Breaking: Rove Was Wrong, But Romney May Yet Make History, After All

Given news out of Iowa late last night, we can now definitively state that Karl Rove was incorrect when he took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to tout Romney's alleged history-making achievement after his New Hampshire win. However, it now seems as though Mitt Romney may yet be poised to make a bit of history, after all. 

Romney Makes History

In an open race for the GOP nomination, no Republican has won both Iowa and New Hampshire, as Mitt Romney has.

The Republican Party of Iowa issued this statement at 20 minutes before midnight last night.

In order to clarify conflicting reports and to affirm the results released January 18 by the Republican Party of Iowa, Chairman Matthew Strawn and the State Central Committee declared Sen. Rick Santorum the winner of the 2012 Iowa Caucus.

Consequently, if the polls are accurate and Newt Gingrich is declared the winner of the South Carolina primary before 11:40 PM tonight, Romney would effectively be the first GOP front-runner in history to lose both Iowa and South Carolina within one 24 hour period. 

Newt Gingrich heads into South Carolina election day as the clear front runner in the state: he's now polling at 37% to 28% for Mitt Romney, 16% for Rick Santorum, and 14% for Ron Paul.

Assuming that plays out, RiehlWorldView would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Romney campaign on its history making achievement, ... or, perhaps, lack thereof might be a better way to phrase it. Heh!

Comments

[babygiraffes]

Dan, I'm with you on Romney. I hate that bastard, I'd see Obama in there 4 more years before I'd pull the lever for Romney: sometimes principle DOES matter, and I won't be held accountable for installing a person like Romney in the White House. I liked Bush, but he damaged the party. Romney would destroy it.

However, how do you respond to Newt's unfavorables?
PPP, Jan 16: 26 favorable, 60 unfavorable
Fox News, Jan 14, 27 favorable, 56 unfavorable
CNN, December 12, 28 favorable, 58 unfavorable

exactly how does a guy with unfavorable ratings like this win a national election? I'm not saying if this can't be overcome I'll back Romney: I'll just sit the election out if he is nominated. However, it seems you are claiming a path to victory with Gingrich. I want to believe. How can he overcome these numbers?

[zane]

babygiraffes, while I no longer have a dog in the hunt, I agree with you on the heir apparent, Mitt Romney. And I also don't think that Newt Gingrich can defeat Barack Obama.

It is one thing to throw red meat to a conservative audience by body slamming the left wing press, but that tactic is not going to work with indepedents who may, or may not, pay attention to the LSM. Newt will simply come off as angry and trying to dodge a question about his past. Not a winning strategy. And Newt can't win without the indies.

Also, while I think that Romney is nothing more than a vanity candidate who is a liberal who is trying to redeem his daddy's name as a GOP primary loser, Newt doesn't have many more redeeming qualities. The problem Newt has is that he knows he's smart, but he also thinks he's smarter than anyone else, and that would parlay into actions as POTUS when Newt implemented policies for our own "good." I've had enough of that. And while Newt may get brownie points for calling Obama the "food stamp" president, that is not going to resonate with the 1 in 7 Americans who are on food stamps and all they hear is this guy wants to take my food stamps away.

Installing Newt in the Oval Office, with his former mistress, now wife, as First Lady will take the "family values" agenda off the table for conservatives. Sorry, the man ran his personal life like a bordello owner, flitting from skirt to skirt. Now I am being asked to put all that behind me, support Newt and make a mockery of my own personal values? I don't think so. My values are not based on political expediency.

But what difference does it make? It is 2008 all over again.

[smellyblossum]

Well babygiraffes, if you don't ABO (Anybody But Obama) then you will be guilty of installing Obama back in the White House. Think America as we know and love it will withstand 4 more years of somebody who has got nothing to lose? I don't.

[zane]

smellyblossum, Obama is going to win. Neither Newt, nor Mitt, can defeat him.

The America you think you know and love was gone a long time ago. Perhaps you should read more about Woodrow Wilson. And there is NOT one GOP candidate still standing that is willing to turn back the clock.

[EVB]

So now we hold people responsible for mistakes, misstatement and hyperbole of others?! You, sir are missing a salient point. Romney was declared the winner of the primary in Iowa by the same Iowa GOP who now retract and award the victory to Santorum.

Additionally you, sir are channeling your poster boy of smugness and hubris of Newt Gingrich...silly, childish and immature. Newt has taught you well.

[Ragspierre]

zaney is deeply, deeply confused and depressed.

[Ragspierre]

But, EVB, Mittens CONCEDED the Iowa popularity contest.

Did you miss that...???

[Dustin]

"Romney was declared the winner of the primary in Iowa by the same Iowa GOP who now retract and award the victory to Santorum. "

Oh wow. I'm super impressed that the GOP awarded Santorum with his victory, which he won already.

