The South Carolina primary

I can't believe people actually back the guy.

The surge of Mr. Gingrich would seem to be yet more evidence that Americans are more interested in hiring a quick-tongued television personality than an actual executive for executive office. That is too bad for America.

Individuals who are quick with a phrase, and unfazed by personal attacks might give a good show, but often "good show" is what they are best at, not executive functions.

America is at a point where it needs someone who can execute prudently and quickly, and implement real change. Individuals who are best at making themselves popular in the moment with their words and delivery are not necessarily going to be prudent, quick or effective in executive office.

When will Americans ever learn this?

American Republicans usually prefer their presidential nominees to be intellectual second raters who've developed character. Exceptions are those who've served as vice president.

That doesn't describe either Romney or Gingrich, both of whom seem to be mistrusted and/or loathed by large numbers of Republicans. Romney has been too successful to have developed character (his loss to McCain 4 years ago wasn't humbling enough), Gingrich is too nasty. Best the party could hope for is Paul and Santorum picking up enough delegates to make the nomination take several ballots.

Gingrich is, and never will be right for this country. He holds far too many positions that I would classify as being radically extreme. If he were to become our next president I would expect to see unprecedented damage to our economy and to our international relations. Anyone that wrote a dissertation focused on such a phenomenally narrow and perhaps trivial topic as: "Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945–1960" is not fit to lead a country as dynamic and as diverse as the U.S.A.

This looks like it will almost certainly become an election of "choosing the lesser evil", in my eyes: "who can do the least damage over their term?".

I think that we should begin purging the system of "career politicians", experience on Capitol Hill is incredibly overvalued. Whoever wants power the most, should be the last to get it.

I'm sorry but a lot of you guys don't understand American code.

Newt Gingrich will beat up on the social benefits of food stamps and welfare because those are understood to be programs created for blacks. Newt will not beat up on the social benefits of unemployment and Medicare because those are understood to be programs created for everyday people, that is whites.

Now he might quietly undercut unemployment and Medicare, sure. But he's not going to bash those programs because his voters will take that as an attack on what they like, rather than an attack on what blacks like.

You're in a whole lot of denial if you deny the effect of race in South Carolina, a state where nearly every Republican voter is white and where Jesse Jackson (as Bill Clinton famously said) won the Dem primaries. Race is first, second, third, and fourth as an issue.

I'm not sure if racism played a role in Former Speaker Gingrich winning SC over Mr Romney, but I'm sure it did in the writing of this article.

Are food stamps a bailout for the private sector? They must be spent, so the money would go to the owner of whatever shop or food establishment that they are being used in and increase demand. Do republicans think the money used on food stamps is never to be seen again? Is the republican argument that food stamps are preventing people from finding a job to feed themselves? Because that is ridiculous. What is the main argument against food stamps? Why is it seen as a thing to be derided and that to label a president 'food stamp president'? It seems to me that people think that because there is a president willing to help those in need that those people suddenly become lazy and disinclined to work?

This is probably the best election this country has seen in years. As an African American independent, and one who had a class with Obama and was one of his first volunteers when he ran for his first office: I am quite disappointed with Obama. By the way, I quit as a volunteer and did not vote for him when he ran for President. Though I did support him when McCain selected Palin as his VP. Romney is an establishment candidate.I do not support Romney because he isn't authentic. And most importantly his greatest argument that having business skills makes him the most qualified does not hold up. Romney's business skills obviously did not translate into good governance as evidence of his record as Governor of MA, which came after his time at the Olympics and at Bain. Santorum is far too right to be elected. Gingrich is a divisive politician as evidence by his time as Speaker and more recently by his denouncing all the centrist actions and statements he has made in the past few years. I like Ron Paul. Obama had never held any major position prior to his legislative elections. Moreover nearly every elected position he held was due to the media being in love with him as a "post racial" candidate. The classic case of clandestine and historical racial attitudes of the North. They eschew overt racism but feed and play into hidden racism. Clearly Obama deserves lots of credit for what he has accomplished given the state of the country when he took over. Yet, Obama's election was about reform and change of which he has done little. Obama's problems are that he is over handled by his circle, has locked out the support of the people who elected him, failed to provide strong leadership when it comes to the environment (after the oil spill and nuclear disaters), economy (not supporting Simposn Bowles and a balanced budget amendment), immigration (favoring fence building), and foreign policy (no direct talks with Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc). Obama has not been a great failure as the right has painted but neither has he lived up to the hype that the media help create. The right is correct in their analysis of the media's support of Obama. But lest we forget that the media was complicit in wars of the right, the patriot act, deregulation of laws which help to bring us to near economic ruin. That being said, I look forward to a third party candidate who can finance themselves and discuss and bring forth a balanced budget, direct talks with extreme regimes, a comprehensive humane immigration policy, investments in clean energy, and a reform to our electoral system which rewards delegate counters and corporate backers rather than the voice of the citizens of this great country through popular vote. By the way I have voted for Republicans, Democrats and Independents.

