Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Gingrich Should Stay in the GOP race all the way to Tampa Convention
March 25, 2012 | Ralph Mitchell

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: belongsinchat; etchasketch; gingrich; newt; romney; santorum; santos; tantorum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last
To: stickywillie

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.


21 posted on 03/25/2012 8:50:58 AM PDT by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dforest

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


22 posted on 03/25/2012 8:51:40 AM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

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.


23 posted on 03/25/2012 9:05:56 AM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
We have two conflicting strategies to stop Romney—one is to unite behind the conservative frontrunner who stills has a chance to overtake Mitt and the other is for one of the losers to peel off enough conservative votes so as to deny anyone a strait up win and thus throw it to the convention in Tampa where,hope hope hope, a Palin,West,Rubio ummmm a Newt? may emerge the nominee after the floor fights conclude—a galaxy size pie in the sky, that one.
A convention wholly owned, controlled and regulated by Mitt's butt buddies in the GOP Establishment—buddies who have invested too much in Mendacious Mitt to let a silly conservative majority interfere with their plans to lose once again to Obama but at least put the Tea Party Conservative rabble back in their place--which is worth more to the RINOs than beating the Marxist in Chief.
24 posted on 03/25/2012 9:08:58 AM PDT by Happy Rain ("Choose between Rick or Mitt or you have already chosen Mitt.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

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.


25 posted on 03/25/2012 9:09:34 AM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

I tend to respect and not insult the conservative voter, even IF he does not vote for my guy.

But then that’s me.


26 posted on 03/25/2012 9:20:32 AM PDT by Happy Rain ("Choose between Rick or Mitt or you have already chosen Mitt.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

Losing dramatically has never been considered “wise”. It is just judged as “losing”. It advances you nowhere.


27 posted on 03/25/2012 9:21:43 AM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dforest
dforest says, quote.... “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.”

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.

28 posted on 03/25/2012 9:30:32 AM PDT by Cindy of Nashville (What has the Democrat party become???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cindy of Nashville

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.


29 posted on 03/25/2012 9:46:57 AM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dforest
I guess what it is going to boil down to is....either Rick or Mitt will win the nomination. Then Newt will have to become top adviser to Rick to tell him what to say and how to say it. And if Mitt wins all the Repub. elites will tell him what to say and how to say it. The best thing would be to just nominate Newt and skip all trouble.
30 posted on 03/25/2012 10:05:20 AM PDT by Cindy of Nashville (What has the Democrat party become???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain
How well I remember, when Romney praised the minimum wage, Rush rightly railing about how damaging and counter-productive the minimum wage is, and how wrong Romney was. I said, "Hooray! Atta boy, Rush!"

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.

31 posted on 03/25/2012 10:26:23 AM PDT by Finny ("The rules are made for people who aren't willing to make up their own." -- C. Yeager)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
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.

Fundamental Flaw.

32 posted on 03/25/2012 10:59:26 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cindy of Nashville

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.


33 posted on 03/25/2012 11:21:58 AM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mitchell001
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.

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.

34 posted on 03/25/2012 12:10:31 PM PDT by Kazan (Mitt Romney: The greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
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.

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.

35 posted on 03/25/2012 12:22:56 PM PDT by Kazan (Mitt Romney: The greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Finny
You came well equipped with the Romney campaign talking points and nobody hates Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh as much as Mitt Romney... ...ok, lets assume you aren't one of the many Mittbots disguised as a Newtie, cause Santorum bashing at this stage ain't gonna help nobody but Mitt--Lets start with Gingrich's record of having supported the government health care individual mandate, his written admiration for Andy Stern, his necking on a couch with Princess Pelosi warning us all about the hoax of man caused global warming, his complaints about “right wing” social engineering, his proclamations of the era of Reagan being over ,his claiming FDR was the greatest of the 20th Century presidents, his cheating on not one but TWO wives—(sure to attract the social conservatives/s) etc etc yada yada, they all have skeletons and more conservatives know Santorum the better conservative or Newt would be ahead of Rick—but above all both Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin are devout W F Buckley followers and unfortunately for you, Rick Santorum is presently the most conservative candidate who can win...
which explains why they don't bash Rick—they want a conservative to win—unlike others around the nation pulling for a conservative who can't.
36 posted on 03/25/2012 1:28:07 PM PDT by Happy Rain ("Choose between Rick or Mitt or you have already chosen Mitt.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mitchell001

We need to get this thing to a brokered convention...

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Palin-Our-Brokered-Convention-Selection/219407098154932?ref=tn_tnmn


37 posted on 03/25/2012 1:36:10 PM PDT by snyderart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dforest; Utmost Certainty; All
Newt is on video talking about how awestruck he was of Bill Clinton. That tells me all I need to know.

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 shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t 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 hadn’t 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.

38 posted on 03/25/2012 2:45:06 PM PDT by Finny ("The rules are made for people who aren't willing to make up their own." -- C. Yeager)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain
All you have is to accuse me of being a Romney supporter?

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.

39 posted on 03/25/2012 3:02:15 PM PDT by Finny ("The rules are made for people who aren't willing to make up their own." -- C. Yeager)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Finny

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.


40 posted on 03/25/2012 3:23:56 PM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson