“I can see the groundswell starting for Willard “Mitt” Romney”
FR is opposed to Romney because of his many liberal positions and his flip-flopping, and his collaboration with Ted Kennedy etc (not because his name if Willard or because of his religion).
If you look at Newt’s positions, there is no meaningful difference. Newt has signed on to the every liberal cause in the last few years (amnesty, global warming, cap-and-trade, individual mandate in ObamaCare, Fairness doctrine etc). He eagerly collaborated with Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton).
He has flip-flopped and lied about many things, including support for cap-and-trade and his Fannie Mae lobbying.
Yes, in the general election we probably have to vote for Newt over Obama (and pray that House has conservatives to stop him in amnesty/GW/FairnessDoct etc), but we are in primary now.
Newt and Willard are both flip-flopping politicians who have joined pretty much every liberal cause in the past. Both have done few nice things. Why would you support either one of them (and not both?).
In the primaries, there is no need to vote for liberal.
We still have, for example, Bachmann and Santorum (and who knows, brokered convention).
his voting record was MORE conservative than Santorum at the time.
Bachmann and Santorum have no shot. At all. Ever.
He is a fast-talking used-car salesman type who is trying to sell a bill of goods.
He was conservative when he was in Congress. After he resigned his speaker-ship and basically walked out on his House seat, he became the quintessential Washington insider. He even set up business on K-Street, which is known for influence-peddling.
If the Republicans are looking for someone outside of Washignton beltway, Gingrich is NOT that person.
It will be interesting to see how his polling numbers are after the MSM and other candidates begin scrutinizing him and his history.