Skip to comments.Why Gingrich Should Stay in the GOP race all the way to Tampa Convention
Posted on 03/25/2012 6:49:58 AM PDT by mitchell001
Newt Gingrich is so valuable to the American Conservative movement in America. This is why Newt should stay in the race all the way to the convention in August. Everyday, Newt clearly expresses conservative policy, positions, plans and Obama rebuttals. Newt pushes and explains doable plans for energy, Social Security, Iran etc every week, where Santorum and Romney are talking pious generalities. Let's face it. The other thing that Newt is doing with his substantive speeches and TV radio appearances is he is showing the world that he is solid presidential material. So if Mitt or Rick continue to screw up and neither gets enough delegates for the convention on the first ballot, Newt stands a very excellent chance of being selected. As Romney and Santorum's presidential appearance diminishes, Newt's viability at the convention increases.
The fact that Santorum is the front-runner among the anti-Romney’s shows a fundamental flaw in the conservative community. Huckabee in 2008; Santorum in 2012. It shows how far up our collective ass our collective heads are.
And I say that as someone who feels duty-bound to vote for Santorum when this circus gets to NJ.
Newt is by far the better candidate but the Fundamental Flaw in the Conservative Community prevented Newt from being where Santorum is now: in position as the only viable rival to Romney.
In the words of Winston Smith and Julia, “we are the dead”.
The proportional delegate formula mostly ends now. There will be no delegates gained for running second or third in primaries.
Should Etch continue to win traditional blue states, he will get to his 1144.
I would hope both of our Conservative hopefuls would now form a powerful partnership, as that could be the way to stop Etch.
Weeks ago Newt offered just such a plan. Rick said no. Maybe he'll come around. Rick isn't going to win on his own. He may eventually realize it.
So stay in Newt—your numbers are dropping so much so fast hopefully it won't matter anyway--cuz we really don't want Mitt Romney.
Palin never “officially” endorsed Newt. She hasn’t said much about him lately. She is wise to not tie herself officially to a sure loser.
She has a future, he does not.
If Newt were to drop out now he would not be responsible for the mendacious Mass Gov getting the nomination which will result in Obama winning in November.
Let’s direct our rhetoric at Romney.
Not our own.
Knock Romney out of a first round win in the convention.
If he manages to win despite that, then he won fair and square, but let’s stop fighting with each other please, until then.
Gingrich isn’t the problem.
Santorum isn’t the problem.
Mitt Romney is the problem.
Don’t recall where I saw it, but there was an article out there that said Newt had approached Rick to team up to defeat Romney. Rick refused because he’s in it for Rick. Newt wants to win, but is more concerned for the Nation. When he backed out of Wisconsin, he didn’t speak it plainly 9would have been nuts to) but he alluded that his supporters in the State should consider voting for Rick in order to hurt Mitt. Newt knows the real enemies and focuses on them far more than Rick.
And there is also a 3rd party option for those of us who have been kicked under the bus. The Tea Party is much bigger than just a few fringe conservative malcontents. It has conservative Democrats, Moderates, independents and all combined. That's a pretty good start......
would someone please tell me why Newt doesn’t start talking about the American media’s non-reporting of the obama forged birth certificate, and his multiple SSN’s? It’s being reported around the world, even by pravda!.....if Mister NOOT wants a jump start, there it is.....This would force Rush and the boy’s to start talking about it, and the lame stream media would then have to say something. It needs to be done before summer!
I’m surprised nobody has commented on or asked about what you regard as the Fundamental Flaw in the conservative movement. Perhaps it is obvious to everyone, so there is no need for comment.
By the way, looks like Santorum had his 2+2 = 5 moment. Santorum was on CBS Face The Nation a few minutes ago, and when asked about George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin incident, he accused Zimmerman of “pursuing” and committing a “heinous” act and all but denounced the Gingrich critique of how Obama is playing the incident.
I think Newt needs to stay in. He really is the best “balanced” choice of the conservatives and what he says is important and needed. However, realistically he cannot win it now....but he has an important role. I wished that he and Santorum would team up and start running as a Santorum/Gingrich ticket - and let everyone know. I think they compliment each other on strengths and weaknesses.
