Skip to comments.Another Newt Gingrich 'comeback' on the horizon
Posted on 02/16/2012 5:42:36 AM PST by Marguerite
This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," February 15, 2012.
GINGRICH: .... we're going to have to pick up all those delegates in late May, just before the California primary, when we hope to pick up more delegates out here.
That still means that on super-Tuesday, we're looking at Georgia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, we're looking at Ohio. It means the week after super- Tuesday, we're looking at Alabama and Mississippi.
Now, we have hopes that we're going to keep picking up delegates everywhere and continue. This race is going on for a long time, I think.
What will it look like by the time we get to the convention, I think we're going to have a lot of delegates. And our job is to focus on what's practical, not to worry about what isn't. We're not going to affect the state of Texas's decision. So we have to go ahead, I think, and focus on what we can do.
And what we can do is work -- I'll be in Georgia Friday and Saturday. We're going to be in Oklahoma on Monday. We're going to be campaigning in Tennessee. We're going to be campaigning in Ohio. These are states that are real, they're immediate, they're now. Then we want to come back and pick up Alabama and Mississippi. We're going to have a pretty good number of delegates, I think, by the middle of March.
I'll be in Michigan campaigning next week. We have every reason to believe we're going to be competing there effectively. And we're going to have a number of surrogates also competing in Michigan.
(video at the link)
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, you mentioned the negative ads. And I don’t know if you were watching Sean Hannity’s show a little — a few minutes ago. They did text voting on it. And it actually was — they said — they asked which candidate was running the most negative ads, and Governor Romney did win that contest, one he probably didn’t want to win, at 57 percent.
So I think that, you know, people — although, you know, they may say that he runs the most negative ads, but they still vote for them because negative ads are very effective.
GINGRICH: Well, they’re not — they’re not actually voting for him. I think, for example, in Maine, which is a New England state he ought to be doing good in, he got 39 percent. I think you’re going to find in his home state of Michigan, as you pointed out, Santorum’s now ahead of him.
People are looking for a positive leader who has a positive solution on jobs, a positive solution on gasoline and energy, and frankly, somebody who’s going to stand up to the Obama administration’s war against Christianity and is going to draw a line in the sand and say, We’re prepared to fight to defend religious freedom in America against a radical secular administration.
So I think you have — you have three or four different things coming together here, where people want positive, issue-orientated leadership. They don’t just want somebody with a deep pocket of Wall Street money running negative ads.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, you mentioned gasoline. Since the end of 2011, the price of gasoline has gone up 8 percent. And the rise of gasoline prices doesn’t hurt the rich. They can pay it. But it really does — it really does pinch the middle class and the — and people who don’t make — who are even below the middle class line. And it can put a thumb on the economy.
If you are President of the United States tonight, what would you be doing about gas policy? And when would those prices come down?
GINGRICH: Well, gasoline was a $1.13 a gallon when I was speaker. It was $1.89 when Obama was sworn in. It is in California above $4 today in some places.
The fact is, one, I’d sign the Keystone pipeline immediately to start Canadian oil moving south into the United States. Two, I’d open up offshore development both off, for example, the Gulf of Mexico, but also in the Chukchi Sea in Alaska.
Three, I would open up federal lands. The one great breakthrough has been North Dakota, and the reason is it’s on private land, and the liberals have not been able to stop it. If we allowed federal land to be developed, we would have a shocking amount of energy. We would, in fact, rapidly become independent of the Middle East. No American president would ever again bow to a Saudi king. And we’d get — we’d get gasoline prices back down to $2 or $2.50
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, one last quick question. We only have a minute left, the accommodation that the president suggested to try to cure this problem, this rift he’s having with the Catholic church on contraception and the health care bill. I assume that you side with the Catholic church on this. IO don’t — I mean, that’s my assumption. But is there any way to sort of reconcile this, to work this out between the two?
GINGRICH: ... there’s a very straight question here. Does the government of the United States have the right to overrule a religious organization on how it deals with its religious circumstances? Can the government of the United States dictate, whether it’s an Episcopal church, a Baptist church, a Jewish synagogue, a Catholic church, a Greek Orthodox church — does the government have the right to dictate to churches?
