Posted on 03/16/2012 2:20:05 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
It was unbelievable: After Newt Gingrich failed to win both Alabama and Mississippi in the GOP race for president, most members of the mainstream media and political strategists with whom I talked readily admitted, off the record, that he was the most qualified among the Republican candidates to serve as president.
Now these are objective pros that have been around presidential politics for years. I have no doubt they were telling me the truth because these folks only tell you this stuff when it is relatively clear that the candidate is no longer a viable alternative.
Best on foreign policy The Gingrich campaign is pushing the concept that, by staying in the contest, Gingrich could help take away enough delegates to deprive Mitt Romney the numbers needed to have the GOP nomination locked up by the time the candidates reach the convention in Tampa.
Obviously, as a friend of Gingrich’s, I am not going to argue with their decision to press forward. Their frustration is that their candidate knows more about foreign policy and defense matters in his little finger than the other two leading candidates know in their entire body.
It is likely they find it incredible that a man who could out-debate Barack Obama is now in this predicament.
But the reality is that no camp agrees with any other camp’s delegate math.
Romney, who has spent a fortune to amass his delegates, believes the numbers suggest that he will have no problem locking the nomination up by or before the last contested state.
The fact that Romney continues to gather delegates in areas he himself considers “away games” suggests that his staying power might just deliver a requisite number of delegates before the convention.
As for Santorum, his camp believes their best chance is for Gingrich to exit stage left and allow there to become a consolidation of “conservative” voters who, by their calculations, would leave Romney pulling his usual 35 percent in most states and give Santorum huge wins in critical upcoming contests.
That sounds great for Santorum, but it might not work out as planned. Unless Santorum received an outright endorsement from Gingrich, a portion of Newt’s votes might stray to Romney.
The truth is no one knows what will happen. But for my friend Newt there are certain things I hope will take place.
First, I hope that if the money starts to truly disappear, he will scale his efforts back appropriately. That does not necessarily mean leaving the race, but it does mean picking and choosing battles and making sure that the end result of those battles will not be disastrous.
The second thing I hope he will do is start to put aside any personal feelings he might have toward any of his fellow candidates. It appears he is well on his way as to Santorum. But it is also clear that the path toward a relationship with Romney seems rocky.
What Romney should do And really, who has the responsibility to repair that relationship? The answer is Romney.
If Romney’s math is right and he does get the GOP nomination, he is insane to believe that followers of Gingrich or Santorum will flock to the polls to support him. He would need Gingrich, Santorum, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann on his team to have a prayer of not repeating a “John McCain, Part Two.”
Oh, and add to that Sarah Palin, whose voice has only been made stronger in recent weeks.
No, I would not ask Newt to leave the race. I have seen his seemingly impossible schemes work too many times. But what I would ask of the other two major GOP candidates would be to show this man some respect.
He has earned it, and they will need him in November ... if not sooner.
The way many of Newt’s supporters hate on a true conservative like Santorum....
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
There is a difference between hate and frustration. I’m a Newt guy and I do not hate Santorum. I just think he has hurt us by allowing the Debate to become about abortion and contraception. We had control of the White House, Senate and House and we STILL have abortions. And, nobody gives a damn if a high school kid buys a condom at the gas station this weekend. Rick is coming across like the Pat Robertson of the 21st Century. And, while we agree with his social values, those things are not what this race is about.
After all they put him through, only 2 1/2 minutes of retraction.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/what-really-happened-gingrich-ethics-case/336051
Good ad.
KEEP GOING, NEWT -——>
You can’t sell your superior product by insulting the people that are supposed to buy it.
If the product, knowing your product is superior, isn’t
being bought, you have to ask yourself what am I doing wrong? Chances are it is the packaging and marketing.
Newt should have a sit down with Rick Perry and ask him how it is that he comes off likable. No matter how tough times got for him, he came off as a likeable person who handled his troubles with grace and humor. He didn’t whine and complain.
See, I think you are worth engaging. This is all just politics and the big winner is already chosen.
** President Newt Gingrich-”Our beloved republic deserves nothing less.”
“unfortunately he’s too old and arrogant”
How old was Ronald Reagan when elected and sworn in for his first term, and when he was re-elected for his second term in a landslide???
You ARE aware that Reagan was said by quite a few of his detractors to be “too old”.
Those people tried their best to deprive us of Ronald Reagan.
Exactly like someone of your mindset is doing all you can to deprive us of Newt Gingrich.
Another parallel is that Reagan was as much as 20 pts behind JIMMY CARTER early on.
There are other aspects to the political situation, but when you hone in on the age thing and can’t beat Obama in the polls thing, those against Reagan and those against Newt have a lot in common.
If the against Reagan had prevailed, those eight years would never have happened.
Who was right, who was wrong in those two things they threw at Reagan to try their best to stop him.
