Santorum suspension could unite GOP at last

Yorker UK ^ | April 14, 2012 | Benjamin Bland

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Just when everyone was settling down for another month (at least) of borderline primary season tedium, it happened. Rick Santorum announced that, after one of the most surprisingly successful primary campaigns in recent memory, he was suspending his run for the Republican nomination to be President of the United States. What was behind this sudden about turn from the conservative who was closest to pushing Mitt Romney for victory? Well it has to be said that the decision seems largely to have been made on personal grounds. With his three year old daughter, Bella, having been hospitalised last week, noted family man Santorum decided to call it a day.

Of course there were political reasons as well, of that there is no doubt. The Santorum team was clearly frustrated with the failure of Newt Gingrich to pull out of the nomination race, a decision which, had it been made by the former Speaker of the House some time ago, could have resulted in Santorum being far closer behind Romney.

Furthermore the Santorum campaign simply could not have continued to compete with Romney financially for much longer. With his huge budget and supportive poll numbers in states like Santorum’s home state of Pennsylvania, Romney was making life more and more difficult for Santorum to remain a realistic competitor and no doubt that has taken its toll.

Still, it was a surprising move from a man who, as recently as last week, pledged to remain in the race until one candidate had amassed the delegate count needed for victory.

What is perhaps most interesting about the fallout from this Santorum move is the reaction from the Republican party. At the moment little is clear but this could be just the trigger Republicans have needed to finally get behind Mitt Romney as their candidate for November. Polling has suggested that Santorum supporters will now split between Romney and Gingrich and it is now almost a foregone conclusion that Romney will cruise to victory, especially as he is well ahead of Gingrich in polling in large winner takes all states such as California.

The best thing Newt could do of course would be to drop out but his stubbornness still knows no bounds and as such Santorum’s announcement only prompted him to make a plea for more support from conservatives. Realistically though his campaign must realise that only in their wildest dreams will Gingrich stake a claim to the nomination. His polling simply is not good enough and the amount of states coming up which feature winner takes all delegate allocation figures heavily against him as the Romney team will be able to vastly outspend him in the campaigning stakes.

One candidate who it seems will definitely finish the race alongside Mitt Romney is Ron Paul, the libertarian who has run his campaign to promote an ideal rather than with genuine hopes of victory. Paul could be on the list for potential Vice-President nominees, if so inclined, and so it will be interesting to see what he does when the GOP is forced to eventually put its weight behind Romney as its candidate. How soon that open backing of Romney will be remains an open question but senior party figures must be hoping that attention now finally turns to the fight against Obama and not the fight between Republicans.

[JediJones]

Lots of things wrong with the article. California is not winner-take-all. Only two upcoming states are, Delaware and Utah. California is winner-take-all by district.

The idea that the “best” thing Newt can do is pull out. The best thing for who? If Mitt Romney is inevitable, why does he have to spend any money in the primary or talk about Newt at all? He can just start campaigning against Obama.

If Mitt Romney is NOT inevitable, then the best thing Newt can do is stay in and make sure Mitt Romney isn’t the nominee, since the Massachusetts Mormon is virtually unelectable in November. The only way he could be elected is that Obama’s ratings plummet so much that a ham sandwich, or any other Republican candidate, could beat him.

[JediJones]

Newt explained how that interview on Sunday was being mischaracterized to Hannity 2 days later. The GOP-e and their allies at FOX News are desperate to write Newt off and have been ever since last Summer when they mischaracterized his remarks about Paul Ryan’s plan. And they continue to do so such as when he goes on these “lesser” shows on FOX and ALL they do is ask him about Mitt Romney. FUFNC.

http://electad.com/videos/newt-gingrich-talks-to-sean-hannity-april-9-2012/

[JediJones]

Newt has a trophy case full of conservative achievements that Mitt Romney couldn’t even dream about.

Newt took back the House as the public face of the Republican party in 1994 after 40 years out of power.

He fought behind the scenes throughout the ‘80s to keep the Republican party platform conservative, anti-tax and anti-communist.

He stood up to Bush Sr.’s pledge to raise taxes, publically denouncing his plan and drawing the ire of the party elites. The desire to punish him for this courageous act of speaking conservative truth to power remains one of the top reasons the party has tried to sabotage his presidential campaign.