Those of us who believe in America believe we were founded by people who were fleeing religious persecution to come to America. We think what Barack Obama’s doing is the most secular anti-religious bigotry that we’ve ever seen in a president. And I think it’s not bridgeable. He’s got to back down totally and concede that no government can come between man and God.
Yep! We were told time and again how Rick Perry was going to roar back into contention and whaddayaknow.. it happened!!
I hope Newt isn’t counting on Texas; Texas primary has been successfully derailed by Democrat lawsuits over redistricting.
This is disingenuous. The only device that is propelling Newt Gingrich is Sheldon Adelson’s dollars. Adelson, an avowed fiscal conservative and social liberal, is intent upon derailing Santorum because he does not share Santorum’s social conservative philosophy. Adelson is much more comfortable with Gingrich, and in a recent Wall Street Journal article was reported to have had a “warm” meeting with Mittens. Adelson wouldn’t mind seeing Romney as the nominee. So again the liberals are trying mightily to purchase the most socially liberal candidate they can find. It’s spoiler politics all over again with voters who are beginning to surge for Santorum (precisely because he is socially conservative) as the targeted enemy. Adelson has a net worth of $21 billion. BILLION. What is it about big money American Jews always ending up as bleeding heart liberals despising conservative principles? The irony here is Adelson actually supports conservatives in the Israeli government, and even owns a newspaper there.
Newt has a 63% unfavorable rating. Comeback? nope
“This is disingenuous. The only device that is propelling Newt Gingrich is Sheldon Adelsons dollars.”
>>Newt has a 63% unfavorable rating.
LOL.. Obama doesn’t even have that.
Unfortunately, when someone spends millions trashing their opponent, it’s very hard for that opponent to make a comeback. Looks like Santorum will be the next beneficiary of Romney’s millions hurled at him. I know that’s how the game is played, but this isn’t supposed to be a “the one with the most money wins” type of contest. Wish they would just stick to the issues.
I like Gingrich, I really do. I think he would make a great President.
We need ONE anti-Romney conservative in the primary fight, not half a dozen, or they will spilt our votes and Romney will win the primary.
I hope Gingrich steps down and out and support Santorum at this time.
If the roles were reveresed, I would say the same thing about Santorum.
The more GOP candidates cut each other up, the HIGHER the Obamabastard’s ratings go!!!
F..k the “electability” invented by the lamestream media to influence the people’s choice. I don’t read polls. You (plural) are letting yourselves played like dummies by the gazillions of so-called polls the liberals shove down your throats.
There is ONLY one which counts - the ballot.
Adelson’s pulling the plug was just a rumor. The WSJ article yesterday said he is mulling over an additional $10 million to Gingrich in light of the very recent Santorum surge. Adelson doesn’t like Santorum and doesn’t like the voters who are beginning to support Santorum as the most socially conservative candidate actually in the running.
Santorum is NOT presidential material. Period.
What gives you the almighty ..to tell us who to support..
That should tell you something. Newt has tanked.
Santorum has got a pass as long as he was flying under the radar.
Now that he’s in the limelight, all his flaws are out, for all people to see. He’s a bigot, who thinks the government should intervene even in people’s bedrooms and “educate” them how to live their lives. As Congressman, he was a big spender and a big supporter of the welfare nanny state.
His rambling speech is without vision, and his sectarian views will be used by Obama’s goons to trash him to nothingness. He has zero chances to win in November.
Pull that wool off your eyes, and try to think by yourself, not by what the polls “tell” you.
I say if he hasn’t won another primary by the end of the month Newt will drop out and endorse Santorum. At this point I think he’d rather stop Romney above all other priorities.
I didn’t mention “electability”. I mentioned “unfavorable” ratings
Newt is polling last in most states, even Ron Paul is beating him.
I think you need to look in a mirror when you sport around here calling others dummies.
Perhaps you can pull a Newt win out of your behind, because nobody else can see it.
Or maybe you could stand on your head and convince yourself he is in 1st place. ROTFL!
Still a long way to go.
Personally, Santorum just doesn’t have any appeal to me. I mean, I would take him over Romney any day of the week, but that shouldn’t be enough.
