This video reminds us of Whitney Houston’s extraordinary ability to sing a song that professional artists agree is a daunting challenge. Thank god, these days, we can watch a video recorded in 1991, seven or more years before the necessary technical breakthroughs.

This video transports us back in time to the tension-filled days during the Persian Gulf War, a period of time that, like none other since the Cuban missile crisis, I was choked with emotion and also impressed with the exceptional organization of that war … at a time when we Americans had not been at war in a long time.

There were so many significant occurrences during the Gulf War …

Bernard Shaw, CNN anchor and reporter

The Museum of Broadcast Journalism has fascinating details and memorabilia of Shaw’s career. Here’s a brief snippet from the museum’s section on Bernard Shaw:

Shaw’s] most visible, sensational, and some would say, impressive moment as a journalist came in 1991. In Baghdad, Iraq to complete a follow-up interview with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Shaw was one of three CNN reporters who worked during a major attack by the Allied Forces. With his colleagues Shaw brought unprecedented, live coverage of the Allied Forces’ bombing. On 16 January 1991, more than one billion homes watched Shaw and his colleagues deliver around-the-clock coverage of Operation Desert Storm.

A heart-pounding thriller set in Baghdad that's ALL true. Original HBO film with outstanding cast.

Shaw’s coverage of the war earned him numerous national and international journalism awards, including the Eduard Rhein Foundation’s Cultural Journalistic Award, a George Foster Peabody Award, and a cable ACE Award as best newscaster of the year. Shaw’s receipt of the Rhein Foundation award is particularly meaningful because it represents the first time this award was bestowed on a non-German. …

Then, long before D.C. et al. gave a green light to go to war with Hussein, there were Secretary of State James Baker’s worldwide searches for other nations who would join the U.S., as allies, in freeing the Kuwaiti people (including, as an example, Baker’s 14 to 15 trips to Syria, each time being turned away, until that last trip when he achieved a “Yes”). Baker’s missions, related to us every day on the news, made us all believers in the power of patient and persistent diplomacy. (Can any of you recommend a book or article that describes how Baker used diplomacy’s “carrot and stick” approach to convince Syria that it was necessary that they join in putting a stop to Saddam Hussein’s vicious aggression?)

Since, for inexplicable reasons, Romney and his staff don’t publicize Mitt’s impressive list of accomplishments, I finally read his bio at Wikipedia. Have you noticed that Modest Mitt mutters “the Olympics,” but adds not a word to explain what he is referring to? Mitt’s supporters say “Mitt saved the Olympics,” as if we’re supposed to know what they mean. SO! Which Olympics did Mitt save? How did he do it? What was so great about what he did? When I read the Wikipedia’s account, I finally knew what Romney did to save the 2002 Park City Olympics from ruinous scandals and budgets suffering massive coronaries.

Last night, Mitt, for the very first time, told us a tender family story.

Oh okay, you cynics! Yes, it would have been better if Mitt had told a touching story that involved himself, not his dad, but you gotta go with whatcha got. Mitt’s daddy-was-a-regular-dude story (that he’d surely planned to tell as part of his victory speech for one or more states. But that got ALL screwed up when he lost all three states, so he had to weave the story into a concession speech. (But wasn’t it just about the coolest thing ever that he got to call Little Ricky to congratulate him instead of Newt the Brute?! Mittster is lucky that way.)

Back to the story about his dad who could put nails in, I don’t know, I guess walls or floors, with HIS TEETH! That’s had me stumped because while I can envision how George could hold the nail straight out with his teeth, how in the heck did he pound it into the wood? Wouldn’t he end up breaking his nose? And what about the inevitable damage to his frontal lobe (aka the gooey brain matter underneath our foreheads)? Maybe THAT’s how George eventually headed a behemoth car company and also became governor of Michigan! Pounding all those nails with his forehead distorted his senses and turned him into the kill-or-be-killed being you’ve gotta be to not feel guilty about stepping over all the other executives who wanted the top dawg gig.

