Skip to comments.Gingrich scores endorsement from Tea Party Nation founder
Posted on 09/26/2011 9:34:09 PM PDT by freespirited
The founder of the Tea Party Nation one of the largest coordinated groups in the conservative Tea Party movement announced Monday that he would endorse former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
"Gingrich is the candidate who has the vision to fundamentally change the Federal Government. Gingrich has the unique capabilities to be the field general. He is the big idea man, much as Ronald Reagan was," Judson Philips, founder of the group, wrote in a blog post Monday.
Philips is the second prominent Tea Party leader to endorse Gingrich this month, after Allen Olson, chairman of the Columbia Tea Party, announced two weeks ago he was joining the campaign.
There is only one candidate for president who is leading on what I believe are the underlying issues this country faces, Olson said in a statement. Not only is this candidate talking about serious issues, he is providing real solutions.
The Gingrich campaign hopes to gain some traction from the high-profile endorsements, as well a from a policy address later this week in Iowa in which Gingrich plans to lay out an updated "Contract with America." Gingrich has been struggling to move out of the single digits in polls of the Republican primary.
Gingrich has been among the most active candidates in cultivating Tea Party support, meeting with leaders across the country and launching an online social networking tool to solicit ideas from Tea Party activists.
Gingrich’s campaign is down in the noise. Maybe he would do better to try to get Herman Cain’s ear.
The man’s a fraud.
He and his freind Nancy pelosi can pass all their global warming laws that way.
I have a feeling that Tea Party Nation is going to lose a whole lot of members over this.
Seriously, i thought Newt dropped out of the race weeks ago.
Gingrich is an excellent strategist, and articulates a great agenda. He lost the SoCons with his personal shortcomings. That’s half the battle.
Better than endorsing that alien love Perry.
It’s mighty presumptious to assume TP folks engage in some form of ‘groupthink’ and/or follow a ‘leader’.
Truly conservative individuals do their own thinking based on the facts and their own understanding of what it means to taking back this country.
Mr. Gingrich may be a fine man with honorable intentions, but I doubt he will win the hearts and minds of the Tea Party at large by an endorsement by an alleged ‘leader’. It’ll have to be done the old fashoned way: he’ll have to earn it.
His lack of infrastructure for his campaign makes me wonder if he’s really running, or setting up book promotions and enhanced speaking fees.
Has anyone found a Gingrich field office?
Call me not impressed.
Newt has spent too many night’s on Nancy’s AGW couch. He has far too much baggage and a lot of social conservatives don’t trust him. Neither should fiscal conservatives after his couch sitting.
More Judson Phillips bullshit. He represents no one. And his alliance with GOProud and the Ron Paul doofuses agains the E-Verify bill the other day showed how slippery he is.
I did not know that within the Tea Party movement there were specific groups with registered, enumerated, named members using the Tea Party cognomen. It sounds like someone wants to form a third party called the Tea Party.
Never heard of either Judson or Olson. That’s the appeal of the Tea Party, their leaders stay quiet as much as possible and let the people do the talking. Now, did these guys get Newt to renege on his idiotic GoreBullWarming position?
I have lost count of the “prominent” people I have never heard of. Same goes for Republican “activists.”
I’ve always liked Newt, and as long as he doesn’t preach a false Christ, I have no problems with a shabby walk, because mine isn’t one I can shine a light on.
Would Newt stand up for the unborn? Would Newt stand up for Israel? Would Newt try and find a way to take this debt burdon off my grandson’s back? I think so. So I have no problem with a Newt on any ticket or as part of any adminsitration. It’d be easy for me to pull the lever for Newt over Obama.
His messin with Hitlery on her single payer socialized medicine and his flirtation with Nancy Pelosi with the destructive "gang-green" concept of cap-n-trade in line with Gore's Global warping are too huge of sins for a consistent conservative American leader!!!
Shouldn’t be goofing around with the gay crowd.
Newt is great in the debates. I think he’s extremely smart but I remember him being on the global warming bandwagon and I can see him being like Bush on the illegal alien issue. I’m getting very tired of having to fight politicians over illegals.
My remarks are motivated by a desire to see our reactions to the candidates in this winnowing out process become more focused and more relevant. It seems to me that there are 2 tests which the candidates must survive in order to gain our support: genuine adherence to conservative values and electability.
These 2 aspects must be judged in the context of the gestalt, that is, the field from which we can choose. There were 9 people on the debate stage and potentially 3 more might get into the race. Who has the best combination of conservative bona fides and electability from these 12? It doesn't advance our conservative purpose to post that we do not like someone or that we do not trust someone, those reactions are only relevant when compared to and made relevant to the field of candidates.
Is Newt Gingrich more or less conservative than John Huntsman? Is Newt Gingrich more electable than Michele Bachmann? I think the answer to those questions is "yes" in both instances. Mitt Romney is less reliably conservative than Rick Santorum but he is probably more electable. Newt Gingrich might be less conservative than Santorum, but more electable while less electable than Romney, although more conservative.
