Posted on 04/27/2012 2:00:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, is yet to clinch all the 1,144 delegates he needs to officially be declared the winner of the race, and all but one of his previous campaign rivals have given him their support – with Rick Santorum being the only apparent holdout.
It was revealed Wednesday that both Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who dropped out of the Republican presidential race in January, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, have decided to endorse Romney.
"So today I join the many conservative Republicans across the nation in endorsing Mitt Romney for president and pledge to him, my constituents and the Republican Party that I will continue to work hard to help defeat President (Barack) Obama," Perry said, according to Reuters. Perry had initially endorsed Gingrich when he dropped out of the race.
Gingrich , who is still technically in the race, made it quite clear yesterday that he will be suspending his campaign next week.
According to Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond, on Wednesday morning, the former House Speaker spoke to Romney by phone and shared that he will endorse him for the presidency, The Wall Street Journal reported.
"I think you have to at some point be honest with what's happening in the real world, as opposed to what you'd like to have happened," Gingrich said after Romney swept big victories in five Northeastern states on Tuesday. "Gov. Romney had a very good day yesterday. He got 67 [percent] in one state, and he got 63 in other, 62 in another. Now you have to give him some credit, I mean this guy's worked six years, put together a big machine, and has put together a serious campaign."
While the Republican Party largely seems to be uniting behind their presumptive nominee to face President Obama in the general election in November, arguably Romney's biggest rival, Rick Santorum, who suspended his campaign two weeks ago, remains on the fence on whether he will endorse the former Massachusetts governor or not.
The former Pennsylvania senator has avoided using the word "endorsement" or confirming comments suggesting he would endorse Romney, but according to ABC News, two senior advisers of Santorum's campaign have said that he will be meeting with Romney on May 4. They added that it is "possible" Santorum will make an official endorsement.
In a Tuesday interview with CNN's Piers Morgan, Santorum admitted that Romney would be the GOP candidate to face Obama, and he expressed his commitment to his party – but when asked if his remarks were an endorsement of Romney, Santorum simply said, "You can call it whatever you want."
Santorum promoted his campaign as a social conservative and spoke openly on issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage, and often criticized Romney for not expressing a firm stance on such points. The former Pennsylvania senator appealed largely to evangelicals and conservative Christians, and had gained the backing of many pastors and church leaders across the country. In the end, however, he was unable to compete with Romney's broader appeal.
Iowa voters received last week a late letter seeking contributions to Santorum's campaign, in which he warned that conservatives will be "crippled" if Romney wins. In the letter, Santorum said, "It truly frightens me to think what'll happen if Mitt Romney is the nominee."
Still, his wife, Karen Santorum, said during the CNN interview that they are "working through" and "talking about" formally endorsing Romney, although whether or when that will happen remains to be seen.
Romney's remaining rival, Congressman Ron Paul, has said that he intends to remain in the race even if the former Massachusetts governor nabs the GOP nomination. The highest number of votes Paul attracted in this week's Northeastern primaries was 23.9 percent in Rhode Island, where Romney got 63.2 percent of votes.
"We're in the third lap of a mile race. Who knows? Maybe someone will stumble. You can never tell. If tomorrow Romney had the absolute number, I would continue in a modified way," Rep. Paul said Monday on CNBC.
Not one.
Were you on long-term leave from FR? Or did you follow only selective threads to achieve such a limited perspective?
Day after day for months, each in his turn, it was Perry, it was Bachmann, it was Gingrich, it was Santorum. Not sure who “you all” might be, but you do paint with a mighty broad brush, merely confirming the “whiny Santorum” meme.
I actually am not smug. Although on a thread that is only typing words I could see how you believe that. You are right we are in a world of hut the next 4 years. Stupid GOPe gave us another dud. Who are u voting for in November? I really like Virgil Goode so far.
If you don’t know what poison Willard Romney the open socialist is, a quick Google search ought to clear that up.
Here, I’ll help you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mitt+romney+liberal+record
Only one of which (Pennsylvania) has an even reasonable chance of voting for Romney in the fall.
Between them, these states selected 231 delegates, more than one-fifth the total to clinch the nomination.
And between them, you have to go way back to 1988 to discover that only three of the five (Pennsylvania, Delaware and Connecticut) actually delivered a single electoral vote to the GOP nominee in the fall. Once in the last six election cycles.
I'll vote for Mitt in the fall only because the alternative is so much worse. But these delegate allocation rules need to be overhauled big time to better reward states which actually deliver electoral votes to the GOP in the fall.
Other than 1964 (when lots of left-of-center Republicans, including Romney's father, walked rather than support Goldwater) and 1980 (when Anderson walked rather than support Reagan) I can't think of any modern situation where a major Republican leader didn't “get on board” with the nominee. While Perot and Buchanan were presidential candidates in 1992, 1996, and 2000, neither of them held elected office and I don't think most of us would have considered them to be major Republican leaders prior to them bolting the party.