Above all, let’s endeavor to make this an analytical discussion not influenced by our personal feelings about Romney, i.e. whether or not we like him or think he can win. We begin our chat together with the indisputable fact that, to date, Romney has far more delegates, that Romney has millions and millions more in both his campaign war chest and in the Super Pac funds that create advertising for his candidacy, and he has, all set to go, highly organized and staffed campaign sites in all 50 states. Not one of the other three candidates (Gingrich, Santorum or Paul) comes close to matching Romney in the number of delegates, amounts of money, or ability to activate the already-established teams of staffers and volunteers — these are “givens” that we need not waste our time discussing.

Those “rules” in place, let’s begin, with the devastating losses by Romney last night fresh in our minds:

(1) Why, yesterday, did Romney lose so badly in the three states — Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado — especially since he had just won Nevada on Saturday, crushing his opposition, and the week before, in Florida where, as they say, “he kicked ass”?

(2) What verifiable evidence do you see that you can present to argue to us that Romney 1) can or 2) cannot beat Barack Obama in November?

(3) What evidence leads you to foresee that one of the other candidates could fare better against Obama?

(4) The “Mainstream Media” (MSM) consistently speculates that, whenever Romney does poorly, it is because he comes across as wooden, insincere, not human. Do the MSM have it right? Or what are they missing?

(5) At this late date, is there any reason to work towards making any of the other three remaining candidates into the frontrunner? Despite their lack of money and organization?

That’s all I have for the moment…. I got interrupted a lot, so I haven’t had a chance to fine-tune this, so accept my apologies for anything that may be unclear and PLEASE FEEL FREE to rephrase or create questions that YOU think are important to consider.

Update: 3 Colorado’s GOP announces Santorum the victor, via CNN.
Update: 1 Romney is now ahead of Santorum in Colorado – slim lead, reports Wolf Blitzer. May be a long night. Update: 2 Btw, CNN is doing a great job of covering the returns, better than Fox, I must say. (Here’s my POV: Fox’s coverage is always compromised by sticking with the regularly programs (O’Reilly, Hannity, Van Susteran) — is it written in their contracts? — who insist on doing segments completely unrelated to the night’s breaking news. Fox’s apparent inability to break with O’Reilly et al. also badly affects their post-debate coverage. Fox assembles a terrific analytic panel run by a REAL reporter, Bret Baier, but Baier’s panel is lucky to get 5-8 minutes before Fox is compelled to switch to the mediocre, one-note ramblings of Hannity. That’s when I switch to CNN, which outclasses Fox in all respects with its superbly planned coverage of each primary return. Only Van Susteran is up to the job.)

Earlier, as I waited for returns, I checked out the list of delegates won to date. This list (see right) will change in the next few hours, thanks to Santorum’s big victories!

Here’s the take from one of Politico’s op-eds:

The AP just called the Minnesota caucuses for Rick Santorum, giving him his second victory of the night.

It’s another no-delegate contest but still a huge feather in Santorum’s cap, after what turned out to be his win in Iowa was called for Mitt Romney on caucus night there.

The Colorado caucuses vote is neck-and-neck between Santorum and Romney right now and will be too close to call for a while. But it is shaping up to be, at least as it stands now, a difficult evening for Romney.

Romney came in third in Minnesota, despite having the backing of former Gov. Tim Pawlenty, in a state where he beat John McCain in 2008. …

The question about the hearing aid. I had a heck of a time hearing much of what she was singing. When I strained to hear, I could hear it, and I was somewhat familiar with the songs already, so that wasn’t my main beef. But the rest of it …

This “girl” needs extensive training in singing. But she’s probably the last one who thinks she needs it, and she is a bit long in the tooth.

All of the incredibly expensive sets and costumes in the world cannot make up for an inability to FEEL and EXPRESS a song. Madonna hasn’t a clue how to do that.

Did the game commentators say anything about her show? Don’t they usually? I didn’t hear a peep.

How’s the game? What else is going on? I’m cleaning and stealing glances at the book I’m reading, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. What a read.

BRET BAIER: Twenty-two minutes, I think. (I love Baier’s quiet irony.)

STEVE HAYES: This is what flailing looks like. This was not a pretty performance, I think, by Newt Gingrich. ….

