Newt Gingrich: Yes, I'd team up with Santorum to beat Romney

examiner.com ^ | January 4, 2012 | Joe Newby

[Berlin_Freeper]

On Wednesday morning, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told radio talk show host Laura Ingraham he could "absolutely" see himself teaming up with former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum to beat Mitt Romney.

"Of course," Gingrich said. "Rick and I have a 20-year friendship. We were 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.."

[RitaOK]

“I just got back from donating myself.” <<

Donating yourself?

To science I presume?

LOL, I coudn’t resist. Please, forgive. I am just a little hysterical after last night. Good for you. :)

[RitaOK]

Thank you, so much! I am off FAUX, but for snippet cheating on occasion. They really have dumped us over and I have you guys! and the entire internet and CSpan!

I disagree with Morris. Romney backers must be beginning to wonder if he will EVER break 25%. Romney has had virtually no negative, sustained assault or attack on the air, land or sea, YET! Hotair said yesterday that the Gingrich Super PAC is going after him, FINALLY. If the rest are smart they will spend some money to do the same and tag team both the ESTABLISHMENT and their liberal candidate.

I believe it’s a mistake to go after each other until they take some wind out of Romney’s sails.
I am afraid the cry is going to be heard for Perry to get back out, so the two leaders can sustain their campaign and corner the big money to take Romney out.

What do you think?

[Styria]

There is a big difference between being an executive running a state, and just showing up in Congress to vote every once in awhile.

Newt was the presiding officer of the House of Representatives and a caucus officer before that. There's a big difference between that and "just showing up to vote."

[untwist]

With respect to Rick Perry, once he said he was going back to Texas to reassess, he already acknowledged his own doubts and defeat. He has already lost most of his support by saying what he did in his speech.

It appears to me that Newt’s advisors are telling him that he can outdo Santorum one-on-one and this will be apparent if Newt can really take on Romney. Morris made an interesting analogy from baseball that you have to win your division and pennant before you go to the World Series. Newt’s rise came from the excitement that conservatives had when they heard and saw and believed he can beat Obama. Romney stands in his way, not Rick Santorum. If anything Newt has been a mentor to Santorum. So I think Morris is incorrect. We need to first pick the conservative who can beat Romney.

Romney has very powerful support from the establishment. The fact that he is embracing John McCain is the clearest sign. The establishment was what he had to take out BEFORE he could take out the Democrats in ‘94. The establishment never forgave him for that and were behind forcing him out in a phony baloney ethics scandal in ‘98.

The establishment is terrified of Newt because he has a history of taking them out as well as the Democrats. The establishment senate will never forgive him for pushing Clinton’s impeachment because it forced them all to make a stand against Clinton and their moderate wimpiness wouldn’t do it. Without Newt Gingrich we would have had President Gore. He left with a strong economy and strong republican base in both houses of congress. The moderates pi**ed it away.

So if we can help Newt get Romney out, Newt will be the evident choice and his positioning relative to Santorum will work itself out. Santorum is an ally but he is not a match politically for Newt - very few people are.

[RitaOK]

Excellent Post and bang on, all counts!! Great read. YOU are a master pol, and Newt would be lucky to have you on his strike team. Hope you are! I like a concise speed course on the facts. You just gave one.

[fightinJAG]

No need to forgive: I THOUGHT THE EXACT SAME THING JUST AS I PUNCHED THE POST BUTTON.

Just shouting a little to let off some steam. This has been one heck of a primary season, eh?

Thanks for the levity. It is needed!

[RitaOK]

JAG, I loved it! I know. That dang “send” key business has buried me on many occasions1 LOL. I was the one needing the chuckle, and I got it. Happy to have it. A great line you had, there! Cheers, all around.

[sheikdetailfeather]

Yes. I do think the voters are onto Romney. I look forward to Newt taking off the gloves and defending his record. Tonight on O’Reilly, Karl Rove said someone mentioned that Newt should put on a ski mask and have a chain saw in his hand as angry as he seems calling Romney a liar. O’Reilly said he has a right to be angry, but he kind of laughed at the idea. Rove and his merry band of propagandists are painting Newt as crazy, zany, angry, a loser, etc...Ticks me off!

[Impy]

Let’s look at how all the recent nominees did in Iowa and New Hampshire, not counting incumbent Presidents Winner in () if the nominee didn’t win

2008

Dem: Obama

Iowa 1st
NH 2nd (Hillary)

GOP: McCain

Iowa 4th (Huckabee)
NH 1st

2004

Dem: Kerry

Iowa 1st
NH 1st

2000

Dem: Gore

Iowa 1st
NH 1st

GOP: Bush

Iowa 1st
NH 2nd (McCain)

1996

GOP: Dole

Iowa 1st
NH 2nd (Pat Buchanan)

1992

Dem: Clinton

Iowa 4th (very! low turnout, no one contested it cause Tom Harkin ran, “uncommitted” came in second)
NH 2nd (Tsongas)

1988

Dem: Dukakis

Iowa 3rd (Dick Gephardt)
NH 1st

GOP: Bush

Iowa 3rd (Bob Dole)
NH 1st

1984

Dem: Mondale

Iowa 1st
NH 2nd (Gary Hart)

1980

GOP: Reagan

Iowa 2nd (Bush)
NH 1st

1976

Dem: Carter

Iowa 2nd (”Uncommitted” won)
NH 1st

1972

Dem: McGovern

Iowa 3rd (Uncommitted won followed by Muskie)
NH 2nd (Muskie)

Before 1972 the Iowa caucuses and most primary elections were irrelevant.

So Iowa usually does not choose the ultimate winner in open seat races.
And since Romney “won” I hope it once again doesn’t! In contested GOP fights (not counting Ford/Reagan, Ford won or Bush/Buchanan 1992, Bush won) it chose the GOP winner only in 1996 and 2000 both, Dole and Bush were strong favorites for the nomination. NH chose the GOP winner in 2008, 1988 and 1980.

[Eurotwit]

My reasoning falls exactly along your lines.

Honestly, I think the most likely to beat Obama would be Romney - though that would depend on external factors such as the economy. i.e. The American people would not embrace Mitt, they would throw Obama out.

Of the other candidates I think Newt has the best chance, despite the baggage - so I would go with him.

I do share your concern about how Santorum would fare in the
North. The good thing is that I think we will get some indications on that already next week in New Hampshire. The knives have started to come out for him now after his Iowa triumph.

Though I have seen indications that even liberal young people are moving in the right direction as far as abortion goes, so who knows. Anyhow,if Santorum focusses mainly on work, helping the middle class and blue collar America he can really make an impact beyond evangelicals.

As for being a bad Christian? There is only ONE judge of that. Besides there is relatively little a President can do on the matter anyhow besides appointing SC judges, and even good apointees can later change their minds as Reagan found out to his dissapointment.

Personally I think it is perfectly Christian to also think strategically and use our heads.

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”

Cheers.