[ScottinVA]

The majority of FReepers have railed on about how disastrous a Romney nomination would be... well, here’s the alternative, warts and all.

Much as we may wish to deny it, the country just isn’t conservative enough anymore to elect a Bachmann or a Santorum.

[Pollster1]

Newt2012
Sleazy+Brilliant=Adequate

[Lady Lucky]

http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Like-No-Other-Exceptionalism/dp/B005DI8LIW

“A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism Matters” by Newt Gingrich

[equaviator]

ROOT 4 NEWT!

[heiss]

Our goal is to oppose Romney and anybody similar. Hillary is not Romney so should we vote for her?

The most important issue facing the country is amnesty. Everything else (judges, tax rates, 2ndAm, etc) can still be changed later. Amnesty is permanent.

Once we surrender the country and allow amnesty (”this it is the last amnesty, honestly!”), there is no going back. It will invite more illegal aliens and increase the pressure to fast-track citizenship voting rights. They will vote 80% for dems (if you count double-voting, more like 160%). 3rd world country and welfare state will be forever.

Newt is the only candidate openly pushing for amnesty. The details of his plans are not important - no campaign time plan has ever been passed as such. Newt has already conceded amnesty so the compromise bill will be the usual plan (small amnesty that somehow will end up mass-amnesty and the imaginary fence will surprisingly not work or will be canceled by judges or by future president).

Amnesty, Global Warming scam, individual mandate in Obamacare and attacking Tea Parties for “radical rightwing social engineering” should disqualify Newt permanently. His past support for gun grabbing bills, fairness Doctrine and serial adultery may be forgiven.

If we support amnesty, what is the point anymore? The country is lost. I will refuse to accept defeat.

[RC one]

Intelligence and experience? That's just crazy... so crazy it just might work.

[Sudetenland]

Excellent and well reasoned article. I also like the bottom comment, "Sometimes, warriors are unpretty things. But, whatever else they may be, they are warriors--and sometimes we need the fight." (though I would have ended it with, ". . . sometimes we need a warrior," because it preserves the symmetry. :))

Newt ain't pretty, but he has accomplished real reform and he loves America and our traditions--and more importantly he believes in those traditions--thus he will fight for them.

[RonnG]

There was only one who was perfect. Unfortunately, Reagan is not running.

[kidd]

Yes, Gingrich is better than Obama.
But so are the following:

Why do we have to settle for anything but the best at this point?

[Jemian]

(Yes, he's imperfect. Who's not? But compare Gingrich to Obama)

So, AGAIN, the pubbies put up a RINO or establishment candidate and then campaign on the slogan, "He's not as bad as ... ."

In each case that has been true. But we've ended up with the same socialist policies anyway.

[bgill]

We’re reduced to considering candidates one notch of barrel scaping. The founding fathers must be rolling in their graves.

[B Knotts]

All wrong.

You support the most conservative candidate, period, in the primaries.

Then, you support the nominee, regardless, in the primary.

Well, that's the theory, anyhow.

But there's a good reason behind that theory.

You can't predict electability.

Who thought Obama could win?

[MamaTexan]

But compare Gingrich to Obama

[sigh}

The GOP will never understand that "We suck less" should not be a campaign platform.

[freekitty]

This is why we are in the trouble we are in. By taking any old thing compared to what we have. That used to be a phrase to just kick around. Now people actually take it seriously instead of seriously finding and electing the best candidate.

[donna]

“Has he done things I don’t like? Absolutely. But so has my mother.”

— George Anich, Marine photographer in the 1950’s and a supporter of President Bush —