Posted on 03/07/2012 3:03:08 PM PST by red flanker
Rick Santorum’s campaign said it’s not planning for any more GOP primary debates, while Newt Gingrich is calling for one to happen before next Tuesday’s contests.
Gingrich said on Monday he planned to attend an upcoming debate in Portland, Ore., hosted by PBS. He also said he wanted there to be more debates, possibly in Mississippi and Alabama, states with upcoming primaries in which the former House Speaker is hoping to do well.
Mitt Romney’s campaign wouldn’t say if the former Massachusetts governor will attend the Portland debate, and the Santorum campaign wouldn’t commit either.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
He vigorously criticized the TARP plan as much as anyone ever has. He only said he would reluctantly vote for it if he was in Congress because something had to be done, but if he was in charge it would have been very different.
He NEVER said “The Era of Reagan is Over.” You will not be able to produce the quote because he never said it, so that proves you’re lying.
The explanations for the rest are on his site:
Debates have defined the last few elections every time. They’re watched by about 70 million people, far more than watch the Republican debates. If Rick makes a jackass of himself like he often does in the debates, you can kiss his election chances good-bye.
You are seriously mentally challenged if you think the “Obama crowds sticking around” is what Newt would even want. You might want to go back and get that G.E.D. before you engage in any more debates on the interwebs.
Rush Limbaugh from 2008 in regards to Newt’s book.
“I don’t know this. It’s just a wild guess, but based on this comment, “The Reagan era is over. The George W. Bush era is over. We’re at a point in time we’re about to start redefining, as a number of people have started talking…” Yes, they are. Every one of these Republicans is starting to talk about redefining the party, and this has been going on since the early days of this, not just now.
If you recall, all during last year, I told you this was my big concern: that Reaganism and conservatism were going to be redefined so as to fit the mold of whoever these guys on our primary roster are.
One of the things that Newt said is “redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs.” Something about that rubs me wrong. Something about that sort of grates on me. The Republican Party is supposed to sit out there and I guess (slurps) moisten its index finger, stick it in the air, find out what people want, and be that?
That’s not who we are! Now, it may be who populists are. In fact, it is exactly who populists are. Even if you have no intention of following through on what you plan to do as you promise all these wonderful things to your supporters, as a populist. But this is not what the Republican Party has been. It’s what the Democrat Party had been.
“Figure out what the country needs” and then do it? We know what the country needs already! That’s our ace-in-the-hole. One of the things Newt said in this interview was, “Far beyond just how do I subsidize your heating oil, how do I make it unnecessary for you to buy as much heating oil? And there are dramatic things we can do in that conversation.” Now, “How do I…?” He means a president, running a campaign, not him.“How do I subsidize your heating oil?” We Republicans are going to talk about subsidizing people’s heating oil now, and we’re going to call that conservatism?
If you want to talk about that, fine! If that’s what you want the Republican Party to be, then be that and go ahead and say that’s what you want, but don’t call it conservatism.
“There are dramatic things we can do in that conversation. I want to make it unnecessary for you to buy as much heating oil“? Now, conservation is great, folks. Conservation is great, but conservation does not equal growth.
To sit out there and say people need to buy less and less heating oil, okay. Buy natural gas furnace, or any number of things, but if this country has always been about: “You need heating oil? It’s going to be there. You need gasoline? It’s going to be there.“
The burden is not on you to conserve so that it’s always there! It’s economic. Capitalism is the greatest force for change in the world!
Mark Steyn has a brilliant piece today on this very subject. It’s how capitalism forces major innovation and change, not politicians, not Washington, not government. They don’t force any kind of change other than in primaries with perception and attitudes and make people think that they’re going to be better off, but it is capitalism that forces genuine change throughout culture and throughout society.
Newt could have just as easily said here that conservative principles don’t change, that the Reagan coalition is simply looking for leadership and that we need to bring more creative policy alternatives to the table than we have in the recent past.
But that’s not what he said. He said, “THE ERA OF REAGAN IS OVER. … It’s the end of the Reagan era.” It is not.
If the Reagan era is over, if the Reagan coalition is dead, what replaced it? Could somebody tell me? Precisely nothing has replaced it, and that’s why so many people are scratching their heads, why so many people are a little nervous, because there isn’t any real leadership out there that causes people and inspires people to get behind it and go rah-rah and make certain things happen.
I mean, is there a Gingrich coalition that has replaced the Reagan coalition? For that matter, what is the McCain coalition? If we’re going to have a new era, what is the McCain era? What is the Huckabee era? What is their winning coalition? They don’t have one.
You know, all this sounds like Third Way kind of talk, the triangulation of the Clinton years in the nineties. But I don’t know what the McCain era would be, and I don’t know what the Huckabee coalition is. They don’t have a coalition. They’re out trying to get votes of independents and Democrats. They’re pandering to moderates and independents.
Folks, I just want you to think about this: What happens if either of these two guys happen to win, attracting the votes of independents, moderates, the Jell-Os, and Democrats? Does that not equal the demise of the Republican Party? Do you think McCain’s out there actually trying to get Republican votes? Is Huckabee trying to get Republican votes? Romney is. Giuliani is. Fred Thompson certainly is. But if we have a nominee that is a nominee on the basis of moderate and independent and Democrat voters, then what happens to the Republican Party?”
