember, it's an elongated season, so surprise victories in the early states can still change the dynamics of the race. Especially interesting will be watching what happens to Ron Paul.

See Gallup, "Gingrich's Lead Over Romney Among Republicans Collapses." Also, at CNN, "CNN Poll: Gingrich lead gone, dead even with Romney" (via Memeorandum).

National Review Writers Dissent on Editors' Stealth Mitt Romney Endorsement

William Jacobson has this, "One brave soul at National Review stands up for Newt." And from Pundette, "Andy McCarthy dissents." Linked at the latter's is Jonah Goldberg The Editorial — My Take, " and Mark Steyn, "Include Me Out."

 Here's Steyn on Bachmann:

Congresswoman Bachmann has fought a principled, conservative campaign with only one significant misstep — her overreach on the Gardasil business. Again, that shouldn’t be a disqualification. Nor should having more chiefs of staff than she has foster children (I speak as a guy who believes citizen-legislators shouldn’t have chiefs of staff, anyway). To be sexist about it, President Bachmann at her best would be another Thatcher and at her worst another Merkel — and Chancellor Merkel currently presides over the least worst Western economy. What’s not to like? Go, Michele!

I like it!

BONUS: Linkmaster Smith links to my essay from yesterday the state of the race: "Sean Hannity Flummoxed By Michelle Malkin."

Gingrich of Freddie Mac

An editorial, at Wall Street Journal.

Check that link. The piece reviews the allegations of corruption against Gingrich, and takes issue with the Speaker's defense of the mortgage institution as an essentially "conservative" GSE, a "government-sponsored enterprise."

The Journal's editors roll their eyes at Gingrich's elaborate defense of his actions, and then say:

Where to begin? One problem is the lack of candor. In Thursday's Sioux City debate, Mr. Gingrich repeated his claim that he had never done a favor for Fan and Fred. But as Speaker in 1995, according to news reports at the time, Mr. Gingrich helped to kill an effort by then House Budget Chairman John Kasich to impose user fees on Fannie and Freddie. The fees were intended to offset the cost advantage provided to the companies by their implicit government guarantee.

Mr. Gingrich also knows that many Republicans were fighting against furious opposition, and at great political risk, to reform Fan and Fred in the early and mid-2000s. The heroes included then Congressman Richard Baker, Senator Richard Shelby and Bush White House aide Kevin Warsh. We were at the barricades too, and Mr. Gingrich was never seen in the rear of the reform camp, much less on the front lines. The Georgian could only have been on the payroll because Freddie thought he could help influence other Republicans against reform.

As for the destructive duo's business model that Mr. Gingrich said he didn't want to change, this was precisely their problem. Far from a private-public partnership, they were private companies with a federal guarantee against failure. Their model was private profit but socialized risk. This produced riches on Wall Street and for company executives. But taxpayers bore the risk of loss—to the tune of $141 billion so far. Why does the historian think they were called "government-sponsored enterprises"?

More at the link.

The Generic Republican Will Beat Obama

Reliapundit and I are having a friendly exchange on our favorite GOP candidates. He's fully on board for Romney. I like Romney too, especially for the electability argument. I don't care for Newt but I'd obviously vote for him enthusiastically over the Usurper. I think around the time of the Horowitz West Coast Retreat I mentioned that Michele Bachmann was my favorite candidate and I was going to support her so long as Sarah Palin stayed out of the race. And I haven't changed my positions. I'm just not making that big of a deal out of it. I think the generic Republican will beat Obama, with the exception of Ron Paul. And apparently, Rush Limbaugh thinks so too. And Michelle Malkin responds:

Candidates Spar in Last GOP Debate of the Year

The New York Times has a report, "Gingrich Parries With Challengers in Final Debate Before Iowa Caucuses" (via Memeorandum):

From the start, the candidates faced a series of questions on their biggest vulnerabilities, a tough, year-end parting gift from a network that has a lineup of sympathetic opinion hosts, but whose news anchors have pulled no punches on Republican candidates in debates and interviews. The race has played out, to a large degree, on Fox News.