He forced Clinton to pass balanced budgets and welfare reform.

His stewardship over the government’s purse strings coincided with a national economic boom.

He came one vote away from passing a balanced budget amendment that would have prevented the entire fiscal crisis we’re in now.

He sent the partial-birth abortion bans to Clinton which were vetoed, but laid the groundwork for them to be passed under Bush.

Newt along with Reagan are the two great conservative leaders of the last 30 years. They didn’t just talk on TV or the radio, they got concrete results and made things happen, facing up to all of the spiteful and hateful scrutiny that comes from the opposition when you take bold stands like that.

While they were doing that, Romney was denouncing Ronald Reagan’s record, refusing to sign onto Newt’s Contract with America, and losing elections badly.

But the DNC-GOP-e talking point ventriloquists don’t want to talk about all that.

[Agamemnon]

I believe there is actually some kind of law against promising cabinet positions before you are elected.

No law against that. Nominees have to have advise and consent of Senate anyway. Recall Reagan promised to run with (liberal) Richard Schweiker as his VP in 1976 and he wasn't even the nominee yet.

Reagan's doing that in 1976 caused me to favor Phil Crane (R-Illinois) over Reagan in the primaries in 1980, and my heart sunk when he selected GHWBush (Mr. "Supply-side economics = Voodoo economics") over Crane - a natural Reagan ally for VP.

Reagan clearly knew more about what he had to do to win than I did back then.

He was no less conservative for having selected GHWBush than if he'd selected Crane. He just might not have won with Crane. On balance, 1981 - 1988 my brand of conservatism advanced, and at the end, GHWBush could only win by running on Reaganism.

GHWBush lost when he strayed back into his patrician nature and into "Read my HIPS" territory. And the reason GHWBush had to deal with (D) house and Senate is because conservatives got fat and lazy in 1986, when we lost the Senate -- and we were all so content to just leave it all up to Reagan to do the heavy lifting.

Like I said the Presidency is not the office of elected "king." President is Q-back, his cabinet is his team. WE conservatives in the trenches are his foot-soldiers.

Romney's rhetoric has been "24-7 Reagan" in this primary. It's up to us not to sit on our collective conservative asses, buy to continue to hold Romney's feet to the fire.

FReegards!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Newt Gingrich is going after unpledged delegates - that haven't committed in primaries - including upcoming PA (72), and already completed MT (26) and (IL (69) delegates, since these delegates remain unpledged regardless of primary vote.

AND though there are going to be some “winner take all” primaries, the following contests are also on the schedule:

RI (16) proportional
NY (92) proportional
WVA (28) proportional -- elect delegates (who list their presidential pick on ballot)
NC (52) proportional
OR (25) proportional
AK (33) proportional
KY (42) proportional
TX (155) proportional
CA (169) proportional (by district)
NM (20) proportional
SD (25) proportional

The Green Papers

[Cincinatus' Wife]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2872153/posts

“.........The crowd was appreciative of the man who will likely court their votes this fall, but the NRA faithful became far more animated for Gingrich. With his characteristic flourish for sweeping and historical ideas, the former House speaker laid out a guideline for an international gun-rights movement that the NRA’s Cox called “the Gingrich Doctrine.”

“The right to bear arms comes from our creator, not our government,” Gingrich said. The NRA “has been too timid” in promoting its agenda beyond American borders. The Bill of Rights was not written only for Americans, he said. “It is a universal document.”

“A Gingrich presidency will submit to the UN a treaty that extends the right to bear arms as a human right to every person on the planet.” Every world citizen, he said, “deserves the right to defend themselves from those who exploit, imprison, or kill them.” For his latest big idea, Gingrich earned a standing ovation from the crowd of roughly 5,000.

“We don’t need to go across the planet trying to impose American values, but we do need to go across the planet spreading human values,” Gingrich said. “The Second Amendment is a right for all mankind.”

Many establishment Republicans have openly called for Gingrich to give up his quest. His refusal to submit has been described as egomaniacal and destructive. But in St. Louis on Friday, the man who handily won the South Carolina primary but whose campaign is running on financial fumes, seemed as confident as ever.

“This is still a more open nomination process than anyone in the elite media believes,” Gingrich said.”