Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gingrich Denies Splitting GOP Votes
Obama's SuperPac ABC News ^ | March 13th, 2012 | Newt Video

Posted on 03/13/2012 9:03:29 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing

Newt Gingrich says, "Between us, Santorum and I are stopping Romney."

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Alabama; US: Mississippi
KEYWORDS: al; alabama; backstabberromney; backstabbersantorum; congress; crybabysantorum; elections; getoutnewt; gingrich; mississippi; ms; newt4romney; newtgetout; newtgingrich; newtindenial; newtsplittingthevote; obama; perot; romney; romney4romney; rossperot; saintrick; santorum; santorum4earmarks; santorum4romney; splittingthevote; spoilergingrich; spoilernewt; spoilersantorum; taxes; teaparty; teapartyrebellion; toast; usedcarsalesman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-142 next last
Gingrich is 2012's Ross Perot.

Because the conservative vote is split, the liberal William Cli...er... Romney is winning.

1 posted on 03/13/2012 9:03:41 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Oh, bull.


2 posted on 03/13/2012 9:05:03 PM PDT by ReneeLynn (Socialism is SO yesterday. Fascism, it's the new black. Mmm mmm mmm...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA; onyx

Gingrich and Santorum Pings


3 posted on 03/13/2012 9:05:47 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Media doesn't report, It advertises. So that last advertisement you just read, what was it worth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Gingrich is hoping that his hanging on like a leech will entitle him to the VP slot under Mittens.


4 posted on 03/13/2012 9:07:09 PM PDT by lightman (Adjutorium nostrum (+) in nomine Domini--nevertheless, Vote Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Just send some $$ to Newt. He is doing great, blocking Mitt and establishment.
Go Newt


5 posted on 03/13/2012 9:07:35 PM PDT by jennychase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

I will make this absolutely clear to you: Romney and Santorum are both fiscally liberal, big government spenders.

This nation is $16TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT. Neither Romney nor Santorum have any ideas for changing this situation.

Newt Gingrich does.

His leaving right now would be disastrous for this nation. Obama is responding defensively to Gingrich, not Romney, not Santorum.

When Newt goes to the convention in Tampa, he will have bargaining chips called ‘delegates’. It will matter.


6 posted on 03/13/2012 9:09:47 PM PDT by SatinDoll (No Foreign Nationals as our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Actually, in proportional delegate situations, Newt staying in really hurts Romney’s math, quite a bit.


7 posted on 03/13/2012 9:09:57 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Very happy that Mitt came in 3rd!!!



8 posted on 03/13/2012 9:11:22 PM PDT by An American! (Proud To Be An American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

===========I will make this absolutely clear to you: Romney and Santorum are both fiscally liberal, big government spenders.==========

Facts not in evidence.

http://www.redstate.com/jamesm/2012/03/11/rick-santorum-fiscal-conservative/

Romney is the lone liberal.


9 posted on 03/13/2012 9:12:58 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Media doesn't report, It advertises. So that last advertisement you just read, what was it worth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: An American!

Me too!

I could want Newt to stay if he were the one winning all the primaries against Mitt, but that’s just not the case.

Conservatives are choosing Santorum.

We have got to unify the conservative base around one lone candidate. If that were to happen, Romney is toast.

I could never vote for Romney. I could at least vote for Newt, but he’s not the choice.


10 posted on 03/13/2012 9:16:36 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Media doesn't report, It advertises. So that last advertisement you just read, what was it worth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

“So how is a senator or congressman rated a being a fiscal conservative? The National Taxpayers Union ( for years) rates members of house and senate and gives them a grade. An “A” equates to a 4.0, a “B” 3.0, a “C” 2.0 etc. In an article on the Weekly Standard by Jeffrey Anderson and Andy Wickersham they write:

“ Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.

Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.

This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorum’s part. Yet it doesn’t even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.”