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Click here to view the embedded video.

Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney greets Cynthia Potts (R) at a campaign rally in Elko, Nevada February 3, 2012. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

The first caucus returns are already trickling in, with many more @ at around 7 p.m. Here’s some background from a Reuters/Yahoo story. It’s so nice, for once, to see the Pacific time zone in a news story.

It’s lookin’ good for Mitt.

Two polls taken this week in Nevada showed the former Massachusetts governor with a lead of 20 points or more over top rival Newt Gingrich after recapturing his front-runner status with a convincing win in Florida on Tuesday. …

He has stressed his business background as a cure for the ailing economy in Nevada, …… which has the country’s highest state unemployment rate, 12.6 percent in December, and the highest home foreclosure rate.

“This has been a tough three years,” Romney told supporters in Henderson, Nevada, … “It’s time now for Barack Obama to get out of the way.”

Romney hopes Nevada’s caucuses will launch a February winning streak that could position him for a knockout blow to Gingrich during the 10 “Super Tuesday” contests on March 6 – or even sooner.

Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri will have nominating contests on Tuesday. Maine will wrap up its weeklong caucuses next Saturday, and Arizona and Michigan hold February 28 contests.

The big Q of the day is who will take second. Will it be Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich? I hope, for his dedicated, principled supporters and him, that it’s Paul.

Gingrich is hoping to hang in the race until March, when there will be contests in several southern states where the former Georgia congressman and U.S. House of Representatives speaker believes he can do well.

At a campaign stop in Las Vegas on Friday Gingrich called himself “the candidate of people power versus money power,” returning to his theme that Romney is a flawed product of the elite and a Wall Street favorite.

But some Romney supporters say they are not turned off by his vast wealth even though Gingrich has made it a campaign issue. They said Romney had the best chance to beat Obama.

“I think he’s the only one who can beat Obama,” said George Peterson, a retired Air Force veteran who attended a caucus at Chaparral High School in Las Vegas.

Gayle Darin, another voter at the caucus, said she thought it was time for Republicans to pick a candidate and take aim at Obama. “A lot of people have rallied behind Romney now,” she said. “We’ve got to step up and get Obama out of office.”

Ernie Prosch said he liked Gingrich’s ideas for turning around the economy.

“What the country needs is somebody to come up with ideas on how to get jobs,” the retired airline pilot said. “I don’t think you need to be a businessman to do that, and I don’t think you need millions.”

During the caucus at the high school, voters broke into small groups by precinct to elect delegates to the county convention in March and cast ballots in the presidential race.
In the precinct that Darin, Prosch and Peterson attended, the final tally was 12 for Romney, seven for U.S. Representative Ron Paul, three for Gingrich and none for former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum.

Paul and Santorum also have pledged to keep fighting beyond Nevada. Santorum will campaign in Colorado on Saturday, and Paul will visit Minnesota. …

Read all: “Romney looks to boost front-runner status in Nevada.”

Thanks to Townhall.com for the nifty app.

PLEASE share any exit poll results you hear about in the comments below! Thanks!

YOUR TURN!

I think I came to this realization only recently. What can I say? And since I have a lot of years on my tires, it apparently takes a long time to figure out that all of my crushes (asexual) on presidential candidates were just that. Crushes, in which objectivity and rationality don’t have a role. Some of my candidate crushes that I am proud of: Robert F. Kennedy, George McGovern, George H. W. Bush (never the son), Bill Bradley and then reluctantly Al Gore, Howard Dean, and HILLARY CLINTON but then proudly John McCain. Then there are embarrassing candidate crushes: Richard Nixon (only against JFK – hey, I couldn’t even vote and the only adults I knew were Republicans!), Jimmy Carter, Ross Perot (wasted vote), John Kerry. Now, having lost Jon Huntsman, I am coming ’round to Mitt Romney, with honest enthusiasm and respect for his many skills and work ethic — uh, he’s had a real job 40+ hours per week — hell, probably some 100-hour weeks! — unlike some people.

