The Quandary that is the Newt Gingrich Supporter (Vanity)

Well folks, in the last debate, you saw the “great” Newt Gingrich in action. Particularly, you saw Newt bring out his “ingenuous” answer when faced with opposing conservative thought. That is, “I am way smarter than you guys and know how to handle this complex issue better than you. Why don’t you get a clue and leave me to handle the situation the way I want to, because my way is the best way whether you choose to believe it or not.”.

In the example above, Gingrich was referring to dealing with the millions of illegals currently residing in the United States. Gingrich laid out his view that some illegals should be granted what would easily be amounted to as amnesty, and opted to “take the heat” for the position, relying on what he believes is superior intellect.

But this isn’t the only time Gingrich has pulled out this “ingenuous” answer, and it certainly won’t be the last. Gingrich has used the same response in regards to defending his statements on climate change. He has also used this answer to defend his eventual support for TARP after he came out against it in many television interviews. And who could forget him resorting to this response when he was called out for his explanation of throwing Paul Ryan under the bus and his “right-wing social engineering” comments?

This inexplicable and unacceptable behavior by Gingrich isn’t secretive by a long shot. Indeed, many conservatives and most FReepers wrote Gingrich off when he initially entered the 2012 race, because Gingrich had proven time and time again that he could not be trusted.

Now, due to a Republican primary season that has seen a myriad of candidates rise and fall to challenge ultimate RINO-Mitt Romney, Gingrich seems to be the latest beneficiary as the “default” choice. The one area that has allowed Gingrich to succeed has been in the debates, of which there have been 11 so far. Using a formula of talking at a superior level so as to appear above the fray and attacking whoever the MSM moderators are for that particular debate, Gingrich has tried to manipulate the conservative masses into ignoring his past record. Somewhere along the lines, Trust but Verify was exchanged for “Who looks like they can talk better and whip Obama in a debate, regardless of what the person’s record really is?”

What is really strange about the question just asked is that this is the exact position that the people on Team Romney have centered their campaign around. Repeatedly, the MSM have labeled Romney the best to take on Obama because he “looks and sounds Presidential”, despite the fact that Romney has an atrocious record of flip-flopping that make it nearly impossible to figure out where exactly the man stands on anything.

With the other candidates, Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, and to some extents even Perry, you don’t have to wonder about where they actually stand on the issue. They have a record and stand by it, or in Cain’s case, have explained their stance as thoroughly as possible. For the most part, these individuals were regarded as the real conservatives of the race.

But for some people (i.e. Newtbots/Romneybots, etc), having the conservative credentials isn’t as important as having someone that can get up on stage and make Obama look like an idiot, regardless of whether their candidate believes what they actually say or can be trusted. This, no doubt, is what I refer to as the “American Idol” or “Dancing with the Stars” voter. It’s part of the dumbing down of American society.

This past month, after Cain appeared to be weakened by bogus harassment claims and gaffes that weren’t really gaffes, a group of people known as the “Newtbots” (or Newtonians) began to emerge on FR. Now, all candidates have their various supporters that do what they can to spread the word, but the emergence of the Newtbots is quite unique, in that prior to November, they were for the most part non-existent despite the fact Gingrich had been in the race since May. As you can tell from many of their postings, these guys really love Newt and have done everything they can to “rewrite” Newt’s history of questionable statements to match their support.

My only question to these guys is “where the hell were you back in May?” A quick look-through of the posting history of many of the most active Newtbots will show that many of them did not actively post on FR prior to just a few months ago. In fact, some hadn’t been here since the last election cycle. If they felt so strongly about Newt, then why weren’t they trying to build him up when he first got in? Why did these people mysteriously hide under a rock until November to spring out all at once?

The Palin people have been here since Day 1. Even the Perry people were active in May posting positive stories about him months before he got in. Even Cain had a small legion of loyal friends here helping him before the Cain Train really took off as the main beneficiary of Sarah Palin’s decision not to run. Even I was active doing what I could to help Michele Bachmann get out of the gate to a strong start. The bottom line is we were all here ready to go to bat and help our preferred candidate. The Newtbots, however, have no such history. Why?

For the simple reason: They’re as fake as Newt himself.. Conservative records be damned to them, they want someone they “think” will crush Obama in a debate, and it makes no difference to them whether the person actually believes what they say or not. To them, looking and sounding Presidential is more important than actually being a conservative. In other words, the Newtbots are arguing that Newt would make a better Mitt Romney than even Romney!

Many of the Newtbots have been particularly vicious in their attempts to smear the other conservative candidates. They have tried their hardest to make FReepers buy into the MSM notion that Herman Cain is an illiterate idiot and guilty sex offender who cannot be given the keys to the White House (despite Pillsbury giving him CEO responsibilities over Burger King and Godfather’s), that Michele Bachmann is indeed a “flake”, not ready for prime-time, etc. They are quick to try and get the race into a Newt v Romney competition. Why?

Because the typical “Newtbot” really isn’t a Newtbot at all. They’re actually Romneybots. All one needs to do is read article after article posted by these people trying to defend Gingrich’s positions on amnesty, climate change, and the individual health mandate. Defending Newt’s liberal record on these issues is equivalent to defending Romney’s record, because they are one and the same. It’s hilarious to be reading through their comments and finding they use the same language McCain used for which he was lambasted, even though it was well known Romney and McCain shared virtually the same positions, that Newt is now advocating.