Mr. Gingrich called “laughable” the accusation this week from Mr. Romney that he is an “unreliable conservative.” But, facing some questions about his consistency, he added, “I do change things when conditions change,” adding, however, that beating Mr. Obama is “a very large change.”

Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, whose candidacy depends on a comeback in the Iowa caucuses, did not hold back against Mr. Gingrich. She called it “shocking” that he would accept $1.6 million to advise the government-owned mortgage giant Freddie Mac.

“That is something that our nominee cannot stand for,” Mrs. Bachmann said.

More at that top link.

Also at Los Angeles Times, "Newt Gingrich under fire in final GOP debate before Iowa vote."

Plus, a neat post at Legal Insurrection, "Sioux City Debate Tweets of Night."

RELATED: At National Journal, "Previewing Gingrich's Down Escalator."

Romney Goes for Aggressive Attacks on Gingrich

At New York Times, "Shifting Tactics, Romney Attacks Surging Gingrich":

Mitt Romney, his presidential aspirations suddenly endangered by Newt Gingrich’s rapid resurgence, is employing aggressive new arguments in an effort to disqualify Mr. Gingrich as a credible choice to Republicans, calling him “zany” in an interview on Wednesday and questioning his commitment to free enterprise.

But in an acknowledgment that he might not be able to reverse Mr. Gingrich’s momentum quickly, Mr. Romney and his team are bracing for a far rougher slog through the early Republican nominating contests than they had envisioned even a few weeks ago and preparing for months of a state-by-state, delegate-by-delegate fight.

The Romney campaign and its allies are unsure whether the attacks on Mr. Gingrich’s stability, temperament and worldview will take hold before the voting begins. Mr. Romney and some of his aides and advisers suggest that their revised campaign strategy will rely on advantages in organization and financing for the long run while moving quickly in the short term to turn Mr. Gingrich’s own words against him.

Mr. Romney is seeking to paint Mr. Gingrich as “an unreliable conservative” on issues like climate change. And he is seizing on a remark Mr. Gingrich made this week, condemning Mr. Romney for profiting from layoffs and corporate restructuring he oversaw in his years running Bain Capital, that many conservative commentators said sounded like a Democratic antibusiness refrain.

Mr. Romney said voters should take a closer look at Mr. Gingrich’s history of policy ideas.

“Zany is not what we need in a president,” Mr. Romney said. “Zany is great in a campaign. It’s great on talk radio. It’s great in print, it makes for fun reading, but in terms of a president, we need a leader, and a leader needs to be someone who can bring Americans together.”

Continue reading.

Plus, more at Memeorandum.

BONUS: Check out more aggressiveness at National Review, "Winnowing the Field." It's a merciless attack on Gingrich.

Gingrich Surges Past Romney in GOP Race

At Wall Street Journal, "Gingrich Surges Past Romney in GOP Race" (via Google): Republican voters now heavily favor Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney as the party's

nominee, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, but it also found deep unease with Mr. Gingrich among independents and swing voters who normally decide presidential elections.

With less than three weeks before the first votes are cast in Iowa, Republicans give the former House speaker the most commanding lead of any candidate this year: He has 40% support among likely GOP voters, compared to 23% for Mr. Romney. All of the other Republican candidates fell short of 10% support in the poll.

Further showing Mr. Gingrich's advantage, his lead over Mr. Romney appears set to grow if other candidates drop out of the race. In a two-man contest, Mr. Gingrich leads Mr. Romney by 23 points, winning the support of nearly six of 10 Republicans.

The Gingrich surge comes after he drew support from only 13% of likely GOP voters in last month's Journal poll, which Mr. Romney led with 28%. Herman Cain drew 27% of the support in November, but he has since suspended his campaign.

The survey also offered stark illustration of the challenge Republicans face as they lean toward two candidates who have yet to generate much spark among the wider electorate.

Check that Google link for the full report.