I just saw a poll on MSNBC that showed Newt Gingrich with 51% Unfavorability and Mitt Romney with 49% Unfavorability. Newt’s 51% I can see because he is a low-class bum with a poison tongue. But Mitt’s 49%? Well, I believe that’s Toxic Newt’s doing too. Newt is consumed with destroying Mitt, calling him ugly names, especially “Liar.” Newt adopted the anti-Republican, far left’s anti-wealth spiel (even though Mitt earned it all with work and brains). I pray that Mitt can lower those unfavorabilities, and soon. But that’ll require silencing Gingrich. Where are Don Corleone and Tony Soprano when we need them?

I think I learned that lesson around the same time that Greg Gutfeld learned that unicorns don’t really exist. (Yes, he knows now. He revealed it on Fox’s The Five a few days ago. It came as a shock to me, one of his ardent fans who had always accepted all of him, even his belief in unicorns.)

What’s going on isn’t some establishment plot to nominate Mitt.

This is about frantic political party longtime leaders — among them, to mention two, the estimable Bob Dole and the relatively young Fla. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio who is officially neutral but who had to intervene when Newt went far too far in a TV ad that pretty much portrayed Romney as an anti-Hispanic racist).

Dole, the officially neutral Rubio, and countless other dedicated Republicans are trying to prevent the nomination by the (largely ignorant) GOP voters of the head-strong, lie-a-second, womanizing, narcissistic Newt. By a man who incessantly brags that he is a “historian” but never reveals that he was DENIED TENURE at a third-rate college. God I’d love to know why they refused to give him tenure. (See his bio at Wikipedia for more details.)

Any GOP voter who doesn’t see that Newt is BAD NEWS needs an intervention by sane Republicans. Or, at the least, they should read the many posts at NoQuarterUSA, mostly by Larry, explaining why Newt would be the WORST possible choice for presidential nominee. (And that Newt would lose to Obama isn’t even among the first of the reasons why GOP voters should not vote for Newt. Yes, you’d think that his inevitable loss to Obama would be the top reason not to make him the nominee — but there are even more frightening reasons.)

ABO is a very bad place from which to survey the field of remaining presidential nominees in 2012.

“Anybody But …” is ALWAYS a bad position because its fatal flaw is that it eliminates rational thought and careful evaluation of qualifications from the decision for whom to vote.

Carried to its extreme — albeit highly unlikely — is the possibility that voting ABO may get us a president who is WORSE than Obama. In fact, as shocking as it is, there have been one or two actual Republican candidates for president who would definitely be worse than Obama.

Fortunately, we still have three gentlemen running — Romney, Santorum and Paul. I wouldn’t mind it one bit if those three stuck in there through all the primaries. But the Poison Apple Gingrich must get out so that the remaining candidates’ favorability ratings can go up.

Damn, Don Lemon. Was that really you?

After all, Lemon is one of the anchorman Ken dolls, parts interchangeable with the elite few who share the rare configuration that broadcasting executives believe viewers find pleasing and comforting — from their perfectly-trimmed hair to their symmetrical facial features to their slim but not muscle-bulging physiques to their sedate tailored suits. They never fidget, they never scratch their heads. They laugh infrequently and always quietly.

While they smile constantly, they’ll never be caught grinning. Never will they, like the too-human Anderson Cooper, be seen giggling uncontrollably and getting themselves into embarrassing situations with Kathy Griffin.

The anchorman’s anchormen will almost always mask their political views. But Don Lemon burst out of his anchorman suit last night because he’d seen too much footage of Newt Gingrich, proving that even elite Ken doll anchormen have their limits.

The preceding discussion (transcript below) about Gingrich with CNN political contributors L.Z. Granderson (liberal) and Will Cain (conservative) had stoked the fire in Lemon’s belly.

