Schmidt Wrote: I'll make a few observations about the South Carolina primary. 1) It is rather astounding how South Carolina opinion polls and candidate support "turned on a dime," shifting from a large Romney lead after New Hampshire to a overwhelming Gingrich primary victory after the two South Carolina debates. 2) The TV pundits are relishing in the thought that after Gingrich's South Carolina win, the primary process will drag out further guaranteeing them millions in additional TV revenues from future attack ads.3) Newt Gingrich tried early on in the debates last fall to make the media moderators the villains, but it didn't take hold. But Juan Williams of Fox News and John King of CNN delivered him the gift that he wanted...an opportunity to "play the victim" in front of a right wing audience of largely Christian evangelicals that is highly suspicious of the media.4) I have several "why" questions. Why did Fox News use the relatively unknown Bret Baier and Juan Williams instead of their star Chris Wallace in perhaps the most important debate so far? Fox News chief Roger Ailes is the master of knowing his audiences, and the audience reaction to the questions posed by Juan Williams were predictable...it opened the door for Gingrich to push back on the villain moderator...a black man. Was it planned that way? Was Williams the fall guy?5) And after the Fox News debate, John King of CNN led off with another provocative question to Gingrich that got a similar audience response. It was predictable and they did it anyway. But were both the Fox News and CNN lines of questioning designed to play to Gingrich's strength...playing the victim while attacking the media.6) I don't know...just speculating...but there is no doubt who the winner was in both debates...the media, especially the cable news networks, because the Romney charge has been stopped. And the lucrative process of endless debates and no clear front rummer goes on.7) I mention this because I saw the same thing occurring during the Obama - Clinton debates of 2008. When one of the candidates seemed to be moving ahead, the media rhetoric would shift against that person to ensure that it wouldn't happen. I first noticed it against Clinton early in the race...but then later the media tide seemed to turn more against Obama when he had the lead. 8) Getting back to the candidates, while a "nice guy" like Rick Santorum was a much better fit for the Christian evangelical "family man" voter, he lacked one thing...visible anger. The audience in the debates likes the defiant in-your-face authoritative style of Gingrich more than "playing nice guy." They believe that's what it takes to beat Obama...no matter what his baggage is.9) Mitt Romney's muddling the question of when he would release his tax statements certainly played a part, but I think the bigger factor was Gingrich's capturing of the audience with his attacks against the moderators and Barack Obama, the "food stamp President." 10) Newt Gingrich has finally made his winning formula work...that is to use the debates for TV exposure instead of spending big money on ads. The South Carolina win, however, will finally get the big donors to open their pocket books in a big way. Unfortunately, the Gingrich winning formula is also likely to ensure restructured campaigns by all the candidates that feature "anger" more often, and as Chris Matthews suggested "who can hate Obama the most."11) Further on that topic, House Republicans just finished their caucus meeting which was characterized by the Daily Kos as "House Republicans meet and decide they hate Obama, but don't have strategy for 2012." So expect a big dosage of "hate Obama" from both the candidates and the Republican members of Congress in the months leading up to the election. Lots of mud is being readied and it will fly... Okay, these are just a few of my rather cynical opinions/comments after watching these endless debates, week after week, and seeing how the TV pundits seek to entertain us with more intrigue...for ratings and profit.