Newt articulates the conservative message better than anyone else running at the moment. One reason is that it comes from within, not externally like Romney. I think Newt can get the momentum back once the debates kick back in, especially now that the pressure cooker crosshairs will be off him.
Santorum almost seems agitated when talking, like he’s perpetually annoyed at something.
A lot of tanking has occurred in this primary race so far. Perry announced and soared only to crash; then along came Cain to the top and then a crash; then Newt rose, crashed rose and crashed a second time and hasn't recovered; now Santorum has risen to the top. It remains to be seen if he'll stay there or do a crash and burn like the rest.
The following chart graphically shows the rise and fall of each over time. It's the second chart on the page.
It remains to be seen who can rise and stay at the top.
Rick Santorum in his own words on contraception:
One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the former Pennsylvania senator explained. Its not okay. Its a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be
Source- see linked video at approx 17:48 minutes:
So far, once you tank, there is no coming back.
I don’t think Newt can make a comeback. Face it, SC was a fluke for Newt.
we will see
I am against Santorum because of this:
Santorum in 2006 said: This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I dont think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. 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. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals cant go it alone.
Compare Santorum's position with what Ronald Reagan thought:
Reagan: "I'm convinced that today the majority of Americans want what those first Americans wanted: A better life for themselves and their children; a minimum of government authority. Very simply, they want to be left alone in peace and safety to take care of the family by earning an honest dollar and putting away some savings. This may not sound too exciting, but there is something magnificent about it. On the farm, on the street corner, in the factory and in the kitchen, millions of us ask nothing more, but certainly nothing less than to live our own lives according to our values at peace with ourselves, our neighbors and the world."
Santorum is the enemy of the individual freedom guaranteed by the US Constitution.
I don't want the big-goverment Santorum to come in my bedroom and tell me how I have to live MY life.
So your arguing that children having out of wedlock sex is a good thing? that the resultant children, abortions, and or being raised in a single parent home is a good thing?
Santorum is simply pointing out that the root cause for most poverty in the US is related to having a child out of wedlock. He sees the solving of this problem as intricatly linked to the overall health and stability of our country.
In other words, Santorum is simply arguing for a return to traditional values, he is not arguing for a ban on contraception.
I am not even a big Santorum fan and I understand this.
Have noticed that when he is speaking or asked a question as in the debates, he rambles. Talks way too much, repeats too much, and never knows when to stop. As he goes on, he becomes louder, and more agitated. This is an indication that a person is not sure of their message and assumes more is better to fill the void.
Rick Perry peaked the day before he announced ... never was in contention
Santorum is the enemy of the individual freedom guaranteed by the US Constitution.
You nailed it!
If the people wanted Newt, he would be winning. He blew it with the Bain attack from the left and his calling for others to get out after winning only one primary.
His petulant presser and attitude just added to the negative, sour persona.
“The lefty blogs are having a blast laughing at us for getting rid of Newt & saving the 2 worse of the field”
That’s the reason why the leftist media overcharge the internet, radio, TV and newspapers with baloney polls, and the republican base is eating them like candy.
Obama and his Chicago mafia know, that if either Mitt or Rick are on the ballot in November, he’ll have an easy win.
On the other side, if it is Newt ... That’s why the media try to marginalize him.
Rickie Sanitarium is the Alren Spector stalking horse for the ultimate V.P. candidate for Romulus the flip flopper.
So with Rickie as V.P.ol' Rom can get the so called social conservatives on board and sweep to victory.(uh-huh).
After all the fake Conservatives at CPAC just loved Romulus' used car salesman's shtick.Suckers down to the last man standing.
83.427% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
“the dangers of contraception in this country”
I’d rather say, if ONLY all the young women who don’t want yet to have a child, used contraceptive pills, that would dramatically lower the abortions number.
I think the contrary: young people (boys and girls) should be educated to USE contraceptives. The society won’t have to deal then with thousands of pregnant minor girls.
83.427% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
“There are lies, big lies, and statistics” :)
The only one with the professional experience in economics and foreign policy is Newt. And Newt is the only candidate we have that can turn this around. This is serious stuff here, we HAVE to get this right this time, or it is all over for this country. And time is rapidly running out on our best hope to fix it.
