Posted on 01/04/2012 12:59:12 PM PST by teddyballgame1
You were right.
Gingrich actually tried to keep the candidates on the attack against Obama, rather than on the attack against each other. In terms of the other candidates, he had the naive faith that the best ideas would prevail and that personal weaknesses (such as Cain’s serious problems and lack of ideas) would make candidates wash out. And he was very generous to them and never attacked them when they were down, and was one of the only people courteous to the unfortunate Herman Cain.
Romney was never generous to anybody, was never questioned by the press about anything, and thus could spend his bucks attacking the other candidates (since Romney himself has nothing to offer).
Gingrich should go for the jugular. Romney has never had to express an honest opinion, support or defend any past position, or even give a clear statement about his future plans. Gingrich should call him on it.
Santorum is valuable only because he took votes away from Ron Paul. But Santorum, while he may have a lovely wife and family, has absolutely no ideas and nobody will even have to trash him because he’s no threat.
The whole strategy of the Dems is to get us to nominate someone Obama can beat easily. He could beat Romney with no trouble at all because many in the GOP will not vote for Romney, and he could also beat Santorum because Santorum will be revealed as exactly as lame and idea-free as he was when he lost in his own state by 18 points.
Gingrich should attack.
Thanks, I couldn't recall who Cheney said it to.
Very true.
I strongly believe Newt cannot win in the general against Obama. His behavior todat strenthens that belief.
I fear that Santorum may wither against Obama but am hopeful he will prevail.
I’m supporting Santorum in this matchup.
[singing] One, two, three strikes he’s out teddyballgame1....
And his alter ego, teddyballgame, got the zot too! He should have given his sleeper account a not-so-obvious name.
MITTBOT ZOT! MITTBOT ZOT! MITTBOT ZOT! MITTBOT ZOT! MITTBOT ZOT!.......
Soooo, can anyone tell me how many delegates the top three got? 7-7-7 or 13,12,0 or what?
I think when someone says a politician is for amnesty, he is trying to tag the person as being for blanket amnesty.
I think Newt has made it clear, that there are some people in this country, who have been here over 25 years, (not 10, not 5, not 20), but 25 who should be given a path to legality.
He also says that the immigration issue is one that might be best to deal with as we did with local draft boards.
Newt has a plan on his website. You can call it amnesty, you can call it what you want. Bottom line is that ROmney has distorted the man’s opinion.
Excellent clear and accurate assessment. I for one, don’t want “a nice guy” in the WH. I want someone who is a leader. Obama is not a leader. There has never been a president in my life time who was a partisan and petty as this guy. He doesn’t represent me as an American, rather, people like me, simple Americans are the enemy.
We have a war going on in our country. Santorum is a nice guy, but he is not the leader we need. Newt will treat our enemies like they treat us. He’s treating Romney the way Romney decided to treat him, and it back fired.
To congratulate Romney for his “win” in Iowa would be adding insult to injury.
BTW, did Santorum call Romney and congratulate him?
The morning after the debate, Gingrich was already swamped with accusations from a wide variety of quarters that he was supporting amnesty, for example, HERE, which is a typical example describing Gingrich's plan as about amnesty ("The plan seeks to break the political deadlock over whether to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants by splitting them into two groups.")
Sorry, but Gingrich knew VERY WELL that when he said what he said, how he said it, when and where he said it, that he was going to have to fend off accusations that his plan amounted to amnesty. He specifically said he was "ready to take the heat for that."
Then when his political opponents brought the heat, instead of accepting responsibility for explaining away the mess he himself made, he wails about how he's being lied about and it's so unfair.
It's not unfair and Gingrich knows it. He PREDICTED that his comments would be viewed as advocating a form of amnesty.
Whether his plan does or does not constitute amnesty is beside the point here. We are talking about political strategies.
Gingrich knowingly and deliberately made it VERY EASY for his opponents, from the minute he said it in that debate and forward (go back and watch the tape and read the threads about AMNESTY here on FR the next day), to characterize his position as allowing illegal immigrants a way to stay in the U.S.
Again, this is precisely what he claimed he was "ready to take the heat for."
Except he wasn't ready to take the heat. And he didn't go out there the day after the debate, and the day after and the day after, and make damn sure that HE explained himself again and again, if necessary.
Saying "Newt has a plan on his website" has zero impact on how politics gets done in the real world.
But the fact is that Gingrich proposed to allow at least some illegal immigrants to stay, be provided a "path to legality," which everyone knows then makes them, just by virtue of being here legally, eligible to apply for citizenship. Please check the voluminous FR threads on these points in the days after he made this proposal. These discussions about amnesty and Newt's proposal were not had by a bunch of Romney supporters; they were based on what NEWT SAID.
Gingrich made this mess and he didn't clean it up. End of story. So he had to pay the piper.
To go from that to crying that his opponents "lied" about the very thing he predicted they would say if he said what he said shows a shocking level of political incompetence (or delusions of grandeur). Gingrich would have been in a much stronger position to have simply said, "I said all along they were going to peg me as an amnesty supporter, but here's how my policy is not amnesty."
As it is: call the whhhhaaaaaaambulance.
Oh, ouch. That hurts...NOT!
Supporting Mitt Romney, how very...liberal. Idiot! What a douche.
Even if you're correct that Gingrich's position has been distorted, blaming this on Romney is a hoot.
Please watch the debate tape where Bachmann (and, I think, one other candidate) immediately said Gingrich's plan amounted to a form of amnesty.
Please google all the hundreds of articles the day after the debate where Gingrich said this that talk about whether his proposal amounts to a form of amnesty.
Please look at the threads on FR the day after the debate where many freepers, who are not Romney supporters, were hotly debating Gingrich's proposal and many saw in it a form of amnesty.
As I said in my previous post, Gingrich made this mess and he looks mighty dumb blaming others for throwing it back at him. Especially after he specifically predicted they would!
You seem to prefer hypocrites - says alot about you, newbie. Your PC liberalism is showing.
What a silly article. Mitt spent 4 mil & barely squeeked out a victory in a caucus. He didn’t win the nomination.””
There were more Iowa caucus voters this year than in 2008.
Mitt got FEWER votes this time than he got in 2008.
Let’s see——more VOTERS===fewer votes.
I say Mitt LOST big time !!!!!!!
I don’t know the cost per vote comparison because I don’t know how much Mitt spent in 2008 in Iowa.
expose him for the sniveling shapeshifter he is. “””
Best description I have heard of Mitt.
I may use this in discussions.
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.