Four Reasons Why the GOP Nomination Will go to Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich

WeArePolitics.com ^ | 10-13-2011 | Doug Deal

[Billlknowles]

Political fortunes can turn on a dime and for many reasons. At this point four years ago the nominees were obviously going to be Giuliani and Hillary and McCain was going to drop out at any second. Time disproved these assumptions.

For a time, the race has seemed to alternate between Romney and some upstart. Each time, the upstart would peak for a couple weeks and crash back down to reality, only to be replaced by another a little later. The one constant has always been Romney.

This consistency to stay near at top has given people the mistaken belief that Romney will likely be the nominee, but in truth the opposite is true. The ease at which Romney has been overtaken by challenges demonstrates that his support is not strong and that he is very few people's second choice. In a race with so many candidates, that is a very dangerous place to be. And because of this weakness, some candidate will eventually consolidate support around themselves and the candidates most suited to do that are Cain and Gingrich for the following reasons

Newt has been playing it smart. In the debates and in his speeches, he has not done anything to rile up the supporters of his opponents to swear against every voting for him. The other candidates have. How many of Perry's last remaining rats will flee the sinking ship by jumping on Michele Bachmann's lifeboat? How many will jump to Romney?

[RitaOK]

What you say is true. Cain and now Newt rising has proved money, in the primaries at least, is not everything. Newt has been virtually no where and comes in third in several polls.

[FlingWingFlyer]

If they continue hitting each other over the head with rubber chickens during these “debates”, there is no telling what is going to happen.

[pogo101]

You’re comparing Newt Gingrich to Ronald Reagan?

You’re comparing the circumstances of Gingrich’s divorce — he served her in her hospital bed, didn’t he? — to those of Reagan’s — Wyman filed for it, not he?

Wow.

[mamelukesabre]

Yep! But in Reagan’s defense...that divorce happened back when he was a democrat, LOL.

we’ve also not had a fat man elected for 75+ years. Sure, clinton got chubby AFTER he was elected. FDR was a little on the heavy side but not too bad when he was campaigning his first term. But to find a president that was FAT before he got elected...you got to go back a long way.

Not too many with grey hair before they got elected either. Eisenhower, truman, and possibly clinton.

[pogo101]

Or maybe you just meant, divorce is a big negative.

Sorry if I misunderstood. It’s late.

[NavyCanDo]

Like Newt or not, I would pay money to see him in a debate with Joe Biden. That would be like Joe Lewis in the ring with Ronald McDonald

[navyblue]

What you said.

[RitaOK]

Your tag line rocks! Says it all.

In 2010 we fought like ww2 and won, on NO TAXES until SPENDING was slashed.

IT WAS NEVER A REVENUE PROBLEM, IT WAS A SPENDING PROBLEM.

That was pre-”NAN”, “NAN”, “NAN”. Are we fickle or whut? THAT is why the Tea Party is losing its moorings. We are tossing our principle overboard and talking taxation, 999.

[mamelukesabre]

I’m not sure why, but mitt reminds me of a younger, quirkier, geekier version of gerald ford. I think that’s why I see him as VP.

[mamelukesabre]

no sh1t sherlock. If the tea party keeps backing cain, I’m done with the tea party.

[Yosemitest]

There's another reason why the "Establishment" will have to accept Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich as the nominee.
The base is no loner attached to the "Establishment" and wants to teach "Establishment Republicans" a lesson about Ronald Reagan.
Conservatism Wins Elections ... every time it's tried.

There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct by interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[RitaOK]

Thank goodness someone is left who remembers the singular principle, focus, purpose, the chants. One issue. One voice. No taxes. Cut spending. That was then.

[annieokie]

Mitt being VP reminds me of John Kerry. Kerry that VP slot would crown him President. Mitt just might go as nutty as Kerry is. Mitt has bought into the "Its my turn" ilk.

Will the Clintons, Kerry's and Romneys ever go away?

[Netizen]

You’re comparing the circumstances of Gingrich’s divorce — he served her in her hospital bed, didn’t he?

---

AGAIN

I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home. Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.

Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.

It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won’t repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here’s what happened:

My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.

Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.

She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.

The tumor was benign.

As with many divorces, it was hard and painful for all involved, but life continued.

As have many families, we have healed; we have moved on.

We are not a perfect family, but we are knit together through common bonds, commitment and love.

My mother and father are alive and well, and my sister and I are blessed to have a close relationship with them both.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2719860/posts

[annieokie]

Correction: Kerry thought the VP slot........

[ChildOfThe60s]

I wonder if Newt’s “surge”, if it is that, is due more to dissatisfaction with Mitts and Perry, as opposed to Newt himself.

Let’s be realistic, the Dems would have to look pretty hard to find someone that Newt could beat.

If the lefties start beating his drum, it’s because they are concerned about Cain. We know how that works.

[campaignPete R-CT]

The immediate questions are:
1. Who will defeat Romney in Iowa?
2. Who will run a strong race in NH, weakening Romney?
3. Who will defeat Romney in SC?

Might be a different answer for each of the 3. Which is why it isn’t necessarily meaningless that the playing field has multiple alternatives to Mittsta.

Until Romney is sufficiently stopped, all further speculations regarding the full nomination process ... seem to lack of focus.

[fwdude]

Or maybe you just meant, divorce is a big negative.

Yes, over-reactive ones. I'm making the point that even reasonable people STILL see a serious character flaw in divorce - one that is nearly a disqualification for the presidency. When they are serial divorcees, it's doubly a problem.

And no, Newt is not innocent by any stretch. He is an adulterer to boot. That you don't recognize this, mameluke, is appalling.

[G Larry]

According to the folks here on FR, NOBODY could possibly win the election...

[Behind Liberal Lines]

I guess that makes Reagan a RINO ?