And at WSJ's Washington Wire, "WSJ/NBC Poll: Republicans Rate GOP Field ‘Average’."

Fully half of Republicans said they would not vote for Newt Gingrich if he were the nominee, compared to 44 percent who would not vote for Romney.

See also John Harwood, at CNBC, "Gingrich Surges to Wide Lead Over Romney: NBC Poll."

RELATED: At Legal Insurrection, "Taking their anti-Newt ball and going home for the general election," and "Doomsday Poll – Who would cause you to stay home or vote for Obama?"

Added: At MSNBC, "NBC/WSJ poll: Romney struggles with primary voters, Gingrich with general electorate" (via Memeorandum).

Plus, linked at Astute Bloggers. Thanks!

Roundup on Newt Gingrich and the 'Palestinians'

In the odd case that you missed it, the video's here: "Newt Gingrich on Palestinians at GOP Debate in Iowa: 'These People Are Terrorists'."

Now, see Caroline Glick, "Gingrich's Fresh Hope." It's a long post, but interestingly the biggest challenge to Gingrich is not the Arab liars backing the Hamas-dominated Palestinians, but the U.S. conservatives attacking Newt for "turning his back on a 30- year bipartisan consensus" on the (failed) two-state solution for Middle East peace.

And check Daniel Greenfield, "A Badly Invented People." This is excellent:

Palestinian identity is just so much gibberish. The official definition of that identity encompasses only those parts of the Palestine Mandate which Israel holds today.

The people who live on the parts of the Palestine Mandate that were turned into the Kingdom of Jordan in 1921 are not Palestinians. There is no call to incorporate them into a Palestinian state. The people who lived in the parts of Israel that were captured by Jordan and Egypt in 1948 weren't Palestinians, and there was no call to turn the land that today comprises the so-called "Occupied Territories" into a state. But in 1967 when Israel liberated those areas-- only then did they magically turn into Palestinians.

How is anyone supposed to take this nonsense seriously?

But RTWT.

And from Melanie Phillips, "Hey, stop this dangerous candidate! He's told the truth!":

US presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich ... has recently demonstrated yet again Melanie’s First Rule of Modern Political Discourse – the more obvious the truth that you utter, the more explosive and abusive the reaction.

For Gingrich said the Palestinian Arabs were ‘an invented people’ – and the world promptly started hurling execrations at him, as if such a statement proved beyond doubt that Gingrich was indeed a dangerously extreme individual who, when it came to political positioning, was just off the graph altogether.

More at the link (with additional sources at the discussion).

And there's lots of stuff at FrontPage Magazine, for example, from David Horowitz, "Gingrich Gets It Right":

In an interview on Saturday, Newt Gingrich put some reality into the surreal discussion of the Middle East conflict and (as he put it) the delusional nature of the current “peace process.” The Palestinians are indeed an “invented people” — invented by the Nasser dictatorship and KGB by the way — and the Hitlerian lie that Israel occupies one square inch of “Arab” let alone “Palestinian” land needs to be buried for any clarity on what the conflict is about, let alone progress towards peace.

Of course there is no peace in the Middle East and there can be no peace so long as the Muslim Arabs want to kill the Jews and destroy the Jewish state. That is the explicit goal of the enemies of Israel in the terrorist entities of Gaza and the West Bank, and also of Israel’s principal enemy the Islamic Republic of Iran.

And another essay from Horowitz, "An Invented People Despite Some Doubters":

Some conservatives, most notably Elliot Abrams, have criticized Newt Gingrich’s observation that the Palestinians are an invented people by saying that even if they are — (and there is no real question but that they are) — they’ve been around long enough (50 years, or since the creation of the PLO in 1964) so that we need to deal with that fact — not. What makes anyone think this is a people even today? Last spring I spoke at Brooklyn College. My speech was attended and then obstructed by a sizeable contingent from the Brooklyn College “Palestinian Club” — at least fifty people, all ethnic Arabs claiming to be Palestinians. During my talk I referred to the Palestinian death cult, its admiration for Hitler, its determination to wipe the Jewish state from the face of the earth, its eagerness to kill any Jew and to blow up its own children in the process. I said it was a “sick, sick culture.” But when the members of the so-called Palestinian Club erupted at me, what they said was “Why do you want to lynch all Muslims?” (This is on video available on YouTube or on our site — under “Videos” — for anyone who wants to check. It comes in the Q&A period.) This does not sound like a nationalist movement.