Santorum/Gingrich 2012! (although I agree that reversing it would be better)
“The fact that Santorum is the front-runner among the anti-Romneys shows a fundamental flaw in the conservative community.”
IF you mean by “fundamental flaw” the social/moral conservatives...you are wrong. They aren’t a flaw, they are the true base of the GOP since Reagan. Without social/moral conservatives you DON’T have a GOP....it would become a minor party.
I’d like to add that describing Santorum supporters as social conservatives, who are interested more in abortion and freedom of religion is over simplifying. A big part of the reason that voters are supporting Santorum is because they thing that he is the only candidate who can get the job done, get rid of Obamacare, by pulling it out by the roots.
- Gingrich is a candidate whose depth of study of the Constitution's essential foundations prepares him for focusing voter attention on core principles;
- Gingrich possesses an ability to contrast those ideas with so-called "progressive" ideas;
- Gingrich has the requisite quickness of mind to unmask the "emperor's" benevolent smile, and reveal the tyranny which hides behind promises for "goodies" which are purchased at great price by hard-working Americans who, in turn, are enslaved to government, just as are the recipients of the "goodies."
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C. S. Lewis
All who doubt the wisdom of Lewis might watch the video of the President's recent remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. There, Obama arrogantly misappropriated Jesus's spiritual challenge to individuals, claiming those words as validating and authorizing abusive use of coercive power by himself and his cronies to "take" from some in order to buy votes and accumulate more power to themselves--all in the name of "helping" the beneficiaries of such unconstitutional "takings."
Hear Samuel Adams:
"Is it now high time for the people of this country to explicitly declare whether they will be free men or slaves. It is an important question which ought to be decided. It concerns more than anything in this life. The salvation of our souls is interested in this event. For wherever tyranny is established, immorality of every kind comes in like a torrent, it is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice. - Samuel Adams
If Romney is the forced candidate, and if liberty is to be rescued from the jaws of the "progressive tyranny" which is now being inflicted upon Americans in the name of "taking care" of them, then someone who is articulate and quick minded must either stay in the race, or emerge, who can and will prepare the minds of voters prior to November. That person seems to be Gingrich at this point.
Romney does not connect, because ordinary common-sense Americans do not hear a man who has spent time studying and absorbing the ideas of Jefferson, and they're too smart to fall for another McCain. The very fact that Romney was delighted with McCain's endorsement speaks for itself.
Newt is always very craftily on both sides of an issue. He will come down on the side he believes benefits him the most.
That is what wise people know about Newt. And that is why they do not trust him.
You can find it here I’m sure.
Newt wanted Rick to “take” some states and Newt to “take” some states in order to keep Milt from the win. Rick would not agree though.
If you care, do a search. Maybe have to search more than a few times with our temperamental search funtion...
Why should Newt talk about it, what he thinks doesn’t matter at this point in time.The two front runners have mouths, one of them is going to be the nominee, let’s hear what they think about it. I would suspect Gingrich is getting a little tired of being the republican guinea pig.
You are way too cynical and intellectually limited to judge Newt.
And besides that, you have no idea what “wise” people think. Since the people who stick with Newt are unequivocally in that category
Sorry Friend, a man should at least save face and know when he is a loser. Newt is only making an ass out of himself.
But then he has been doing that for 18 years.
Smarts is nothing if you are not wise, and Newt is nowhere near being wise. He never has been. He is unprincipled and the voters know that.
People here have tried to make him into something he is not. One has only to check the archives on FR to sense the total hypocrisy.
Speaking for myself, it is a mistake to think “fundamental flaw” referred to social conservatives themselves or their pro-life moral philosophy. The fundamental flaw is the inability of these folks to unite and tranlate what they agree on into political action without the infighting.
I tend to respect and not insult the conservative voter, even IF he does not vote for my guy.
But then that’s me.
Losing dramatically has never been considered “wise”. It is just judged as “losing”. It advances you nowhere.
That is what wise people know about Newt. And that is why they do not trust him.”