Is there any doubt?
None.
I will answer your claim that Newt caused his own problem. Did Newt, who had almost no money, cause Romney to run 5 mil of lying ads against him in Iowa and collapse his poll numbers? Did Newt cause Romney to quadruple down after Newt came back and won SC, and run 20 mil of lying ads in FL to knock Newt way back in second place.
Did Newt CAUSE Santorum to sprint into that yawning gap caused by Romney, to become the diversion as a second non Romney, whereas Newt before Iowa had led the national polls as the non Romney?
No.
Newt wasn’t too old and arrogant...to quote you...back then before what Mitt did...to be on top of the heap.
Why is Sarah Palin for Newt?
She knows what it’s like to be destroyed by political enemies while still getting out of the starting blocks, when you are a conservative reformer and the E doesn’t like you.
She isn’t perfect, neither is Newt.
Neither do the facts support that either one of them caused their own problem.
Ronald Reagan was 68 when running, 69 when sworn in.
Can you say “Newt Gingrich” as the exact parallel that leaps to mind?
You nailed it.
Resentment
Envy
People with a little talent H8 those with a LOT of it.
LLS
Thank you FRiend!
LLS
The only way Gingrich can make it to Tampa is to make a strategic retreat here. It’s as clear as day what will happen in Illinois based on the current polls, and this will be repeated in other states. Romney is winning that state with a plurality that could be beaten by a combination of Newt and Rick’s votes. And it is not proportional, it is essentially winner-take-all by district. The only plausible way Newt and Rick can deny Romney the nomination is to team up now. If Newt wants to make it to the convention in contention for President or V.P. he has to throw his support behind Rick, who is closer to Romney in every poll right now. There isn’t time to change the dynamics of this race any other way. The only way Newt can win this primary is not to play. For Rick’s part, he needs to offer Newt the V.P. slot or anything he can, because he is also a dead man walking unless they form this team. Romney is sailing comfortably to the nomination as long as Newt and Rick split the votes in the winner-take-all contests where 2/3rds of the remaining delegates come from.
Ad hominem is merely evidence of lack of substance and/or common sense.
In the first place, I am not speaking about Palin. Palin isn’t a personality like Newt.
Palin is likable and doesn’t come off a braggart with little humor. She also doesn’t have a past of relationship problems. I am being nice by saying it that way. There are people out there on our side that will never like him for that. To me, I don’t find it a big reason if he has mended his ways.
Newt wasn’t all that fond of Reagan in 1988. He speechified on Reagan’s failures. So to compare himself to Reagan now is kind of disingenuous, especially when that speech is readily available on YouTube.
Reagan was totally likable. He was not conceited and a braggart.
Age is only a problem when you get to the point that you have nothing left to learn.
I am not depriving you of Newt. So far, the voters have not chosen Newt. They voted for the person they wanted to vote for. I haven’t even voted yet. Vote for Newt. That is your business.
But if a person is unable to win, there is a reason and it isn’t the voters fault. Reagan was able to win in spite of the opposition on both sides of the aisle. There was a reason why.
But but but...dforest said Newt is too old. dforest brought up Newt’s AGE. In fact he placed age first, arrogance second in the sentence.
I brought up Ronald Reagan to dforest.
Then I read that dforest says people don’t like Newt because of certain personality traits they perceive, not that they disagree with or dislike what he says.
That must be the arrogance.
Age, arrogance, any old port in a storm, as the saying goes.
Whatever it takes, is another way of putting it.
Just throw it all up against the wall and hope something sticks.
Meanwhile, worship at the feet of one who can’t hold a qualification candle to Newt, and whom many dislike as well.
Santorum sprinted off Romney’s lying attack ad money. That’s how he did it, while Romney left HIM alone.
Now he’s somehow annointed and legitimate while Newt isn’t, and it’s all Newt’s own doing?
dforest spinning like a top is hard to follow. Dizzying, in fact.
Your words are evidence of a party hack mentality and your kind will cause an open rebellion against the republican party and hopefully the reformation or replacent of the gop with a true Conservative party. Read his speech below and let’s see if you insult him like you have me.
“CPAC 1975 :: Ronald ReaganLet Them Go Their Way
Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA)
Conservative Political Action Conference
Washington, DC
March 1, 1975
Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.
Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.
Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.
Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.
But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.
The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians.” They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority.
And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals—and pursue them they will.
I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans—Republicans, Democrats and independents—classify themselves as “conservatives” than ever before. And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation?
These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to “spread the word.”
In another recent survey, of 35,000 college and university students polled, three-fourths blame American business and industry for all of our economic and social ills. The same three-fourths think the answer is more (and virtually complete) regimentation and government control of all phases of business—including the imposition of wage and price controls. Yet, 80 percent in the same poll want less government interference in their own lives!