ROMNEY NOW MORE THAN EVER

The father of our country, George Washington set the bar high for future presidential nominees to master. Importantly, a born leader with character, a great husband, a keeper of oaths, an example for followers to emulate.

I am an Evangelical, former educator, pastor, teacher, and a presidential candidate in 2011. I have studied all the Republicans running for office and find myself committed in support to the candidacy of Mitt Romney. It matters to me greatly who leads our nation, creates jobs, proposes policy, provides an example for youth, and serves as our President.

I, as was John Kennedy before me, opposed to religious bigotry and feel strongly that it should be eliminated from this campaign. I do not approve of infidelity and lack of personal conviction in a person seeking the highest office in the nation. I want a man of balance not an individual with an unsteady hand on the nuclear trigger. We are living in a dangerous world that’s why my endorsement is for a man of character, a great wife and family, Mitt Romney. Mitt serves in the tradition of Washington, Lincoln and countless other great leaders. His election is the answer in my opinion to the restoration of the American Dream.

Alan Phillips
Bloomington, IL

For those readers who are having a hard time seeing how race has anything to do with Newt's statement:

He characterized President Obama as a food-stamp president. Thought experiment. When you think food stamps, generate an image of who would receive those food stamps. Say out loud what color that person is.

If you say black then odds are your own prejudices will prevent you from seeing anything wrong with his statements.

Once the Economist was an outstanding journal. Now it is liberal hacks whose every analysis brings race into it. Juan Williams brought up the race issue and tried to tie it to food stamps. More white Americans are on food stamps---so how can it be racial.

You liberals just have to go to race. Get over it.

As a Latino who has lived in the US for 25 years (legally) and adopted the US citizenship, I can honestly say that, should we continue to elect "leaders" based on populist rhetoric (on the left and the right), we will witness, within the next 20 years, the Latinamericanization of the US, with all its ugly consequences.

Sadly, the ones that call for a smaller, more effective government, control of the deficit and respect of individual freedoms, are not "appealing" to the unsophisticated masses. Just like in Latin America.

I absolutely despise Newt. I'd rather see Mitt elected. Or Barack again. Or Ron maybe, or just anybody else other than Newt. I can't stand him personally, and I have no sympathy with any of his policy (I could identify so far) either.

Yet I fail to see any racism here other than on the side of the media. The man has a warehouse full of corpses and the best you got is that he called a tv moderator 'lazy' ?

Would it have been racism if the tv moderator happened to be hispanic instead? or asian? or white? I wonder where the real racists are here.

You're saying, in short, that Southern white evangelicals care only for what a candidate *says*, not what he does.

That Gingrich has a repulsive personal character and is an unrepentent serial sinner and megalomaniac is beside the point. That he was dumped by his own party as Speaker for his obnoxiousness, erraticism and ineffectiveness is likewise beside the point. Only that he can scream the loudest and hew to the far-right litmus tests.

Romney, on the other hand, is a Mormon. Ewwww. Never mind that he actually behaves decently in public and private. (Well ... except for being a poster child for everything that's wrong with the American tax system and crony capitalism.)

Likewise Obama, who is a model father and husband, not to mention genuinely Christian in his values and behavior toward others. But he's black. And he believes that government can serve to help people. And he's articulate and well educated. Three strikes, so he's out. I am stunned by the amount of *hate* I see toward this guy.

Quite ironic, really. It continues to astound me that these people truly believe that just by hating gays, criminalizing abortion, and screaming about how Christian they are, they will somehow *be* Christian. All while eliminating taxes for the rich so the rich can get richer. I can think of few things less Christian.

I see The Economist buys into the Dem view that disagreeing/criticizing a Black person must be racism at work.

Just out of sheer curiosity. Does anyone know what kinds of odds the bookies in the UK give Newt to get the nomination; and becoming the next POTUS ? It would be interesting/amusing to know what kind of image Newt projects in the UK. It is illegal to bet on these sorts of competitions here, in the US, but for the sport of it, I am giving Newt 1 : 10 to get the nomination; and 1 : 1 000 000 to be the next POTUS.

So much for the nonsense that South Carolinians "pride" themselves in picking the eventual nominee.

You write :"He (Mitt Romney) did not get rich by robbing banks. Too bad, that would have made him more popular than making money in private equity.

Can't wait for the next debate. Just wish Santorum would go away and make it a two-man race.

If Gingrich should actually make it to November, the traditional antiintellectual American voters are going to experience something that never happened before in US history: TWO intellectual ideologists battling it out!