Posted on 02/19/2012 3:36:10 PM PST by VinL
Just after the South Carolina primary, Newt Gingrich--or his minions--put considerable public pressure upon Rick Santorum to stand down, to get out, to leave the race.
Santorum's response was simple. If he began to come in last in any series of races, he would do so. Santorum went on to explain that he had won as many states as Newt had at that point, so there was no need to go anywhere.
That was five states, 3 Santorum victories, and several instances of bottoming out by the Gingrich campaign ago.
The Gingrich people will not like what I have to say next, but it is resolutely true, and there is no argument against it, so here goes...
"If Newt Gingrich believes Mitt Romney is a worse choice for nominee than a real conservative would be, then he must leave the race now. Staying in the race until Super Tuesday hurts the conservative cause, aids Romney, and ultimately will re-elect Barack Obama."
There, it is said. It had to be. It is all true.
This week Billionaire Casino Magnate Sheldon Adelson announced his intentions to continue to sink money into the Gingrich SuperPAC "Winning Our Future." This newest round of $10,000,000 would roughly match the $11,000,000 that allowed Gingrich his one state win in South Carolina. But even that is money poorly spent.
Gingrich had the chance to build on his win, but was unable to capitalize in Florida, and his absolute stubbornness in refusing to organize for the three state caucus strike-out that catapulted Santorum to front-runner status demonstrated some old inclinations about the former speaker that had been voiced by many former colleagues. Newt is flagging in polls nationally, ranking behind Ron Paul at times, and does not show a path to victory even if he were to break through on Super Tuesday using massive SuperPAC money to land somewhat mediocre media presence. (After all $10,000,000 across seven states won't even begin to touch a fourth of the penetration rate he had with $11,000,000 in South Carolina.)
Debates are now being universally panned, and the free media will not add up to give Newt new opportunities to "un-re-define" himself from himself.
I asked a few columns back if Gingrich was Churchill, for 2012, the answer seems to be "no!"
But that doesn't render him insignificant.
If Gingrich were to leave, and especially if he were to endorse Santorum, Mitt Romney's campaign would truly be on the death's door. Romney is trailing in Michigan, where he couldn't seem to connect with voters even before Santorum's sweep, and according to Rasmussen--the most accurate pollster in the past six cycles--he trails Santorum by 12 nationally, and by nearly 20 in the swing state of Ohio. Despite what her "right-to-be-wrongness" Ann Coulter says about Mitt's inevitability, Republicans--if they are smart--should always elect the man for nomination who wins Ohio. Because in the general election, it is the best indicator of who will be President.
Santorum has thicker skin than Newt and Mitt combined, and next to Newt, he's the best debater left in the bunch. But most importantly he is the sharpest contrast to Obama--in nearly every imaginable category.
Newt is steadily polling at 14% in the polls. Santorum has exploded in Michigan and Ohio, is nearly within the margin of error to Romney in Arizona, and almost the same within Gingrich in Georgia. Meanwhile in some states Gingrich finishes last, Santorum never does. But if you add 2/3's of Newt's total to Santorum's, Rick Rollin' would become the new GOP past time.
If Gingrich is a man of principal, he will allow the consolidation and much-more-baggage-free candidacy of Rick Santorum to zoom into an even further all-out lead nationally. If Gingrich stays in, it is obvious his feelings about Romney's danger and likely losing proposition as nominee will come true. And the former speaker would have only himself to blame.
If Romney is the nominee, Obama will be President for a second term. (His inability to take Obama on--on his biggest weaknesses, the target of his faith's racially questionable history and the twisted way the mainstream media will exploit that, his inability to not say things from an entirely silver spoon perspective, and his lack of distinction from Obama on many social issues--like subsidizing abortion, and creating "gay" marriage.)
The GOP's job at the moment is to pick the best candidate they can to beat Obama, and the one who is most-different-than him presents the best possibility.
Especially if that candidate wins Ohio.
Put on your tin foil hat, conspiracy guy! Goooo Newt!
