Posted on 01/16/2012 11:27:01 AM PST by VinL
The withdrawal of Jon Huntsman from the Republican presidential race is drawing a range of reactions from his competitors. Newt Gingrich told Politico that he could be a beneficiary of the move.
"It narrows down the field, and I think the next five or six days are going to tell the tale. If the conservatives consolidate, it's clear that I'll beat Romney,” he said.
Gingrich said he is looking forward to the candidates debate in South Carolina tonight. “I'm having to re-gear myself,” he said.
“Notice that they said we're now going to get 90 seconds to answer. The next five days are going to be wild. Really, the test here is simple: If the conservatives consolidate, Romney loses decisively. If they don't consolidate, it's going to be very close,” he said, referring to the South Carolina primary on Saturday.
Meanwhile, Rick Perry apparently will miss the campaign entertainment that Huntsman’s three daughters. "I was hoping I'd get the Huntsman girls,” he said, lamenting the fact that Huntsman moved into former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s camp when he dropped his own bid today.
“We love the Huntsman girls, our kids get along well, and Mary Kaye [Huntsman’s wife] and Anita [Perry’s wife] are best friends. Jon’s a dear friend, too, and we’ve had a wonderful time getting to know the candidates.”
Although Huntsman and Perry were competing for the same job,
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
You will have to vote for Newt in order to find out what’s in Gingrichcare.
Your post is precisely what I am talking about. If Gingrich and his supporters are going to jack up the regulation on business under the guise of “ethical capitalism,” then count me out. “Ethical capitalism” can mean a lot of things. Obama will tell you it means we need labor unions in every industry. We need government overseers watching everything business does. If they step out of bounds by shutting down a business, and we don’t agree that it should be shut, then we stop them. That’s not capitalism. It’s socialism, and if Gingrich can’t see that, then he’s not qualified to hold this office any more than Obama is.
Well, since you’ve decided to rewrite the iron rule of politics that an unpopular incumbent can be defeated by an even more unpopular challenger, I’m sure both Senator Katherine Harris and Senator Sharron Angle agree with you.
You can say that again. Sadly, there are many here willing to play political suicide just to see some debate between Obama and Newton Leroy. This will be McCain all over again.
Do you think repeatedly insulting me and dodging points will change the fact Newt can’t win the general election ?
There, fixed it. In case you haven't noticed, Santorum is closer to overtaking Romney in the delegate count than Gingrich.
At this moment CST, Mark Levin is on FOX. DVR the re-run.
I have listened to Beck and Limbaugh daily for a few years now and really valued their analyses, but the Newt bashing as of late has made me turn them off.
As to Beck bashing Newt, how does he know what parts of FDR and Wilson’s presidential ideals Newt likes. Newt has never said he is a big government progressive. Is Beck’s George Washingtonlike candidate Mitt Romney? It seems so.
“Gingrich ought to know by now that if you find yourself locked in a loving embrace with the Donks, there are 99 to 1 odds it’s going to turn out to be a great folly.”
More importantly, conservatives ought to know by now that if they vote for a candidate that finds himself locked in loving embraces with the Donks, and periodically other women, there are also fairly sure odds it’s going to turn out to be a great folly.
Wonder twins power activate lol. Form of a non fat old nasty white guy who throws out leftit ephithets. lol
Meant to say “Cavuto”, on FOX.
Don’t try to divert attention from what Gingrich said. He said that buying businesses for the purpose of shutting them down is not ethical. That’s what the issue is.
****************
I never divert an argument. -:)
If the issue is that buying a business to shut it down is unethical- I would agree. Certainly, it is permissible, legal, and probably profitable-— but whether or not it is morally defensible is another matter. I wouldn’t do it- others might. It’s a matter of one’s ethics.
My point, is that the GOP Establishment has absolutely no standing to venture any opinion on capitalism- when the Establishment doesn’t practice it. The Establishment is a plutocracy- socialism for the rich.
75%f America defended capitalism by saying that “too big to fail” banks should not be bailed out- they should be allowed to fail on capitalist principles. And the GOP Establishment said— “you have no say in the matter. We’ll give taxpayer money to whomever we damn well please. Now, you pay your mortgage or go out into the street— but Goldman Sachs and the banks get however much taxpayer money they need because that’s how the American system operates.”
And Mr. Romney– he’s just they’re kind of guy.
They don’t want to hear it. Newt is their own version of “Hopium.” It will be a cakewalk for the media/Zero getting Newt’s negatives way, way up. Notice they cannot come up with any scenario to negate the iron rule of politics as I cited. But I’ll be so kind as to give them one... Only if the far-left decides to field a viable third party challenger (a la Nader 2000), and we know that’s not happening, could Newt overcome such a deficit. But, hey, why listen to somebody who called it right on Ah-nold, Angle, Harris, Scuzzyflavor, and a host of other destructive candidates and candidacies over the years ? No doubt they’ll all be lining up to apologize to me after the election... yeah.
Yeah, I heard the same thing about Iowa and New Hampshire too. How's that Gingrich Momentum-change working out for you?
“If the issue is that buying a business to shut it down is unethical- I would agree.”
This is where we depart. It’s not unethical. Some businesses are better shuttered so that the people and assets can be used in a more productive way. That is why capitalism has shown itself to be superior to socialism. In a market driven system, you get efficiency. In a socialist system, someone like Obama or Gingrich decides what business should or shouldn’t do.
I am not necessarily trying to defend Romney, but Gingrich’s comments are basically socialist in my opinion. Maybe Romney thinks the same thing Gingrich does, for all I know. Afterall, Romney was not in the business of buying businesses to shut them down. He was trying to rehabilitate them, and sometimes failed. But irrespective, both of those pursuits are entirely appropriate, and it’s none of the freaking government’s business.
When Gingrich rides the same demagoguery that Obama is riding, I get off.
Yea, but what's the price of tea in China?
For something actually relevant see: ARG South Carolina Poll: Romney 29, Gingrich 25 (Santorum 7)
They won't need much help. Newt's negatives are already way up (somewhere around 48%). And there is nothing Newt can do at this point to change that. There is no way the GOP can win with a candidate having negatives that high. There's really not much difference between Newt and Mitt in that regard. But with a relative unknown such as Santorum, he doesn't bring any baggage into the race (except with the gay lobby), and because of this, he has a much better opportunity to garner the support of a majority of Americans. I don't see why the Newt supporters cannot grasp that simple fact. They seem to be hell bent on some suicide mission to relive the glory years of the Clinton Administration where Newt resigned from office in disgrace as a failed leader.
Hey!! Let's see, how does the fieldmarshal's argument go again .......
... if candidate A has 48% unpopularity and candidate B has 55% unpopularity, which candidate wins a general election ? (I’ll give you a hint, it’s candidate A... and candidate A is Newt Gingrich!)
Well, since you’ve decided to rewrite the iron rule of politics that an unpopular incumbent can be defeated by an even more unpopular challenger, I’m sure both Senator Katherine Harris and Senator Sharron Angle agree with you
******************
I honestly didn’t know that was the “iron rule”. We are talikng about the Presidency, right?
My experience is that most Americans vote on the economy- so for instance, Clinton won election because the economy was failing- and then, notwithstanding his scandals, won re-election because the stock market was soaring.
And according to the polls, voters liked Carter more than Reagan—but voted for Reagan because of the “misery index”.
I don’t know much about Harris and Sharon. But, no matter, if it’s an “iron rule”— you must be right.
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.