11 posted on 03/13/2012 9:17:03 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

“So how is a senator or congressman rated a being a fiscal conservative? The National Taxpayers Union ( for years) rates members of house and senate and gives them a grade. An “A” equates to a 4.0, a “B” 3.0, a “C” 2.0 etc. In an article on the Weekly Standard by Jeffrey Anderson and Andy Wickersham they write:

“ Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.

Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.

This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorum’s part. Yet it doesn’t even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.”


12 posted on 03/13/2012 9:17:03 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
I will make this absolutely clear to you: Romney and Santorum are both fiscally liberal, big government spenders.

LOL. Yeah right. That is why all the Commie Pinkos and Leftist that live in AL and MS gave Rick the win tonight. It is a regular San Fran/NYC down there.

Sometimes your posts make me tear up from laughing so hard.

13 posted on 03/13/2012 9:17:07 PM PDT by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

http://www.redstate.com/jamesm/2012/03/11/rick-santorum-fiscal-conservative/


14 posted on 03/13/2012 9:18:47 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Media doesn't report, It advertises. So that last advertisement you just read, what was it worth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

They only believe what he says. I’ve told you Santorum is a liar.


15 posted on 03/13/2012 9:20:01 PM PDT by SatinDoll (No Foreign Nationals as our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

It’s becoming clearer to me that if Gingrich were not in this race, Santorum would be beating Romney handily.

I just don’t see a path to the nomination for Newt. Not after tonight.


16 posted on 03/13/2012 9:22:50 PM PDT by Deo volente (God willing, America will survive this Obamination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

I think if Newt drops out a significant number of his voters goes to Romney, and be an overall loss for conservatives.


17 posted on 03/13/2012 9:23:30 PM PDT by Tribune7 (GAS WAS $1.85 per gallon on the day Obama was Inaugurated! - - freeper Gaffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA
Sometimes your posts make me tear up from laughing so hard.

Ditto yours to me sir. And I mean that in a most complimentary way.

18 posted on 03/13/2012 9:24:56 PM PDT by Kudsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All

Closing down to a 2-man race at this point assures Romney’s victory. Even if it was just Santorum vs. Romney, there is no viable path for Santorum to reach 1,144 delegates. The only strategy left is to deny Romney from reaching 1,144.


19 posted on 03/13/2012 9:28:20 PM PDT by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Oops, sorry I may have mistaken you for that lazmatazz person I think. That guy cracks me up.


20 posted on 03/13/2012 9:30:41 PM PDT by Kudsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing; Kansas58; Lazlo in PA
No, SatinDoll is right. From here:

On spending, Santorum has a mixed record and showed clear signs of varying his votes based on the election calendar. In the 1990s, when he was only a freshman Senator, he was a leading author on the bill that completely overhauled the country’s welfare system. He also voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996 that started the process of ending direct farm subsidies. When Congress decided that it couldn’t live up to that promise, it voted to re-establish the subsidies in 2002 with the Farm Security Act, a bill that Santorum rightly opposed. He also voted for a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto in 1995.

More recently, when he was out of Congress, Santorum opposed TARP , the stimulus , the auto bailout, and the Fannie-Freddie bailout.

However, there is a troubling part of Santorum’s record on spending, which is found in the years sandwiched between these periods of fiscal restraint. His record is plagued by the big-spending habits that Republicans adopted during the Bush years of 2001-2006. Some of those high profile votes include his support for No Child Left Behind in 2001, which greatly expanded the federal government’s role in education. He supported the massive new Medicare drug entitlement in 2003 that now costs taxpayers over $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities. He voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Indeed, Santorum was a prolific supporter of earmarks, having requested billions of dollars for pork projects in Pennsylvania while he was in Congress. Perhaps recognizing the sign of the times, Santorum finally reversed his position in 2010, saying that he was opposed to them , but one must remain skeptical about his sincerity. As recently as 2009, he said, “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”

And while Santorum voted against the Farm Bill in 2002, he sponsored a bill to extend milk subsidies in 2005, which he claimed he did to “save countless Pennsylvania dairy farmers.”