Thanks! What will the GOP award next? Do I get my dog?

The Iowa caucus is a national embarrassment, period. The GOP is too. The democrats happen to be a lot worse.

There nothing immature about trying to correct the narrative that Romney is inevitable, or, for example, accomplished something in Iowa, which was a major narrative that is simply untrue. For one, he spent well over a million dollars in Iowa on ads, and the winner spent in the low five figures. I believe the ratio was 75:1, actually. Even then, Romney lost?!? And he's inevitable? No, Karl Rove and pals, he's probably not. Not if he's burning through cash that much. Not if he needs a phalanx of 'authorities' to prove he's conservative, instead of ... a record of being conservative in office.

I find it confusing that you're criticizing hyperbole while saying we should cut people slack for it. You wouldn't happen to be a fan of flip floppers, would you?

[Ricky]

Dan, I'm keepin' my powder dry! I expect Romney to win until I see the final results. I don't trust team Romney and the GOP. These polls that shows Newt to win in a landslide maybe part of their game....

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/21/final-poll-heading-into-the-primary-confirms-a-double-digit-lead-for-gingrich/

[sickofrinos]

Thanks for the laugh.
Record Romney!

[palmyra]

Too funny. I hope it works out as you suggest.

[Ragspierre]

The ethics report on Newt Gingrich is publicly available, but has been construed as politically motivated. The alleged violations concerned a course that Gingrich taught at Kennesaw State College while serving in Congress. The course’s promoters received financial support from “individuals, corporations and foundations,” promising that the project qualified for tax-exempt status. The ethics committee ultimately concluded that the course was “actually a coordinated effort” to “help in achieving a partisan, political goal” — something that would run afoul of its tax-exempt status.

And yet, when the IRS looked into those accusations in a three-year investigation, it found that the donations to Gingrich’s charity were “consistent with its stated exempt purposes,” and Gingrich’s course and course book “were educational in content,” according to The Washington Post in 1999. By then, Gingrich had left office, preferring retirement to a fight over leadership.

Gingrich adamantly denied violating the law, but ultimately agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for making misleading statements to the ethics committee.

http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/01/21/romney-backing-governor-sununu-release-your-ethics-records-newt-irs-later-ruled-in-gingrichs-favor-ethics-report-already-released/

Not that facts will dent some of the frontal plates of our moralists...

[zane]

So rags, what you are telling us is that a guy who was innocent of the charges against him was willing to give up being the third in line for the Presidency and pay $300K too boot?

Got it!

[Ragspierre]

See, zane? There are Bighorn Sheep who would kill for that bone mass in your forehead.

Impenetrable.

Other than stupid snark, what authority do you have to refute the facts stated?

[reliapundit]

SCOZZFAVA.
SHARPTON.

[zane]

Rags, as per your m.o., no answers, just insults.

Would you pay a fine, or even give up a job willingly, if you were not guilty of what you have been accused of?

Yeah, you probably would. Then you could go on the dole.

[Ragspierre]

zane, again you provide the poster-boy for "self-awareness deficit disorder" in your stupid post.

I provided facts. I challenged you for refutation.

Nada. Zip. Goose-eggs. Zero.

But, to answer your question...

Sarah Palin.

Moron.

[oic]

newt has the same unfavorable as Palin
The way I explain how Romney can lose while still be front runner is because the polls are false
With the amount of corruption in the MSM these days, I don't think its a big leap to assume that they also rig their polls

[Ragspierre]

Um...

breaking.

Newt wins.

Winning is good.

[m]

I guess Karl Rove is not happy tonight. Glad to hear Gingrich won SC tonight. It because he won the debate two times in a row last week. I don't understand why Santorum is still in the race and he will not get the nominee. I wish Ron Paul win in third place in SC; not Santorum. Romney, Santorum, and Paul are the'weak' candidates.

[EBL]

http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/mitt-lost-south-carolina-over-mormonism.html Mitt lost over Mormonism? Count me a skeptic on this claim.

[Dustin]

"Count me a skeptic on this claim."

I hope you're right.

I think being called bigot will not endear anyone to Romney. It will take something like Huckabee's shameful displays to drive folks TO Romney over these very heavy allegations.

[babygiraffes]

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/21/why-romney-lost-part-i/

Romney is done, and it's pretty much what I expected: the South won't vote for a Mormon, at least not one with all the problems Romney has:

I predict he doesn't win a single Southern primary, save maybe Florida, and in the general election, should he get the nomination, he'll lose Virginia, the Carolinas, maybe Georgia, Florida, more.

We're in a no-win situation here, but I'd rather go down in flames with Gingrich than back Romney. I wouldn't vote for Romney vs. Kim Jong Il.

