As S.C. primary dawns, can Romney keep Gingrich at bay?
Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich campaign in South Carolina.
/ AP Photos/Charles Dharapak, Matt RourkeUpdated. 11:26 a.m. ET
NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. -- A week ago, Mitt Romney was considered all but a shoo-in to win the South Carolina Republican presidential primary. Coming off of perceived victories in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, he was strongly favored in the polls -- one of which showed him leading his competitors handily, by more than 20 points.
A lot can change in a week.
Today, as Palmetto state voters head to the polls, only four men remain in the race for the Republican presidential nomination -- and Newt Gingrich appears to be the at the head of the pack.
After an epic flameout in the Iowa caucuses, many thought Gingrich was all but done for in the presidential race. But the former House speaker has been steadily gaining ground on the campaign trail in South Carolina, in part due to strong, confident performances in back-to-back debates.
In South Carolina, Santorum counts on a second surge
Stephen Colbert to South Carolina: Vote for Herman Cain - he "is me"
On Friday, a new poll out of Clemson University poll showed Gingrich leading Romney 32 percent to 26 percent. The poll has 4.73 percent margin of error.
At left, Bob Schieffer breaks down the biggest moments from Thursday night's Republican debate.Romney on Friday sought to downplay expectations for his performance in today's nominating contest, telling reporters he was "cautiously optimistic" about its outcome but that "we'll see what the numbers are in the final tally."
"I sure would like to win South Carolina, but I know that if those polls were right, regardless of who gets the final number, we're both going to get a lot of delegates," he added.
"He just had a bad week," said Chip Felkel, an unaligned South Carolina Republican strategist. "All the sudden inevitability is gone."
It was a tumultuous week for politics in general down in the Palmetto state: On Thursday, Iowa Republican Party officials belatedly announced that Rick Santorum, not Romney, actually earned the most votes in the state's January 3 caucuses. While they did not declare a winner on Thursday due to incomplete results at some precincts, Iowa GOP officials did formally say Santorum won on Friday night.
Also on Thursday, Texas Governor Rick Perry withdrew from the race, throwing his support to Gingrich on the way out. The same day, ABC News aired an interview in which one of the speaker's ex-wives claimed Gingrich had asked if she'd consent to an "open marriage" with him -- allegations the candidate has vociferously denied. Romney, meanwhile, has faced incessant questions about issues related to his personal wealth and the release of his tax returns.
In Thursday night's debate, he was particularly criticized for announcing that he would not be announcing his tax returns until April -- at which point the nominating contest could be wrapped up.
Romney's supporters quickly attempted to minimize the issue, rushing to his defense and pointing out that several of the candidate's competitors have not committed to releasing their tax returns at all. (In the debate, Santorum said he didn't have access to his tax returns because they were at home on the computer; Ron Paul cited the embarrassment of putting his financial information "up against" that of his competitors.)
"I don't see what all the fuss is about," said former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, defending Romney after the debate.
"What he said tonight, and what he's said consistently, is he is going to release his tax returns, it's going to be April or sooner, and he's going to do it for multiple years. And that's more than any other candidate on the stage said," Pawlenty said.
"The primary could be going on to June, or go into August," Romney adviser Stuart Stevens pointed out.
At left, CBSNews.com's Brian Montopoli breaks down a crazy week in the GOP nomination battle.Still, questions about the matter have since followed the governor on the campaign trail.Felkel, the GOP strategist, cited Romney's general "discomfort" talking about his personal wealth -- not his actual positions surrounding it -- as the candidate's real problem.
"He just has a tremendous level of discomfort talking about his finances," Felkel said. "I can't believe an economy guy couldn't answer some of these questions. Eight years of running for president, you should have an answer for questions about your wealth and your taxes, and he didn't have an answer for that. He didn't have a comfort level there."
The candidate's campaign has not refrained entirely from attacking Gingrich -- on Friday, Romney called on the candidate to release the full documentation of his 1990s-era ethics investigation, and his campaign held a conference call blasting Gingrich as the "granddaddy of earmarks" -- but at a Friday rally, the candidate seemed determined to stay focused on President Obama. Unveiling the endorsement of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, Romney lashed out at the president, not Gingrich.
But even some of his supporters were worried about the former Massachusetts governor's prospects in South Carolina.
Sandra Winter, a Romney fan from Summerville, S.C., said Gingrich's recent rise was "a concern to me."
"I think he's had two great debates; he's an excellent debater, and I think that people are taken over by the way he projects himself," Winter said. "It's gonna be really close. If Romney does manage to succeed, it'll be very close. It's a tight race."
Mitt Romney on the trail
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- The Ted Cruz conundrum
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 198 Comments
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- Obama prom pictures surface
- Senator: Oklahoma "hit hard, but we're not knocked out"
http://wp.me/p1h552-dZ
"Compared with Democrats, many Republicans believe in a more robust version of federalism with greater limitations placed upon federal power and a larger role reserved for the States."
"Although the Republican Party has always advocated a strong national defense, historically they disapproved of interventionist foreign policy actions. Republicans opposed Woodrow Wilson's intervention in World War I and his subsequent attempt to create the League of Nations. They were also staunchly opposed to intervention in World War II until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."
In Mortys case his whole history goes back 5-10 years.
Oh, and on your last post, I would agree somewhat! But, here's the thing...in many ways, it has worked. We havent had another world war. We havent sedded control of the international scene to China, Russia or other rogue states.
Instead, we still set the agenda. And sometimes, that agenda has to be set at the barrel of a gun. Otherwise, we give up the international scene to those that will use the barrel of their guns to set their agenda. Which of course, we cannot allow...unless we do indeed want another world war.
=============================================================
Ahhhh Yes...... GWB style foreign policy. Way to make my point Morty.
Diplomacy at the end of a gun barrel is in your mind the only way.
He would make sure that international trade would be decided by other countries, and not us.
Who do you want setting the tules internationally...Us, or Russia, China, etc???
by Mortarman291SG January 21, 2012 5:43 PM EST
I say: "Dont just do something, stand there."
============================================================
Talk about not making sense.
Wants us to make all the rules for the world.
And then says Dont do anything stand there.
Well..... What is it?
At least Ron Paul would put America First.
I say if what we have done the last 40 years isnt working it is the height of idiocy to continue to do it.
Mortar.... Your brand of foreign policy in the middle east and more widely in the WORLD has NOT worked for a long time. Give it a rest.
Time to try something new.
.by slownewsday4RP2012 January 21, 2012 5:20 PM EST
Mortar is a fiscal liberal who is just fine with waging unnecessary wars, and keeping military bases active in 127 countries.
He is a fiscal liberal and social conservative - their type ran me right out of the Republican party, if which Mortar is a die-hard fan.
=======================================
I agree slow. He believes himself to be some kind of constitutional scholar. At least where the constitution suits his warped view of the world.
Guarantee the founders did NOT see us having a shoot first and ask questions later policy. Or get attacked by a terrorist group and attack Jamaica foreign policy. Its old.
Says to provide for the common defense. Not the common police the world state.
Read up.
People interpret the commerce clause pretty loosely and look what we get.
Oh, "happy" second anniversary of Citizens United today. US democracy RIP.
Cinditeaparty: Ron Paul would defend this COUNTRY. Thats whats important. America First.
Time to try something new.