A Vote For Gingrich Is A Vote For Obama

Sorry, "purists".  Go ahead, unfollow me on Twitter or my blog.  Whatever.  Actually, some of the vitriol I have received for strongly questioning Gingrich's campaign and/or persona here has been greater than or equal to the commentary left by illiterate angry liberals.  We can disagree, and I do understand what the case is for Gingrich (understanding not being the same as agreeing), but let's be fucking civil here, OK?  Sweet Zombie Jesus, it's not as if this blog has endorsed Mitt Romney, either.  Instead, I'm beginning to embrace disappointment, hopefully not as a precursor to despair, and defeat...

Anyway.  William Galston makes a point over at TNR:

If Obama were running against Gingrich this fall, he’d win—barring outright economic or military catastrophe—because the former speaker will never be able to persuade a majority of the people that he has the right temperament and character to occupy the Oval Office. Pitted against Obama in January 2011, Gingrich was supported by 37 percent of the people, versus 55 percent for Obama. A year later, after introducing himself to a new generation of adults and refreshing the memories of their parents, he enjoys the support of … 37 percent of the people, versus 55 percent for Obama.

Barack and Michelle - or Mr. &  Mrs Crankypants, as Michelle Malkin so delightfully dubs them - are equally temperamentally unfit to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But while the media covers for or defends the president's lack of civility, they will eviscerate Gingrich and his pugnacious tenacity on a daily basis, getting under his skin, which is not much thicker than Barack's. Gingrich will erupt, and the election will be over before the convention breaks, leaving the country in the hands of the looters for four more years.

And while I'm in a bad mood, somebody tell Mitt Romney - who's going around talking up an Obama "economic recovery" - that even the Dems are smarter than that:

Most important, the economic horizon for 2012 has darkened....Consumer spending outpaced growth in disposable income, meaning that households spent more only by saving less. This can’t continue indefinitely: Over the past year, real actual tax incomes actually fell by 0.1 percent. Meanwhile, business investment grew at the slowest pace in two years. And as the Fed recently noted, the modest growth predicted for 2012 would not be enough to reduce unemployment significantly from current levels.

Maybe this is something we ought to be talking about instead?