Posted on 04/08/2012 3:59:49 PM PDT by Steelfish
April 8, 2012 Gingrich All But Concedes Race to Romney
By Nathan Hodge
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who once led the polls in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, all but conceded the race Sunday to his rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” Mr. Gingrich called Mr. Romney “far and away the most likely Republican nominee,” adding that he would throw his support behind the front-runner if Mr. Romney secured the required delegates for the nomination.
“If I end up not being the nominee, I have already talked to Chairman Reince Priebus at the Republican National Committee,” he said. “I’d want to work this fall to help defeat [President Barack] Obama any way I could. Whatever the team thinks I can do to be helpful, I would do.”
Both Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney hit each other hard during the primary race. “It turned out he had more things to hit with than I did,” Mr. Gingrich said. “And that’s part of the business.”
But while acknowledging Mr. Romney’s likely nomination, Mr. Gingrich said he would stay in the race to influence Republican thinking on issues from U.S. energy independence to revamping Social Security.
“Platforms matter in the long run in the evolution of the party,” he said. “And the party is more than just a presidential candidate. It’s Senate candidates, House candidates, state legislators.”
Mr. Gingrich’s comments come as Rick Santorum, Mr. Romney’s strongest remaining opponent, canceled campaign events on Monday after his youngest daughter, who has a genetic disorder, was hospitalized.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
People who lose elections, even those elections are just nominations, have a harder time winning future elections.
So, if Santorum is intending another run at the Senate, he may be better off pulling out prior to trying to win his home state and losing. If he pulls out, he can give plausible reasons about doing so for the good of the American people. If he loses, it’s harder to give plausible reasons for losing, other than to say non-electability.
Have you heard his speech referring to the 1976 election? He’s not running to become Senator of PA. He’s running to become president of the united states.
And the best way to do that is to continue to run.
It didn’t hurt Reagan, so why would it hurt him?
Why are you so afraid for him winning in PA? What if he wins? He can’t win if he quits, and he certainly can win.
But we need everyone on deck if we’re to stop Romney. So far this whole lets give newt 10 percent of the vote is handicapping Santorum and giving Mitt a free pass to state after state. WI was no exception.
I’m not afraid of Santorum getting the nomination. I’m just explaining the situation as to how I see it.
The only one who benefits from him dropping out is Romney. It has zero benefit for Santorum to drop out now. Not when TX is still on the ballot.
As I said, all the remaining states would have to pretty much be unanimous behind either Gingrich or Santorum to stop Romney at this point.
I’m not saying he couldn’t be stopped, but it would be difficult to do so.
AMMMEEEENNNN!!!!!!!!
http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php?PageID=810
.
FROM BIBLE CODE DIGEST.COM
Controversial YouTube Videos on
Election Codes 2012
Moshe Aharon Shak has researched the candidates for the 2012 USA election in the Bible code and has presented them in a series of five YouTube videos. We presented three of those videos in an article in the January-March 2012 digest.
As we previously noted, we present this information to our readers with some caveats.
.
I'm not sure what to make of the matrices about Mitt. I do tend to agree with BCDigest that the codes often depict A PERSPECTIVE or an OPINION operating in a future situation rather than a certain destiny.
It appears that the Codes may be hinting at the FACT that the globalist puppet masters choose who will rule as the Presidential figure-head vs an authentic honest Election of the people.
Regardless . . . Scripture is still true . . . God sets up and takes down regardless of how He does it.
And, I think it is clear that God tends to insure that people get the leaders they somehow, as a whole, deserve. This was true of ancient Israel time and again.
Given one hint from Israel that they may put off attacking Iran until next year . . . could that be an indication that the globalists have decided to replace OThuga? Otherwise, it seems to me like they'd be more inclined to attack before OThuga's 2nd term.
And, if Israel does put off such an attack, would that be a clue that the globalists are not QUITE ready to plunge the whole world into WW3 utter chaos, death and destruction?
At about minute 20:00 "This one his heart is scorched" and "This man is finished" are curious code segments . . .
And the segments "My friend, a rebellion!" "Who is for you Newt?" "You will not succeed" don't sound good for Newt.
And regarding, evidently, OThuga . . . as noted at about minute 24:36, the Jeremiah 4:19 matrix:
"My bowels, my bowels! I writhe in pain! No! My bowels!"
"The chambers of my heart! My heart moaneth within me! His heart is scorched."
and
"I cannot hold my peace!"
"And came the sorrow, bitterness, distress"
all do not sound wonderful regarding OThuga.
As I've often noted, the codes tend to be like a lot of surface text prophecies . . . cryptic, mysterious . . . until after the events concerned when they are clearer.
I don't know how I'd judge the alternative press consensus on OThuga, if there is any such consensus. I've seen claims that the oligarchy has decided to flush him--that he angered them--I forget for what particular action--but that he somehow violated their instructions or expectations and greatly angered them sufficiently for them to flush him. I suppose if I had to call a consensus--there's more of one that they will flush him than that they won't. But there are noises on the other side.
I don't see any significant, if any at all, of an indication in the alternative press, that Newt has a chance of being SElected.
Other interesting code segments from the end of video 2 of the 3 videos:
"Strength, protection from 5th November will bring him up [Mitt]."
"Woe to Barack O. Tailing. Dead-beat."
[That sounds encouraging for the country . . . to a degree.]
Time will certainly tell.
That is a typical reaction of someone who feels totally helpless, just the way they left wants people to feel.
You might find my post just above yours a bit interesting.
If so, I’d be interested in your comment . . . as amplified and elaborated as possible. LOL.
Job 1:21 (with cross-references) came to mind on reading your two comments.
James 5:11 As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.
1 Samuel 2:7 The LORD sends poverty and wealth; he humbles and he exalts.
Job 2:10 He replied, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.
Romney lost to Ted Kennedy and to John McCain.
Thanks Quix!
“I am too wanting very much that the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare because this would be even a more powerful victory than winning the Presidency, and that is of course in my humble opinion.”
Yes, I agree with that. I’ve thought about this too-if I had the choice between Obamacare being upheld and a Romney victory in November vs Obamacare struck down (in its entirety) and an Obama victory in November, I would have to choose the latter.
Which may be why Romney is having to spend 20times as much money as Gingrich or Santorum to squeak out wins.
I didn’t say it was impossible to win, just harder. A candidate has a much easier time when he’s coming off from some previous win, then coming from a loss.
Good Biblical points.
Thx thx.
Shouting must have impressed you since it garnered a response. Palin was my choice, but she is dead wrong on this. I have no power over her views. In fact neither do you. It is not only Palin, but veritably every Conservative and some not so conservative spokesperson have spouted the same drivel. I doubt very much that Romney could win, and even worse if he does, we will be in the same socialist soup we are trying desperately to embrace.
I find Santorum to be just as bad as Obama. (IE: just as bad as Romney, too).
He's 180 degrees opposite to foundational concept of America as espoused by Reagan.
Had the alternate to Newt been a states right's advocate with a solid record on individualism... vice statism, I'd be clamoring for candidate. But instead, we have Santorum.
---
Just remember Reagan's essential message, which was:
I'm convinced that today the majority of Americans want what those first Americans wanted: A better life for themselves and their children; a minimum of government authority. Very simply, they want to be left alone in peace and safety to take care of the family by earning an honest dollar and putting away some savings. This may not sound too exciting, but there is something magnificent about it. On the farm, on the street corner, in the factory and in the kitchen, millions of us ask nothing more, but certainly nothing less than to live our own lives according to our values — at peace with ourselves, our neighbors and the world.
And contrast that with Santorum's essential message:
This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.
If a 'Conservative' is someone who believes that it's the job of the Federal government to govern your own d#@n life... then I'm very proud to be a RINO.
And that view means Reagan was a RINO, too.
This again?
What the Founders wrote is that our rights belong not to us, but to God, and that God is the one who grants us our rights, not ourselves, and not the government.
Personal autonomy assumes that we reign over ourselves, the founders assumed that God reigns over us and is the source for our liberty and our rights.
This is why Santorum argues that personal autonomy is not the basis of life in america, and that faith is a very important part of what makes America great, faith in God.
The problem is that Santorum is right about this - personal autonomy as a concept is a concept that the founders never expressed. It comes from Freud - and Freud is antithetical to a healthy life.
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.