Transcript: CNN Newsroom, 01/29/12
CNN Host: Don Lemon
CNN Contributors: L.Z. GRANDERSON, a contributor to CNN.com, and senior writer at ESPN; WILL CAIN is a licensed attorney, media entrepreneur, and host of “Off the Page” on National Review.com. Cain also produces the Internet interview program “Cain and Table,”

L.Z. Granderson, a contributor to CNN.com

GRANDERSON: You know, I had a huge complaint about Mitt Romney was that I couldn’t believe he wasn’t man enough to stand up to Newt Gingrich. But this past week, he’s been man enough to stand up to Newt Gingrich. He’s actually confronted him. He’s taken him on, and I think that’s taken Newt Gingrich aback because up until that point, Mitt was pretty much playing the nice guy, the milquetoast guy.

And now, Mitt has rolled up his sleeves and he’s gotten kind of tough. And I think that’s taken everybody by surprise.

LEMON: All right. As you — what were you saying? You went uh-huh, Will?

CAIN: To your Bachmann thing. Yes, it is Bachmann’s former debate coach.

LEMON: OK.

I want to play something Romney said about Gingrich on the campaign trail in Florida today. Listen, guys.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: I think for each of us, if we fail somewhere, if we fail in a debate or we fail to get the support of people, it’s time to look in the mirror. And my own view is, the reason that Speaker Gingrich has been having a hard time in Florida is the people of Florida have watched the debates, have listened to the speaker, have listened to the other candidates that have said, you know what? Mitt Romney is the guy we’re going to support.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: All right. Will, is that true? Are we watching Newt Gingrich implode?

CAIN: You got a couple things going on. First the mechanical answer, the political answer. And that is Mitt Romney has outspent Newt Gingrich something like $15 million to $3 million in Florida. Mitt Romney whopped Newt Gingrich in the last two debates in Florida.

So, there’s things going on politically. You also have surrogates out there across the state following Newt Gingrich around, winning the political battles. So, that’s going on.

But at the same time, yes, this is following the pattern of all of Newt Gingrich’s relationships, whether or not they are professional or personal. The longer you are exposed to Newt Gingrich, the less you like him.

GRANDERSON: Wow. I can’t even believe you went there. Wow.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Yes, and a conservative.

But you know what, L.Z., he’s not the only one, because you heard what Bob Dole have to say. I mean, there are lots of people who are high up in the conservative party — in the Republican Party who are saying the exact same thing that — or expressing the same sentiment that Will just expressed there.

GRANDERSON: Absolutely. You know, and it’s really hilarious to see Newt running around calling Mitt Romney a liar when he goes off on John King basically base owed on a lie. He knew full well that he did not offer ABC all those extra witnesses that he talks about and had to admit to his lie. [CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT? While I knew Newt lies, I never dreamed Newt would lie like that, on-the-fly, in the middle of the debate, inventing a discussion between him and ABC Nightline producers that never took place.]

So, for him to talk about who is lying at this point —

CAIN: You know —

GRANDERSON: — he looks absolutely ridiculous.

LEMON: Go ahead, Will.

CAIN: Yes, I just wanted to say on this lying thing, L.Z. is pointing to this and Newt Gingrich did it in the debate the other night. When Mitt Romney gave an answer and Gingrich said there were at least four lies in that answer, I’m not going to spend the time right now, you know, rejecting all those lies.

And he did in the clip you just played, Don. He said, I’ve got a candidate who I’m running against who’s just lying consistently. He keeps using the word liar, but he’s not telling us what are the lies.

Tell us the lies and tell us how you are rebutting them. Tell us how they are false. You can’t just call someone a liar and let it stick. Hopefully that shouldn’t just stick. You just can’t do that over and over.

LEMON: Yes.

P.S. I haven’t a clue why Lemon calls his commentary “No Talking Points.” If you get it, please explain.

It is especially fascinating for those of us in the other 49 states (i.e., not in Florida) to see these ads. Would you like a quickie lesson in how Super Pacs — as well as all other forms of campaign fundraising — work? AND (!) do you want to find out how two opposing candidates have forged an anti-Pac pact to make their contest by and for the people, devoid of any big-bucks, slick, devastating ads. Well, here you go:

NOW. Here is the story of two candidates who have atypically agreed to disallow Super Pac ads from “polluting” their campaign, leaving it entirely up to voting constituents to pony up the financial support that both will need, badly, in order to prevail:

Comment: I am really torn about this race. Because I like both candidates.