After the crucifying of negative ads in Florida, I reckon he had a reason to be a little ticked off.. I guess I have common sense, more than most, to realize that he wasn’t criticizing Mitts success of the free market system; he was trying to pursue the possibilities of some oddities to where Romney knew when to dispose some of those companies/almost like he had influenced from wall street ( I’d like to know that myself) though the entire issue became twisted out of sorts when Rush went overboard for days, helping for his friend, Mitt ( who Rush admitted Romney was emailing to say take it easy on me, Rush). And Newt saying, he couldn’t believe his friend on radio could think that of him. Why did Rush do that? He said he knew Newt is a free market thinker. yes, Rush hurt Newt since then and constantly is telling the audience to vote Rick with his praise and lingo. Once Rick goes through vetting, people have to run to Mitt/GOPs plan. I don’t want to see that happen. Newt can gain women voters on the economy issue, Rick will lose them on his strict social beliefs. It is surely a mess. Rick said previously in a interview that he was a progressive conservative, not a Reagan conservative. Someone tell Beck and Rush this news. Rick seems to think he has the right to tell people how to live by mandates and also by coming into your personal lives, your bedrooms. He was part of the Bush spending frenzy as Ron Paul caught him for. So, No, thanks. It will be hard to beat Obama no matter who runs though, I know Newt has the best shot so, we need to vote Newt and keep him in.
Of course not!
What you propose is called a “strawman” argument. It is a dishonest form of debate which is based upon both false premises and erroneous conclusions that I did not make and that have nothing to do w/what I posted or what I believe.
I posted Rick Santorum’s OWN WORDS and linked the video as verification. If you wish to make your set of conclusions based upon his statement; you are free to do so; but, DO NOT disingenuously attribute those conclusions to me.
You and Mr Santorum appear to believe you know what is best for everyone and that you have the right to enforce your beliefs upon others “for their own good.” I happen to believe that type of thought is extremely dangerous to individual rights, freedom and this great Republic. In many ways, your and Mr Santorum’s beliefs are similar to the Progressives political philosophy; where “the end justifies the means.” It is certainly not Constitutional thought nor is it akin to Conservatism as I understand it.
What you and Mr Santorum fail to understand or appreciate about our unique form of government is that we all have the individual rights to make these types of personal decisions for ourselves AND to be held accountable for those decisions.
The reason that the individual rights of free men and women, tempered by personal responsibility and accountability, are so vitally important to our form of government is that if a prospective President Santorum can enforce his own moral values upon others; then what is to stop someone like President Obama from forcing his own moral imperatives upon others? ...just as Obama is attempting to do to conscientious Catholics and others of similar religious beliefs right at this very moment!!!
I supported Santorum right after Cain dropped out, but even I can see that he has received pretty much a free ride
IF Santorum wins the nomination and IF he miraculously wins the election, he will owe everything to Newt for taking every arrow, post-Cain, that the left and the GOP had in their quivers...
Is American society stronger and healthier than it was in the 1950’s?
And if you say no. Then what happened to change things?
what happened in the ... 60’s that so radically altered american society in general and the American family in particular?
hm... 60’s free love... and all that... what changed between the 50’s to the 60’s ...
Ah! I know! in 1960 “the pill” was approved by the FDA for contraceptive use!
Thus one can easily conclude that “the pill” led to the 60’s... and the 60’s led us to where we are today.
Now am I (or Santorum) saying the pill should be outlawed? of course not, but I think it’s fair to talk about some of the root causes of our current problems.
LOL! Calm down Marguerite; those “dangers” exist only in the convoluted mind of Rick Santorum! I just quoted him in his own words; they're certainly not mine! Believe me, I have no desire to be either the Birth Control Police or Chairman of the Society for the Advancement of Human Fertility!!! I am supporting your argument w/an example of Rick's unconstitutional thought processes.
Pls read my reply to TexasFreeper2009 at Post #38 and you will understand my position is supportive of yours and Newts.
Sorry, the words “what dangers?” were addressed at Santorum’s quote, not at you personally :)
Christie at the Beach???
You’re a CHRIS CHRISTIE supporter??
An interesting observation and a reasonable subject for discussion that is certainly related to our current moral decline and societal predicament.
