But you notice Newt was when he tried to succeed with a lie against a white man, Mitt Romney. He was outed by the main news media for trying to use a lie against Mitt.

If he had done that same thing against Obama nothing would have been mentioned about it.

As Howie explained. “This is going to be a fight for Presidency we have never seen the likes of.”

The white boy, regardless of his political affiliation, will always defer to the white candidate. He does not want white women to be fixating on a black man as the most powerful man on the planet.

It is bad enough he is perceived as having an inferior dick, being inferior in the sack, and inferior as an athlete. He will not be found to be deficient in the intellect department also, if he can help it.

Too late, color aside, could either the lying sack of shit Romney or the I-sound-like- a-genius to the ignorant Gingrich hold Obama’s jock strap or Leadership program?

The answer may very well depend on the color of your skin. Otherwise the obvious one is, Hell, NO!

Robert

They don’t care who gets in as long as he is white.

Ito

Gingrich started off his campaign by talking down the Paul Ryan Plan, referring to it as “right wing social engineering.”

Huntsman, on the other hand, began his campaign by embracing the Ryan Plan and has been the candidate who has supported the Plan consistently and completely.

Gingrich was dogged for his sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi. Huntsman also had moderate views on climate change.

But, Gingrich is leading in nearly every national poll and Huntsman is nearly in last place, even though, on paper, Huntsman probably has a more conservative record and platform and certainly a lot less personal baggage.

So, why is this?

I think two factors are at work.

First, Gingrich speaks passionately about Americanism, and he does so unlike any other candidate in a cycle in which American exceptionalism matters so much, especially to seniors. Gingrich, notably, does best among seniors.

And second, he has been fierce in attacks against the mainstream media and President Obama.

To put it simply, Gingrich clearly and passionately tells the voter what he is for and who/what he is against.

Huntsman, meanwhile, speaks in nuances. It’s not clear what he is for and what he is against and why.

Last week, Huntsman developed a nice frame for his campaign. He will now run as the candidate who wants to end the country’s fiscal deficit and the trust deficit.

He has railed against crony capitalism and touted his economic growth plan, which many have called perhaps the most pro-growth proposal ever offered by a presidential candidate.

Huntsman’s problem is that he has been marketed terribly and it’s hard to tell whether there is enough time for him to sell his candidacy. That’s something Gingrich has never had a problem doing.

When Gingrich and Huntsman debate today at 4 p.m. EST in New Hampshire, the differences in their style will be on clear display.

Simply put, and as the old saying goes, it’s not what you say, it’s what people hear. This cycle, when Gingrich speaks, voters have heard a conservative.

When Huntsman speaks, voters have heard a hipster/moderate/Ambassador as opposed to a rugged individualist governor.

If Huntsman has any hope of reviving his campaign, he must be more of the latter and less of the former.

—Tony Lee