Of the 'Santorum Surge' (and Gingrich Slide) in Iowa...

Reaganite Republican ^ | December 30, 2011 | Reaganite Republican

[Reaganite Republican]

Some on the right have been pumping Rick Santorum relentlessly in the wake of Herman Cain's withdrawal from the GOP primary race. Now lo-and-behold, such new media bloggers can share much of the credit for the Pennsylvania Republican's unlikely rise in the Iowa polls over this last week, particularly those who got behind him early and/or put boots on the ground.

Sure do love his platform... as I do Bachmann's. But the problem is that this 'Santorum surge' is coming purely at Newt's expense- and a direct result of underhanded scumbag Mitt Romney and his ma$$ive war chest, training the heavy guns on Gingrich 24/7 in Iowa. Now it's rumored that Michele Bachmann's surprisingly vicious attacks upon Newt -while largely laying off Romney- means she's angling for a VP slot.

Seems to be going to evil plan for Mittens, with Newt taken down a few pegs by a fullisade of harsh, negative ads, suddenly he's out front in 'conservative' Iowa... with the only worse candidate than him -Ron Paul- right up top there with him... great!

This is precisely why I switched my support from Bachmann to Newt... she and Santorum lack the requisite skill set/political stature to beat Romney and Obama and then run the country, and to me backing such candidates at this point will only hand the nomination to Romney...  maybe the WH back to Obama, too. The 'anybody could beat Obama' argument is pure fantasy, the Dems still enjoy many advantages in the areas of organization and lack of scruples... and there's a large block of barnacles that will vote 'D' no matter what.

We are to pick a race horse here, that's a HUGE part of this- 

I don't think one can afford to be too fickle about the color, esp if you are advocating that we bet the fate of the USA on a lame, uncharismatic candidate like Santorum that got whipped by 20 lengths last time he hit the track... just because he ticks all the boxes.

Sure, I wish there was a bit more conservative candidate who could beat Obama and was qualified to be president... but there isn't, Newt Gingrich is simply as good as it gets for the GOP this round. He's still up 2.4% nationally, and can be expected to sweep the south from SC-on... riding that string of victories on to the nomination, imo.

You could do a lot worse, my fellow conservatives...

Newt in the Wall St Journal:  

'Reagan had the recipe for success, let's follow it'

Ronald Reagan's economic guru Art Laffer has endorsed Newt,  as well... calling him an  'amazing' man with a pure "Reagan-Kemp" economic plan.

He went on to say that none of the other GOP candidates can hold a candle to  Gingrich's record of 'getting things done in Washington' :

Video/more at Reaganite Republican

__________________________________________________________________

Real Clear Politics   Gateway Pundit   The Other McCain  Wikipedia   Santorum2012   Newt.org   Legal Insurrection

[Yaelle]

It’s not about finding an ‘American Idol’ candidate. It’s that Santorum comes off as a weak person—he’s nervous, whiny, insecure, self-congratulating, etc. He may be an upstanding person on moral issues, I don’t know. But he’s not a leader to me, and that’s what actually matters.

---

As a longtime student of psychology, I see newt, believe it or not, as more insecure than Santorum. Newt’s Cheshire cat smile and bravado is a deeper insecurity, a neediness that he doesn’t understand but tries desperately to hide. Santorum seems much more comfortable in his own skin, real. He isn’t faking. Maybe he does need to stop some of the I, me, mine in debates, trying to explain who he even is, but do not think that newt’s ridiculous bravado is far off from obama’s.

[sphinx]

But the problem is that this 'Santorum surge' is coming purely at Newt's expense- and a direct result of underhanded scumbag Mitt Romney and his ma$$ive war chest, training the heavy guns on Gingrich 24/7 in Iowa. Now it's rumored that Michele Bachmann's surprisingly vicious attacks upon Newt -while largely laying off Romney- means she's angling for a VP slot.

I have always been a Newt fan, but I am also one of those who thinks his famous baggage makes him unelectable. Unfortunate, but there we are.

If Newt's numbers -- in Iowa -- collapse after a week of relatively gentle needling from Romney, Bachman, and other Republicans, what do you think will happen in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and other battleground states, most of them less conservative than Iowa, when Obama puts a billion dollars into a scorched earth big lie campaign?

Back in the day, the iron triangle of battleship design was armor, gunnery, and speed; the naval architects had to allocate weight among those three major factors. The U.S.S. Newt is a battleship with a terrific main battery and admirable speed, with no armor. A couple of hits below the waterline and he's sunk.