I say “You made that up”. Rick Perry, Sarah and Todd Palin, Fred Thompson, Herman Cain, Michael Reagan, Thomas Sowell, Chuck Norris, J.C. Watts.....all morons I suppose.
Political people do and say things for political reasons. I like the people you mentioned, but they were obviously wrong. Sarah is quiet about Newt now, Mike Reagan has tried to give Newt advice, Herman Cain knows it is over but would never tell Newt to quit.
Just the way it is. When you know you can’t win, you choose the next best than yourself, if Newt thinks Romney is better than Rick, so be it. But Newt has no way to win, not even at a convention. A guy that won 2 Southern states and lost to Ron Paul in more than a few would never be nominated at a brokered convention.
Not a peep from Rush about how Santorum voted to raise the minimum wage SIX TIMES and has been its staunch defender. And I end up thinking, "Huh? Rush ...???? Hello?"
How well I remember Rush rightly talking about public service sector unions, and how damaging and counter-productive they are. I said, "That's my Rush! Call 'em as you see 'em!"
Yet nary a peep, not a single word that I heard or read from him, about Santorum's staunch support of public unions and his opposition to "right to work" legislation.
At this point, YOU should be thinking, "Huh? Rush??? Wha ...?" Rush is like a whimsical woman, who for some mysterious reason, likes and promotes the agent of things she opposes. It's not the first time I've seen Rush be emotional and inconsistent; this time, the tendency is illustrated in his admiration of Santorum.
I like Levin and Rush, but both of them are emotional in how they relate to Santorum and how they resent (apparently) Gingrich. I have ALWAYS, long before this primary season, indeed for the past five or six years -- had much greater respect for, and trust in, the wisdom of Thomas Sowell. Thomas Sowell is a smarter, clearer, big-picture thinker even than Levin, and that's saying a lot, as I'm a big fan of Levin. Thomas Sowell is consistent, whereas Rush says he believes one thing, then praises a political candidate who has DEMONSTRATED REPEATEDLY that in office, he works against some pretty key aspects of what Rush believes.
Levin and Rush are consistent in how they state conservative political philisophy, but they have proven that they are inconsistent in supporting candidates that best reflect that philosophy.
Thomas Sowell has always been consistent, and when I see that he's thinking the same way I am, I KNOW I'm on the right track. He has made it clear for many months now: Newt Gingrich is the best conservative candidate in the race.
Godspeed Newt Gingrich.
IF you mean by fundamental flaw the social/moral conservatives...you are wrong.By fundamental flaw I mean inability to spot a con man.
Huckabee the Huckster was a con man.
Santorum the Sanctimonious is a con man.
Neither are conservatives, yet both got (and get) a tremendous amount of conservative support.
People aren’t looking for someone that knows what to say, they are looking for someone that says what they mean.
People here are all impressed because Newt says it right. When looking at his record, in and out of Congress, the words are words. Newts heyday was when he helped take Congress back. It ended right there until he resigned. After that he espoused liberal ideas and also promoted them.
Newt is on video talking about how awestruck he was of Bill Clinton. That tells me all I need to know.
The guy that is third in delegates, just got beat by 33 points in Louisiana and is behind Ron Paul and trails by 35% in Wisconsin in a recent Rasmussen poll has no chance of being the nominee.
Connect the dots. Stopping Romney is vital for short-term viability of conservatism so conservatives, like him or not, must support Santorum to stop Romney. Tearing him down and pretending Newt has any chance of being the nominee are fantasies that are undermining the necessary goal of stopping Romney.
We need to get this thing to a brokered convention...
From Rick Santorum, saying at this link, so you can confirm the context:
"One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldnt get involved in the bedroom, we shouldnt get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world....There is no such societey, that I am aware of, where we've had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.
dforest, doesn't that tell you all you need to know, too?