But this potential amnesty “gaffe” by Newt happened too soon for the posing Newtbots, who are actually Romneybots. They need Newt to be propped up for at least 3-4 more weeks before they “officially” turn on him, so that little time will be left for people to move to another anti-Romney candidate, thus effectively handing the nomination to Mitt Romney. After all, one of the most common things a Newtbot says is that if you disparage Newt, you are effectively handing the nomination to Romney, a comment which is a slap in the fact to the real conservatives in the race.

Why would these people do such a thing? Payback. They know the minute they post some Pro-Romney garbage, they are dead in the water. So for them, what they do is argue the same way a Romney person would on the issues, but rather than openly propping up Romney, they prop up Newt, someone they know will not be able to defeat Romney in a 1-on-1 because Newt lacks the conservative credentials to be a viable conservative alternative. And there is an urgency like no other, to effectively stop the cycling of candidates to challenge Romney so that voters are once again forced to choose between two RINOs.

Do an FR search with the key words “Newt” or “Gingrich”. You’ve got FReepers and other candidates rightfully going after Newt’s policies on amnesty, and they are the ones being trashed, with Newtbots stating that mass deportation of law-breakers (illegals) isn’t feasible and pandering. When someone tries to post the truth about Gingrich’s past, it’s labeled spam or a violation of the 11th Commandment, which is absurd, since using this logic, attacks on Romney would be a violation of the 11th as well.

Face it people, Newt Gingrich is not a true full-spectrum conservative. Just because someone appears to talk like Reagan in a debate, doesn’t make them like Reagan. In fact, take a look at Obama’s 2008 debate performances where he lifted a bunch of Reagan lines mixed in with the socialist platform to confuse voters. Did we get any of Reagan in Obama? Hell, no. Newt is an establishment Republican that is too smart for his own good.

People are so gung-ho about throwing Obama out of office that they seem to be missing the main objective of 2012: It’s not just to beat Obama, it’s to re-establish conservative governance as the predominant force in all three branches of government. Without fulfillment of this goal, it won’t matter who sits in the Oval Office. For this reason, a Romney or Gingrich Presidency would set conservatism back another decade. Worse, if they revert to their RINO tendencies as expected, it will set up another dangerous ideological election in 2016, most likely against Andrew Cuomo, where we will be without an equivalent conservative champion.

The choices are what they are. It has been factually proven that of the individuals running for President, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann are the most conservative, followed by Rick Santorum. Rick Perry is a distant fourth, followed by the rest of the liberal candidates Gingrich, Romney, Huntsman, and the insane candidates Paul and Johnson.

Bullcrap.. The poster was looking to start a fight..

"Calling out the Newtbots for what they are.....posers."

Granted, the poster went ad hominem in that one sentence, but you're choosing to ignore the bulk of his argument, and dismissing him because of that one slight.

So admonish him for that one breach of civility, and get on with rebutting the meat of his argument. Or do you not have one?

You are quite the arse ... claiming that anyone that supports Newt is some form of a newby to FR and not really a conservative.

I have been a member of FR since 98, and have run for office supported by the Tea Party. Yes, I support Newt, and take a look thru my posting history and you will see me explain why. I was not supporting Newt in May because I was waiting to see if Sarah would join. Only when she opted out did I choose my canidate, and I did so after weighing all the others, and I found them lacking (including Cain, and it has nothing to do with the bimbo’s, it has to do with the UBER-LIBERAL position of creating a brand new tax without eliminating the old ones, and the fact that he is remarkably naive!)

So, stop pretending to “know” who we are and what motivates us. If you want to know the truth about why we support Newt, most of us would be more than happy to tell you, and most of us are quite conservative.

Sorry, there isn't much of a quandary. Many, perhaps most, of the recent Newt supporters are converts or just liked him more and more over time. He wore well and has picked up support over the campaign season - exactly what a candidate hopes for.

The field of candidates isn't particularly good this time around. In my case, I was hoping Perry would do well but concluded he probably couldn't communicate effectively enough for the job. Cain is a void when it comes to policy and I could never support someone with his level of ignorance in the primaries. So Cain is out, and I think many others have made the same judgment. Bachmann and Santorum are indeed perhaps the best on policy positions, but I think most people at this point have judged them lacking the "it" factor - they just don't come across as presidential. Romney is not a conservative so he's out. Paul is a kook, so most can't consider him either. Newt has my support, not because I am super excited about him, but because he seems to be the best alternative. It isn't a quandary, it's a reasoned choice among the candidates we actually have to pick from.

And if the OP is really just tearing Newt down in an attempt to build up Cain, well sorry, it's just not going to work. Cain simply doesn't know the issues well enough to be President this time around. People have kind of realized now that Herman was just bluffing his way through using good motivational speaking skills, but on policy he utterly lacks the knowledge needed to be President. He will not be the nominee. It's just not going to happen.

Thanks for this. I know how good you are at researching things. I agree that the Newters seem to be another layer of RINO crap being dumped on this forum. Unfortunately a few people have fallen in love with their stench. I admire your willingness to get to the truth. I’m sorry you had to wade through all that garbage.

RINOs, elites, country clubbers and other liberal moderates know there are too few of them to even win the republican nomination much less the general election. The only way they can win anything is to tear down the conservatives by lying to make them seem more liberal, lying about what their RINO candidates believe and will do in office, and saying their socialist RINO candidate is the only one who can beat the opposition marxist.

This has happened to some extent every single election cycle I’ve been here. The RINOs have their marching orders and they show up for that purpose every time. It is no surprise that your research confirms this.

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.