[Ditter]

Santorum and Bachman both come off as whiny to me. While they may be good conservative people, neither one has my vote. Newt's sly grin is a “been there done that” kind of grin.

[sphinx]

The first term, you will recall, was one as a minority candidate because Gore actually exceeded him in the popular vote total.

I always tell my liberal acquaintences that Bush very likely had a majority of the popular vote if you take vote fraud out of the equation. Bush would also have won a majority of the popular vote had it not been for the scandalous early call on Florida, which was made during prime voting hours in the west. The bad call left people thinking for several hours that Gore had already won. This suppressed the Republican vote, cost Bush the popular vote win, and probably cost Slade Gorton his Senate seat, which ultimately cost the Republicans control of the Senate.

I try not to be pedantic about it, but whenever a dem starts ragging about Bush-Gore, it's an effective way to switch the discussion to vote fraud and rock 'em back a bit.

[Utmost Certainty]

Great, but Santorum still doesn’t strike me as much of a leader.

[nathanbedford]

I don't see any of those running--Gingrich included--having the cohesive and COHERENT vision that is needed now. The Republicans running seem to have very ragged, malformed 'conservative' visions that finally are half-baked and thus not what is needed to transform the mess we're in. What is needed is a kind of conservative theory of everything that would indeed transform the mess in Washington. I don't think these candidates have that.

I think you have gone right to the heart of the matter. The reason many of us are ambivalent about Gingrich is precisely because he is so eclectic in his conservatism. We have to leap with faith that he will forget about moon mirrors and return to balancing the budget if elected.

I might point out, however, that getting elected is a different matter from governing.

Very recently, perhaps as a result of the influence of the Tea Party and the debt threatening to crash the Republic, conservatism has come to be defined more narrowly than in the past in that we must strictly reside within a constitutional framework marked by the 10th amendment. That suits me fine but I am not sure that it is historically consistent for the Republican Party or even for conservatism.

I have said many times on these threads that many of the people protesting as Tea Party members against federal spending were also out there protesting against Obama for his cuts of their Medicare. That is a microcosm of the dilemma which has confronted Republicans and the conservative movement since Sen. Taft.

I am perfectly willing to get behind the candidate who has Ron Paul's 10th amendment view of the scope of the federal government-provided you get him elected, and we know we cannot get Ron Paul elected.

When Gingrich put his reforms through and balanced the budget etc. it was considered radical and the acme of conservatism. As the times change so has the standard of the times.

There is no single candidate who qualifies as a "pure" conservative as is presently being defined except perhaps Ron Paul and he is on acceptable for other reasons even beyond electability.

To return to the question you raise, is Gingrich, or any other candidate, so eclectic and inconsistent in his version of conservatism that he cannot render a coherent campaign? I think that is a fair question. My answer is that of all these candidates, considering their forensic talents, Gingrich can do that the best despite the fact that he is far from "purest" conservative in the race. Santorum, for example, would take that honor but few believe that he can dominate the election in the Ronald Reagan as opposed to the Karl Rove style.

My subjective judgment is that Gingrich can do that. I say only that the choice is not between Gingrich and the perfect candidate but between Gingrich and a finite field the leader of which is Romney.

[nathanbedford]

Good points!

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

There is no way I will caucus for Santorum, even though I've always liked him.

This mess between Santorum and Bob Vander plaats is extremely troubling and I believe there are people who know the truth and are keeping their mouths shut.

[Yaelle]

I like how you think. When the sauce “clarifies” down to those three, and we see that newt cannot sustain himself against Obama (rush said last night on Greta all Obama can run on is annihilating the opposing candidate, and if it’s newt, Obama will have encyclopedic books of ammo), then we can coalesce around Santorum and put truth against obama’s lies and record. Santorum will rise to the occasion. He will listen to Gd and to us, and he will Serve. (something GIngrich would never do.). We Beat down the Romney machine and head into the fight against Obama, where Santorum wins the Apoliticals whom Obama has hurt ( nearly all of them!).

Let’s roll.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/vander-plaats-takes-credit-for-santorum-surge-109075.html

[Utmost Certainty]

I’ve been saying for over a year that Romney will be the nominee. And he will lose to Obama. Because the GOP is just that stupid.

Yeah, that's been my default conclusion as well. But I managed to get optimistic in the last few months that GOP voters, especially conservatives, might just actually get their act together this time and finally put a real non-Romney contender over the top. But that doesn't look like it's going to happen.

Four more years of Obama here we come.

[show]

Iowa and New Hampshire are blue states. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina & Florida take place in January.

