Posted on 01/04/2012 8:32:50 AM PST by US Navy Vet
Laura Ingraham: "Can you see a scenario under which the two of you [Santorum and Gingrich] would align together to try to defeat the establishment candidate, Mitt Romney?"
Newt Gingrich: "Absolutely. Of course. I mean Rick and I have a 20-year friendship, we are both rebels, we both came into this business as reformers, we both dislike deeply the degree to which the establishment sells out the American people. We both think Washington has to be changed in very fundamental ways, and we have lots of things that fit together. And the thing that's interesting is if you take the votes, you add to that Perry and Bachmann, you begin to see the size of the conservative vote compared to Romney...if you take, you know, Santorum and Perry and Bachmann and Gingrich you get some sense of what a small minority Romney really represents."
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Although I would up-chuck every time afterward, I would vote for Romney every day of the week over McCain.
Made me smile!
It's all going to depend on how effective Romney's attacks are against Santorum. If Santorum holds up, then he'll likely hang on to the "anti-Romney" movement. If Romney's shots hit home, then some of those folks who shifted from Newt to Santorum may shift back to Newt.
But for Newt himself to go after Santorum would be suicide. He needs Romney to do that dirty work if he still wants to win, and honestly, I think Gingrich is sufficiently vindictive that his support for Santorum over Romney is genuine. But, he'd still like to win himself, so he's not pulling out.
it’s gonna be one or the other...hopefully
i think Mitt’s trashing of Newt in Iowa so badly after Newt was cordial to him
will cause the usually ferocious Newt to shift to Santorum if Newt cannot make it up in South Carolina or Florida
if that happens and Perry goes too which I suspect sooner rather than later then we can beat Mitt
but if they all stay in then we play into Mitt and Rovians and Krauthammerians and other conservative traitors hands
I think Mitt is gonna regret killing Newt in Iowa if the damage holds..
santorum was close becaues he was “last man standing”. The MSM had already written the epitaph.
Santorum does not have enough energy to cut it through.
Gingrich and santorum are splitting the anti romney vote. If the pair up they can out flank romney and suck up the soon to be free perry and backman votes.
Kook paul is not a factor, huntsman does not exist.
Well, have at it, I guess.
If FR could have brought down Romney by now, it would have. So we’ll see if there’s more success at bringing down a real conservative.
Just the nature of politics.
Seems to me that people who have not already committed to Newt are very unlikely to unless Santorum stumbles. The problem the Gingrich campaign has with trying to bring out the big guns against Santorum (and, to some extent, Romney) is that Gingrich is the candidate who is MOST vulnerable to effective negative advertising.
I mean: it’s very easy to convey that Gingrich worked with Freddie Mac and conservatives instantly have their own opinion of what that means. But trying to convey that working for a venture capital firm was bad and so on, it’s just not as easy a sell.
Santorum needs all the help he can get.
True, but it’s not as easy to attack Santorum as it is Gingrich, either.
The problem for Gingrich is that the negative ads against him just write themselves. In fact, nothing needs to be said, the ad can just show pictures — Gingrich + Freddie Mac, Gingrich + Pelosi, Gingrich + Al Sharpton, and on and on.
IOW, Gingrich is a target-rich environment and, what can be said against him, is very easy to convey and is very easily understood by voters who have their own strong opinions of Freddie Mac, Nancy Pelosi, Al Sharpton, etc.
Sure, Santorum no doubt has stuff on which he can be attacked. The question is whether it is stuff that is so very easy to convey in ads and whether it is stuff that taps into voters’ own already-formed opinions about issues.
I heard Hannity the other day decrying the “lies” told about Newt in these ads, one of which claimed Newt supported “amnesty.”
Well, Hell’s Bells, sure one can debate a technical definition of “amnesty,” but the fact remains that Gingrich proposed a plan that had illegal immigrants being allowed to stay in the U.S. Sorry, but, rightly or wrongly, that is VERY EASY to characterize as amnesty.
Moreover, even Gingrich prefaced his proposal by saying something like, “I’m going to get in trouble [with conservatives] for this.” To me, that means he (and Hannity) have given up any basis whatsoever for claiming Gingrich was “smeared” on his immigration issues.
This is Newt’s problem over and over again. Far from being the tough guy that some think, he actually continually makes it easy for his enemies. Again, on immigration, he KNEW he was making it easy for people to say he was for amnesty and he went there anyway. So he took the risk that he would not be able to convince people he was not for amnesty, he has to pay the piper, in my book.
“Newt is a bottom feeder and completely untrustworthy.”
Newt came through on his “Contract with America.” He led a congress that balanced the budget. That showed leadership. It’s silly blanket statements like this that hurt our discourse in the Republican party.
Show me a politician without mistakes or flaws.
Yea I guess you have a point. Sorta
“Santorum doesn’t need him and shouldn’t trust him.
That was my first reaction. Newt wants vengeance only, not a conservative coalition.”
If the result is the same (no more mitt) then who cares what the motives are?
The surging has been shifting back-and-forth between Newt, Santorum and the other conservatives. That’s the whole point of what Newt is saying. They might need to team up in order to prevent Romney winning states with a small plurality like he did in Iowa, especially winner-take-all states like FL. Perry staying in is a huge negative too. His massive money spent and poor showing in friendly territory like Iowa means he needs to GET OUT NOW.
Since Newt is polling higher nationally still, I think he should take the presidential slot. Plus we’d be better off with him debating Obama than Santorum, who seems to suffer from some kind of subtle stuttering speech disorder, which I think is the main reason Rick never got a bump in the polls from the debates, despite his answers being pretty solid on content. He constantly mispronounces a word and then has to correct himself. He would have done better earlier if he was able to get treatment for that speech impediment.
Let’s remember that Newt’s “negatives,” Pelosi, Sharpton, etc. are all stuff that have no effect in the general election. Independents don’t mind the two parties working together, and Obama can’t put an ad out that portrays Pelosi as some kind of witch. Newt is an incredibly strong general election candidate. Santorum has a chance but is so untested and frankly had many performance gaffes in the debate like Perry’s but they went underreported.
Not Sanctimonious, Geeze, have a heart.
Thanks US Navy Vet.
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.