So, what do you think about Santorum being afraid to debate Newt? Think he’s got what it takes to combat Obama? When he won’t challenge Mitt, and won’t debate Newt?
What is the point of more debates?
Total BS. Back in early December, when Rick was at the bottom of the polls and Newt was on the uptick, Rick challenged Gingrich to a one-on-one in Iowa. Newt declined, apparently because at the time he felt he had nothing to gain.
Now that the tables are turned, Newt and his supporters are are going to try and paint Rick as a "chicken." Rick owes Newt the same response Newt gave Rick. No sale.
Santorum hasnt dodged debates. He’s been to 20 of them. What is the point of another?
I think Newt has no room to whine when he could have accepted Santorum's challenge to a Lincoln-Douglas debate in December but Newt chickened out.
I think Newt has no room to whine when he could have accepted Santorum's challenge to a Lincoln-Douglas debate in December but Newt chickened out.
There have been 21 debates so far, what have you been smoking? Last I checked, Santorum was at ALL those debates, plus he was the only person that agreed to debate with Newt at the Trump debate when everyone else pulled out.
You sound like what you accuse Santorum of being: Whiny “Wah-wah, mommy, Ricky won’t debate me, he’s not playing fair, wah-wah”.
Your guy had his chance and blew it.
And I don’t worry about the debates in the fall because unlike you, I understand Obama is a lightweight. We sent a guy to debate Obama last time that for the most part didn’t like conservatives or even knew the principles to stand up for in those rounds. Santorum would mop the floor with Obama. Hell, I could mop the floor with the Marxist. Not that it matters because the media will spin it for Obama anyway.
I can’t do this, friend.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4128020&page=1#.Tw3KmoEeW9x
TRANSCRIPT Newt Gingrich Talks with George
January 13, 2008
Look, I think there are dramatic changes we need in this country.
We produced a platform of the American people at American Solutions. And it’s at the back of our book “Real Change.” It’s also at Americansolutions.com. Every single item on the list has a majority of Democrats, majority of Republicans, majority of independents favoring.
The easiest one is making English the official language of government.
Look, I think the first two things the president and the Congress can do on the economy is cut spending. If you’ll notice, you have a primary in Michigan, a state which artificially had a recession, because its government is so bad, its taxes are so high, its unionized work rules are so destructive, that Michigan was in a recession when the rest of the country was growing.
Part of — real change focuses — a long section on Detroit.
The truth is, large bureaucracies are destructive. High taxes are destructive. The system we’ve built discourages any business from opening up in Detroit. The schools don’t deliver. They do deliver paychecks. They do take care of the union. But they don’t deliver for the kids. And this is at a time when if you’re an African- American male and you drop out of high school, you have a 73 percent chance of being unemployed and a 60 percent chance of going to jail.
So I think we need dramatically deeper and more fundamental change.
So — but let’s take things the American people agree on. The American people agree you ought to make it easier to build oil refineries in the United States if you want to bring down the price of oil.
The American people agree that you ought to set up prizes for major breakthroughs. And that would be very different than the system we’ve used since World War II.
The American people, in fact, agree that we ought to have tax credits for people who are willing to go to greater conservation for their homes. I mean, far beyond just how do I subsidize your heating oil, how do I make it unnecessary for you to buy as much heating oil?
The Congress and the president do have an opportunity to listen to the American people, who are saying that real change does matter, and the real change is what they want.
The way the McCain/Feingold law currently discriminates against the middle class, is it sets up a system by which, you know, if you’re the mayor of New York and you’re Bloomberg and you’re worth $11 billion, you can contemplate buying the presidency and get away with it. If you are a self-, you know, a multi-millionaire governor and you want to, you can buy a nomination.
And so, I just think there’s nothing unhealthy about the Republican Party having a serious discussion. We are at the end of the George W. Bush era. We are at the end of the Reagan era.
We’re at a point in time where we’re about to start redefining — as a number of people have started talking about, we’re starting to redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs.
I’m sick of everyone acting like Newt had his chance stolen. First of all, the FL debate helped derail Newt with his poor performance. Then he had a good AZ debate but it didn’t undo the damage.
And I personally think it’s about more than debates. I think Newt took Iowa personally and became obsessed with Romney. It wasn’t a good side of him and it stuck with many voters.
I doubt you could "mop the floor with the marxist". You can't even mop the floor with me.
Oh, come on. Santorum is the front running conservative even though newt is good at debates.
It’s newts big thing. If he were good at juggling, he’d want a juggle off.
At this point we need to get behind One of the conservatives, the one who can beat Romney, or else we have Romney.
Come, let’s make the RINO pundits scream. Let’s get behind santo and win. It’s not worth dying on newt hill, if it gets us Romney.
I hate mean people.
I think it’s both. With Sarah, her stump speeches set her campaign on fire while the debate was a non-starter. Newt got his bumps from debates but Santorum’s numbers come from stump speeches. Depends on the candidates and their strengths.
Santorum may have learned his lesson in the last debate when Romney and Ron Paul formed a tag team to attack him. Now that Gingrich wants to join that tag team, Santorum would be foolish to subject himself to that.
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.