I was thrilled when moderate Republican Scott Brown, despite all the odds against him as he traveled the state in a beat-up pick-up, became a sensation and defeated the snobbish Martha Coakley who acted as if her victory was a God-given right, just because she was a Democrat and just because she was going to inhabit the Senate seat of the recently-deceased Teddy Kennedy. Surely, Martha assumed, all the Massachusetts voters who’d reelected Teddy for decades, would never, ever vote for a — what? — a Republican? Are you kidding me?, she asked … oh hell, she probably didn’t even ask herself that question because her victory was 110% assured.

Out of the blue, Scott Brown began to win hearts and minds across the state of Massachusetts. Even the national media reported on the grassroots movement towards Brown. Which is how, over 3,000 miles away, I heard about Brown and began following the race — because all of a sudden it really WAS a race. The handsome man — who worked as a model to help pay for school — was no intellectual slouch either. He “received a Bachelors of Arts in History, cum laude from Tufts University in 1981 and a Juris Doctor from Boston College Law School in 1985,” reports Wikipedia.

Then the unthinkable happened, and Scott Brown actually won in January 2010. It was a shock that Teddy’s hallowed Senate seat could be “stolen” by a Republican.

There were also national implications. Brown’s victory signaled that voters were fed up with President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Leader Harry Reid’s partisanship and failures to do anything to help the economy recover and to aid the growing number of unemployed. Obama was handed a DREAM scenario with Democratic majorities in Congress, and he still didn’t get anything accomplished, so voters started switching to the Republican party in a somewhat desperate hope.

Elizabeth Warren is a highly appealing candidate, particularly with her expertise in consumer rights and her gift for explaining complex financial issues in a way that anyone can understand.

If I were a Massachusetts voter, I might have a tough time deciding for whom to vote. But I’d probably vote for Brown, given his careful attention to ensuring that his Senate votes reflect the needs and views of his Massachusetts constituents, as well as Brown’s long record of legislative work in the Massachusetts state House and Senate. Elizabeth Warren has none of these experiences in her distinguished background.

Well, this has veered off topic, but it is worth repeating that it is impressive that Brown and Warren have agreed to refuse the funding by Super Pacs.

YOUR TURN.

8pm ET on CNN – Live Stream
Location: University of North Florida in Jacksonville, FL
Sponsor: CNN, CNN en Español, The Hispanic Leadership Network (“a center-right advocacy group” – CNN) and The Republican Party of Florida
Participants: Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul
Moderator: Wolf Blitzer

What’s the date of the Florida primary? January 31st. Next Tuesday. That’s just five days from now, depending on how you count days.

Do you want to find out the dates of the rest of the state primaries, as well as the dates and locations of the upcoming debates? Go to this primary schedule, which is just one section of the site, 2012 ELECTION CENTRAL, a remarkable achievement by some guy named Nate.

Why do I call the site remarkable? It is cleanly organized. It steadfastly holds true to its stated objective of being non-partisan. It is easy to use and to navigate.

Go visit some guy’s name is Nate’s Web site, and I bet you’ll agree with me and that you’ll bookmark the site.

More later …. I lost track of time (so typical of me because I have the hardest time forcing myself to stop searching and discovering, and finish off the post and get the damn post published!

YOUR TURN!

This is a snippet. Below, see the full contract for Newt's $25K/month influence peddling for Freddie Mac.

Republican voters’ fantasies are skipping the primaries and fast-forwarding to the mano a mano battles next fall. Their testosterone-fueled “wet dreams” come with their highly-anticipated fantasies envisioned in the “finger lickin’ good” possibility of debate clashes between mental muscle orator Newt “The History Hunk” Gingrich and Barack “Bazinga” Obama. More and more GOP voters are convinced that, in the debates, Gingrich would demolish Obama (and worry that Romney won’t).

That said, the GOP voters forget that Obama is one cool customer. And they don’t factor in that Obama’s team knows all about Gingrich’s oral prowess, and is already gearing up to prep the practice sessions and Obama. They also forget that Gingrich’s rhetoric will need a hasty overhaul if he makes it to the general, since at present, claims the Wall Street Journal, he’s attacking Romney “primarily from the left and in language indistinguishable from the Obama campaign’s.”

