The point is, Santorum is doing what candidates tend to do - which is, fight for the winnable votes (often using negative ads
*****************
My question to you was- can you reference a negative ad promulgated by Newt against a conservative? And, apparently, you cannot- which is proper- because Newt hasn’t aired any such ads.
In an interview, when informed of negative attacks by Rick, Newt dismissed them- saying that Rick had a long political history, and if Newt wished to reply in kind- it would be only to easy to do so. But, he would not bring down a fellow conservative.And, he still hasn’t done so.
Finally, you make the point that Newt was at one point an “afterthought”- a “laughing stock”- . You’re right, to the extent that you mean he wasn’t in the top tier. But, guess what? He didn’t run negative ads and smear opponents to tear down everyone else to claw his way to the top- despite the fact that some here think that’s “politics”.
Newt is for a conservative cause- and if the situations were reversed, I do believe Newt would have followed Gov. Perry’s lead and withdrawn.
But, if not that, I’m certain that he would not have gone on the attack against Rick, so long as Romney was still the front runner.
I'm sorry, but the question is completely irrelevant. Negative campaigning is a fact of life. If Newt wins the nomination he is going to have a billion dollars of largely negative ads directed his way. It is what it is. It's part of campaigns. Are you so sure Newt hasn't run negative campaigns against conservative challengers in his political past? I'm not, and really it doesn't matter. Whining about negative ads doesn't accomplish squat.
Romney can not run 17 million of negative ads in every state. Newt survived this and had a good showing. We move on. Strong candidates can and do over come this sort of thing. Just anyone can't shake things up, it requires an exceptionally special candidate for the moment. I sense a lot of momentum building behind Gingrich, but it is left to be seen if he is going to be that special kind of candidate that can buck the establishment "safe option" group think. Reagan did, I hope Newt can do it as well. It will make him a stronger candidate. At the state level we've seen strong conservative challengers topple the establishment time and time again - it happened many times in 2010 actually.
Think of this. Harry Reid ran an entirely negative campaign against Sharon Angle in 2010. His entire campaign was designed to sully her so much she'd look as filthy as him. Angle lost. But why? Was it really the negative ads? No, a good candidate would have overcome them. Angle was a bad candidate. Period.
Newt is becoming a more and more impressive campaigner. He is coming into his own. His sincerity shows more and more clearly. I switched my support to him when I saw Perry's inability to debate - very reluctantly at first, but now I am more and more enthusiastic. He may really be the man of the moment, but overcoming negative ads by his competitors - whether it be Romney, Santorum or Paul, is part of the process. Let them throw mud and lets see how he responds. In the end, if Newt wins it will have made him a far stronger nominee - one largely insulated against what much of Obama will throw at him.