Newt Should NOT Drop Out, Period.

RedState ^ | March 16, 2012 | mswalnut

[Catholic Iowan]

I’d just counter with this:

http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2012/03/gingrich-can-only-play-spoiler-against-santorum/

[Catholic Iowan]

I certainly understand the desire to defeat Obama. Yet, I don’t understand how voting for the most detestable, non-conservative in the Republican field advances conservatism, at all.

[Vendome]

Changed, Disregarded.... Cheating

[freedomfiter2]

The GOP doesn’t care about advancing conservatism.

[Catholic Iowan]

Well, certainly the Establishment doesn’t.

[Bobbisox]

And you think I am going to move to Santorum based on one unknown Iowa blogger? Get real...I game you some professional information that should enlighten you as to Mr. Newt’s background and qualifications.

You gave me an opinion piece from an Iowa blogger whom I have never heard of. What a joke!

[LibsRJerks]

Newt has to stay in. He’s critical to shaping debate, to clarifying arguments, to breaking through the media machine.

**

Which is EXACTLY why Newt should be president ....

The others simply do not LEAD. They react.

Hell, even Obama reacts now to Newt. It’s pitiful.

[Toespi]

“Newt has to stay in. He’s critical to shaping debate, to clarifying arguments, to breaking through the media machine.”

Seriously, I can’t stop laughing. We are going to send Romney or Santorum to go up against Obama. Yet, we want the only qualified candidate to say in the primaries just because he is critical, will shape, clarify and break through the MSM. Still laughing at the idiocy of voters.

[Admin Moderator]

MY COMMENT: I would like to see you all push the following point.

Don't. Jim has stated that Santorum birtherism is not welcome on FR.

[andy58-in-nh]

The biggest problem Newt has right now is that his campaign is broke. He’s out of money and in fact, in debt. That makes it extremely hard to compete, especially for a candidate that has only won two primaries to this point. He may not be able to stay in the race, even if he wants to.

[darrellmaurina]

For whatever it's worth, that Iowa blogger you mention got cited in national media when he did an interview with Santorum on faith issues and Santorum said things that ended up being newsworthy. Santorum, especially early on in his Iowa campaign, was doing interviews with pretty much anyone who would talk to him, and some of those small-town reporters and bloggers asked some really good questions, plus allowed him time and space to explain himself beyond what major media would have allowed to any candidate.

It's been an undertone in this campaign since Iowa, but the work of Dutch Reformed people in northwest Iowa was critical to Rick Santorum’s rise. PCA/ARP people in the South and in West Michigan were paying attention and decided to get on his bandwagon early. The Caffeinated family of blogs is run by PCA people and other Calvinists who are trying to promote a Christian view of political activism.

Of course, Rick Santorum’s base of support has long since moved into traditional evangelical circles. That needed to happen; there aren't anywhere near enough Calvinists in the United States to be politically influential outside certain key states and prominent figures (D. James Kennedy, Sproul, Ryken, Schaeffer, Joel Belz/Marvin Olasky from World Magazine, etc.)

For whatever it's worth, I'm a member of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, attend church with a staffer from World Magazine, and spent most of my adult life in the Dutch Reformed world, though that had very little to do with my decision to support Rick Santorum.