Poll: Gingrich on top in Mississippi

cnn ^ | March 9, 2012; 4 minutes ago | Gabriella Schwarz

[Red Steel]

(CNN) – Newt Gingrich is edging out his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination in Mississippi, according to a new poll.

The American Research Group survey of likely Republican primary voters released Friday showed Gingrich with 35% support, followed by Mitt Romney with 31%, Rick Santorum with 20% and Ron Paul with 7%.

Gingrich's margin over Romney increased slightly among those who said they will definitely vote in the March 13 primary, 37% to 30%. Santorum garnered 17% support and Paul received 5% among the same group.

The poll was conducted after Super Tuesday, when each of the GOP White House contenders picked up delegates. Romney won the popular vote in six states, while Santorum captured three and Gingrich nabbed one, his native Georgia.

Despite calls for him to bow out of the race, Gingrich has said he will remain in the contest until the convention and has also stressed the importance of wins in Mississippi and Alabama, which both vote on Tuesday.

[unspun]

I'm not about to be muzzled about Santorum's anti-Adams-Jefferson, quasi-Vaticanist approach. We are to be a Christ-influenced people in a functionally secular government.

8 posted on Friday, March 09, 2012 11:09:37 AM by unspun: “A third seems to want to enact Vatican dicta in America.” Please cite an example.

Thank you.

Santorum as I have observed in debates from the floor of Congress to the POTUS campaign very quick to defend sexual practice laws (butno, I'm not going to go searching for videos at this moment). Here is enough:

http://gulagbound.com/27042/post-supertuesday-song-for-americans-fighting-for-our-sovereignty/comment-page-1/#comment-151491

Mainline Protestantism ‘Gone from’ Christianity; Santorum Just Lost the South

[cripplecreek]

Helping Romney get the nomination is the goal of Sheldon Adelson.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2846572/posts

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

You mean that the other way around. Newt trained Santo. Santo still has too much to learn.

[Toespi]

“I wish it were otherwise (i.e., we had the “perfect” candidate, smart, attractive, free of baggage, experienced and capable), but it doesn’t seem to be the hand we’ve been dealt”

I consider Newt Gingrich to be each of these and more, he is brilliant, he is attractive (maybe a little overweight) he has vast experience and is not only capable, but eager. The baggage thing, if you are concerned about his wives, don’t be. We have no idea what the inside of the two marriages were. The first one was doomed from the beginning, being a 17 yo high school student, seeing and marrying his 26 yo high school teacher at 19. Two children soon after but yet he finishes his education and goes on to become a congressman and speaker of the house. As far as I am concerned that is impressive. His second wife, all indications are she was a very difficult and vindictive person, they were separated for four years trying to work it out and during this time she was ruthless, yet he went back at a second attempt. His political baggage is practically nonexistent, considering the vast legislation he has worked with in his career. His remarkable takeover of the house and the list goes on. Newt Gingrich is perfect for this country at this historical time in history.

[DoughtyOne]

First of all Frank, I think you've written a well formed series of thoughts here.  It's a nice presentation.  To respond to each point, it's going to seem that I disrespect your attempt here, and that's not my intention.  You have made respectful arguments, and I'll try to do the same with my responses.

Christian values are a big part of but not all that matters to me.

I would agree with this, with the caveat that I do not want to back a guy that has done some major trampling of those values. I would not vote for Bill Clinton alone, based on his treatment of his family.  A man that will sell out his wife and daughter, will sell out anyone.

Rick Santorum’s voting record on Socially Conservative issues is at best no better than Newt’s...

But later on here you praise Newt's voting record on Socially Conservative issues.  I don't see any such praise here.  You state yourself, it may even be as good as Newt's (paraphrased), so why no praise for Rick's voting record on Socially Conservative issues?  Is that consistent?

...then there is the matter of “Fiscally Conservative” issues.

