Skip to comments.Newt Gingrich says he's dropping out 'about' May 2 and endorsing Romney [VIDEO]
Posted on 04/29/2012 3:29:52 PM PDT by Innovative
click here to read article
The voters didn't support or vote for Newt. Romney's fix was the works since '08 - it started with Sarah and ended with Newt. And he used his players (the political hungry) to accomplish it. Too many were caught up in his deception to see his deceptive ways. So Romney's fix could NOT have succeeded without the help of voters.
I supported Sarah in '08 and Newt in '12. And not surprising Newt supported and defended Sarah in '08 and The Palin's voted for Newt in '12. People of like mind know their own.
And the PDS'ers are mitt's base. They own him now, he's no concern of mine. He never belonged on the GOP ticket - he should have been dropped kicked off the debates in the first few debates but mitt's enablers first plan was to drop kick Perry to allow mitt to stand.
You truly believe romney even belonged on the GOP ticket? What's his record, what's his credentials as a governor? One is a leader in a cult, the other praises and bows to muzzies. This was the easiest election to pick the RIGHT candidate!
I am right with you and it was refreshing to read the above statement!
I am a Sarah and Newt supporter, also. I’m not disappointed in either of them, they both stand for what I believe and fought the fiery evil darts valiantly. I don’t know if I could do the same. They will always be winners to me.
A very interesting perspective you have. When I was a “mitt-bott” as you claim, I don’t remember you being anything. I’m sure you were, I just don’t remember you as being someone who said anything of consequence that I had to argue with or battle over. There were many I did, and I certainly don’t pretend to remember everybody — I just find you unmemorable from that time. Heck, it was 4 years ago.
I’ve certainly “battled” you more recently, but being against things you say is hardly the same as being “anti-Newt”, or whatever it is you believe you are labelling me. I did prefer Rick Perry over Newt back in the day, although never so much that I became his supporter. When Perry was gone, I was hopeful Rick Santorum could come on strong, as I never held Gingrich as one of our better conservatives, especially the “21st-century” Newt Gingrich. I never was really just a “santorum supporter” though — I supported both men, consistantly argued that both should stay in. My arguments with most Gingrich folks were about their rabid attacks on Santorum, and their over-the-top idolation of Gingrich as the consumate conservative.
It was certainly easier for some to pretend that anybody who didn’t like Newt was just supporting Romney, but being easy is a poor substitute for being the truth.
Fact is, most people at FR didn’t give Gingrich a 2nd thought until everybody else had fallen apart and Gingrich had managed to jump to the top of the polls.
Still, there was a day, before Santorum’s rise, when I was ready to endorse Gingrich. That was the day in December when, with Santorum and Bachmann failing to submit signatures at all, Perry was found to not have 10,000 signatures in Virginia. If Gingrich had made my ballot, he would have been my candidate. I even said so. But when he too failed, I was back to waiting and seeing.
Truth was, I would have supported Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, and even Gingrich, if the conservative base had managed to pick ONE of them. We never did, because too many conservatives had a “my guy or the highway” attitude, rather than a “anybody but Romney” attitude.
Still, I have yet to say anything good about Romney, or to suggest anybody should vote for Romney — because so long as there is one conservative in the race, that is where my loyalties lie. And since Santorum dropped out, I’ve been a Newt supporter — last man standing after all.
When Gingrich drops out, that’s when I will consider the next step. Some have done so already, one way or another. I don’t feel rushed.
I never had any candidate BUT Newt from the get go. Your mittbot stance is known here don’t try to backtrack, you can’t undo your own history. And I’ll point out just ONE thread where you showed you are a mittbot. An I arrived there where others pointed out devotion to mitt, it was already know. The thread where mitt’s cousin - a former mormon was warning voters of a mormon leader being the president. You where relentless in your support of mitt.
You own it now. A Bishop in a cult vs. one who bows and supports the muzzies.
There is no choice for anyone who loves God, Country and Family.
We are left with a write in or third party - which is still an over the top better way as we get to honor God, Country and Family and NEVER EVIL instead of God, never evil for my country and never evil for my family.
I remember the thread about the “former mormon” where some freepers were praising the guy who was an atheist attacking anything having to do with God or religion, who was also a spokesperson for a gay organization.
Somehow, you think that it is a bad thing to note when “conservatives” are praising such a man, simply because they like his particular message.
It’s sad to see you completely missed the point of that thread. It had nothing to do with Romney, and everything to do with the total lack of discernment of a few freepers, the kind who couldn’t pick a screen name.
Given that lack of ability to understand simple thread discussions, I can completely see how you can’t possibly understand the concept that someone might support a candidate in one circumstance and oppose them in the next.
But you probably believe every last thing that was ever said about Mitt Romney. Heck, if someone posted a vanity saying that Mitt was a vampire, you’d probably attack others as “mitt-bots” if they pointed out that vampires are acually mythical characters.
I’m not interested in your back tracking - save it for someone who CAN BE deceived - the Romney way.
You are correct. Let's not forget that Reagan endorsed Nixon in 1968 and in 1972. If he had not done that he would not have been able to mount a serious campaign against Ford in 76 and would not have been able to win in 1980.
He became president due in part that he was in it for the long haul.
IMO, our problem is that we do not have ONE candidate to run against the Republican "chosen" candidate.
In 1980, there were not five conservatives fighting Reagan for the opportunity to run against GHW Bush. Conservatives ran ONE candidate.
If we ever want to duplicate Reagan's victory, we need to do the same.
You seem quite deceived enough already.
Well, now you know how the RiNO B*stardate got their guy through on a Party 70% of whose members absolutely rejected him.
Run over to this bright-eyed, eager conservative and whisper in his ear, "whisper, whisper, whisper", then run over to that one, "whisper whisper whisper whisper", then on and on until about six of them have been dragged in .... None of them named Sarah Palin (there's the key) and none of them capable of uniting the Right.
Duck soup, if your name is Mephistophilis.
Please click the link.
The Republic you save may be your own.
Even Ronald Reagan could not have united the Right this year.
I think our problem is us. Any conservative Republican who held office for more than one term was labelled a RINO or part of the GOP establishment. Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, Daniels, etc. So we shred them to pieces. And we cannot get behind any one candidate.... "Gingrich sat on a couch with Pelosi" "Santorum supported Specter" "Perry gave in state tuition to children of illegal immigrants"
Now we are stuck with a real RINO. The "establishment" didn't do this to us. We did it to ourselves.
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.