Posted on 03/30/2012 8:37:02 AM PDT by VinL
Newt Gingrich called House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) endorsement of Mitt Romney a big win for the former Massachusetts governor.
"It's a great achievement for Mitt Romney," Gingrich said Friday on Charlie Sykes's radio show. "Paul Ryan is one of the rising stars in the Republican Party."
Gingrich said both the endorsement from Ryan and from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) earlier in the week were big gets for Romney. Absent from the entire interview was any criticism by Gingrich toward Romney or Rick Santorum, both of whom have maintained much stronger leads over the former House Speaker in recent polls.
The lack of any criticism is part of Gingrich's revamped campaign strategy: a spokesman for Gingrich recently announced that he would refrain from criticizing his primary opponents and instead focus on making it to the Republican National Convention.
Additionally, Gingrich said in the interview that although Romney isn't the inevitable 2012 Republican presidential nominee, if he does get the 1,144 delegates needed to clinch the nomination, he and the rest of the Republican presidential field would rally around Romney.
"I have no doubt that once he gets 1,144 delegates we will all unify and support him," Gingrich added. "I think Mitt Romney is clearly the frontrunner. I think he will probably get 1,144 but I think he has to earn it."
Gingrich's comments came a few days after he and Romney had a private meeting ahead of the Louisiana primary on Saturday...Gingrich said he had also recently met with Santorum and that all three candidates "talk regularly" about defeating President Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
“... honestly believe she would have been the perfect person to organize the grassroots- which is, as you argue, has to be done.”
This begins at the precinct level, or not at all.
We will be at our precinct meetings, or we will not.
We will be delegates, or someone else will.
If not us, whom?
If not now, when?
Well here’s a warning. I’ll still be bashing Romney when and if he wins the nomination. I don’t care. The Obama-Romney ticket is two sides of the same coin.
Newt would do very well as Moon-Colony-Czar and Chief of Braggadocio in a Robmey administration.
Even if Romney were to appoint normal liberals, which I don't think is necessarily going to happen, it would be better than the radical leftist alternative.
The answer of course is to focus on strengthening the conservative presence in the Senate, as well as the House.
ROTFLMYromenyOFF.
You’re pathetic.
Newt Gingrich is stating the hopelessness of this horrid primary.
Your guy is open to being Romney’s VP = Pathetic!
That job is Rubio’s for the taking!
to think these slime ball establishment bastards have managed to pull off another theftPardon me, but I beg to differ.
All they did is hang tight with their 35% while we proceeded to slaughter each other with our 65%.
We did it to ourselves, by failing to unify early.
We did it.
It's our fault.
You can wa, wa, wa, wa wambulance all you want but the fact is that conservatives outnumber Romney voters and we never figured out how to use that.
So yes, they are laughing and we are crying, or cursing, or mumbling in our beer, or whatever.
But. We. Did. It. To. Our. Selves.
Period.
Exactly right, and I feel the same. Rick is still my guy but I haven't taken my eyes off the prize: DEFEATING OBAMA. I have no doubt Republicans will rally around whomever the eventual nominee is.
Spot on, RitaOK. The GOP isn’t called the stupid party without good reasons either. Open primaries and beginning in the open primary caucus state of Iowa has once again given us a repeat of ‘08 with the same result, but at least McCain served in our military and ole Huckabee was said to be likeable with his down home charm and jokes.
When I first heard of the meeting between Newt and Milt, I took Newt at his word about the outcome of it. Now with this new warm and fuzzy Newt towards Milt, I wonder if there was a deal or not. This is sure a 180 in Newts attitude towards him for sure.
All they did is hang tight with their 35% while we proceeded to slaughter each other with our 65%.
We did it to ourselves, by failing to unify early.
We did it.
It's our fault.
You can wa, wa, wa, wa wambulance all you want but the fact is that conservatives outnumber Romney voters and we never figured out how to use that.
So yes, they are laughing and we are crying, or cursing, or mumbling in our beer, or whatever.
But. We. Did. It. To. Our. Selves.
Period.
A very wise freeper had this to say about what you are stating. It taught me a lot:
"It’s Huckabee bullheadedly plowing ahead of Thompson by sheer belief in his own holiness all over again. The story always starts out the same: Conservatives get a credible alternative to the Establishment front-runner, and he starts getting attacked.
