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.
I don’t think so, the South likes fighters, not nerds.
Good points, but giant space mirrors to reflect sunlight is sort of a big government solution.
The issue of abortion pains me to no end. Sometimes I try to visualize being a baby in my mother’s womb and having that thing suddenly cutting me apart. Sometimes I have nightmares about it along with falling down an elevator shaft in the world’s tallest building. It is insanity.
Here is a reality check about abortion, these pro-choice nut-jobs never think about: abortion kills the population base that supports our economy. When you have more people in the retirement population than in the productive population, there is a breakdown in the system. The productive population buys the baby bottles, high chairs, and all the things kids need, including housing, that is good for the economy. They also pay the social security so that those in retirement age have their needs met. The graying of America will have less and less supporting those in retirement years. It also will have profound economic consequences as the growth rate in private consumption declines as the population ages. We are literally cutting ourselves off at the knees with our unrestrained abortion spree.
Wow....
You are really, really, slooooowwwww, aren’t you.
You apparently missed the carcasm and the irony, even though I and two or three others explicitly pointed it out to you in subsequent posts.
In your defense, It was a sarcastic response to post #16, which was deleted by the mods, long before you appeared on this thread.
But “Free govt aspirin for birth control” and you couldn’t pick up on the humor?
Decaf, perhaps?
pfffftt. So what?
See post 141.
Slam dunk for Newt. No comparison, between what Rick did IN OFFICE vs what Newt did 40-50 years ago.
The only thing that we don't like is the constant barrage of negativity on Santorum on FREE REPUBLIC of all places. Nobody has to vote or support Santorum but he is not THE ANTI-CHRIST like some of you believe.
I don’t believe he’s the antichrist, and I don’t know of any other Freepers who do.
I’ve always kinf of like the guy and admired his stand on social issues. If I had to vote for him over Obama, I would do so without hesitation, though not without trepidation.
And that’s more than I can say for a couple other candidates in the field.
I just don’t think he’d make a good president, and I think Newt would make a very, very, good one.
Oh man I am so sorry !! That was suppose to be funny?? omg!!
Just sounded like another a-hole. Maybe you should brush up on your humor and you “carcasm” (and spelling)
wow!! LOL /s
Go buy yourself a new Lexus, and you, too, can have your very own Cargasm.
Oh, gee, there I go with the spelling again.
The humor, of course, gets lost when you have to keep explaining it to the slow-witted.
I am glad about that. What I really think is that this next debate is going to be a bloodbath. It MIGHT be the ugliest debate to date. I think this will result in a lot of things. First can Newt perform better than Florida where he was awful? Can Santorum survive the questions that he will be asked. And Romney.....whatever. I could care less about him. Being that Newt or Santorum are the only two that I would vote for in the general, I care about both of them and how they perform.
“I think biblical forgiveness should be accepted by everyone”
Not in politics, my friend. What would stop someone from (for a purely hypothetical example) joining a church and getting annulments for previous marriages just in time for the primary season to deflect lifestyle criticism?
You well know the bible doesn’t call for forgiveness as a way to escape accountability - but there seems to be nothing that Newt supporters won’t compromise or criticize to prop up their flagging candidate - principle, religion, political institutions, the majority of people who don’t want him as their candidate, etc.
Just WoW. Very informative. Looks like she was used as a pawn. Needs to be bookmarked.
For a lengthy report on Marianne’s (FBI) involvement:
http://www.knowthelies.com/node/6844
Not accepting your premise was the purpose of my original post.
Speaking for myself, my Politics don’t shape my Faith, My Faith shapes my politics.
“Speaking for myself, my Politics don’t shape my Faith, My Faith shapes my politics.”
So you don’t want Newt accountable, politically, for his multiple previous marriages? Ok, fine, I’ll give you that for discussion purposes (but Obama will bring it up). How about his political mistresses, among them Global Warming, and liberal mid-term Congressional candidates? Where does he go for dispensation for that? How many other political bimbos are hiding under his desk?
Newt is not accountable to you or me for anything in his personal life. That is between him and his God, just like anyone’s personal life is.
I detested Bill Clinton as a person. I did not agree with him on 80% of his political ideology, but he was one of the best politicians I have ever seen. If he had a more conservative ideology, he would have been an outstanding leader, because he did have great leadership ability. I don’t see a great deal of leadership ability in Santorum, JMHO and an opinion shared by many in the state of PA.
You need to do a little more checking on Newt’s position on Global Warming, the environment and such. His Issue headed “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” gives a big hint. The fact that he wants to abolish the EPA because it has been taken over by radicals, also seems a step in the right direction. He also has a 46 minute video on Energy that has been linked on FR. People are spinning Newt’s position on the issues, and that is not advancing anything but confusion.
Whether I agree with a candidate or not, I want an honest answer to where they stand, what Solutions they propose, and what actions they Plan to take if elected. I find the most reliable source is usually straight from the horses mouth. Beyond that, I examine their record. I find Newt to be the best person on the issues IMHO.
Jimmy Carter is an example of a family man with good Christian values who was an absloute disaster as President. He was simply not a Leader, and didn’t have a grasp of the issues or a Plan to get anything done.
I don’t have the time or the inclination to monitor people’s sex lives, don’t see that it has Anything to do with his ability as a leader, and am perfectly content to leave that to him and Calista. Freedom works both ways. We don’t want the government in our bedrooms, we don’t stone people for adultery, and unless we simply don’t understand that we are not The Judge, we don’t keep piling judgement on people who have been Forgiven.
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.