Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newt's Honorable Option ^ | 2-19-12 | McCullough

Posted on 02/19/2012 3:36:10 PM PST by VinL

Just after the South Carolina primary, Newt Gingrich--or his minions--put considerable public pressure upon Rick Santorum to stand down, to get out, to leave the race.

Santorum's response was simple. If he began to come in last in any series of races, he would do so. Santorum went on to explain that he had won as many states as Newt had at that point, so there was no need to go anywhere.

That was five states, 3 Santorum victories, and several instances of bottoming out by the Gingrich campaign ago.

The Gingrich people will not like what I have to say next, but it is resolutely true, and there is no argument against it, so here goes...

"If Newt Gingrich believes Mitt Romney is a worse choice for nominee than a real conservative would be, then he must leave the race now. Staying in the race until Super Tuesday hurts the conservative cause, aids Romney, and ultimately will re-elect Barack Obama."

There, it is said. It had to be. It is all true.

This week Billionaire Casino Magnate Sheldon Adelson announced his intentions to continue to sink money into the Gingrich SuperPAC "Winning Our Future." This newest round of $10,000,000 would roughly match the $11,000,000 that allowed Gingrich his one state win in South Carolina. But even that is money poorly spent.

Gingrich had the chance to build on his win, but was unable to capitalize in Florida, and his absolute stubbornness in refusing to organize for the three state caucus strike-out that catapulted Santorum to front-runner status demonstrated some old inclinations about the former speaker that had been voiced by many former colleagues. Newt is flagging in polls nationally, ranking behind Ron Paul at times, and does not show a path to victory even if he were to break through on Super Tuesday using massive SuperPAC money to land somewhat mediocre media presence. (After all $10,000,000 across seven states won't even begin to touch a fourth of the penetration rate he had with $11,000,000 in South Carolina.)

Debates are now being universally panned, and the free media will not add up to give Newt new opportunities to "un-re-define" himself from himself.

I asked a few columns back if Gingrich was Churchill, for 2012, the answer seems to be "no!"

But that doesn't render him insignificant.

If Gingrich were to leave, and especially if he were to endorse Santorum, Mitt Romney's campaign would truly be on the death's door. Romney is trailing in Michigan, where he couldn't seem to connect with voters even before Santorum's sweep, and according to Rasmussen--the most accurate pollster in the past six cycles--he trails Santorum by 12 nationally, and by nearly 20 in the swing state of Ohio. Despite what her "right-to-be-wrongness" Ann Coulter says about Mitt's inevitability, Republicans--if they are smart--should always elect the man for nomination who wins Ohio. Because in the general election, it is the best indicator of who will be President.

Santorum has thicker skin than Newt and Mitt combined, and next to Newt, he's the best debater left in the bunch. But most importantly he is the sharpest contrast to Obama--in nearly every imaginable category.

Newt is steadily polling at 14% in the polls. Santorum has exploded in Michigan and Ohio, is nearly within the margin of error to Romney in Arizona, and almost the same within Gingrich in Georgia. Meanwhile in some states Gingrich finishes last, Santorum never does. But if you add 2/3's of Newt's total to Santorum's, Rick Rollin' would become the new GOP past time.

If Gingrich is a man of principal, he will allow the consolidation and much-more-baggage-free candidacy of Rick Santorum to zoom into an even further all-out lead nationally. If Gingrich stays in, it is obvious his feelings about Romney's danger and likely losing proposition as nominee will come true. And the former speaker would have only himself to blame.

If Romney is the nominee, Obama will be President for a second term. (His inability to take Obama on--on his biggest weaknesses, the target of his faith's racially questionable history and the twisted way the mainstream media will exploit that, his inability to not say things from an entirely silver spoon perspective, and his lack of distinction from Obama on many social issues--like subsidizing abortion, and creating "gay" marriage.)

The GOP's job at the moment is to pick the best candidate they can to beat Obama, and the one who is most-different-than him presents the best possibility.

Especially if that candidate wins Ohio.

TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gingrich; newt; newt4romney; newt4tiffanys; santorum4romney; stepasidenewt; toast
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-179 next last
To: VinL
Your comment = "and ultimately will re-elect Barack Obama."

Resident Obama will not be on the Dem Ticket!

101 posted on 02/19/2012 5:17:06 PM PST by Freeper (Obama - Please STOP representing MY country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Christie at the beach

Wow, quite a rant there.

How’s the Kool-Aid taste ?

102 posted on 02/19/2012 5:17:28 PM PST by CainConservative (Santorum/Huck 2012 w/ Newt, Cain, Palin, Bach, Parker, Watts, Duncan, & Petraeus in the Cabinet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Toespi

Spot on!!!

