My goodness! The mainstream media is acting just like Romney's PAC. I'm shocked --- outraged --- (lying). I imagine Romney's anger will work just about as well as Newt's did. In the world of deceit, I think Romney probably has a better grasp on how to handle the situation than Mr. Goldberg does. (That's a compliment, Mr. Goldberg.)

Hmmm? Am I to feel sorry for a bully being bullied?

Steve, I think it might work. I'm much more likely to wake up in the morning and vote for "Not Obama" rather than Mitt Romney, who I passionately detest.

Steve, I think it might work. I'm much more likely to get up in the morning and vote for "Not Obama" rather than Mitt Romney, who I passionately detest.

A couple of serious candidates? Who would they be? P. Obama is a moron. IQ of 160 or not, he's obviously too stupid to think his way out of his socialistic tendencies; he believes his own propaganda. It's either that or he's a monster of Brobdingnagian proportions, pulling the long con on America and turning the home of the brave into the home of the gonad-less, metrosexual. And Mitt --- OMG! Do I have to listen to him prattle for 8 more months? His debate skills are pathetic, mired in drivel and an apparent incapacity to say anything interesting. I'm still wondering why Newt took a couple of falls in the South Carolina debates. It was like watching Tyson taking one on the lip from a no-name palooka. I think we've all been USED.

I just listened to the speech. I didn't find it to be "strange" or "vindictive". Newt pretty much reiterated the same message he has been giving for a while. He did speak against Romney. Romney's campaign has been mercilessly hammering Newt. Is Mr. Glass saying a response from Newt makes him "vindictive". As Newt said in the question and answer period, some negativity will be necessary to counter Romney's scurrilous attacks. As the saying goes, "You don't bring a knife to a gun fight." Mitt made it a gun fight and the news media cheers it on since they love negative news to titillate their readership with. Maybe that's why Mr. Glass is spinning.

In November I would have voted for Romney had he won the nomination. Now, he is on my short list of people I will NEVER vote for, among whom are: Teddy Kennedy (RIP), Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid. Do you begin to discern a pattern? I don't vote for patently dishonest people --- or Democrats. But then, I repeat myself.

My goodness, Mr. Tyrell, aren't you generalizing just a bit. I'm also a baby-boomer and I think I missed the narcissistic thing, though maybe you didn't. I'm a long-time subscriber to American Spectator and I remember when you were bemoaning Clinton's attacks against the magazine, attacks the magazine survived only by the intercession of George Gilder. I would think you would have a little more empathy for someone who is being politically mauled by dishonest, blitzkrieg attack ads. But, I guess not. But for the presence of Jeffrey Lord among the Spectator's writers, I would have cancelled my subscription. God be with you and with the American people.

I'm supporting Newt because he has a much better record of winning than Mitt; he has a much better record of conservatism than Mitt; he has proven himself much, much more honest than Mitt and Mitt's shills; and, Newt is just plain smarter than Mitt. Mitt hasn't been able to "KO" Newt, despite his enormous resources and well-oiled machine. His tactics have been unremittingly negative and offputting to the conservative electorate, thus damaging his electibility in the general election. For myself, I use the "quack" test. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it probably is a duck. Mitt looks, walks and sounds like a liberal progressive.

If electable Mitt wins and we have another tepid four years with no progress on the domestic front, but only a bunch of froth and lies, I'm going to have to consider moving to Alaska and convincing everyone there that secession is a good idea.