Important: No presidential debate is determinative. If they were, John Kerry would have won in 2004 (given incumbent George W. Bush’s god-awful debate performances), and it’s likely that Hillary Clinton, with her superior debate skills and mastery of every topic the debate moderators threw at her, would have bested Obama in 2008. Thus, it is SHEER FOLLY for Republicans to choose Gingrich because he may win debates with Obama. Far more is needed; what may defeat Obama is the candidate with experiences Obama still hasn’t bothered to learn, despite three years in the presidency, such as leadership and running a business; in those areas Mitt Romney beats both Gingrich and Obama.

Absent from adolescent puppy love is anything sensible and realistic that might interfere with the besotted GOP voters’ nocturnal dreams where sperm dance merrily and victory is assured, … albeit with the long-anticipated CLIMAX, not the result of intercourse but of the fulfillment — finally — of the long-anticipated showdown when Gingrich will destroy Obama through his exceptional mastery of extemporaneous speeches, particularly compared to Obama’s lack of talent, evidenced by his reliance on a teleprompter.

Also missing from the GOP voters’ nocturnal dreams are Gingrich’s liabilities, … including his historian duties lobbying for Freddie Mac, his praise for the unfunded Medicare Part D, and his defense of agricultural subsidies. Unconsidered too, but telling, are many consistent polls that show that Romney fares far better against Barack Obama than does Gingrich (Real Clear Politics averages: Obama 1.9% over Romney; Obama up 11.0% over Gingrich).

A WSJ op-ed by Jason Riley warns that adolescent Republicans, so turned on by Gingrich, had better stop, look, and listen:

Mitt Romney finally got aggressive at Monday night’s Republican presidential debate in a performance that, among other things, called into question Newt Gingrich’s vaunted rhetorical skills.

Mr. Romney, who has sometimes appeared to be uncomfortable with his wealth and how he came by it, forcefully defended his background in private equity. The former Massachusetts governor also challenged Mr. Gingrich’s credentials as a leader and reminded viewers that Mr. Gingrich was the first House speaker in history to be ousted. “The speaker was given an opportunity to be the leader of our party in 1994. And at the end of four years he had to resign in disgrace,” said Mr. Romney.

Because NBC’s Brian Williams refused to become Mr. Gingrich’s latest media foil, the former speaker was left to defend his record in Congress and his lucrative work for Freddie Mac. It wasn’t his finest moment. Mr. Gingrich was hired by the housing giant’s chief lobbyist but insisted, implausibly, that he wasn’t hired to peddle influence. “I offered strategic advice largely based on my knowledge of history, including the history of Washington,” said the former speaker.

“They don’t pay people $25,000 a month for six years as historians,” Mr. Romney responded.

One of the mysteries of this primary campaign is how Mr. Gingrich came to be regarded as an exceptional debater based on an ability to draw standing ovations from partisan audiences by attacking the press and insulting moderators who ask questions that he doesn’t want to answer. Another head-scratcher is why he wins praise as the conservative alternative to Mr. Romney despite criticizing the former governor primarily from the left and in language indistinguishable from the Obama campaign’s.

Mr. Gingrich regularly derides his rival as a “Massachusetts moderate,” but last night it was the former speaker who praised Medicare Part D and defended agriculture subsidies. Score this debate for Mr. Romney. …

Read all: “Romney Regains His Footing,” WSJ, January 24, 2012.

YOUR TURN!

Below you’ll see what I’ve just now transcribed from Mitt Romney’s Q&A session this morning in Tampa, Florida, live on CNN. Later, CNN returns to Q&A, and goes on to raise concerns that if Gingrich were the GOP nominee, who knows how many “October surprises” there will be, perhaps as many as one a day. As for calling Gingrich a lobbyist, Romney quipped, “If it walks like a duck, acts like a duck. …” More: Gingrich now calls for dismantling the federal Dept. of Education yet, says Romney, Gingrich was instrumental in creating the federal education agency. Then there’s that very recently, Gingrich raved about Romney’s Massachusetts health plan, yet only now attacks it. Gingrich, observed Romney, is like a pinball, bouncing all over the place.