103 posted on 02/19/2012 5:18:31 PM PST by Mangia E Statti Zitto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: JohnBovenmyer

First, many of those attacking Newt and pressuring him to withdraw are NOT part of the GOP-E. They are anti-establishment conservatives who see Rick as their best choice.
I stipulate to that—

My only reply is, looking at it from their perspective (Rick supporters), they’re strategically wrong to ask Newt to withdraw at this point. If Newt can’t win, he’ll want to stop Romney. If I saw Newt going after Rick, I would change my view. But, at this point, he’s not run one ad against Rick-from what I read. Rick’s current opponent is Romney- having Newt attacking Romney, only helps Rick.

104 posted on 02/19/2012 5:22:22 PM PST by VinL (It is better to suffer every wrong, than to consent to wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote
I don't agree with the direction of your hostility.

At one point, Gingrich and Romney were virtually in a one on one race. The results reflected Romney winning.

It bears repeating that either Gingrich or Santorum would likely be the best representatives for the Conservative cause.

As it stands now, Santorum is appealing to more Conservatives than Gingrich and Santorum has beaten Romney in Colorado, Iowa, Missiouri and Minnesota.

I could live with either one. Yet, I do see Santorum being a much bigger threat to Obama than Gingrich for several reasons. Santorum looks to be the better campaigner and does have a passionate stump speech. Santorum does have far less baggage and Santorum is seen (up to this point) as being more credible.

On the other hand, there is little doubt that Gingrich shines in most debates. But in the General Election, where there would be no more than two or three debates, is that enough to give Gingrich a win?

In all the passionate but sometimes silly posts here between Gingrich and Santorum supporters, one huge thing is generally overlooked. Romney is currently on the ropes and still falling in most polls. This should be news which should be celebrated and give us further incentive to focus on finishing the job.

I encourage all to look at the bigger picture and concentrate on one battle at a time. Gingrich and Santorum are both far better than Romney.

105 posted on 02/19/2012 5:23:59 PM PST by Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: VinL; hoosiermama
Gingrich had the chance to build on his win, but was unable to capitalize in Florida


As Hoosiermama told me earlier today...Mitt spent roughly $20 mil in FL...most of which was negative toward Newt.

106 posted on 02/19/2012 5:23:59 PM PST by RoosterRedux (Go Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

I agree. I think it’s strange how enthusiastic Gingrich supporters are to point out Santorum’s flaws and how blindly forgiving they are of Gingrich’s. I’ll vote for Gingrich or Santorum against the Marxist, but I think Santorum has a better shot at this point.

Said differently, I’d have voted for Gingrich over Obama, despite his personal failings and occasional big government embraces. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that Gingrich could win the nomination even if Santorum quit. I think Gingrich supporters break for Santorum, but I don’t think Gingrich gets the same percent out of Santorum supporters.

I have chosen to support Santorum, despite his flaws. I don’t like some of his fiscal record, true enough, but I do think he is a better contrast on healthcare than Gingrich or Romney. I also think he has less personal baggage Gingrich. And frankly, if the guy can’t win because our electorate will hold traditional American social values against him, we’re toast anyway.

Judging by some replies above, I am sure this post will cause somebody to accuse me of being a Romney supporter in disguise, but one thing’s for sure: if Romney gets the nomination, I write in a conservative for president. I give my word of honor I will not vote for Romney. I can understand that no established politician will have a voting record I 100% agree with, but he is so far off it’s a joke, and I hope the conservatives teach the establishment a lesson if that fiscal and social LIBERAL gets it. He may be a Moderate in Boston, but that’s a liberal where I come from.

107 posted on 02/19/2012 5:24:27 PM PST by madconservative (I'd rather be shooting my Glock 10mm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Freeper

With all due respect, my friend- I haven’t a clue as to what you’re trying to convey. Sorry.


108 posted on 02/19/2012 5:26:12 PM PST by VinL (It is better to suffer every wrong, than to consent to wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: madconservative
but I think Santorum has a better shot at this point

Since the beginning of the primaries, Rick is finally gettin vetted.

He's a nice guy...but he's a light-weight.

This is Newt's time!

109 posted on 02/19/2012 5:26:45 PM PST by RoosterRedux (Go Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite
Of course he was right. There were too many times in which Bain dumped the companies. makes the allure appear to where someone on Wall Street knew when to make the decisions. Rush tried to cut the tap off when Newt never attacked free market, he was trying to tell the voter that there were some irregularity practices in Bain. Not all people got the drift. If he makes it as the nominee, it will come back up. Rick will lose the women voters, if he is the nominee. Why I am supporting Newt (he has experience of knowing how to work on important issues in getting America turned around/the man has been over-vetted, now for years)
110 posted on 02/19/2012 5:28:02 PM PST by Christie at the beach (I like Newt and would love to see political dead bodies on the floor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: moonhawk

I too am a Newt supporter. What has happened to him over the years has been a great pain to me. I have met him and he is actually a very humble sensitive man. When he is fighting the opposition, he is a warrior who has incredible courage to go on; even though it must pain him to no end to suffer the lies and persecution for opposing atheistic Communism.