We have a luxury that Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum do not have — we don't have to get in line behind Romney's leadership. Let's not criticize them too much for doing what is expected of a Republican leader.
As for me, I'm well aware that Free Republic does not allow Romney endorsements, but even if it did. I frankly haven't yet decided what I'm going to do this fall on the presidential race. It's now obvious that Romney will be the Republican nominee, so I hope the likely defeat of Romney this fall doesn't wreck the rest of the Republican federal and state candidates too badly, but it is very likely that Romney's name at the top of the ticket will do serious damage.
At this point, probably the best that can be hoped for is that Free Republic and other Romney opponents will be able to help clean up the wreckage after Romney's defeat this fall, or to aggressively fight Romney's left-of-center agenda if he does somehow get elected.
I’m impressed by how long Gingrich held out. Wasn’t he supposed to be the ‘last best hope’ of conservatives?
Boy, we were SO wrong, there.
I respect Mark Levin and he is voting for Romney. Same with Gingrich. Probably many otherwise good thoughtful Freepers will end up voting for Romney.
Personally, I can not bring myself to vote for him.
“I’m impressed by how long Gingrich held out. Wasn’t he supposed to be the ‘last best hope’ of conservatives?
Boy, we were SO wrong, there.”
Tell that to the so-called conservatives that decided to pull the lever for Romney or the ones that sunk Newt because of his ex-wife.
Apparently the last best hope for conservatives were supposed to be conservatives with a brain.
And guess who didnt show up at the polls?
So what is Newts motivation in backing Romney?
Can you name for me all the derogatory nick names Newt was called on FR? I can name a few that people use for Rick. Some in this very thread.
Sanctimonious, Little Ricky et al.
ROFLLLL
There’s nothing more you can say to lose any more credibility, so stop trying so hard. Your credibility is toast.
IMHO, Rick should switch parties to a new conservative party.
I don’t like ANY of the juvenile name-calling. There was Newtie and N00t, a few others. The bashing went well beyond silly name-calling for all the candidates. Everything but ‘your mother dresses you funny.’ But the fact remains no single candidate got abused/trashed any more than any other, nor did any escape the barbs and criticisms. Candidate bashing was egalitarian throughout the primary season.
I suppose from the candidates’ perspective, at least they were being talked about/fought over. Before Bachmann/ Perry/Cain/Gingrich/Santorum each had a lead in polls, you didn’t see all that much written about him (or her). If I had the time I’d do a search back to November/December 2011 to see how much was written about Santorum. He probably didn’t merit a thread back then. So, as a pol, would he rather be called silly names or be overlooked altogether, as if he didn’t exist? Ya gotta have a significant ego and very thick skin to be in politics.
Need to give it a rest..that’s history and most are moving on from there...all candidates were vetted and hard. Your boy got his when he also was on the top of the ticket, and knew it was coming. So too Perry and the rest.
Although I wasn’t a Cain supporter nobody got hit as hard as Cain. ...he got cut off at knees as no other....surprised it didn’t totally destroy his family with it.
Santorum got hit because he tried to project an image he isn’t and people refused to see the facts of his record and history of playing in the Elites Big Boy Park in order to always advance his career. He then quit on the edges of Pa because he wasn’t about to take another hit there and have it ruin his career entirely.
Rick was in the game to play not to win.
Some can only see a candidate...others see the game.
Some can only see a candidate...others see the game plays.
Who won after all the misguided hate?
The liberals.
For years now republicans have taken some sort of obscene pleasure in blaming the folks who have decided to either not support, not finance, or not vote for the hand selected GOP elitist.
First those folks were but a trickle and ignored. Then the GOP started to lose an election here or there and they became the convenient scapegoat.
GOP representation has leaned heavily RINO for several decades. It wasn't the people not voting or voting for someone else that put those RINOs in place, it was the people who voted for anybody but the democrat. They awake a few months later and watch in frustration as their representative legislates their Rights away.
This is not the fault of the nonvoter or non-supporter.
It is the insidious nature of ‘voting for anybody but...’ The GOP-e knows there is great angst and fear of 0bama getting a second term. They are counting on the ‘anybody but...’ vote to shame and blame, even though Romney is actually a weak candidate and one that does not represent the principles of the party.
But again, this is not why Romney I believe will likely lose. If 0bama plays this right, Romney is the perfect target with which to throw his 1% elite game against. That single target will be enough to totally rally his base.
And then folks like you...will again blame those who chose not to vote, who wrote in their choices, or who simply finally checked out of the party. Never once understanding that the blame rests with the weak candidate nominated by the GOP.
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.