But the evidence is that Palestinians are a political fiction for a movement whose organizing desire is the destruction of the Jewish state and expulsion of the Jews is far stronger than this small incident. In 1948, 80% of the so-called “Palestine Mandate” had been given to the Hashemite minority in control of Jordan. The Jews were given half of the remaining 20% and the Arabs the other half. A nationalist movement would surely have accepted the partition and then laid claim to the 80% controlled by the Hashemites in Jordan. No such thing happened. Instead the Arab states including Jordan attacked the Jewish state with the intention of destroying it.

The upshot of that war was a Jewish victory in 1949. Whereupon Egypt annexed Gaza and Jordan annexed the West Bank — all the territory that had been offered to the so-called Palestinians and rejected by them. There was not a peep out of the Arab world — or out of the so-called Palestinians — over this rejection. Why? Because a Palestinian state was never their agenda. Their agenda was and is the destruction of the Jewish state and the expulsion of the Jews from the Middle East — or failing that, their absolute subjection as a hated minority without access to state power.

See also Bruce Thornton, "Newt Challenges the Myth of Palestinian Nationalism," and Ryan Mauro, "History of ‘Palestine’ Becomes Center of GOP Debate."

BONUS: See the letters to the editor at New York Times, "A Spotlight on Gingrich and Romney."

Romney Didn't Bargain for a Bitter Fight

That's not too smart. I don't know why he'd think he was a shoo-in.

At Los Angeles Times:

As voting for the Republican presidential nomination rapidly nears, Mitt Romney is facing a troubling truth: This is not the race he signed up for.

The former Massachusetts governor, who has spent most of the year as a shaky front-runner, may still be the most salable GOP candidate in a general election, given his comparative moderation and buttoned-down persona.

The favorite of the moment, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, remains in danger of spontaneously combusting, given his long record of doing just that.

But right now it is Romney who is struggling, and the reason is clear: For most Republican voters, this contest has ceased to be about jobs and the economy, and instead rests on which candidate can shove a fist the furthest down President Obama's throat.

Romney came into the GOP contest figuring his blue-chip business background would make him the strongest contender at a time when pocketbook issues seemed like voters' overwhelming concern. For a while, it worked. Though Romney has never enjoyed the support of much more than a quarter of the Republican electorate, he remained at or near the top of voter surveys as several would-be alternatives rose and then imploded.

But as Saturday night's boisterous debate in Des Moines demonstrated, the fight for the GOP nomination has become just that: a test of pugilistic skills.

Continue reading.

I'm not so sure that Gingrich will implode. He's chuggin' along pretty nicely now and handling the barrage of attacks against him rather effectively.

More later.

Roundup on the GOP Debate in Des Moines

I think Newt Gingrich forcefully consolidated his newfound frontrunner status last night. He's especially vulnerable on his marital history, and that portion of the debate was dicey. But Gingrich handled his response well, and was fairly contrite. For me it's not whether someone divorces but whether they were unfaithful. I don't bother to keep up with the stories of Newt's family life, but he's a bit less straight and narrow on those issues than I'd expect in the presidency. But such is life.

I'll have more on this later.

Check Robert Stacy McCain, "ABC Iowa Debate Reaction Roundup UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin, WTF?"

And at Los Angeles Times, "Gingrich is favorite target at latest GOP debate"; New York Times, "Race Reshaped, Rivals Target Gingrich in G.O.P. Debate"; and Washington Post, "Gingrich comes under attack in GOP debate."