Your strategy has been ruled incorrect by your own expert, a long time lecturer to the War College IIRC. When Newt was high and Rick was low Newt asked Rick to get out for (the | Newt’s) greater good. When Newt was high and Perry was low Newt took his endorsement rather than asking him to instead stay in the race for (the | Newt’s) greater good. Looking at things from both sides Newt chose the strategy of Rick Santorum’s supporters. Rick is just implementing it more politely by not saying it openly himself. He knows he’ll need to unite the party in the fall so wants to minimize divisions now.
For the record, there are many on this forum that would happily vote for either Gingrich or Santorum, myself included. The fact that we don't summarily reject Santorum out of hand does not automatically make us "Romneybots dressed in Santorum clothing". Nor does it make us mindless dupes or liberal trolls. I, for one, do not appreciate the insinuation.
Boy isn't that the truth! Deception is on the move! A good heads up warning is none too soon VinL....
Thank you for your post. This is very enlightening and just what is needed to get the Truth out.
Sure puts a new light on Newt’s so called baggage.
If the general public knew this, along with the story of the circumstances of his first marriage, they would have a different view of his personal life for sure.
He endured and overcame so much. Truly a remarkable man.
“Santorum wasn’t even talking about Obama’s Christianity”
He was talking exactly about that in this video from 2008
>>Santorum: “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual gay sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.... It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution.”<<
You do realize that what you’ve stated above doesn’t support your case, don’t you? Santorum is not saying that government should invade the bedrooms. Instead he’s saying that there is no “right to privacy” in the constitution that prevents government from doing so.
He’s arguing the constitution, and what will be the logical course of events if the Supreme Court keeps treating it like toilet paper. If you want the government out of your bedroom, vote for people who’ll keep the government out, but that isn’t what the Left does. Instead they appoint justices who use the Constitution against the people. Prop 8 in CA is an example. The people voted to maintain traditional marriage. Liberal appeals court judges used their interpretation of the Constitution to find the law unconstitutional.
Your quote, in this case, simply does not support your argument that Santorum wants to invade our bedrooms. The whole idea is ridiculous. On the other hand, there is a faction on the Left that would be more than willing to let a liberal court legalize man/boy relations. Don’t doubt that. And that is exactly the sort of thing Santorum is warning against.
If you want the government in your bedroom (or your kid’s lunch box, for that matter), continue to ignore Santorum’s advice. You’ll get more government than you can tolerate.
Thanks for the link, but I am aware of Newt’s ‘baggage’ and it is ALL totally irrelevant to me. The only thing I am concerned with besides national security, is what kind of economic policies do the candidates have. If we do not turn our economy around it won’t matter who is a saint, who has committed adultery or who has nice hair. I don’t need to ride my high horse about any issues other than security and economic survival such that I am able to feed my family, and when they move out, they are able to feed theirs.
Well I'm from Pa. and I can without reservations say I would not be "happy" if Santorum wins the Primary.. for you can be assured Obama will walk all over this guy without any effort.....the vetting on Santorum has just begun and they are saving the heavy stuff till he's on stage, if he makes it thus far.
Even Santorums team says he's going to have to answer for the voting he's done and make it believable...that's where he'll get in trouble. He'll have to either twist the truth or lie to cover his blunders. And he has zero plans or how he's going to implement them...his site attests to just opinions...no plans layed out at all. He's like Obama in saying everything people want to hear but nothing solid. He needs to cough up some solutions and he hasn't done so.
Therefore if at this stage of the game Santorum has no solutions, just talking points...then what makes any think he'll know what he's doing if he gets to Washington...he has nothing to to hit the ground with when he gets there!
I would be voting for Santorum as I did for McCain...nose diving...and not the least bit happy.
Different mindsets. Newt goes exclusively after Romney- not conservatives, If you have any you tube ads to the contrary, I’m sure you’ll produce them.
Rick S and Rick P both ran many negatives ads against Newt- The most recent one was run by Rick S in the mid-west after Fla-
But, rather than rely on your opinion or my opinion- let’s rely on a 3rd independent source. I’m sure you’ll agree as a matter of fact that the Romney Camp, the GOP-E and its friendly press have been trying to get Newt to withdrew.
