Posted on 11/25/2011 10:42:04 AM PST by presidio9
It remains a foregone conclusion that Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican Presidential nominee. The only problem is, the polls suggest something else, and there is no evidence to suggest any degree of momentum or support rallying the former Massachusetts governor.
What the polls show, increasingly, is that Newt Gingrich is solidifying his position as the anti-Romney, and in the last week, 3 national polls have come out showing that the former Georgia Congressman and Speaker of the House holds a 2-5 point lead in national Republican primary polls.
More specifically though, Gingrich is leading in a couple of Iowa polls, and in at least one New Hampshire poll has polled within a couple of points of Romney.
To be sure, most of the New Hampshire data shows Romney with a substantial lead, but New Hampshire would be the only state where Romney enjoys anything approaching a comfortable margin. And indeed, if the Iowa numbers which show Gingrich in the lead were to hold true on Caucus day, January 3rd, almost certainly it would provide momentum for Gingrich that would make New Hampshire competitive.
The South Carolina surveys show a commanding 14-15 point lead for Gingrich, and Florida is close to a statistical tie between Romney and Gingrich.
Moreover, Gingrich has recently positioned himself as a Tea Party conservative, and hence the alternative to Romney. But also, Gingrich is a fairly original thinker. He is somebody who improbably enough might even be able to get back toward the center on at least some issues in a general election against President Obama.
By speaking about the urgency of immigration reform, Gingrich took a position in the debate Tuesday night which can only benefit him going forward, should he be the nominee, recognizing the absurdity
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Actually, Newt was the keynote speaker at the first Tea Party, on April 15, 2009, two blocks from Zucotti Park/Liberty Plaza. His speech was broadcast live on Hannity. I remember, because I was there.
You really think with 70%+ of voters completely pissed at the Political/Fiscal Establishment nomination the one GOP candidate the 0 Campaign can credibility paint as a "DC Insider" is going to work? You really think nominating the once candidate incumbent President can run as an "outsider" against is going to work politically?
What thinking people cannot understand is the same 2008 Cult of McCain Freepers, who are now the 2011 Cult of Newt Freepers, managed to learn nothing from 2008.
You really think with 70%+ of voters completely pissed at the Political/Fiscal Establishment nomination the one GOP candidate the 0 Campaign can credibility paint as a “DC Insider” is going to work? You really think nominating the once candidate incumbent President can run as an “outsider” against is going to work politically?
Is the author serious? I am willing to bet Newts' HQ is in full blown panic mode over Newts' jumping the shark on illegal immigration.
The Freeperinos clearly only approve of 3 candidates:
Michele
Cain
Santorum
Combined, they are at 20% in the early states.
Is there somebody here who is actually doing something for Cain in IA? Or any of the 3 in any early state? They are all dead in NH. So what is the strategy besides boycotting the process and bashing candidates? That alone does not seem to be getting results.
There is an alternative even if going to IA and campaigning for the special threesome isn’t possible.
You are behind the times Johnnie, Newt lost me on illegal immigration. I no longer have a candidate in the race. Hoping something worthwhile shows up either in the GOP or in a 3rd P
Write off the GOP’s future if he does win.
New immigrant USA citizens vote 80% for the Democratic Party.
Gingrich, McCain, George W., Rick Perry, Huntsman, even Ron Paul.....
Do these guys really not understand basic math?
Amnewty.
Gingrich's solution would seal the border, deport criminals, facilitate the integration of highly skilled professionals, and define litmus tests for those seeking legality. These tests include ALL of the following: a criminal background check, community ties, proficiency in the English language, and an ability to support oneself via employment without the assistance of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs. Applicants who meet these qualifications will have to pay a penalty of at least $5,000 and have to prove on a regular basis that they can support themselves without entitlement programs and pay for health insurance or be deported. Most importantly, these people would not be granted citizenship (and the right to vote that comes with it). The only path to citizenship to be granted would be for those who did not come here themselves, but were brought here at a young age by their parents. Those people could obtain citizenship in return for a period of military service.
What you are doing here is attacking a sensible vivification with buzzwords. It is a favorite tactic of liberal politics, and it is the primary reason why we have been unable to reform entitlements like Social Security after fifty years of knocking our heads against the wall.
Instead of attacking Gingrich, you should be talking up your preferred candidate, and the strategy he or she is proposing. I won't hold my breath though.
I doubt it. What he proposed may lose him some votes. But it will gain more for being highly calculated and sensible. Immigration is a major issue on FR, and with roughly 10% of th electorate. The rest of the country worries about other things. In a general election, Gingrich could sit on a couch with Hugo Chavez, and he wouldn't lose Texas. The immigration policy makes him a stonger Republican candidate in the remaining border states.
The term “amnesty” in American politics implies citizenship for immigrants who are here illegally. In our legal system, it usually implies a “one time only” forgiveness of sins, such as a tax amnesty. That’s not what Gingrich is proposing.
Gingrich’s solution would seal the border, deport criminals, facilitate the integration of highly skilled professionals, and define litmus tests for those seeking legality. These tests include ALL of the following: a criminal background check, community ties, proficiency in the English language, and an ability to support oneself via employment without the assistance of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs. Applicants who meet these qualifications will have to pay a penalty of at least $5,000 and have to prove on a regular basis that they can support themselves without entitlement programs and pay for health insurance or be deported. Most importantly, these people would not be granted citizenship (and the right to vote that comes with it). The only path to citizenship to be granted would be for those who did not come here themselves, but were brought here at a young age by their parents. Those people could obtain citizenship in return for a period of military service.
What you are doing here is attacking a sensible vivification with buzzwords. It is a favorite tactic of liberal politics, and it is the primary reason why we have been unable to reform entitlements like Social Security after fifty years of knocking our heads against the wall.
Instead of attacking Gingrich, you should be talking up your preferred candidate, and the strategy he or she is proposing. I won’t hold my breath though.
Terrific post.
I’m calling the fight here. You win. The anti-Newt cultists are spinning around the ring in a daze punching at shadows. I’m calling the fight right now.
That isn’t realistic. That government can’t check all those things.
*The government can’t check all those things.
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.