It doesn't advance our thinking much to spasm out on these boards about the character of Newt Gingrich unless one relates those observations to his electability and his conservatism and ranks those qualities against the same qualities owned by the rest of the field.
There are so many permutations and combinations with a field of 12 that we must begin to focus our judgments somehow. First, I eliminate anyone who is not already committed to the race because time is rapidly running out. Should Christie come in we will be very disappointed in his conservatism which is limited almost exclusively to fiscal conservatism. If Palin comes in, the race will be brand-new and we cannot foresee how the matter will settle out until we see some polling numbers about her electability especially in a face-off against Obama. If she can pass that test she can go on. If not, her candidacy will fail and probably succeed in giving Romney the nomination.
Analyzing Gingrich's candidacy also requires measurement of another dimension. Many of us conservatives believe that the republic is entering a critical phase in which we must weather a perfect storm of economic disintegration, Islamic Jihad, and radical, perhaps violent, revolution. This combination of forces coming together in a perfect storm might sweep away our Constitutional Republic. This is an existential threat that, if it comes to pass, would rival the challenge facing Lincoln as he traveled incognito to Washington to take up the presidency in 1861. The situation was so desperate that the President-elect had to travel in disguise to avoid being lynched.
I believe we must also measure the candidates today against the need to find a leader who can articulate a vision so clearly that enough Americans will adhere to it that the republic can survive. Of course, that individual must have the right message to articulate. So we are back to the issue of electability and true conservatism.
Let's eliminate the field some more:
The 3 libertarians are beyond the pale of acceptability to be seriously considered, the field has now been reduced to 6.
Rick Perry has virtually eliminated himself by his performance in 3 debates demonstrating that he lacks the forensics skills, at least in that format, to carry the country. I am very concerned therefore about his electability and I am equally dismayed by his stand on immigration. I eliminate him.
Rick Santorum has failed to inspire confidence in his person although he has demonstrated that we can place confidence in the quality of his conservatism. He has recently shown faint evidence that he might catch hold. Failing that, I eliminate him on the grounds of electability. That dimension also includes the inexpressible quality, the charisma, needed to lead the country through the crisis I envision.
Michele Bachmann fails for the same reason. Too many gaffes turned off her own base. She is eliminated. Remember, I am looking for a Lincolnesque leader for an existential crisis.
Milt Romney will demonstrate greater electability powers in a general election than in the nominating process. That emphasizes his weakness as a conservative. He has rewritten his own history so that his present profile is conservative for the most part with the glaring exception of his experiment with socialism and health care in Massachusetts. There is no question that Romney can handle himself in debates especially when his audience has not set its face against him because of his Rino-ism. If I have to choose between the conservatism of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, the choice is easy. If I have to choose between the electability of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney the choice is not so easy. As to forensics skills, Gingrich obviously is the leader. As to assembling truly innovative solutions to the mess we are in, Gingrich obviously surpasses Romney even though Romney can boast of a history of fixing messes, especially by citing the Olympics.
Herman Cain has surprised many including myself. He has demonstrated a likability and quickness on his feet that pushed him to the forefront. He has a real genius at boiling down a problem to a bumper sticker which the folks can understand and accept. His conservatism seems to be sound, although I was disappointed in his statements concerning the FEMA standoff. This suggests to me that my intuitive reaction Herman Cain, that he has neither the experience nor the depth to be entrusted with our fate at the most critical juncture since Pearl Harbor. I must wait and see. It will be absolutely vital for Herman Cain to avoid gaffes which betray shallowness and confirm his lack of elected public service.
By this process of elimination, I conclude that Newt Gingrich has advanced very near the top of the pile. I am not prepared to endorse him at this point nor am I committed to him. Many new entrants or developments might change everything. Herman Cain will have his moment in the sun and if he can stand the heat he might just emerge. If not, Gingrich remains a very viable alternative. It has always been the path to the nomination for Gingrich to be the last alternative standing. We will only turn to him if we are convinced that there is a real crisis confronting us.
To repeat, my purpose is not to endorse or advanced candidacy of Gingrich, I simply want to structure our thinking along the lines I have suggested.
Not so. He's up to third place at 9% in last week's Rasmussen.
I enjoy listening to Newts Ideas and he is intelligent,but I dont consider him a Tea Partier at all. The first thing he would do is call Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and say lets be Bipartisan, and that is the Road to Hell
> Gingrich scores endorsement from Tea Party Nation founder
The Tea Party has a cell structure. There isn’t any one person in charge and there wasn’t any one single founder.
Anyone claiming to be the founder or the leader of the Tea Party is just in it for the glory grab.
Good post. Newt’s numbers are up. Since he is a excellent debater and other candidates are likely to plummet, I anticipate further advances.
He might be the McCain of 2012, coming back from nothing to winning the nomination.
Newt has important ideas to bring to the Debate. I hope he does not drop out until April.
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
The National Founder has no more clout in the Tea Party than I do. Who cares what “he” thinks. It is what “I” think when I pull the lever that counts ... after all “I” am the Tea Party.