I'll admit that I view this as one of Santorum's weaknesses.  I will also admit to suspecting that a number of issues along these lines, have been leveled somewhat unfairly.  It's quite easy to find a number of things a guy has voted for, when they've been chained onto other legislation that he was compelled to vote for with other Conservatives.  Is Santorum as bad as we have been led to believe by the supporters of other candidates, or is he marginally worse than other people we respect?  I believe he is marginally worse, but by no means disqualified by his actions.  I will weigh this with other evaluations of the candidates.

Then there would be the ability to articulate what is needed to fix America and to clearly define issues and solutions and the differences in the socialist and Conservative principles and ideas. Newt will take the fight to Obama and will beat him.

How many debates did Santorum participate in with Newt Gingrich?  Romney was there, Santorum was there, Newt was there, and Ron Paul was there.  Did Santorum come off looking like some light-weight who wasn't presidential?  No.  I have seen a number of supporters of other candidates say so, but I wasn't buying into it.  I watched one debate at length, and read the comments on this forum directly after the debate activity.  Some of the comments were so far afield at the time, that it was like we were watching two different debates.  Newt was really good at the populist tactic of attacking the debate hosts to the acclaims of his followers, but that didn't always translate into the presidential substantive action some of his followers thought it to be.  At times I thought it was appropriate, but at other times it almost looked more manipulative than anything else.  He wasn't trouncing other debate participants.  There were times when he scored some shots, to be sure, but there were also times when shots were scored against him.

Then when he demanded the debate audience be able to applaud loudly to reinforce his points, I remembered how we trashed Paul's crowd for doing it.  I also wondered why he was so insecure that he couldn't let his 'golden words' resonate with the people watching at home without reinforcement.  Newt himself is the reason why I don't buy into the full merit of your argument on this topic.  Newt himself doesn't think his words can stand on their own merits without boisterous attending audience signs of approval.

The difference is being Presidential, not wanting to denigrate Rick but I’ve heard him described as an “over zealous hall monitor” and I believe that is how he will come across and be portrayed.

So what you're saying here is that a Christian man with strong beliefs and isn't afraid to voice them, should be immediately disqualified for the presidency?  I don't believe you think that.  People say lots of things, and it's our duty to weigh them and dismiss them if they are juvenile.

Social Conservative issues are important to me but that is not all that’s on the table. We need an extraordinary individual for these times and I can’t think of any, anywhere better suited for the task ahead than Newt Gingrich whether they are in the race or not. Below are some of the reasons I’m for Newt.

Okay, I'll take you at your word, but you just told me you were disqualifying a good Christian man based on the idea he may be seen as a goody-goody two shoes.  There are a lot of things I respect about Rick Santorum, and when you start eliminating him for one of the most important, I'm somewhat baffled that you now think I'd be interested in hearing about some of the virtues of your guy.  Why shouldn't I simply dismiss your guy's finer points too?

Newt Gingrich, an Extraordinary Man for These Extraordinary Times

I know that seems reasoned to you, but I see him as a person who has his attributes, and his weaknesses.  I'm not sold on the idea that this is his moment in destiny, and that the United States needs him desperately.  The United States does need someone (different from Obama) desperately to be sure.  I'm nowhere near being sold that person is Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich is a Historian, he loves this country and understands our Constitution, our system of government and the sacrifices made by patriots to create it, and the importance of maintaining it.

Newt is a history professor.  I would expect him to know these things.  I'm glad he does.  You're not a history professer, and you know them.  Are you presidential?   Perhaps so, but I'm not sold on this alone qualifying Newt as presidential.  He loves the nation?  Is there a valid basis for believing Santorum doesn't?

Would his level of respect for the nation be higher than that of Barack Obama?  Absolutely.  Is it higher than Rick Santorum's?  I don't believe that.  I don't know a single thing we could base that on.  Later on I'll mention some things that may start you asking some questions.

He knows how government works and how it should work.

Actually, I think Rink Santorum knows how government works.  You know how government works.  You know how it should work.  We both do.  Most people here do.

He is intelligent, educated, and has common sense.