An examination of his scores in the NTU rating of Congress shows that Santorum compiled a very strong record on taxes and spending in the first four years of each of his two Senate terms, then a sharp swing to below the Senate Republican average in the Congress before his reelection campaign. In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending, and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal. In his last Congress (2005-2006), he had one of the biggest spending agendas of any Republican -- sponsoring more spending increases than Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Lincoln Chafee and Thad Cochran or Democrats Herb Kohl, Evan Bayh and Ron Wyden.

Santorum also supported raising congressional pay at least three times, in 2001, 2002, and 2003.
21 posted on 03/13/2012 9:36:48 PM PDT by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing; Kansas58; Lazlo in PA; SatinDoll
No, SatinDoll is right. From here:

On spending, Santorum has a mixed record and showed clear signs of varying his votes based on the election calendar. In the 1990s, when he was only a freshman Senator, he was a leading author on the bill that completely overhauled the country’s welfare system. He also voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996 that started the process of ending direct farm subsidies. When Congress decided that it couldn’t live up to that promise, it voted to re-establish the subsidies in 2002 with the Farm Security Act, a bill that Santorum rightly opposed. He also voted for a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto in 1995.

More recently, when he was out of Congress, Santorum opposed TARP , the stimulus , the auto bailout, and the Fannie-Freddie bailout.

However, there is a troubling part of Santorum’s record on spending, which is found in the years sandwiched between these periods of fiscal restraint. His record is plagued by the big-spending habits that Republicans adopted during the Bush years of 2001-2006. Some of those high profile votes include his support for No Child Left Behind in 2001, which greatly expanded the federal government’s role in education. He supported the massive new Medicare drug entitlement in 2003 that now costs taxpayers over $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities. He voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Indeed, Santorum was a prolific supporter of earmarks, having requested billions of dollars for pork projects in Pennsylvania while he was in Congress. Perhaps recognizing the sign of the times, Santorum finally reversed his position in 2010, saying that he was opposed to them , but one must remain skeptical about his sincerity. As recently as 2009, he said, “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”

And while Santorum voted against the Farm Bill in 2002, he sponsored a bill to extend milk subsidies in 2005, which he claimed he did to “save countless Pennsylvania dairy farmers.”

An examination of his scores in the NTU rating of Congress shows that Santorum compiled a very strong record on taxes and spending in the first four years of each of his two Senate terms, then a sharp swing to below the Senate Republican average in the Congress before his reelection campaign. In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending, and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal. In his last Congress (2005-2006), he had one of the biggest spending agendas of any Republican -- sponsoring more spending increases than Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Lincoln Chafee and Thad Cochran or Democrats Herb Kohl, Evan Bayh and Ron Wyden.

Santorum also supported raising congressional pay at least three times, in 2001, 2002, and 2003.
22 posted on 03/13/2012 9:37:36 PM PDT by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Hey now! Quit being logical. You might ruin the whole darn thread. ;)


23 posted on 03/13/2012 9:38:24 PM PDT by berdie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

All I see here is 4 guys who can’t even defeat or help each other much less Obama.


24 posted on 03/13/2012 9:40:57 PM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty; Kansas58; Lazlo in PA; SatinDoll

Nobody said nor claimed that Santorum was perfect.

Gingrich is a fiscal conservative as is Santorum, yet I don’t think you want me posting a pic of Gingrich sitting next to Nancy.

I won’t do that, because this isn’t a pissing match. The point is that we could both point out this, that, or the other thing about both and it would be correct about both.

The target is Romney. He’s running for president in the wrong damn primaries, in the wrong party.

Santorum is indeed a fiscal conservative. Ditto for Gingrich.

But not Romney.


25 posted on 03/13/2012 9:43:34 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Media doesn't report, It advertises. So that last advertisement you just read, what was it worth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty; Halfmanhalfamazing; Kansas58; SatinDoll
Nice try. Why not post the full article or the summary instead of cherry picking spicific items to slam Rick, eh?

