Gingrich stays on, sets sights on Illinois, Wisconsin, Texas, California

Birmingham, Ala. -- The question for Republican Newt Gingrich is not whether he will stay in the presidential race after Tuesday's primaries in Alabama, Mississippi and Hawaii. The question is where he'll take the campaign next.

The Gingrich campaign provided the latest answer, announcing plans to head to Illinois and Louisiana later this week even as most polls offered little certainty about how Tuesday's contests would turn out. Gingrich, a former House speaker who represented Georgia, had predicted victories in nearby Alabama and Mississippi. But more recently he and his advisers have revised expectations to say that even a "strong" showing was enough to go on.

How Gingrich can keep going with little momentum and much doubt about his chances is uncertain. On Tuesday, for instance, the chairman of Alabama's Republican Party, Bill Armistead, predicted in an interview on CNN that if Gingrich loses Mississippi and Alabama, "he's out of the ball game."

Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond said the former House speaker has his sites set on upcoming contests in Illinois, Texas, Wisconsin and even California, the last of which doesn't hold a vote until June. Hammond also said that the campaign is planning a "floor whip operation" for the Republican National Convention in Tampa in August, planning to meet Gingrich's oft-spoken promise to stay in the race to the convention.

"I''ve instructed the press corps to take down time now so they're ready for the next month," Hammond told reporters Tuesday.

Hammond dismissed questions about fundraising, saying that Gingrich is raising enough money to advertise this week in both Mississippi and Alabama. However, both ad buys are on cable channels (less expensive than broadcast), and Hammond would not say how big the buys are.

Right. The point I am trying to make is that the mantra of saying baggage seems like a broken record.

Baggage is only baggage as long as some idiot wants to carry it, and I am sick of hearing about marital problems as baggage.

They never said anything about baggage for Reagan, who as I recall, had more than one wife.

Attacking conservatives by smears of this kind are clearly not helping the process to defeat Obama.

But I suppose wee could repeat that Newt has baggage kind of like using worry beads, because it is so helpful.

What I do is try to get out information based on research of candidates poltical records and how that matches up with their present poltical positions.

Honesty is what elections should all be about. If a person running for office isn’t honest before the election, they will not be honest afterwards while in office.

Romney. A total disconnect. Essentially a liberal Democrat, he is trying to get elected as a conservaitve Republican, and it isn’t working because he’s a phony, period.

Ron Paul. He signed newletters that were racist. He says he didn’t know what was in them, which in my opinion is worse. He allowed racist literature with his signature to be published and whether he did this knowingly or unknowingly, it doesn’t matter; this man is not competant to be President.

Gingrich. No surprises, he has decades long career. We know everything about him. He was pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment when he entered Congress in 1979 and he still is today. Everything he has done or stood for has been explained and he has admitted making mistakes - why he did them and why they were wrong. This is a very honest man.

Santorum. In January 2012 I knew nothing about Rick Santorum and thus had no pre-prejudices. What research I have done indicates that he is a typical establishment poltician, basically a social conservative/fiscal liberal, and facile at changing his positions as poltical reality dictates. A self-admitted pro-choice guy before being elected to congress, he has changed his opinion to being pro-life. His support of Republican candidates who are pro-choice - Arlen Specter, Christie Todd-Whitman, Mitt Romney - was based on politics. Santorum is a supporter of labor unions, of government social programs, and using the tax code to achieve social aims, all of which makes him a fiscal liberal. He has not apologized for his political mistakes - such as supporting Sonya Sotomayor for a judgeship - and takes umbrage when those are highlighted in questions from the public.

Don’t take my word for any of the above: I suggest doing your own research.

In my opinion, we are looking for a leader who can change how our government operates in Washington, D.C.

It is neither a popularity contest nor a quest for the most pious man in the U.S.A. These guys are polticians with records that should be examined closely and compared to what they say they will do once in office.

Remember that BHO2 has baggage that includes criminal acts. Nothing any of our politians have done in the past comes close to the depravity and evil of Obama.

Uh, huh. And after losing both AL and MS (as a native Southerner), just what is Newt’s strategy? Oh, its not actually to win more states. Rather its to try to somehow prevail at a brokered convention by running HIS mouth. Please. The only one that will benefit is (maybe) Jeb Bush.

Face it, if he can’t even be in the top two of the GOP primary race, he has no chance in the GE. Show me ONE poll where Newt beats Obama. There aren’t any.

Don’t know about you, but I’d rather see a can of soup elected that BHO. We need to field someone who has a shot and Newt ain’t that guy. If its not clear to you by now, then it probably never will be.

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.