In order for you to write this, you must think that it differs from Santorum's status.  Do you think Rick is illiterate, under-educated, and has no common sense?  I'm not buying that.  I doubt you really do either.

He has been in the public eye for thirty five years and has made public controversial decisions, he has cast over 7200 votes, made over 15,000 speeches, written twenty four books. His voting record has been consistently “Conservative” whether you are speaking in terms of “Social”, “Fiscal” or anything else, Newt Gingrich is “THE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE.”

And yet with all this pedigree attached, Newt couldn't say no to going out there and joining Nancy Pelosi to advocate for fixes to Man-Made Global Warming.  After 7,200 votes, 15,000 speeches, and writing twenty-four books, he still didn't get it.  Name one Conservative you're proud of who believes in Man-Made Global Warming and wants our government to sign on to fixing it.  Name one Conservative you are proud of that advocates the negative impact on corporations, small businesses, jobs, vehicles, your ability to travel freely and associate with whom you want, your financial solvency, and the well being of the United States that government fixes to Man-Made Global Warming can easily entail.

Are you happy with the green movement?  That movement is central to the proposed fixes to Man-Made Global Warming.  You're not going to sign on to that stuff.  Why do you support someone who several months ago was willing to?

When it comes to Article IV Section IV of the Constitution of the United States of America, it states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Does that state that it would be acceptable to register invaders, allow them to stay here and work, and eventually apply for citizenship?  Does it even matter if they can apply for citizenship or not, if they get to stay here, squat on our soil, and drain our government resources dry?

Yes, Newt knows the Constitution of the United States frontwards and backwards.  He is a history professor.  He knows everything there is to know about our Founding, Our Founding Fathers, and our Founding Documents.  He has cast 7,200 votes, made 15,000 speeches, and written twenty-four books, and yet there is clear evidence that this supposedly intelligent, obviously well educated (in some respects) man, may not have the comment sense to convert these attributes into reasoned actions on behalf of the Citizens of the United States.  Basically it's a crap shoot from one issue to the next.

Conservative?  In some way yes.  In other ways no.

His original “Contract with America” led to CONSERVATIVE Republicans taking the US House of Representatives and appears to be the basis for the modern day Tea Party.

His Contract did lead to the Republicans regaining control of the House.  I have given him credit for that for a long time.  I have even argued against folks whose premise was that the development of the contract was actually a group effort.  Either way, he played a highly visible positive role, and deserves credit for that.  He and Republican leaders in Congress and the Senate deserve credit for getting the nation back on the track of fiscal solvency too.  They actually slowed the growth in our nation's debt considerably.  At the same time we still had trillions in debt.  LINK  They also got credit for ending Welfare as we knew it.  Now, are we still spending hundreds of billions on welfare each year?  Yes.  Over a decade, we're talking about trillions of dollars in welfare outlay.  Is it better today than it might have been if actions in the 90s hadn't been taken?  Maybe.  I'm not sure at this point.  It still seems awfully bloated, and may have blossomed back out since Newt was Speaker, so I am not making the case for two things here.  I am not saying Newt didn't help improve our welfare situation.  I'm also not saying it hasn't gotten worse since he was in office, which wouldn't be his responsibility.  I will say that I have found myself thinking that both parties contributed to some smoke and mirrors during that period.  Things got somewhat better with regard to welfare, but nowhere near as better as we thought it was going to get.

Sorry, I'm not going to join you in giving Newt credit for the Tea Party.  If we're going to give Newt the credit for that, then we need to delve into where Newt came up with his idea for a contract, and give others credit too.  Newt gets credit for the Contract.  Tea Party members get credit for the Tea Party.

Under his leadership as Speaker of the House the Republican Congress produced four consecutive balanced budgets, welfare reform, strengthened our national defense and intelligence.

