I notice you left out Santorum. Why?
Given Newt's position on amnesty, an issue I care very much about because I believe an amnesty would destroy this country with the stroke of a pen, I would choose the lessor of two evils, Romney. But Santorum is not out of this. I would choose him over both Romney and Gingrich.
Keep in mind that Gingrich has since admitted that he was wrong on the Global warming hooey, and IIRC, even confessed that his reasons for supporting Scozzafava were made in error.
A conversion on the road to the White House. Newt changes his positions on issues the same way he does on wives and religions. He will take whatever position satisfies his needs and ambitions.
More important, ROMNEY IS A STATIST and STATISM IS OUR ENEMY. Compared to Romney, Gingrich is an angel.
I say Gingrich is just as much a statist as Romney if not more. Gingrich was for the individual mandate before he was against it. He supported and still supports the biggest expansion of the entitlement programs since 1965, the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.
On balance, Gingrich has done ONE HELL OF A LOT MORE GOOD than bad in the halls of American government, and right now, he is the most courageous and aggressive one doing bloody battle to take down Romney, who represents statism, which is our REAL enemy.
He talks a good game, but when you look at the facts, he has feet of clay. And remember, he is the only sitting Speaker ever to receive a reprimand and financial penalty from the House, a body controlled by the Reps. 85% of his Rep colleagues voted in favor of the reprimand. He cheated on his first two wives. I believe that people like Gingrich and the political elites are the problem, not the solution to our problems.
You need to do some very serious soul-searching.
Amnesty -- and I live in Southern California and am RIGHT ON THE FRONT LINES of this issue -- is not a black-and-white thing. But it is PLAIN AND SIMPLE a black-and-white issue that to support Romney, the father of ObamaCare, and a constant advocate of bigger and bigger and more opressive government "for our own good," over Gingrich, who WAS A KEY PLAYER in implementing the Reagan revolution!!! -- urging support of Romney over Gingrich, as you do in your post 337, is to urge TEN TIMES the act of suicide as any postion Gingrich holds on amnesty -- and like you, I think amnesty is a bad idea.
In truth, kabar's intent was to urge me to abandon Gingrich and throw my support to Santorum. THAT I can respect, not the least because Santorum is a decent conservative, though having watched the CSPAN video of Santorum's remarks to the panel in South Carolina, I am more convinced than ever that Santorum would be weak in debating against Obama, and IF, for example, we were surprised again and HILLARY ended up being the Dem nominee (a distant but still possible scenario), Hillary would simply wipe the floor with the gentlemanly, kind Santorum.
If, on the otherhand, it was Newt facing Hillary, EVERY AMERICAN, liberal or conservative, would get out the popcorn for an extremely colorful contest, and my money would be on Newt -- he'd be like Dorothy tossing water on the Wicked Witch. Hillary would be shrieking, "I'm melting! Melting! Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!"
And, after watching the CSPAN video of Newt's comments to the South Carolina panel, I think Newt's passion and eloquence would emphasize Obama's weaknesses, shallowness, and demagoguery in a way that is well beyond Santorum's capability, regardless of where Santorum's heart is.
However, IT IS QUITE ACCURATE TO SAY that according to your post #337, if, when the primary came to my state, it was either Gingrich or Romney, you'd be urging me to vote for Romney over Gingrich.
As I have said before, if Romney is on ANY BALLOT in front of me, my vote will go elsewhere.