I have seen Rick Santorum. He is cut out of the same cloth as Newt, but does not have the depth of knowledge. Newt reads and writes prolifically. He has a photographic memory of everything he has read and has seen. He is a walking history of the world and knows the lessons of history. Rick Santorum is a good student of history and from what I have read, has valued what Newt has taught him. We should all value what Newt has brought this nation and oppose what the Left has fought to keep from being known. For the Left 2 + 2 = 5.

The Polish fought Communism with the slogan, “for Poland to be Poland, 2 + 2 must always = 4.” We know the evidence of history to be inalienable. Our freedom with a moral code from God wins it for mankind. Our founding fathers knew that much.

111 posted on 02/19/2012 5:28:57 PM PST by jonrick46 (Countdown to 11-06-2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

Romney and Bain bought the company in 2000, loaded KB Toys with millions in debt, then used the money to repurchase Bain stock. By 2004, 365 stores had closed.

KB Toys was dead in the water when Bain bought it. Walmart and Target killed it, not Bain. Quit getting your facts from HuffPo.

112 posted on 02/19/2012 5:29:42 PM PST by magritte (Nevermind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
This primary war is just getting started.

Lets see how Santorum does in the South.

113 posted on 02/19/2012 5:32:45 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Well said. The vetting was long overdue, but better late than never.

Gonna be getting uncomfortably warm in that sweater vest real soon.

From the way I have heard Rick stumbling around in interviews,(i.e. the one with Candy Crowley) he doesn’t handle even the most gentle questioning well.

114 posted on 02/19/2012 5:35:21 PM PST by conservativejoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration


115 posted on 02/19/2012 5:35:43 PM PST by gov_bean_ counter (Yo Mitt - Money can't buy you love...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: thatjoeguy

Thanks, Joe; you’re the only one who commented. Always distressing to start a tread based on a particular theme, and have it degenerate into a lot of nonsense. -:)

116 posted on 02/19/2012 5:35:52 PM PST by VinL (It is better to suffer every wrong, than to consent to wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: CainConservative

Yours too. Not one statement from gingrich telling Santorum to drop out. Several comments that its making it more difficult to beat Romney for both of them. Rick will have to make hs own decision, etc. Plenty of media speculation and interpretation. Lots of pleading to the media however from Santorum, “Tell him to stop telling me to quit.”

It really is irrelevant. At that time Santorum was going nowhere, he was 3 or 4 in all the polls. He should have dropped out and he will face the same dilemma real soon if he doesn’t stop rambling about social nonsense and stop avoiding talk about the dire circumstances this country’s facing.


117 posted on 02/19/2012 5:38:13 PM PST by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

“If he can’t withstand negative ads in the primary, how’s he going to do it in the election?”

I think it will be difficult for Newt to withstand the negative ads in the election-—particularly if mittwits staff go to bat for hussein. Right now, I’m just passing the popcorn as Santorum and Romney go for each others throats.

118 posted on 02/19/2012 5:43:22 PM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux; VinL
You are correct: Combined amount with his PAC was close to twenty million of negative ads. The only positive ads were run in Spanish in the Cuban area.

Currently Newt's legal team have sent letters to various radio stations in primary states, telling them that there are laws against false advertising, noting the false statements and promising to bring charges if these ads are played since they would now be doing so knowing that they are false.

119 posted on 02/19/2012 5:46:42 PM PST by hoosiermama (Stand with God and Sarah, the Gipper and Newt will be standing next to you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: LuvFreeRepublic

The deceptive lies about Newt are very difficult to uproot from the political landscape. The may seem like little weeds to pluck up with a short sound bite, but they just grow back. Newt has a formidable job to fix the damage done to him.

Take, for instance, his marriage to his second wife, Marianne. The marriage was a convenience marriage, according to Marianne’s own words. It was for the kids. But what got things really nasty was when Marianne came under investigation by the FBI for arms dealing. That was something that Newt could not deal with for it would impact his position as Speaker. Do you blame him for the divorce?

For a lengthy report on Marianne’s involvement:

120 posted on 02/19/2012 5:49:35 PM PST by jonrick46 (Countdown to 11-06-2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Put on your tin foil hat, conspiracy guy! Goooo Newt!