My view of a balanced budget is this.  Your outlays for government expenses and interest on the then current debt, must be exceeded by, or at the very least equaled by, the then current government receipts. The national debt either has to remain static, or decrease.  Any increase is evidence that the national budget was not balanced.  Please use this LINK to take note if our budgets were balanced or not between 1994 and 1999.  The budget deficit did continue to grow, but Gingrich, the House, and Senate deserve credit for bringing our growing debt down from around $380 million per year, to between $113 to $130 million by '98 and '99.  That's an impressive accomplishment, Newt deserves credit for the part he played in reducing the growth of our national debt by roughly two-thirds.

I touched on Welfare reform above.  Right now I'll provide some actual numbers.  LINK  Please note that the federal government is still spending over $400 billion dollars on Welfare each year.  We're talking about somewhere in the neighborhood of $4.250 trillion dollars over ten years.  Does that sound fixed to anyone else?  It doesn't to me.  Am I going to blame this all on Newt?  Of course not. (My thoughts above expand on that.)  I never bought into the idea that Welfare had been fixed.  I considered it somewhat of a smoke and mirrors routine.  I'm not going to blame Newt for that, it's still my over visions of the touted reforms.

On the issue of our military, I'm going to have to ask folks to join me in being honest with ourselves.  Let's see a show of hands from people who think Bill Clinton handed off a strengthened national defense and intelligence capability to President Bush.  Is anyone here thinking our intelligence services were optimal just eight months after Bush was inaugurated?

The CBO had forecast a deficit for ten years of 2.5 trillion dollars when he was elected Speaker and four years later the ten year forecast was for a surplus of 2.5 trillion dollars for a turnaround of 5 trillion dollars.

All well and good, sounds very exciting.  Actual debt grown before Gingrich and the Republican took over, about $380 million per year.  Debt growth after their takeover, roughly $130 million.  Projected out ten years, that's $3.8 trillion vs $1.3 trillion.  That's a turn-around of $2.5 trillion.  Did debt growth over the ten years after Newt became Speaker actually follow that model?  No.  At the end of Fiscal 1994, the national debt was $4.7 trillion.  At the end of Fiscal 2004, the national debt was $7.4 tillion.  Newt and company probably saved us about $1.25 to $1.5 trillion.  IMO, that's still something to crow about.

They cut taxes and unemployment dropped to 4.2%. President Clinton talks of his administration having balanced budgets, surplus, and welfare reform, that’s true but it was thrust upon him by Newt and the Republican Congress. Spending and earmarks dropped as soon as Newt became Speaker and both remained low during his tenure as Speaker and skyrocketed as soon as he left the Speaker’s position.

I agree with a good portion of this.  Anything that happened good under the Clinton administration, wasn't of his own doing.  I am still less willing to attribute all this to Newt.  Fact of the matter is, spending remained low until Fiscal 2003.  At that point the budget was negatively impacted by the War on Terrorism.  Sadly, that wasn't all.  Still that happened a considerable period after Newt left office.  He left office in 1999, and spending didn't blow out until fiscal 2003.

Those who didn’t want him keeping government spending under control, the Republican establishment, are the ones who are now attacking him and trying to stop his return to Washington. Republicans should be apologizing to Newt for squandering the bounty he brought to the country instead of attacking him.

Those Republican establishment types, aren't merely focused on Newt, so the political paranoia on his behalf doesn't sell with me.  Besides, I see it more of a favoring of Romney, than an outright attempt to deny Newt as opposed to Santorum.  They don't want either of them.  As for the bounty Newt brought to the nation, I am appreciative to a point.  Any guy that is willing to buy into government fixes to supposed Man-Made Global Warming is not concerning himself with government outlays, and most certainly not the outlays from my pocket book.

I believe this is Newt’s time.

I don't.

America is in trouble and needs an advocate, Newt Gingrich is that advocate.

Yes, it's getting warmer outside every day...

I do not see Newt as the advocate we need.  Up until a few months ago he was willing to advocate for things I abhore.

FRank

Take care Frank.  Sorry I couldn't agree with you more on this.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you for the comments. I am not glued to the Gingrich campaign site, nor am I getting frequent emails to boot. I realize that campaigns attract people that mean well, and we shouldn’t blame the campaign for everything. It still baffles me some of this absolute crash and burn tactics used against Santorum. Support for this must come from somewhere, because some of it just wreaks of organizational production. That said, I don’t think it’s all derived from that, so I do cut Gingrich some slack with regard to it.