Then the SoCon who stayed under the radar (Huckabee then, Santorum now) becomes everyone’s plan B, because the guy who could have won (Thompson, Gingrich) was unloaded upon by the GOP-E money machine. Then the smug supporters of the upstart underdog all thump their chest and say “NO.....YOUR GUY SHOULD DROP OUT!!”
Then the vote is already split, the credible candidate becomes non-credible because of vote-splitting, and the upstart winds-up in second place because folks trying to beat the Establishment liberal switch to plan B because the smug voters of the only holy candidate make it loudly clear that they’re going to support the holy upstart candidate even if it means the Liberals win. It JUST KEEPS HAPPENING.
In reality, what needed to happen was for Santorum to drop out early, when it became apparent that there was someone who could lead Romney in the polls for a long time, and when it was clear he had a friggin’ LITANY of ballot and delegate issues. Even if it was not Newt at the time (heck, replace Newt with Perry), Conservatives should have united around a single candidate with a full organization and little to no ballot and delegate issues, and there SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PLAN B. Conservative should have been forced to STAY united, learn to DEFEND their candidate rather than defect because the rich, Establishment Liberal was able to smear the credible Conservative with overwhelming cash.
If there had been no Santorum, Newt would be leading right now. He would be leading because we would have been united against Romney from day one, and there would have been no defections based on the fact that - by simply running under the radar - someone else rises because they haven’t been unloaded on.
We CANNOT keep doing this. We CANNOT keep Santoruming and Huckabeeing ourselves based on some sick notion of the holiness of a politician. We cannot keep some broke one-percenter in the race because they were able to show well in Iowa after living there for two years and facing almost no attacks because of their low polling. We cannot keep rewarding these guys for throwing Hail Mary passes when we have a chance to defeat the Liberals. No more “shoestring” campaigns, no more one-percenters who surge in time to do well in Iowa, no more long-shot dreams based on the notion that some candidate is the mostest Christianest candidate of them all.
No more Huckabees, no more Santorums. No more long-shots who surge in Iowa. Rule them out before they ruin another Primary season. Santorum was never going to get 1144 delegates - it was NEVER going to happen. The fact that people bull-headedly refused to waver from him KILLED us - and then they turned around and taunted Newt and Perry voters for voting for Santorum in desperation, citing the vote count as if nobody knows what was actually happening. No more Santorums, no more Huckabees. No more long shots, period." ~ TitansAFC
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2861639/posts?page=96#96
Excellent post#53. Excellent and truly the starting point of a real discussion of what needs to be done.
Thanks, onyx.......that doens’t indicate that Santorum or Paul met with Romney.....only Gingrich.
“America will deserve what she gets.”
That’s the spirit. It’ll be great for our kids and grandkids.
I do believe anyone who wasn’t prepared to ‘play the game’ (and that would be Sarah Palin) was successfully discouraged from running.
Wrong:
"True to form, even today Romney is effectively promising not to take America back to pro-growth Reaganomics. Cowed by President Obama's class warfare rhetoric, Romney promises to eliminate taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends, but only for middle income Americans. He says he would do that because they, not the wealthy, were the ones most hurt by the recession."
"But effective tax policy does not distribute tax cuts based on who 'needs' a tax cut the most. That is Obama neo-socialist class rhetoric. Effective tax policy enacts tax cuts that will do the most to promote economic growth and prosperity."
"That is what Reagan did in cutting tax rates across the board for everybody, including the wealthy who have the most resources to invest. That is what the middle class and working people actually need most, cutting tax rates that will promote their jobs, higher wages, and personal prosperity."
"Romney the Republican establishment businessman is telling us with his limited, crabbed policy kowtowing to Obama's class warfare rhetoric that he feels, like Bush I and Republican RINO moderates generally, that he cannot explain and defend good supply-side policy to the public. Given his background and who he is as a rich Wall Street takeover artist, he personally may be right about that. Who is going to take seriously a Wall Street millionaire calling for tax cuts for millionaires? That is why he personally is not a good vessel for carrying the Republican standard this year. He is actually a perfect caricature for the neo-Marxist class warfare arguments of Obama and the Occupy Wall Street rabble. That is one reason why Romney, in fact, is the least electable."
"Romney's understanding of economic policy as a businessman is overblown. There is no real history of those with private business experience coming to Washington and making good policy there as a result. See, for example, Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The term that free market activists use in Washington to refer to the business reps they know from first hand experience is 'corporate pukes.'"
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/11/rino-romney-is-the-least-elect/print
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.