The “current problem” is certainly related to “the pill;” but, it is not birth control itself that is the central problem; it is the breakdown of societal moral values due to a lack of responsibility and accountability on the part of the individual that is the greatest threat to our well being as both individuals and as a society.
My whole point in my prior posts was that we must have both personal responsibility and accountability if we are to maintain our individual rights and freedoms. To paraphrase Franklin; Our Republic and form of government can only continue to exist if we are a moral people.
The problem I have w/Rick Santorum is it appears he believes the state should enforce his vision of morality; while at the same time his voting record indicates he has supported many government funded social programs. Both of those concepts are the opposites of what a Constitutional Conservative should espouse; and, ironically, in many cases those two strategies can also act in opposition to each other.
Such incongruous beliefs are indicative of a lack of a good understanding of both Conservatism and of having a sound core philosophy that is based upon Conservative principles.
That is a major reason I believe Rick Santorum is not our best qualified candidate to represent Conservatives values.
“I mean, I would take him over Romney any day of the week, but that shouldnt be enough.”
Right now, oour options are limited. Santorum is rising and Newt has fallen.
If Newt rises, I’ll switch.
In my book either one is infinitely preferable to Romney and they are the only alternatives we have left.
While BOTH of them, BOTH more conservative than Romney, are in the running, they are splitting the Conservaitve vote, insuring Mittens a victory in the primary. But not necessariluy in the Geneal Election. The Dems are licking their chops at the thought of a Romney candidacy. MEGAMILLIONAIRE with ties to WALL STREET, BAIN CAPITAL exported of American jobs. THAT is what they will try to paint Romney as, forgetting his philosophical issues.
If BOTH Santorum and Gingrich CONTINUE to run, Romney will win, and you can take that to the bank.
“After all the fake Conservatives at CPAC just loved Romulus’ used car salesman’s shtick”
Ron Paul won CPAC’s endorsement back in 2008.
That shows where their respective heads are.
If Gingrich picks up in the polls, I’ll vote for him in the primary.
Come primary time in New Jersey, I’ll vote for the non-ROmney conservative doing BEST in the electoral delegate count to bloack Romney. For what its worth.
Just listening to Limbaugh; apparently he believes I am a RomneyBot for calling attention to the link to the video of Rick's own bizarre words regarding contraceptives.
Rush is an intelligent man; so, I have to wonder what his strategy is??? He has to know that Rick is unelectable; and that the video of Rick's rigid views on contraception IN HIS OWN WORDS is VERY damaging and disturbing evidence which isn't going away!
I do wish Rush had been as supportive of Newt, when the RomneyBots were pounding Newt daily and driving down HIS poll numbers, as Rush has been supportive of Rick of late. I guess the only conclusion I can make is that Rush DOESN'T want Newt to be the nominee. Beyond that I haven't got a clue what Rush's motives may be.
The only thing I know for sure is I WON'T be voting for Romney even if he does win the nomination; and Rush will be rounding up all his listeners and urging them to support Romney if and when Mitt is the nominee!!! ...just like Rush did for McCain, for the “compassionately conservative” Bush Dynasty, for BobDole-Knows-BobDole, etc, etc. ad infinitum.
“Rush will be rounding up all his listeners and urging them to support Romney if and when Mitt is the nominee!!! ...just like Rush did for McCain, for the compassionately conservative Bush Dynasty, for BobDole-Knows-BobDole, etc, etc. ad infinitum.”
I really think that if the GOP has its way, and the elections are lost in November, the conservative base should leave it en masse and create a new political party, the CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN PARTY and name itself the candidates for 2014. The Republican movement must absolutely cleaned of RINOS, and this is the only way. Without electoral base and voters, the gop-e will die of its miserable death.
Dependent upon the election; I will be open to discussion/strategies/action.
You're so right!
What Santorum sorely lacks and what Newt inspires is VISION.
Fly me to the moon's
what he'll inspire forevermore.
It is what Newt dreams of,
what his future wish is for
In other words, private funds
In other words, prize incentives
Fill our hope with wins
and let us play
among the stars
Let us beat the Russians and Chinese
to moon and Mars
America - We Can Do!
America - Newt Loves You!
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.