Unspun is a good person, if it’s the same person I used to know, so I’m not here to give them an overly hard time. The person I knew had good instincts about most things, and I’d imagine they still do.

“Wild eyed stuff from the 1960 Kennedy campaign”, that was my first thought too, although I was nine at the time, the overt anti-Catholic sentiment was rampant that election cycle. I think folks sometimes let certain thoughts overcome their normally reasoned logic. We’ve all been guilty of it on some subject or anther, so no use acting like we haven’t, no inference to you intended.

I don’t think there’s once chance in a gazillion, that Congress is going to implement a Catholic game plan in this climate of “Christ is dead”, and we can’t pray in public schools because someone will be fatally injured. Islamic Sharia has a far better chance, and Obama hasn’t sought that. (YET!) LOL

Thank you for your post. I appreciate the comments, and the agreements of course.

Take care.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I find caucuses annoying. But it’s not really as disconnected as it sounds. Candidates get people to be their delegate selections and put them at every caucus, where they are announced as the candidate delegate. Then, when the caucus votes for a delegate, that’s the person they choose, if they are the majority.

So the “pricinct delegates” are essentially campaign volunteers for the campaign. Yes, they could switch candidates, but that is unlikely. They will then pick campaign volunteers to be the delegates to the next level, and the next.

They are not “bound”, but it isn’t often a delegate will switch. Imagine any of the outspoken candidate supporters here at FR switching their candidate tomorrow — that’s what we would be talking about.

Having said that, interestingly enough, in Tennessee, where the delegates are actually picked and put on the ballot by the candidates, one of the hand-picked Gingrich delegates was his campaign co-chair, but he switched support to Santorum right before the election. Then he was elected as a Gingrich delegate.

My guess is everybody is counting him as a “gingrich” vote, even though the gingrich folks were laughing about how since Santorum didn’t have a full slate of delegates, he wouldn’t get all his delegate votes (since someone else’s delegate would be sent instead).

[chimera]

Well, of all of them, I think Gingrich would be the best fit for the job, for the reasons you note. And of those in contention, I think he'd do best one-on-one against Odumbo in a debate setting. The polls seem to show he lags behind the others among the general electorate, but so did Reagan against Carter at this relative point in the campaign. But Reagan wiped the floor with Carter in the debates and took advantage of Carter's weak response to the Iranian situation. Gingrich can do likewise against Obumwad, just substitute economy, deficit, and unemployment for Iran hostage situation.

[Toespi]

Ya know.....you have called me stupid, I see here you are calling another freeper a liar, I have noticed numerous posts from you that are equally trashy. Get a grip.

[duffee]

I’m on the way out the door and don’t have time to respond to all at this time but you imply that I have a problem wih Santorum’s family values and with “Social Conservatism” and his voting record on these issues and that is NOT the case I applaud that but we have more problems than that and looking at the entire package he does not have the attributes that Newt has. I made posted the following the other day, I was reluctant to post it but glad I did. I think it applies as part of our discussion.

“I’m Baptist and I must admit to being a bit of a “backslider” but I don’t really understand the lack of forgiveness for Newt’s marital transgressions after he has publicly admitted his mistakes and gone to his Church and received absolution for his sin. Every Church I’ve attended ends the service with an invitation to come to and accept Jesus and be forgiven for your sins and receive salvation. Apparently many want Jesus to forgive Newt but they are not willing to do so themselves. My wife says she doesn’t care about Newt’s marriages, that we don’t know or need to know the details she just knows that America needs Newt.”

I have an engagement I must leave now but I will return to this.

[presently no screen name]

Seems like liars vote for the lying candidate. Not surprised they stick with their own kind. They don’t truth when it hits them.

[Guenevere]

Rick Santorum is right.