"What was my vision? I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadnt even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply cheap liberals. My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those who are less fortunate, but I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission." [-----Rick Santorum, p. IX It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good (2005) (Hat tip to UC above)-------]
Santorum clearly believes government has major directive role in individual morality, including charity, a cornerstones ofindividual morality; Meanwhile, government is THE SINGLE MOST ADDRESSABLE CAUSE of our moral malaise in America. One simple example: return control of schools back to their communities, allow parents to choose their schools, and allow parents, not judges, to decide whether or not Christian t-shirts and prayer, etc., is moral, let alone "legal." A large part of the reason our youths are immoral is because their schools have "raised" them to be meticulously secular and "non-judgmental," so they're discouraged to exercise, and lack the confidence in, their own moral compasses. It is a straightforward case of how government creates immorality that would disappear if its overseeing governmenet was cut to a minimum.
Christian charity works when it can be exercised freely. Government has tapped much of that resource for its own food stamps, welfare, and preferential treatment for "underserved" classes of people. Government charity has created sloth, envy, gluttony, lust -- because all of those behaviors are rewarded, whereas a Christian charity would have as its goal to discourage such behavior to a minimum. We are forced to create a nest for immoral living. That's what happens when government presumes to direct morality.
Newt is damned risky, far from perfect. There's a lot I don't like about Newt. But as strong as he stands against abortion and the homosexual agenda, he stands AS STRONG for cutting Federal government, a move that would restore fiscal and moral responsibility more directly to the people.
Americans aren't immoral -- their government, via Federal laws and activist judges, tells them it's immoral to pray in school, immoral to discourage or reject open homosexuality in every corner of their lives, from military to grade schools. Government tells them it's immoral to pray in public schools or to teach that America is great, that the Christian bible was expressly part of the founding principles. Teaching our kids that is deemed immoral by the government.
Godspeed Newt Gingrich.
Puh leeeeeze. If you're going to make this about ME, you might do a little research first. But it's not about me, it's about Gingrich's superiority over Santorum, who once called Gingrich his "mentor."
You behave like a sheep. Go read every word of Santorum's website, and then go read every word of Gingrich's website.
I did it. Now I dare you to do the same.
I wonder if you'll note, for example, that Santorum says (and I say HOORAY!) he wants to axe Planned Parenthood. YAHOO! Atta boy Santorum! ........ but instead making so that was less money taken from the people, therefore more money in their hands that they may or may not put toward a true moral charity, in the next line Santorum says he'd like to take at least half that money and put it toward promoting adoption. *sigh* The whole opportunity to restore freedom and fruits of labor to people, to improve and reform government flew right over his head. Meanwhile, Newt focuses on trimming, cutting, pruning, reducing, hacking away, at government on all levels, in every area of our lives. READ, Happy Rain, and compute. Pay attention.
ONCE YOU HAVE DONE THAT, you'll have some credibility. Nobody said Gingrich was perfect, but a lot of us -- including Thomas Sowell -- have good reason to say he's better than Santorum when it comes to limited government conservatism, which is the best, most constitutional way to restore both fiscal AND MORAL conservatism to people.
The problem FRiend is Newt. The facts, which are apparent every state that there is a primary since Georgia, that people are not voting for Newt.
It is the messenger they do not like and trust. That is not the voters fault. The message Newt says now is fine, but people tend to think Newt will say or do whatever benefits him at the moment. People think that for a reason.
It is tough to make a case that you are pro oil and drilling when just a couple years ago, and up until this election, being for Cap & Trade and all the greenie whackjob stuff.
I don’t think Rick or Newt is a perfect conservative. But one is doing better than the other. And there is a reason for it.
To deny it is a pipe dream. There isn’t going to be a big groundswell for Newt. He can’t win any states other than what he has won already.
Romney is most likely going to win this before the convention, much to our dismay, so most the handwringing is a waste.
Pretty weak if heated sophistry.
The facts on the ground the real realpolitik is my tag line.
Who are you helping by using the Romney campaign anti-Santorum talking points?
Hint hint...it sure ain’t Newt or Rick nor Paul (sure narrows it down, don’t it;)
“By fundamental flaw I mean inability to spot a con man.”
I don’t think you really understand what a “Con Man” is. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were con men. L. Ron Hubbard was a con man. Mike & Rick don’t come close to that description.
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.