On the whole, Rick Santorum’s record on economic issues in the U.S. Senate was above average. More precisely, it was quite strong in some areas and quite weak in others. He has a strong record on taxes, and his leadership on welfare reform and Social Security was exemplary. But his record also contains several very weak spots, including his active support of wasteful spending earmarks, his penchant for trade protectionism, and his willingness to support large government expansions like the Medicare prescription drug bill and the 2005 Highway Bill. As president, Santorum would most likely lead the country in a pro-growth direction, but his record contains more than a few weak spots that make us question if he would resist political expediency when it comes to economic issues.

A very different depiction of a person who is claimed to be a Big Gov't Socialist by some here.

26 posted on 03/13/2012 9:44:17 PM PDT by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
When Newt goes to the convention in Tampa, he will have bargaining chips called ‘delegates’. It will matter.

Exactly. He will be the kingmaker, but the question is, what will he want?

Payoff his campaign debt?
Add his plants to the platform?
VP?, SOS?

27 posted on 03/13/2012 9:45:45 PM PDT by oldbrowser (They are Marxists, don't call them democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA
It's generally alleged that he's a big spender—which the record shows he indeed is. Particularly his more recent record in Congress.

Also when Santorum says stuff like this, it sounds an awful lot like socialism:
"This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t 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 shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t 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 can’t go it alone." [source]

"What was my vision? I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadn’t even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply ‘cheap liberals.’ My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those who are less fortunate, but I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission." –Rick Santorum, p. IX It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good (2005)

"I suspect some will dismiss my ideas as just an extended version of ‘compassionate conservatism.’ Some will reject what I have said as a kind of ‘Big Government Conservatism.’ Some will say that what I’ve tried to argue isn’t conservatism at all. But I believe what I’ve been presenting is the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned. One that fosters the opportunity for all Americans to live as we are called to live, in selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good." –Rick Santorum, p. 421 It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good (2005)

28 posted on 03/13/2012 9:47:49 PM PDT by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

How about a real Energy Secretary with the full support of a GOP House and Senate to go with a Presidents signature unhindered by the unhinged environuts.


29 posted on 03/13/2012 10:00:36 PM PDT by Kudsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty
...it sounds an awful lot like socialism:

Baloney. He is slapping down the Ron Paul Libertarians with their near Anarchical view of life. He is one of the few Conservatives around who is willing to make a distinction between the two different ideologies.

30 posted on 03/13/2012 10:03:02 PM PDT by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Actually, in proportional delegate situations, Newt staying in really hurts Romney’s math, quite a bit.

I agree. With his current low poll numbers outside the south, Newt should look hard at withdrawing in upcoming winner-take-all states but remain in those with proportional delegate assignments.

31 posted on 03/13/2012 10:07:47 PM PDT by CedarDave (Romney supporter Jeff Foxworthy: Not as smart as a fifth-grader.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

Did you read the two below that where he advocates welfare statism?


32 posted on 03/13/2012 10:08:42 PM PDT by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

No, Santorum is shooting for VP. I doubt the RNC will let Santorum run for President if his delegate count is lower than Romney’s count. They definitely do not want Gingrich on the ticket.

Gingrich wants to save this nation. He isn’t interested in money or power like Santorum, he doesn’t have a daddy’s legacy to better such as Romney. He wants this nation to get back on the right track, and socialism isn’t it.


33 posted on 03/13/2012 10:17:19 PM PDT by SatinDoll (No Foreign Nationals as our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

Then Romney it is I guess, whatever else can we do?

These circular firing squads must stop, any thinking person here knew how this was going to go down. Crying now about what might have been serves no purpose.


34 posted on 03/13/2012 10:18:19 PM PDT by itsahoot (Tag lines are a waste of bandwidth, as are my comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Santorum is out of his league. He should give one for the team. He could not argue his way out of a paper bag.

The obama media will hang him high. However, at least he is against killing people. So he’s better than Mittens and obama. Newt would know what he’s doing and we need that badly right now.


35 posted on 03/13/2012 10:54:53 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

No such thing. Used to be this was the normal thing, to campaign up to the convention. Reagan sure did, in ’76 and of course in ’80.