[sickofrinos]

Reliapundit is scared of the 3rd. party.
His single vote will not matter, and he will rip Newt, even if he lowers the sea.

[sickofrinos]

Newt\West-It has been mentioned.
Mittens would never choose a leader such as
West for v.p.

[Ragspierre]

% Reporting: 99
Gingrich: 40.4
Romney: 27.9
Santorum: 17
Paul: 13

and

Gingrich won women by 38-19 percent over Romney, 41 percent support among married women

Both according to Jacobson.

[Ragspierre]

“I want America to become so energy independent that no American president ever again bows to the Saudi king.”

...and

“An American president who can create a Chinese-Canadian partnership is truly a danger to this country.”

EXCELLENT Newt-onian messaging, there...!!!

[Ragspierre]

In South Carolina exit polls, Romney wins only the “moderate or liberal”, those with incomes in excess of $200,000.00, those with postgraduate education, those who oppose the tea party movement, and those who think religion does not matter at all.

A number of those have been consistent through Iowa and New Hampshire too.

Mitt Romney’s exit polling reflects he can get the votes of Washington, D.C. Republicans and those who think we should leave the fate of the country in their hands. But he cannot get the votes of those who think we need to reform and reduce the power of Washington, which I venture to say is a sizable portion of the base.

The other day, Dan McLaughlin explained who the GOP establishment is. That characterizes Mitt Romney’s base even in the exit polls. Unfortunately for him, the base of the party is at war with that precise group.
--Erickson

[Ragspierre]

Newt Gingrich’s ardent admiration for Franklin Delano Roosevelt owes more to the latter’s unflinching wartime leadership than his welfare-state policy prescriptions. This week, though, the former Speaker is also undoubtedly in accord with FDR’s aphorism, “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.” To his great credit, Newt has made an enemy of CAIR.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, that is. The nation’s best known cheerleader for radical Islam — or, as Fox News compliantly puts it, “the largest Muslim civil liberties group in the United States” — has issued a blistering press release that labels Gingrich “one of the nation’s worst promoters of anti-Muslim bigotry.” The occasion for this outburst is the imminent Republican primary in South Carolina.
--Andrew McCarthy

Sheila Jackson-Lee and Chris Matthews hate him, too.

Powerful recommendations.

[Ragspierre]

Predictions and press about the "bigs" in GOP establishment circles and evangelicals getting together to put money and support under Santorum as a Newt stopper.

How strange. The idea that Newt in the White House would newter (ha!) the pro-family message of the base is past odd to me.

Ronald Reagan was not pure as the wind-driven snow. He was a divorcee in a day when that was a minor scandal. There may have been some traction from the narrow-mindedest on the right (I don't recall), but I can't recall Reagan being an ineffective spokesman for strong families. Or that the issue was "lost" by the GOP.

And so much of the Judeo-Christian ethic is involved with the power of...and capacity for...redemption. That seems like a big part of the deal, according to my little light. Yet, evangelical "leaders" seem a little sketchy about this end of the Christian stick. When do they need to apply that forgiveness thingy? Isn't the Newt story a win for the good guys?

Would Newt Gingrich be the first sinner in the WH? The first GOP sinner?

Seems like W was quite a busy boy before he married. But he did not commit adultery. But, if your objection to adultery is religious, you are supposed (from what I read) to feel the same about good ol' pre-marital sex.

But I don't recall evangelicals having knotted knickers over that. Maybe some did. I don't recall it being a factor.

[sickofrinos]

Rags-Exactly.

You could hear the Tea Party last night at Newt's victory speech.
USA USA USA
All from the heart.

[sickofrinos]

Rick Perry and his staff get a huge thank you from me for working extremely hard for Newt. They went to work almost immediately after getting out of the race.
Dan- as you have said all along, The man has class.

[zane]

sickofrinos, too bad the man the Perry peeps went to work for doesn't.

[Ragspierre]

Pretty classy remarks for his opponents last night in his victory speech, zaney.

WAY classier than the "anniversary" cake the Romney workers cooked up.

[Xiaoding]

With third party support, Newt can win. That would be the Tea party.

Independents? There are precious few of those!

Many a Tea Partier have made the same progression, from liberal to conservative, that Newt has. Newts past is not a problem. Divorces? Are you kidding?

Newts only problem, is convincing the Tea Party, that he is for real.

[Ricky]

EBL - if you want to see bigotry, go read on Romney Central. Amazing the things they get away with!

Romney was leading in double-digits just a week ago, seems to me those evangelicals were more than ready to vote for him.

If he wins Arizona, Nevada, Utah, etc can we say it is because of the Mormons there or will that be bigotry?