CNN HOST: [Romney] is taking questions right now in Tampa, Florida, addressing Gingrich and the charges that Gingrich has made against him and his leadership.

MITT ROMNEY: … The policies of Freddie Mac as well as the policies of government. I didn’t hear that nationally.

I didn’t hear [Gingrich] making those warnings to the nation. He should have. He was working inside this industry, providing counsel to them. He should have provided that advice to them and communicated that to the nation.

ROMNEY CONTINUES IN HIS TAMPA Q&A: But, because of the mistakes of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and those associated with those entities — as well as people in Congress, and Wall Street, and bankers, and mortgage bankers, and in some cases speculators — we see a crisis which has an enormous human toll.

And so I am calling on Speaker Gingrich again to … release all of the work product associated with his work at Freddie Mac, and also return the funds that he made from Freddie Mac. I wouldn’t have normally suggested that except that he was the one who suggested that if you made money on this failed model, that you should return the money.

QUESTION FROM REPORTER RE ROMNEY’S TAX RETURNS: [Question inaudible, but it apparently has to do with the date that Romney's tax returns will be made public.]

ROMNEY: The reason that they are being released that day is because the trustee for the trust of our family funds is available that day. His name is Brad Multh [sp?], and he is in New York that day. And I don’t know the time. I think it is sometime in the morning. But it was just to accommodate his schedule.

——————————

Conclusion of CNN’s coverage of the Romney Q&A.

——————————

Here is the remainder of the debate information that begins at the top of page one of this post:

Alternative live streaming from 9pm to 10:30pm ET only NBCPolitics.com, National Journal, and TampaBay.com.)

Debate moderators: NBC’s Brian Williams and a panel including National Journal’s Beth Reinhard and the Tampa Bay Times’ Adam Smith.

prognosticate away until the actual counts come in, and tell the rest of us what you think is going to happen next in Florida.

– Much more to come on the blog — stay tuned, as they say on television –

Below, some thoughts, some psychoanalysis on Mitt Romney …

What’s below is not a full essay. It’s merely some notes I jotted down throughout the day. So don’t expect a polished essay. My purpose is to share my notes with you, and elicit feedback from you — as well as your own ideas.

On Monday night, Newt’s stand-out performance was enhanced by its contrast with a stuttering, twitchy Mitt Romney, who was off his game. Mitt evidenced so much anxiety made one wonder if he’d gotten bad news right before the debate.

If I were a psychiatrist, I’d consider the rise of pressure that Mitt was feeling because of the preceding days’ media reports that, if Romney can win South Carolina, he will have , in effect, sewn up the nomination. That’s huge. That means that what he’s been working towards for nearly eight years may finally become real.

There is the ghost of former Michigan governor George Romney, his father, specifically of his father’s ill-fated presidential race in 1968, brought down by his own unforced error (his “brainwashed” remark) and by a supposed ally, NY governor Nelson Rockefeller, who hinted that, while he maintained support for his friend George, he might run for president himself.

His father’s ghost reminds Mitt of how easily it can all fall apart. Consciously or unconsciously, his father’s ghost haunts this highly successful man, who can start a business from scratch and has built his own fortune, daddy’s money or not.

But, like many high-achievers, he is partially motivated to prove to himself, constantly, that he still has what it takes.

One thing I’ve noticed that is missing — like a big-hole-in-the sleeve-of-his-jacket obvious missing element — is telling the voters, no matter the venue, about his life story and his extraordinary achievements.

Example: He refers to his success in turning around the Olympics in Utah. But he only does it with two words: “the Olympics.” Okay, Mitt. But, Mitt, that was many years ago and I honestly don’t remember what you did that was so great and that saved the Olympics. If we have to wait until the bio pic at the national convention, they may not be playing your biopic. NO! Tell your story(ies) now. Your stories are what will make us emotionally connected to you.

That’s it for now. Hasta la vista.