Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: governsleastgovernsbest

What nonsense. The only reason why Reagan might not win in the GOP today is because the establishment would beat him back as they did Newt Gingrich. They successfully beat back Reagan in ‘76 and they thought he was destroyed. He rallied the people in New Hampshire with his “I am paying for this microphone” comment and took the momentum from Bush, the establishment’s man. From then on it was over.

If Gingrich had been able to take out Romney in either Iowa or Florida, Romney would have been done as Bush was. But the establishment saw the power of Gingrich’s ability to rally the people and sought to destroy them. Because they did not want another clear-voiced conservative getting the nomination. They want losses (Dole, McCain, Romney) or shallow victories (Bush, Bush). They do not want conservatives winning in overwheliming landslides (Reagan) and continuously work to undermine them.


22 posted on 02/12/2013 7:30:31 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: cotton1706
The real reason that Newt didn't get the nomination:


25 posted on 02/12/2013 7:36:43 AM PST by kosciusko51 (Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: cotton1706

I realize this is verboten to say, but *I* think Gingrich was responsible for much if not all of his own woes.

Just for ONE and excluding the wife..... Sitting on the couch with Nazi P was the worst of all metaphorical statements on what Gingrich was prepared to do for popularity.

Maybe he would have been good, he would certainly be better than the Fraud, but the same was also true of Romney, and about at least a third of “us” said Hell No to that, “I’m staying home to send a strong message to the GOP.”


31 posted on 02/12/2013 7:51:12 AM PST by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: cotton1706

I completely disagree. Look at the contenders for the 1980 nomination ... Reagan was the only real Conservative in the pack. Then imagine if Reagan were competing against Barry Goldwater, William F Buckley Jr and George HW Bush. Bush would be the nominee.

In 2012 I saw Conservatives splitting between Gingrich and Santorum. This is an oversimplification ( due to brevity - I’m writing this on a smartphone) but it amounted to 30% sayng Gingrich was the true Conservative, 30% saying that Santorum was and 40% saying that Romney was Conservative enough and could win. So Romney got the nomination, without really having a majority of the primary voters behind him.

My fervent hope for 2016 is that it’s a two candidate race for the nomination. But I know that won’t happen ... There’ll be five or six Conservatives dividing 60 to 70% of the vote while a moderate (Jeb Bush?) gets the nomination with only 30 to 40%. And Conservatives will be angry, will stay at home on election day but will never admit that they themselves are really to blame for the situation.


33 posted on 02/12/2013 7:54:16 AM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: cotton1706

Newt a clear-voiced conservative? Maybe he’s a better spoken than Romney. He’s also prone to say stupider and Frazier things occasionally. As far as ideology goes, between him and Romney it’s six of one, half a dozen of the other.


53 posted on 02/12/2013 9:28:09 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson