WWL-TV's polling results for the 2012 Louisiana Republican presidential primary:
» Undecided: 26.21 percent
» Rick Santorum: 25.44 percent
» Mitt Romney: 20.97 percent
» Newt Gingrich: 19.81 percent
» Ron Paul: 5.63 percent
» Other: 1.94 percent
Source: WWL-TV election analyst Greg Rigamer/GCR & Associates via a telephone poll of 515 likely Republican voters in Louisiana from March 8-10. The poll has a 4.4% margin of error.
On Wednesday, Gingrich will conduct a town-hall meeting at Louisiana College in Pineville from 9 to 10 a.m., followed by meet-and-greets in Lake Charles at 1 p.m. and Lafayette at 4 p.m.
He will make other stops in Louisiana on Thursday, the details of which have yet to be announced. On Friday, Gingrich will tour Port Fouchon in the morning, participate in a Hispanic roundtable meeting at Oakland Plantation Estates in the afternoon, and conduct a town-hall meeting at his alma mater, Tulane University, from 4 to 5 p.m."
Lordy...I just wish Newt had a chance.
What kind of deal did he make with Mitt Romney? Hope it was better than the one Mitt made with Ron Paul. Perhaps after Obama beats Mitt we will find out.
This is positive campaigning? Did we not go to war about this time? Quite disingenuous and unworthy of Newt. I expect better.
I was so pissed at Rick when he did this.
Davis-Bacon was a 1933 law designed by the KKK wing of the demonRAT party in order to keep southern black laborers from coming north and doing work for non union companies in major construction projects.
The blacks today have almost no membership in the craft unions where they work projects out of union halls, electrical, plumbers and steamfitters etc.
If you ever go to a union hall check out the skin color and if there is 2% black it's an over representation and it's very rare.
Black union membership is much higher in service unions {SEIU} and manufacturing {UAW} where the worker goes to the same place every day.
The more I read from Santorum supporters the more I think they want social changes but no big changes in the underlying system that is the cause of everything going down the tubes.
A lot of people who back Lawyer Ricky and Bishop Romney seem to think that a little nudge here and a minor tweak there is going to get things back on the right track. Unfortunately for such folks, we're way beyond the point that we can make little changes and watch things straighten out over time. We're already over the cliff and falling fast.
All that we can really do is elect someone who knows that we need an airbag to survive the impact and major changes that clearly show the world that we've turned the corner and won't go back to business as usual. If the world sees us actually headed toward energy independence and going back to the policies that worked so well for Reagan and Gingrich in the past, we can have things in pretty fair shape within a decade.
Every year people waste tweaking the existing mess probably adds two or three years to the length of time it'll take to get over seventy years of fascist democrat control of Congress "We The People" voted for all these years.
JMHO
Or does he think we should have cut spending after 9/11? Because 9/11 pushed our country deeper into recession, while at the same time requiring a large re-buildup of our armed forces.
Does Gingrich think we shouldn't have built up the Armed Forces in response to 9/11? One way the budget was "balanced" was Clinton's military cuts. Does Gingrich think that was a good thing?
After 9/11, we went to war in Afghanistan, and that cost hundreds of billions. Does Newt Gingrich think we should not have done that? We then invaded Iraq, and that cost hundreds of billions. Does Newt think that was a mistake?
Unemployment shot up before and after 9/11. Does Newt think we should have cancelled the tax cuts when revenue was clearly going down because of the recession? Does he think we should have cut the programs that increased after 9/11 because of increased unemployment -- food stamps, unemployment payments?
Where is a quote from Newt Gingrich in 2001 complaining about the deficit spending in that first budget after 9/11? Or in 2002, or in 2003, or in 2004? Where is Gingrich telling us not to do more tax cuts in 2003?
What was one of the biggest spending increases in the 2000s? The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. Did Gingrich oppose that? Not at all, he is responsible for it:
Newt Gingrich played the role of political godfather in pushing the Medicare prescription drug benefit into law, returning to Capitol Hill in November 2003 to deliver a pivotal speech that turned some conservative skeptics into believers.
...
“Newt was critical to the passage of Medicare Part D,” recalls John Feehery, who was Speaker Dennis Hastert’s chief spokesman at the time. The speech “was very powerful,” Feehery said.
...
His sales pitch, more than anything else, switched my vote and votes of others on a bill that still took most of the night to pass while the vote was held open,” former Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) recalled in a recent interview with POLITICO conducted via e-mail. “And Medicare is going broke faster than ever.”
Of course, while we had deficit spending in the early 2000s, that spending was coming back down. Too slowly, but we were working back toward balance, until TARP. GIngrich opposed TARP, right? Well, not quite:
STEPHANOPOULOS: “Speaker Gingrich, there’s also, I think, a recognition, at least in some of the polls I’ve seen, that something has to be done.”SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: “Sure, look, something has to be done. … I suspect were I still in Congress, in the end George [Will] is right, and I probably would end up voting reluctantly yes....
Of course, the important thing is to beat Romney in Illinois. And by attacking Santorum for not balancing the budget, that will certainly draw more voters away from Romney and to Santorum in Illinois today, right? I mean, it's not like Gingrich is going to get enough votes in Illinois to matter, he's not even running advertising there. Heck, Santorum even started using Gingrich's flawed attacks on Romney's Bain Capital days, in a last-ditch effort to stop him (seems to be working about as well as when Gingrich tried it though), and then Gingrich attacks Santorum for spending too much?
But as a Gingrich supporter, I'm sure you will have a bunch of quotes from 2001 and 2003 where Gingrich says the congress is overspending and asks for specific spending cuts to get back to balance, right?
Of course, the undecided won’t stay that way. But in Loisiana, the 20 statewide delegates are awarded proportionally based on a 25% threshold. If nobody gets 25%, they go as uncommitted, and can vote for anybody.
So if the numbers actually stayed as they are, except gingrich got 4% of Santorum’s vote by attacking him, Gingrich would have the effect of turning Santorum delegates into uncommitted delegates who could vote for Romney.
Now, if GIngrich just ran attacks on Romney, and could keep Romney below 25%, his time in Loisiana could actually be a good thing. But in a proportional contest, it HURTS conservatives when Gingrich attacks Santorum. It hurt us in Georgia, where Gingrich robocalled against Santorum, and pushed Santorum just below 20% — which gave Romney 4-6 more delegates.
And if he manages to suppress the Santorum vote here enough that Romney gets 25%, he’ll end up giving delegates to Romney. Would it be good for Gingrich if Gingrich and Romney got the delegates, instead of Santorum? Well, I guess - but it certainly wouldn’t be good for the plan to stop Romney.
On a radio newsbreak, I heard a clip of Rick being played from the IL primary campaign.
Of course it was a gotcha moment...the reporter was bagged for Mitt, it was obvious...but first time I actually heard Rick’s voice saying the unemployment rate doesn’t matter, I don’t care about that, as preface to making a point about his candidacy.
Apparently somebody asked him a question...no
way would you say that out of the blue.
Then they had a clip of him clarifying his remarks.
No worse than Mitt saying he likes to fire people, and his wife drives a couple of cadillacs, etc. But that was a bit ago in time, which allowed the reporter to ignore it and focus on Rick.
Made me think, when you’re anybody but Obama and Romney, there is no margin for error. There is no room for gaffes, mistakes etc. The Dems, your own side, the media, will all savage you and never give you a pass.
Newt, imperfect as are we all, fares best in such an unfair scenario. He has more substance, more experience, more knowledge, more communication skills, more demonstrated success.
Without Mitt’s scorched earth backed by many millions, that Newt didn’t have, in IA and FL, Newt would be standing tall today.
Rick walked into that yawning chasm of opportunity and with a lot of help from the evangelical pastors put himself where he is.
He can’t close the sale with enough people, and we are talking Republican primaries, we aren’t even talking the general.
There’s no margin for error. That’s unfair and a shame, but it’s true.
Errors there will be.
Newt works best.
Mitt is playing for the same Big Government team obama is playing for, but his only strong points are his being better with money and management.
Should Mitt win against obama, doubtful, but for the sake of argument, should he win the presidency Mitt will only make the government bigger and better financed.
Mitt's contribution will be improving the system for when the progressives/socialists/demonrats take over again four years later, which they will then use against We, the People, just as obama has used Homeland Security, the TSAs, etc. that Bush created.
If you want to reverse Government growth and begin to reform the crony socialist madness the demonrats and the rinos have spawned, if you want a strong American energy economy, low taxes and a strong, vibrant American economy, Newt Gingrich is the best choice. He has been there, done that and America got better as a result. Let's do that again!!!
VP Newt Gingrich and president Romney. I still won’t vote for Romney the liberal. Newt is hurting the conservative cause and has sold out to the establishment. He can now push Rick under 25% and lift Romney to take all delegates. Thanks a lot newt. I was voting for you if Rick doesn’t make it. Not anymore.
In my lifetime, only Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich have bent the the Federal Juggernaut to their will-and ultimately to the benefit of We the People.
In the absence of these two on the public stage, in the ‘80’s and ‘90’s...America would have been where it is today over 25 years ago.
It is why the Federal Juggernaut will never allow Newt to darken the door of the White House.