Posted on 03/02/2012 11:34:11 AM PST by libertarian neocon
It's time to stop dilly-dallying. Super Tuesday is upon us and with that, the nomination race could be all but over unless conservatives and libertarians finally unite behind one candidate, a candidate who can beat both Romney AND Obama. That candidate needs to be Newt.
Among the not-Romney's he is the only one who can unite the party. Economic conservatives like him because he balanced the budget and reformed welfare. Defense hawks like him because he is the most hawkish of the lot. Social conservatives, when they can get past his personal life, like him for his strong record on issues like abortion. And libertarians, like the Libertarian Party's nominee in 2008, Bob Barr, like him because he is economically libertarian and not over the top on social issues.
Can anyone honestly say the same thing about Santorum? He goes out of his way to attack individual freedom and libertarianism and completely blew his chance to be the nominee by focusing on social issues instead of the economy (probably because his economic policy record isn't really that great). Who attacks prenatal diagnostics? Or the idea of contraception? Or says he wants to vomit over a rather non-controversial (and somewhat revered) JFK speech? He has proven himself to be quite a bit more gaffe prone and offensive than Newt, despite the fact that people thought he was a "safer" option. Even I was offended by some of the stuff he said and I am a Pro-Life registered Republican. It's really not surprising that his support is crumbling like it is. See the latest tracking data from Gallup (Santorum's popularity is in dark green, Romney's is black [matches his soul], Newt's is orange and Ron Paul's is light green):
Santorum is just not ready for prime time. He is simply too divisive, offending gays, women, parents, protestants and libertarians (in total about 80-90% of the electorate). Unfortunately, he retains enough support to possibly give Romney a majority of the states on Super Tuesday. His conservative backers need to wake up quickly, bite the bullet and go with Newt. As the brilliant Thomas Sowell wrote:
Newt Gingrich is the only candidate still in the field who can clearly take on Barack Obama in one-on-one debate and cut through the Obama rhetoric and mystique with hard facts and plain logic.Nor is this just a matter of having a gift of gab. Gingrich has a far deeper grasp of both the policies and the politics than the other Republican candidates.
Can anyone really argue with that?
I think Ron Paul supporters (the historically Republican ones, not the liberals who are just visiting the GOP for this election in order to support Paul) need to wake up as well. They are not furthering libertarianism at all by supporting Paul any more. He's made his point and has shown that he is a force to be reckoned with but supporting Paul on Tuesday just increases the chances that the most statist candidate, Mitt Romney, is nominated. Do you really want to be responsible for nominating the only Governor, Republican or Democrat, to enact a socialist universal healthcare system in their states? Newt isn't a libertarian but he is the man who did the most to wound the leviathan in the last 30 years. Why not vote for him and give this country a chance? It clearly won't with either Romney or Obama.
Finally, Newt is simply the most electable candidate in the race right now. As I mentioned earlier, he can unite the party, has a great grasp of both politics and logic and can actually explain conservatism in a way that others can understand and agree with. Santorum and Paul are both to extreme to get almost any independents over into the fold.
Sure he has baggage but I think most of it will go away. Freddie Mac? Let's see Obama bring that up when he received over $126,000 in bribes, err I mean donations, from Fannie and Freddie while he was in or seeking office (he was the #2 largest recipient in Congress, #1 was the notoriously corrupt Chris Dodd). Nancy Pelosi? Let's see Obama make an issue out of that one or Newt's opposition to cramming down the Ryan plan.
It's time for believers in small government and personal liberty to unite behind Newt, otherwise we will once again have a Nixon vs. McGovern sort of choice in the fall. And the stakes are just too high this election for that.
The only thing that matters is what conservatives want.
Don’t leave out the enviromentalists. They love him for his strong support for the endangered species act and the fight against global warming.
‘The only thing that matters is what conservatives want.”
Conservatives should want Newt, the only Reagan conservative in the race.
Santorum is just not ready for prime time. He is simply too divisive, offending gays,
Any politician that is willing to offend sodomites gets at least a second look from me.
Don’t leave out the potential lunar colonists too.
What are you smokin’? Rasmussen shows Santorum trailing Obama by two points, Romney by six, and Gingrich out of sight in the rear-view mirror.
Wow brilliant post, good job my FRriend. These gullable casual republicans that aren’t as informed as us conservatives are going to doom us all. I pray Newt gets back up in the polls, it will be so exciting seeing him go against obama. GO NEWT!!
Conservatives do want Newt, your effort to make him seem more liberal won’t stop that.
You implied that Newt is not as conservative as Santorum in some important ways.
I hope that Newt is more socially conservative than Santorum and more effective at it, that is what I am counting on.
Sorry, the first line is from the article. I just haven’t figured out how to italicise..
Look, I agree with you, but if the polls are to be believed (and I haven’t seen any reason why they shouldn’t) Santorum is holding on to enough support to beat Gingrich everywhere but Georgia.
Santorum may be on the way down, but unless his slide accelerates, he won’t be low enough by Tuesday. Like I said, I am a huge Newt supporter, but I’m trying to be realistic.
I will happily listen to reasons I am wrong.
“Conservatives do want Newt, your effort to make him seem more liberal won’t stop that.”
I wasnt trying to make Newt out to be more liberal. I just think he basically agrees with this quote from Reagan:
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
“Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”
Newt is socially conservative. But there is a big difference between opposing abortion and lecturing about the dangers of contraception.
“Any politician that is willing to offend sodomites gets at least a second look from me.”
If it were just gays, I dont think it would be a problem. But he has offended parents, women, protestants and libertarians.
He wants us to unite behind Newt, when failing to unite behind Santorum cost us MI.
This is completely backwards. Arguing we should unite behind Newt will guarantee a Romney landslide.
Perhaps that’s the goal?
How is providing contraception a legitimate function of the federal government?
How is forcing private employers to provide contraceptive coverage a legitimate application of the constitution? Don’t libertarians believe that the constitution protects the free exercise of religion?
How is forcing anyone to buy anything a legitimate function of the federal government? Is contraception your only concern?
I am sick and tired of “compassionate” soft spoken so called conservatives. This country cannot survive another one. I want the meanest SOB that can be found, that is not afriad of what will be said about him/her, and will take the fight to the enemy(communists).... this small l libertarian backs newt....
He’s more offensive to protestants than Newt getting his first two marriages anulled because they were protestant?
If libertarians wish to unite with conservatives behind a candidate who is conservative socially and militarily as well as fiscally then I am for that.
Social issues are non-negotiable however, and will not be on the back burner.
“How is providing contraception a legitimate function of the federal government?”
“How is forcing private employers to provide contraceptive coverage a legitimate application of the constitution? Don’t libertarians believe that the constitution protects the free exercise of religion?”
I wasn’t slamming Santorum’s attack on Obama’s contraception plan, but his statement that he would use the Presidency to combat contraception in general (including purely private use). He basically took an issue we all could agree on, people shouldnt have to pay for other peoples contraception, especially if it violates religious doctrine, into something that pitted social conservatives against everyone else.
Notice how quickly the narrative turned from Obama being oppressive to Santorum trying to turn back the clock.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.