Many mainline protestant churches have gone apostate in the past 30, 40 years......they pick and choose what passages of the Bible to recognize....

..and edge closer and closer each year to apostate views on abortion, gays and 'social gospel'.

For instance....the fast growing denomination Presbyterian Church PCA broke off from the mainline Presbyterian USA in the mid70's for this very reason.

At a local political gathering recently, I met a couple .....long time Catholics.....who had recently left their church becuse of the 'social gospel' preached and the emphasis to 'help Obama'.....

What do you not understand about this?

[darrellmaurina]

86 posted on Friday, March 09, 2012 3:55:17 PM by DoughtyOne: “Thank you for your post. I appreciate the comments, and the agreements of course. Take care.”

Thank you, Doughty One... much appreciated.

I remember our prior discussions last year about the National Anthem and the SDA Medal of Honor recipient. I value your desire here to emphasize the importance of Christian values in politics, and I think it’s important for American Christians today, regardless of denomination, to realize that we’re under a direct frontal assault.

It is disheartening to hear comments here on Free Republic, one of the more influential conservative discussion forums on the internet, which seem to relegate faith to people’s private lives and act as if we should not allow religious morality to govern our political decisions.

Someone else here on Free Republic said correctly that it appears some conservatives have allowed liberalism to remain rent-free in certain back corners of their minds. I think nearly everyone who posts on Free Republic is a well-meaning conservative, and I’m not accusing people here of being closet liberals; I just wish I weren’t seeing attacks on Christianity from conservatives that are inconsistent with the conservative view of Judeo-Christian Western civilization which I am well aware Newt Gingrich strongly affirms.

[Guenevere]

Actually there's a law circulating in Florida right now to prevent Sharia Law entering our courts.

We have over 50 cases nationwide where Sharia Law was cited.

[katiedidit1]

Thanks, I posted this on several FB sites:) just heard on Fox that Romney is ahead

[Red Steel]

They must have cited that Rass poll. That won’t happen in Ole Miss - Mittens is not going to win Mississippi.

Earlier today, Fox cited this poll and the Alabama Rass poll showing Newt ahead in both states.

[georgiagirl_pam]

Are you calling Newt Balut? What do you mean by that?

[katiedidit1]

BIG REBEL YELL FOR NEWT!

[darrellmaurina]

Guenevere, we agree regarding the apostasy of most of the major mainline denominations.

By the way, as long as you pointed out the PCUSA/PCA split, it may interest you that while I attend an English-speaking congregation of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, the rest of my family attends a Korean-speaking congregation of the Presbyterian Church in America whose pastor speaks very little English. We also have a fairly conservative PCUSA in this area whose pastor is an evangelical and I've visited there occasionally, but I would not join it due to the apostasy of the denomination.

Rick Santorum’s speech is **NOT** attacking Protestantism in general, but rather attacking liberal Protestants who have denied the Gospel. If people kept digging into Santorum’s speeches, I would not be at all surprised if he's said some severely critical things about liberal Roman Catholics as well.

As a conservative Catholic, I assume Rick Santorum affirms the decrees of the Council of Trent which severely attack Reformation doctrine. That means Santorum and I have major theological problems with each other. I affirm Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 80 and its statements about the Mass, and while I am less familiar with the details of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, I certainly have no problem with their pretty strongly anti-Catholic doctrinal affirmations. (Side point: I'm more familiar with the Heidelberg because spent most of my adult life in the Dutch Reformed world, and my local church was once a Dutch Reformed mission church before it left the URC and joined the ARPs. My wife's church was in the early stages of joining the Christian Reformed Church before the women's ordination and homosexuality issues blew up in the CRC, and they decided to join the PCA instead of the CRC.)

But that's not what Santorum was talking about when he was attacking mainline Protestantism.

Conservative Catholics and evangelical Protestants have been working together in the pro-life movement for at least four decades. We've pretty much figured out how to agree to disagree. And we both have very little use for the liberal elements in our churches which seek to pervert the faith.

[katiedidit1]

God bless you ReneeLynn:)