Now, why would they do that, if they felt Newt’s withdrawal with help Rick? They’ve obviously concluded the opposite.
Since they have a vested interest that is disproportionate to our subjective judgment— I would conclude that Newt’s presence hurts Romney, and helps Rick-—for the present.
Exactly..and I for one am glad people are hearing him do so. He's trying to get his act together on the fly...and he's appealing to those of his faith by claiming all the social issues, but he's not stating much else, and certainly not how he expects to change things in Washington...rather that change will come and expects his opinions to be enough. I want some substance and so far Santorum's not delivering.
If you’ve looked at my posts, you should have seen the evidence as well. Many others have posted his poor record on fiscal issues. Apart from his socialist positions on fiscal matters, I do not want to support someone who is in the race solely to be Mitt’s VP.
I will repeat some of the things he has done - he has voted for debt ceiling increases, he has voted for pork to support unions, he has voted for ethanol subsidies (the whole ethanol thing is nothing but part of the Global Warming scheme) and he has channeled money to projects such as installing highway signs.
He also chose Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey and that can never be excused no matter how he spins it now. Everyone who has followed PA politics knows that he works in tandem with Arlen Specter with one of them talking the liberal talk and the other talking the conservative talk. Ultimately, talk is only for winning votes. The real action is in sharing the money and Specter and Santorum have no differences there.
Very well said, all of it. Newt is like the ancient Master/Warrior, wise, cunning, and experienced.and Rick is the young apprentice, eager but far too inexperienced.
In this battle, we need the Master.
One other thing I believe, and I do think Newt and Rick would agree. While our biggest, most pressing current issue may be the size and scope of government, and the economy economic, our Nation will never thrive without God’s blessings, and he will not bless for long a nation that murders upwards of a million of his unborn children every year.
“Want to cast that first Stone, do ya? “
You really think biblical forgiveness will insulate Newt from political attack? Do you really think it should?
Newt owns his baggage. That is also part of biblical forgiveness, by the way.
I agree with Sarah that I want this primary to go on as long as possible. I want every Republican voter in every state to have that opportunity as well. Then, when we arrive at the winner, we will know that it was the choice of the majority of voters. At that point, would you not agree that the nominee should be sufficiently vetted and deemed to be electable by the majority? Or is it your belief that if they disagree with you and choose other than your guy, they are all a bunch of bumbling know-nothings?
“Lets see how Santorum does in the South. “
If he opts to tear the sleeves off a blue-jean jacket instead of his sweaters, he’ll do just fine.
>>...but one thing’s for sure: if Romney gets the nomination, I write in a conservative for president. I give my word of honor I will not vote for Romney.<<
I sympathize, and might do the same, but for a particular reason:
I can’t help but feel that when Romney refuses to disavow Romneycare, he’s making it exceptionally difficult to repeal Obamacare. I’m almost sure that instead he will try to tweak it into a better bill, something that will prove disastrous because the next Dem administration would undo any “tweaking” and give us full-blown socialist medicine.
But if Obama is re-elected, and we get a Republican House and Senate, as I think is likely regardless who wins the Presidency, then I’m reasonably sure that Congress will budget no money for Obamacare to be implemented. No money, no program.
That same Congress would have a far more difficult time denying Romney his “tweaking,” however, as they would be inclined to treat him with deference.
So, I’m almost convinced that if Romney beats Obama, we get Romneycare/Obamacare forever, and that I won’t vote for. Which leads me to vote a write-in, or even for Obama himself, something only the nomination of Romney could drive me to do.
Note also that about 20% of GOP voters aren’t sure they’ll vote Republican in the general election. That is why. It’s not because the GOP establishment types will be voting for Obama or a write-in if they don’t get Romney as the nominee; it’s because of people like us.
” and the economy economic, ...”
Errr...make that “and the economy,...”
2008?
I’m talking about this cycle, this weekend.
But hey, if you like Obama’s “Christianity” with the roosters comin’ home to roost - well, knock yourself out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.