121 posted on 02/19/2012 5:55:39 PM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: VinL

Your strategy has been ruled incorrect by your own expert, a long time lecturer to the War College IIRC. When Newt was high and Rick was low Newt asked Rick to get out for (the | Newt’s) greater good. When Newt was high and Perry was low Newt took his endorsement rather than asking him to instead stay in the race for (the | Newt’s) greater good. Looking at things from both sides Newt chose the strategy of Rick Santorum’s supporters. Rick is just implementing it more politely by not saying it openly himself. He knows he’ll need to unite the party in the fall so wants to minimize divisions now.

122 posted on 02/19/2012 5:55:51 PM PST by JohnBovenmyer (Obama been Liberal. Hope Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: VinL
Please let everyone stay in the race. I live in PA and would like a choice for once in the primary.

For the record, there are many on this forum that would happily vote for either Gingrich or Santorum, myself included. The fact that we don't summarily reject Santorum out of hand does not automatically make us "Romneybots dressed in Santorum clothing". Nor does it make us mindless dupes or liberal trolls. I, for one, do not appreciate the insinuation.

123 posted on 02/19/2012 5:56:24 PM PST by Shethink13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VinL
Beware the Romneybots dressed in Santorum clothing!

Boy isn't that the truth! Deception is on the move! A good heads up warning is none too soon VinL....

124 posted on 02/19/2012 5:59:52 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

Thank you for your post. This is very enlightening and just what is needed to get the Truth out.

Sure puts a new light on Newt’s so called baggage.

If the general public knew this, along with the story of the circumstances of his first marriage, they would have a different view of his personal life for sure.

He endured and overcame so much. Truly a remarkable man.

125 posted on 02/19/2012 6:00:23 PM PST by conservativejoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: CainConservative

“Santorum wasn’t even talking about Obama’s Christianity”

He was talking exactly about that in this video from 2008

126 posted on 02/19/2012 6:01:31 PM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

>>Santorum: “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual gay sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.... It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution.”<<

You do realize that what you’ve stated above doesn’t support your case, don’t you? Santorum is not saying that government should invade the bedrooms. Instead he’s saying that there is no “right to privacy” in the constitution that prevents government from doing so.

He’s arguing the constitution, and what will be the logical course of events if the Supreme Court keeps treating it like toilet paper. If you want the government out of your bedroom, vote for people who’ll keep the government out, but that isn’t what the Left does. Instead they appoint justices who use the Constitution against the people. Prop 8 in CA is an example. The people voted to maintain traditional marriage. Liberal appeals court judges used their interpretation of the Constitution to find the law unconstitutional.

Your quote, in this case, simply does not support your argument that Santorum wants to invade our bedrooms. The whole idea is ridiculous. On the other hand, there is a faction on the Left that would be more than willing to let a liberal court legalize man/boy relations. Don’t doubt that. And that is exactly the sort of thing Santorum is warning against.

If you want the government in your bedroom (or your kid’s lunch box, for that matter), continue to ignore Santorum’s advice. You’ll get more government than you can tolerate.

127 posted on 02/19/2012 6:01:46 PM PST by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

Thanks for the link, but I am aware of Newt’s ‘baggage’ and it is ALL totally irrelevant to me. The only thing I am concerned with besides national security, is what kind of economic policies do the candidates have. If we do not turn our economy around it won’t matter who is a saint, who has committed adultery or who has nice hair. I don’t need to ride my high horse about any issues other than security and economic survival such that I am able to feed my family, and when they move out, they are able to feed theirs.

128 posted on 02/19/2012 6:02:06 PM PST by LuvFreeRepublic ( (#withNewt))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Shethink13
there are many on this forum that would happily vote for either Gingrich or Santorum, myself included

Well I'm from Pa. and I can without reservations say I would not be "happy" if Santorum wins the Primary.. for you can be assured Obama will walk all over this guy without any effort.....the vetting on Santorum has just begun and they are saving the heavy stuff till he's on stage, if he makes it thus far.

Even Santorums team says he's going to have to answer for the voting he's done and make it believable...that's where he'll get in trouble. He'll have to either twist the truth or lie to cover his blunders. And he has zero plans or how he's going to implement them...his site attests to just plans layed out at all. He's like Obama in saying everything people want to hear but nothing solid. He needs to cough up some solutions and he hasn't done so.

Therefore if at this stage of the game Santorum has no solutions, just talking points...then what makes any think he'll know what he's doing if he gets to Washington...he has nothing to to hit the ground with when he gets there!

I would be voting for Santorum as I did for McCain...nose diving...and not the least bit happy.

129 posted on 02/19/2012 6:10:03 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: JohnBovenmyer

Different mindsets. Newt goes exclusively after Romney- not conservatives, If you have any you tube ads to the contrary, I’m sure you’ll produce them.

Rick S and Rick P both ran many negatives ads against Newt- The most recent one was run by Rick S in the mid-west after Fla-

But, rather than rely on your opinion or my opinion- let’s rely on a 3rd independent source. I’m sure you’ll agree as a matter of fact that the Romney Camp, the GOP-E and its friendly press have been trying to get Newt to withdrew.

Now, why would they do that, if they felt Newt’s withdrawal with help Rick? They’ve obviously concluded the opposite.
Since they have a vested interest that is disproportionate to our subjective judgment— I would conclude that Newt’s presence hurts Romney, and helps Rick-—for the present.

130 posted on 02/19/2012 6:16:45 PM PST by VinL (It is better to suffer every wrong, than to consent to wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: conservativejoy
the way I have heard Rick stumbling around in interviews,(i.e. the one with Candy Crowley) he doesn’t handle even the most gentle questioning well.

Exactly..and I for one am glad people are hearing him do so. He's trying to get his act together on the fly...and he's appealing to those of his faith by claiming all the social issues, but he's not stating much else, and certainly not how he expects to change things in Washington...rather that change will come and expects his opinions to be enough. I want some substance and so far Santorum's not delivering.

131 posted on 02/19/2012 6:17:32 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Bainbridge

If you’ve looked at my posts, you should have seen the evidence as well. Many others have posted his poor record on fiscal issues. Apart from his socialist positions on fiscal matters, I do not want to support someone who is in the race solely to be Mitt’s VP.

I will repeat some of the things he has done - he has voted for debt ceiling increases, he has voted for pork to support unions, he has voted for ethanol subsidies (the whole ethanol thing is nothing but part of the Global Warming scheme) and he has channeled money to projects such as installing highway signs.

He also chose Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey and that can never be excused no matter how he spins it now. Everyone who has followed PA politics knows that he works in tandem with Arlen Specter with one of them talking the liberal talk and the other talking the conservative talk. Ultimately, talk is only for winning votes. The real action is in sharing the money and Specter and Santorum have no differences there.

132 posted on 02/19/2012 6:21:11 PM PST by JimWayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
"Why doesn’t Newt have the votes, if he’s so good?"

Because most influential political class folks are depending on government debt/revenues directly (land use planners, inspectors, teachers, police, all) or indirectly (pork, contractors, services, etc.) for their incomes. Santorum's voting record promises to resume funding to social programs, etc., from debt/revenues and tax hikes.

133 posted on 02/19/2012 6:21:53 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

Very well said, all of it. Newt is like the ancient Master/Warrior, wise, cunning, and experienced.and Rick is the young apprentice, eager but far too inexperienced.

In this battle, we need the Master.

One other thing I believe, and I do think Newt and Rick would agree. While our biggest, most pressing current issue may be the size and scope of government, and the economy economic, our Nation will never thrive without God’s blessings, and he will not bless for long a nation that murders upwards of a million of his unborn children every year.

134 posted on 02/19/2012 6:24:12 PM PST by moonhawk (Rush, Mark, Sean: Conservative talkers. Sarah, Newt: Conservative DOers. Mitt: Conservative faker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: conservativejoy

“Want to cast that first Stone, do ya? “

You really think biblical forgiveness will insulate Newt from political attack? Do you really think it should?

Newt owns his baggage. That is also part of biblical forgiveness, by the way.

135 posted on 02/19/2012 6:27:37 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: caww
My original point was I would like the opportunity to make a choice and will not have it if either drops out.

I agree with Sarah that I want this primary to go on as long as possible. I want every Republican voter in every state to have that opportunity as well. Then, when we arrive at the winner, we will know that it was the choice of the majority of voters. At that point, would you not agree that the nominee should be sufficiently vetted and deemed to be electable by the majority? Or is it your belief that if they disagree with you and choose other than your guy, they are all a bunch of bumbling know-nothings?

136 posted on 02/19/2012 6:29:10 PM PST by Shethink13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

“Lets see how Santorum does in the South. “

If he opts to tear the sleeves off a blue-jean jacket instead of his sweaters, he’ll do just fine.

137 posted on 02/19/2012 6:30:22 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: madconservative

>>...but one thing’s for sure: if Romney gets the nomination, I write in a conservative for president. I give my word of honor I will not vote for Romney.<<

I sympathize, and might do the same, but for a particular reason:

I can’t help but feel that when Romney refuses to disavow Romneycare, he’s making it exceptionally difficult to repeal Obamacare. I’m almost sure that instead he will try to tweak it into a better bill, something that will prove disastrous because the next Dem administration would undo any “tweaking” and give us full-blown socialist medicine.

But if Obama is re-elected, and we get a Republican House and Senate, as I think is likely regardless who wins the Presidency, then I’m reasonably sure that Congress will budget no money for Obamacare to be implemented. No money, no program.

That same Congress would have a far more difficult time denying Romney his “tweaking,” however, as they would be inclined to treat him with deference.

So, I’m almost convinced that if Romney beats Obama, we get Romneycare/Obamacare forever, and that I won’t vote for. Which leads me to vote a write-in, or even for Obama himself, something only the nomination of Romney could drive me to do.

Note also that about 20% of GOP voters aren’t sure they’ll vote Republican in the general election. That is why. It’s not because the GOP establishment types will be voting for Obama or a write-in if they don’t get Romney as the nominee; it’s because of people like us.

138 posted on 02/19/2012 6:31:10 PM PST by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: moonhawk

” and the economy economic, ...”

Errr...make that “and the economy,...”

139 posted on 02/19/2012 6:33:35 PM PST by moonhawk (Rush, Mark, Sean: Conservative talkers. Sarah, Newt: Conservative DOers. Mitt: Conservative faker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite


I’m talking about this cycle, this weekend.

But hey, if you like Obama’s “Christianity” with the roosters comin’ home to roost - well, knock yourself out.

140 posted on 02/19/2012 6:35:50 PM PST by CainConservative (Santorum/Huck 2012 w/ Newt, Cain, Palin, Bach, Parker, Watts, Duncan, & Petraeus in the Cabinet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: VinL

Santorum has the voting record of a Hillary Clinton fan.

Voted for taxpayer funding of the National Endowment for the Arts.
Voted against a 10% cut in the budget for National Endowment for the Arts.

Voted for a Schumer amendment to make the debts of pro-life demonstrators not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Defense and Foreign Policy

Voted for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
Voted against requiring the President to certify that the CWC is effectively verifiable.

Voted against requiring the President to certify that that Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, China, and all other countries determined to be state sponsors of terror have joined CWC prior to submitting the instrument of ratification.

Voted for the START II Treaty.
Voted to allow the sale of supercomputers to China.
Voted to ban anti-personnel landmines.
Voted against increasing defense spending offset by equivalent cuts in non-defense spending.
Voted to require that Federal bureaucrats get the same pay raises as uniformed military.
Voted to allow food and medicine sales to state sponsors of terror and tyrannical regimes such as Libya and Cuba.
Voted to limit the President’s authority to impose sanctions on nations for reasons of national security unless the sanctions were approved by a multilateral regime.
Voted against requiring Congressional authorization for military action in Bosnia.
Voted to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea.
Voted to weaken alien terrorist deportation provisions. If the Court determines that the evidence must be withheld for national security reasons, the Justice Department must still provide a summary of the evidence sufficient for the alien terrorist to mount a defense against deportation.
Voted against delaying the India Nuclear until the President certified that India had agreed to suspend military-to-military exchanges with Iran.
Voted against the Conventional Trident Missile Program.


Voted for Richard Paez to the 9th Curcuit (cloture).
Voted for Sonia Sotomayor, Circuit Judge.
Voted for Richard Holbrooke to be Ambassador to the UN.
Voted for Margaret Morrow to be District Judge.
Voted twice for Marsha Berzon to the 9thg Circuit.
Voted for Mary McLaughlin to be District Judge.
Voted for Tim Dyk to be District Judge.
Voted for James Brady to be District Judge.


Voted against National Right to Work Act.
Voted against repeal of Davis-Bacon Prevailing union wages.
Voted for Alexis Herman to be Secretary of Labor.
Voted for mandatory Federal child care funding.
Voted for Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Voted for Job Corps funding.
Voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization.
Voted against allowing a waiver of Davis-Bacon in emergency situations.
Voted for minimum wage increases six times here here here here here and here.
Voted to require a union representative on an IRS oversight board.
Voted to exempt IRS union representatives from criminal ethics laws.
Voted against creating independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses.


Voted to require pawn shops to do background checks on people who pawn a gun.
Voted twice to make it illegal to sell a gun without a secure storage or safety device.
Voted for a Federal ban on possession of “assault weapons” by those under 18.
Voted for Federal funding for anti-gun education programs in schools.
Voted for anti-gun juvenile justice bill.


Voted for funding for the legal services corporation.
Voted twice for a Congressional pay raise.
Voted to impose a uniform Federal mandate on states to force them to allow convicted rapists, arsonists, drug kingpins, and all other ex-convicts to vote in Federal elections.
Voted for the Specter “backup plan” to allow campaign finance reform to survive if portions of the bill were found unconstitutional.
Voted to mandate discounted broadcast times for politicians.
Voted for a McCain amendment to require state and local campaign committees to report all campaign contributions to the FEC and to require all campaign contributions to be reported to the FEC within 24 hours within 90 days of an election.


Voted against increasing the number of immigration investigators.
Voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the earned income credit before becoming citizens.
Voted to give SSI benefits to legal aliens.
Voted to give welfare benefits to naturalized citizens without regard to the earnings of their sponsors.
Voted against hiring an additional 1,000 border partrol agents, paid for by reductions in state grants.


Voted against a flat tax.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for Medicare prescription drugs.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for small businesses.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an $8 billion increase in child healh insurance.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an increase in NIH funding.
Voted twice for internet taxes.
Voted to allow gas tax revenues to be used to subsidize Amtrak.
Voted to strike marriage penalty tax relief and instead provide fines on tobacco companies.
Voted against repealing the Clinton 4.3 cent gas tax increase.
Voted to increase taxes by $2.3 billion to pay for an Amtrak trust fund.
Voted to allow welfare to a minor who had a child out of wedlock and who resided with an adult who was on welfare within the previous two years.
Voted to increase taxes by $9.4 billion to pay for a $9.4 billion increase in student loans.
Voted to say that AMT patch is more important than capital gains and dividend relief.


Voted against food stamp reform.
Voted against Medicaid reform.
Voted against TANF reform.
Voted to increase the Social Services Block Grant from $1 billion to $2 billion.
Voted to increase the FHA loan from $170,000 to $197,000. Also opposed increasing GNMA guaranty from 6 basis points to 12.
Voted for $2 billion for low income heating assistance.


Sponsored an amendment to increase Amtrak funds by $550 million.
Voted to use HUD funds for the Joslyn Art Museum (NE), the Stand Up for Animals project (RI) and the Seattle Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Project (WA).
Voted to increase spending on social programs by $7 billion.
Voted to increase NIH funding by $1.6 billion.
Voted to increase NIHnding by $700 million.
Voted to for a $2 million earmark to renovate the Vulcan Monument (AL).
Voted for a $1 billion bailout for the steel industry.
Voted against requiring that highway earmarks would come out of a state’s highway allocation.
Voted to allow Market Access Program funds to go to foreign companies.
Voted to allow OPIC to increase its administrative costs by 50%.
Voted against transferring $20 million from AmeriCorps to veterans.
Voted for the $140 billion asbestos compensation bill.
Voted against requiring a uniform medical criteria to ensure asbestos claims were legitimate.
Voted to increase community development programs by $2 billion.

Spending and Entitlements

Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies a new entitlement.
Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.
Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.

Health Care

Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.
Voted twice for Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.
Voted against allowing consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.


Voted to increase Federal funding for teacher testing.
Voted to increase spending for the Department of Education by $3.1 billion.
Voted against requiring courts to consider the impact of IDEA awards on a local school district.


Voted to allow the President to designate certain sites as interim nuclear waste storage sites in the event that he determines that Yucca Mountain is not a suitable site for a permanent waste repository. Those sites are as follows: the nuclear waste site in Hanford, Washington; the Savannah River Site in South Carolina; Barnwell County, South Carolina; and the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee.

Voted to make fuel price gouging a Federal crime.

141 posted on 02/19/2012 6:36:37 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

“Santorum’s voting record promises to resume funding to social programs, etc., from debt/revenues and tax hikes.”

None of the candidates, not even Paul, will meaningfully trim government expenditures.

Like I said, I’m not happy about having to support Santorum, but I simply can’t support Newt. I can’t do it - and neither can the vast majority of Republicans.

142 posted on 02/19/2012 6:38:09 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; NavVet; moonhawk; RFEngineer; VinL; beandog; Marguerite; Christie at the beach; ...

By all accounts Gingrich has baggage to fit into a 747. He’s appears to be losing even in GA.

National Review; The American Spectator, and now TownHall all seem to demanding that he quit but he stubbornly refuses even while Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin appear to have endorsed Santorum. Gingrich’s negative have sunk below the cellar; he loses Independents in droves; and in the recent Gallup trails Obama by some 15-points.

What gives?

There are now accounts in the (conservative) Washington Times that nearly $1m of unexplained cash has found its way into Gingrich’s close family members. He’s sugar daddy’s $21m and counting comes only on the assurance that Gingrich will turn Iran into rubble if they continue with their nuclear program.

But something many don’t seem to know is that Gingrich was a “Rockefeller Republican”

Don’t believe it? Just view this short 10-second clip by Fox’s Judge Napolitano

143 posted on 02/19/2012 6:48:59 PM PST by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: onyx; Marguerite
Another lie as to why Newt won SC! it was the debates, it is the South and of course Sara Palin helped.

"This week Billionaire Casino Magnate Sheldon Adelson announced his intentions to continue to sink money into the Gingrich SuperPAC "Winning Our Future." This newest round of $10,000,000 would roughly match the $11,000,000 that allowed Gingrich his one state win in South Carolina. But even that is money poorly spent.

For me it's Newt or else! no Santorum!

144 posted on 02/19/2012 6:51:20 PM PST by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Thanks for the honest and analytical reply. I’m seeing from the whole political picture, IMO, that we’ll each need to prepare ourselves for a repudiation, currency adjustment and more of an agricultural economy. We’ve seen what is sometimes erroneously referred to by opinion writers as a technocracy, but we’ll more likely see the real thing on the other side of the collapse (government influenced more by engineers and technicians). Not a problem for me.

145 posted on 02/19/2012 6:53:53 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Shethink13
Well it would be great if everyone had the opportunity to vote and make the difference we'd all like ...but the bottom line is once a candidate wins the delgates needed it won't matter who can or not vote's just how it is.

So yes everyone wants to think they're vote counts...but in reality it's the delegate count not the popular vote that wins.

146 posted on 02/19/2012 6:59:11 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Not sure why you’d bring in some conspiracy I was simply commenting on your post, sheesh.

“If you know your candidate, you know his weaknesses - and I think you’d admit, if you’re honest, that Newt has some issues to deal with.”

Wow, good one. If I’m honest... putting way to much pressure on me here. I guess I’m not honest because when it comes to politics I DON’T know his weaknesses. If it’s his personal life I don’t consider that a weakness as he appears to have that under control, if it’s the ethics question all over again he was cleared of everything (yes everything) it was nothing more than a concocted witch hunt. So enlighten me please.

Regarding his Fox News Sunday interview so THAT is what you mean by whining? He was asked a direct question and he gave an answer. If you disagree with his reason for losing FL then pose yours. I am curious.

Again your only defense against the smartest guy in the room and best debater labels is “He’s not getting my vote.” so I ask again, if he is both then why? If he isn’t then who is and your opinion as to why?

“Yet he’s in 3rd place. Why?”

Because of people like you who don’t know why they are not voting for him, they just aren’t.

“Why is your candidate not winning?”

There is no winning until all the votes are counted and according to Obama we still have over 50 states to go.


147 posted on 02/19/2012 6:59:58 PM PST by thatjoeguy (MAYDAY! MAYDAY! We are so going in ! !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

I think biblical forgiveness should be accepted by everyone, since we will be judged ourselves by the same mercy we give others. As far is God is concened, Jesus takes away our sins and cleanses us. Carry yours around if you wish to.

No, Newt hasn’t been insulated from political attack, especially by the hypocrites who fear him. They don’t care two hoots about his “baggage”, but they are afraid that he is going to shake up the establishment and pack their bags for them, so they continue the attack.

In the unlikley event that Rick Santorum is elected, all the Washington crowd will do is laugh at him, and it will be business as usual in Washington. He is a complete lightweight, as people who have knowm him personally for years can tell you.

I cringe when I think of him sitting down with the Prime Minister of Israel. Having lost my son in service to his country, I will feel sorry for our service men and women if he is Commander in Chief. It has been awful under Obama. Oliver North endorsed Newt with good reason.

Don’t expect anything of substance to get done by Rick. He does not have what it takes to deliver, but the nation may find that out the hard way.

148 posted on 02/19/2012 7:02:32 PM PST by conservativejoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
You can knock Newt all you want Steelfish..but the proofs in the pudding....his track record of accomplishments for conservativism far far outwieghs any blunder...and I'll take those blunders again if it means he'll shake Washington and make the changes as he did before. Anytime..anyday!

Newt's the only one who can get the ball rolling fast and hard and that with a plan and knowhow to do it.....we don;t have the leasure of time for Romney or Santorum to learn that moving congress is and WAshingtom is more than just needs a sledge hammer now....Rick and Romney will placate and fumble and basically slow down what would otherwise be with Newt....we simply do not have the time to pussyfoot around as they will indeed do!

149 posted on 02/19/2012 7:08:07 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

” Newt sat down on the couch with Pelosi to jump on the big government global warming bandwagon”

The more I learn about Newt’s history with Pelosi and what she did to him, it is easier to realize that he wasn’t alining with her and the man-made global warming crowd as much as trying to give a conservative alternative to the enviro-nuts.

Newt says it was a mistake, but he was the only conservative willing to enter the debate on the environment and give non-big government solutions.

We all know that “global warming” is just an excuse for socialist take over of everything.

Newt was trying to steal the issue for conservative who can give workable Market solutions.

Those may have been misguided as well.

But it shows that Newt is a fighter, willing to get into the ring and argue.

That is leadership. The alternative is to let the socialist clowns run the everything.

Newt’s ideas on eliminating the EPA and replacing it with an agency that focuses on local solution is visionary and bold and the kind of leadership we need. I don’t hear Santorum say anything like eliminating departments.

150 posted on 02/19/2012 7:09:57 PM PST by garjog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-179 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
Topics · Post Article

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