36 posted on 03/13/2012 11:36:43 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kudsman

How about, as Gingrich suggests, breaking up the department and leaving its useful components alone.


37 posted on 03/13/2012 11:38:38 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
I could at least vote for Newt, but he’s not the choice.

I agree. I could have gone for either Newt or Rick but now one or the other has to bow out. And at this point it looks like Newt.

If he kicks the wind out of Santorum's sails any more, I'm gonna get a very sour taste in my mouth for any more of his runs or anything to do with him.

Santorum is the apparent winner in this horse race and it's not by a nose either.

Time for Newt to bow out gracefully.

38 posted on 03/13/2012 11:48:56 PM PDT by HeartlandOfAmerica ("We have prepared for the unbeliever, whips and chains and blazing fires!" Koran Sura 76:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

Sounds good to me. I wish Newt had won, I remember, respect and appreciate Mr. Gingrichs speakership. I would enthusiastically support him at the top of the ticket. Either way, him or Rick and I’m all in. They need to stop targeting each other negatively if they are doing so and focus on a united theme to returning to a free republic and a government haircut.


39 posted on 03/13/2012 11:57:50 PM PDT by Kudsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

According to some propagandists at Politico, Newt lost BIG, but I like Halstonin’s take:

Party: Republican
Reply #4
Mar. 14, 2012 - 1:43 AM EST

“Losing big? Ms. Gibson, I’m sorry, but your headline puts the credibility of your entire article in question. I’m no fan of Newt Gingrich, but he didn’t in any way “lose big.” The GOP nomination comes down to the delegates, not who “wins” each state, and Gingrich came in a close second in both Alabama and Mississippi- in other words he leaves with about the same number of delegates as Rick Santorum, and more than Mitt Romney (who came in third place in both states, beaten by Gingrich despite vastly outspending him in both places). Since Romney was trounced in both states, despite spending way more than Santorum, Gingrich and Paul combined, maybe Romney should drop out of the race based on this logic? Also keep in mind:

- In contrast to the generally narrow wins (for any candidate) in the primaries of the last few few weeks, Gingrich’s wins have been strong and decisive. He got nearly half the total vote in Georgia- which is far, far better than Romney did in his own home turf of Michigan- and he clobbered both Romney and Santorum in South Carolina, where Romney outspent him and the other candidates by many millions of dollars.

- South Carolina is also the only early primary where the GOP saw an increase in turnout compared to 2008, and Gingrich won it decisively. (The GOP winner in South Carolina has also been the nominee in all of the previous primary seasons, so that was no small feat on Gingrich’s part.) This suggests that Gingrich has an ability to motivate GOP voter enthusiasm in a way that his rivals don’t, especially Mitt Romney.

- Gingrich has a large number of second-place finishes in many other states, for example he did better than Santorum in New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada, he tied Romney in Oklahoma, and he beat Romney in both Alabama and Mississippi. IOW Gingrich is very much in the thick of it.

- The race is still fluid enough that it can change on a dime. This is partly because of the debates, in which Gingrich performs well. It’s also because Romney will now be focusing on attacking Rick Santorum, which can allow Gingrich to sneak in and gain broader support- just as Romney’s attacks on Gingrich allowed Santorum to sneak in and take Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota.

- We’re barely through half the primaries, and Romney in particular will be struggling with the upcoming states. Romney got a misleading boost in his delegate count thanks to the early primaries being ridiculously skewed in his favor- packed with Mormon states (among the GOP voters in the primaries and caucuses), Romney home states (Michigan- which he still almost lost- Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine) and states that he’d won in 2008 (Minnesota for example), and yet Romney still flopped. By contrast, the upcoming states are probably friendlier territory for Newt. He’s long had popularity in Louisiana (even more so than Alabama and Mississippi), which shares many cultural and political ties with Georgia, as well as in Arkansas.