Newt will win South Carolina & Florida. Newt is from Georgia which borders both South Carolina and Florida. Florida seniors will cheer Newt on all the way to victory. And that's just in January.

January
? - Iowa 28 delegates

? - New Hampshire 12
Newt - South Carolina 25
Newt - Florida 50


Go Newt !

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

The “Pure Conservatives” who are driving this insanity, are behind this pointless and quite clueless “Santorum” foolery.

The entire Iowa fiasco has become a spectacle of stupidity. It's a Clown Show, in the likes of Barnum and Bailey. Now the “ultimate CONservative” has become Santorum, a 3% candidate who couldn't win as the Scout Master for troop 7, in Twin Falls, Idaho.

But it alarms me to see the MSM manipulate the so called “Conservative base” in this manner. That same “Base”, that prides itself with being above media manipulation and capitulation.

It's the laughing stock of the entire nation.

[EDINVA]

I’ve never thought IA or NH were that important for Newt. He just has to have a decent showing there. If it’s going to happen for Newt, FL and SC will be when his campaign goes into the lead, builds on that lead, and stays in the lead.

[show]

FL and SC will be when his campaign goes into the lead, builds on that lead, and stays in the lead. Agree. And then next up, February which includes more blue states, but Newt should do better coming off his South Carolina and Florida wins.

January
? - Iowa 28 delegates

? - New Hampshire 12
Newt - South Carolina 25
Newt - Florida 50


February
Newt - Nevada 28

Newt - Maine 24

Newt - Colorado 36
? - Minnesota 40

Newt- Arizona 29
? - Michigan 30

And March will be all about Newt too.

March
Newt - Washington 43
Newt - Alaska 27
Newt - Georgia 76

Newt - Idaho 32
RINO - Mass 41

Newt - North Dakota 28

Newt - Ohio 66

Newt - Oklahoma 43

Newt - Tennessee 58

? - Vermont 17
Newt - Virginia 50

Newt - Wyoming 29

Newt - Kansas 40

Newt - Alabama 50

? - Hawaii 20
Newt - Mississippi 40

Newt - Missouri 52

? - Illinois 69

Newt - Louisiana 46

March will be a huge month for Newt with several wins. Go Newt!

[Servant of the Cross]

I don't see any of those running--Gingrich included--having the cohesive and COHERENT vision that is needed now.

I would submit this opinion piece by Newt in the WSJ as the cohesive and coherent vision that is needed now.

It is clear that we have come to the point that it is Gingrich or Romney. I vote Newt.

Iowa Rep. Steve King: Gingrich Better Candidate Than Romney

[Servant of the Cross]

I don’t really understand the anti-Newt rhetoric either.

I blame McCain. He left such a bad taste that it led to the "I'll never compromise my principles again" position.

The problem is that in 2012 that attitude will deliver us Milt. No thanks. Go Newt!

[Yaelle]

Great post.

[EDINVA]

Yep. I haven’t wasted a moment worrying about IA, much less NH, for Newt. He just has to stay alive and participate as if they mattered for his purposes, which they don’t.

He told Hannity a few weeks ago, recognizing his own weakness, that he has to ‘stay disciplined.’ Part of that discipline is not shooting himself in the foot till they hit SC. By SC there will be fewer candidates, and Newt should emerge as the not-Mitt, not-Paul candidate.

But he also has to up his ground game, as the VA fiasco showed. He should muzzle his campaign director who flubbed the VA primary deal. I wish he’d find a new crew to run and manage his campaign, but that’s a fairly closed universe, and the supposedly better, more experienced, folks jumped to Perry, for all the good that’s done.

[true believer forever]

And one of those leading the revolt was John have-you-got-a-kleenex Boehner. Newt will eat the elite up and spit them out... I believe he will be loyal to those who got him there. And I think he's learned something:

"There is an unmistakable theme of departure and return in his campaign as well, because just about everyone had written him off as irrelevant by Labor Day. Gingrich sounds rueful when he thinks back to the pounding he took during his first week as a candidate, when he got into trouble with conservatives for criticizing the entitlement-reform plan offered by his friend Paul Ryan. “It was the excuse to go after me,” he told me. “So everybody said, ‘Oh, good, he’s bleeding, let’s see if we can’t kill him.’ And that’s what was the real revelation to me, is that people I really thought were personal friends all cheerfully engaged in the lynching. And a lot of them of course now have a vested interest in my not winning, because of how silly they’ll all look.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/newt-gingrich-glory-days.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp&adxnnlx=1325189041-tg7Q3/vMVP19NjfZCJDQPw --- from this Sunday's NYT magazine