In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues—to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state—that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation’s ability to protect itself.
A study has been made that is so revealing that I’m not surprised it has been ignored by a certain number of political commentators and columnists. The political science department of Georgetown University researched the mandate of the 1972 election and recently presented its findings at a seminar.
Taking several major issues which, incidentally, are still the issues of the day, they polled rank-and-file members of the Democratic party on their approach to these problems. Then they polled the delegates to the two major national conventions—the leaders of the parties.
They found the delegates to the Republican convention almost identical in their responses to those of the rank-and-file Republicans. Yet, the delegates to the Democratic convention were miles apart from the thinking of their own party members.
The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy.
Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked. Gov. Meldrim Thomson is making them work in New Hampshire; so is Arch Moore in West Virginia and Mills Godwin in Virginia. Jack Williams made them work in Arizona and I’m sure Jim Edwards will in South Carolina.
If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.
When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.
The “lab test” of my theory – California—was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: “We’re spending $1 million more a day than we’re taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!” That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.
California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation’s caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month.
We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.
We instituted a policy of “cut, squeeze and trim” and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service.
After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists, we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.
It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we’d run up a deficit the first year of $750 million.
That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today
than then.
Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as “an unnecessary expenditure of public funds.”
For more than two decades governments—federal, state, local—have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.
We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.
We also turned over—for the first time in almost a quarter of a century—a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.
Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.
Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is “60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy.” That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.
Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation—a recession, if you will.
We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.
In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.
What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?
Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.”
This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called “Economics and the Public Purpose.” In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.
Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?
Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.
We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!
Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.
We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a “first strike” possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber.
I realize that millions of Americans are sick of hearing about Indochina, and perhaps it is politically unwise to talk of our obligation to Cambodia and South Vietnam. But we pledged—in an agreement that brought our men home and freed our prisoners—to give our allies arms and ammunition to replace on a one-for-one basis what they expend in resisting the aggression of the Communists who are violating the cease-fire and are fully aided by their Soviet and Red Chinese allies. Congress has already reduced the appropriation to half of what they need and threatens to reduce it even more.
Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.
We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, “Deal falsely with our God,” we shall be made “a story and byword throughout the world.”
Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.
I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.
Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.
Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.
And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.
Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.
Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.
Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.
Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.
And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”
We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.”
Read More :: http://conservative.org/cpac/archives/cpac-1975-ronald-reagan/#ixzz1pIMTJYr3
Pearls before swine.
Truth is winding its way to the forefront and the pigs are terrified.
Geesh, you are childish. Maybe you are near a convenient sandbox.
Sarah recognizes the best in Newt, and she recognizes the same type of people that destroyed her viability...and I mean national viability, not that with her loyal supporters...also set out to destroy Newt.
She isn’t thought to be too old and arrogant, so that would not be her failing that causes her to support him, now would it.
Must be some other failing. Guess she can’t recognize too old and too arrogant and too personality challenged when she sees it, or she would’ve voted for Santorum against Newt.
I see why you would rather not talk about Sarah supporting Newt.
You couldn’t wait to chase a rabbit by bringing up Michele Bachmann, when you didn’t like the focus I brought to the thread that Newt scored with his specific gasoline price policy and his American Energy policy to achieve it, but an Obama interviewer claimed ALL of O’s opponents were pushing that and never named Newt.
You knew full well the interviewer didn’t have Michele Bachmann in mind, and you knew that whole rabbit chase was beside the point.
Well I can sure bring up Sarah Palin if I want to.
Enjoy a 2nd term with Obama then. Not many people are happy with Romney...but I’d darn sure vote for him to counter a vote for Obama. This election is THAT serious.
When people left Newt after Romney’s lying ad tsunami and went to Santorum, they placed their bets on a weak horse.
Weak in comparison to Romney. And I’m not debating the relative merits and demerits of those two.
But when they left Newt in the dirt by the roadside, they made a mistake.
That’s my strong opinion.
I don’t deny the validity of your points, if it was only technical or mathematical in nature.
It isn’t, in my view.
I don’t see Santorum doing it as the leader.
Newt is the leader.
Those are just the plain facts.
Just because Romney appears poised to take Santorum, without many thousands of Newt voters deciding to vote for Santorum, doesn’t mean if Newt did what you said, and Santorum did what you said, it would work out like you want.
I know you said there’s no other way it can work but by doing it your way.
OK.
What do you lose in the process of trying to make silk purses out of sows ears or trying to pound square pegs into round holes?
So, it won’t necessarily work out, and something WILL be lost in the process. It isn’t only on the gain side that there will be unintended consequences.
Nor can you force people to turn out en masse and leave the leader who was run over by Romney then bypassed for politically dead by Santorum, who is a mistake, in the minds of many who aren’t for him, whether they be for Romney, Paul or Newt.
ROTFLMAO!
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.