- The most favorable scenario for Newt is probably a brokered convention, and considering his revivals before (going into Dec 2011 and in South Carolina), he could still very much be important then esp if he does well in the debates. Brokered conventions wouldn’t necessarily be damaging to either party- there’s a long history of them, and if anything it can sometimes allow them a chance to hash out their coalitional issues and improve their platform, so it could be favorable to either party using it. It may also be to the benefit of the GOP’s conservative wing, and to Gingrich in particular. Going into the winner-take-all states- like Texas and California- may pose a re-think to avoid a split in the conservative vote, but up until then, it may be advantageous for Gingrich to rack up delegates and essentially tag-team with Santorum against Romney. He would then have far more sway in the convention, and considering the unpredictability of the process thus far, could very well come back again.

Many factors at work here, but the bottom line is that it’s still relatively early in the nominating process, and Newt still has good reasons to stay in.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73986.html#ixzz1p4QnXQ5d


40 posted on 03/14/2012 12:04:01 AM PDT by Rome2000 (Rick Santorum voted against Right toWork)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

Great article, thanks for that.


41 posted on 03/14/2012 12:10:22 AM PDT by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Amen to your words.


42 posted on 03/14/2012 12:52:36 AM PDT by Christie at the beach (I like Newt and would love to see political dead bodies on the floor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Aren't most states set up as “winner-take-all” when the count is over 50%??? Newt dropping out with Santorum gaining over the threshold would certainly take care of that “proportional” Romney delegate count.
43 posted on 03/14/2012 12:57:30 AM PDT by RasterMaster ("Towering genius disdains a beaten path." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Oh, man! Escalation! Here we go! Out with "unelectable." In with...

SPLITTERS!!!


44 posted on 03/14/2012 1:25:17 AM PDT by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
No, it's Romney splitting the votes.

Oh, wait. It's Santorum splitting the votes.

Oh, wait. It's Paul splitting the votes.

Maybe you'll get it.

45 posted on 03/14/2012 2:30:11 AM PDT by raybbr (People who still support Obama are either a Marxist or a moron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Yes, thanks to Newt there is a fiscally conservative solution in the race, too bad so many aren’t interested in economic recovery.


46 posted on 03/14/2012 3:09:17 AM PDT by Son House (The Economic Boom Heard Around The World => TEA Party 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Than explain how the Santorum progressive income tax rates of 10% and 28% is in any way conservative? Is it going to be millionaires and billionaires at $200,000 get the higher rate?


47 posted on 03/14/2012 3:12:03 AM PDT by Son House (The Economic Boom Heard Around The World => TEA Party 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

Yes, Santorum promises to triple the dependent child income tax credit, does that include those who pay no taxes getting a check? Fiscal conservative my eye. Santorum might know Social Conservatism, but fiscally conservatism has to be taught like Romney, thanks Newt!


48 posted on 03/14/2012 3:23:28 AM PDT by Son House (The Economic Boom Heard Around The World => TEA Party 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7; CharlesWayneCT; AmericanInTokyo; writer33; Antoninus; napscoordinator; cripplecreek; ...
17 posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:23:30 PM by Tribune7: “I think if Newt drops out a significant number of his voters goes to Romney, and be an overall loss for conservatives.”

This is what the “voter's second choice” polls cited by CharlesWayneCT were showing in January... a significant percentage of Gingrich voters had Romney as their second choice, and the same for Santorum voters.

We really, really, really need to get current poll data on Santorum and Gingrich voters’ second choices, preferably broken down state-by-state in the upcoming primary and caucus states.

I'm pinging this to the people who seem to be the key Santorum and Gingrich supporters here. I would be extremely unhappy if a pullout by either Gingrich or Santorum had the effect of boosting Romney.

My goal is to defeat Romney in the primary and Obama in the general election. I like Santorum, but I can live with Gingrich. If the best way to defeat Romney is for both candidates to stay in the race and combine their votes at the convention, that's fine with me.

Time is quickly running out and we do not have room for mistakes.

49 posted on 03/14/2012 3:49:24 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Only if he competes..and if he keeps losing home games he’ll stop being competitive.

Gingrich needs to get off his ass and start campaigning.


50 posted on 03/14/2012 5:24:27 AM PDT by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-142 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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