Fox News: Tea Party Vaults Gingrich into First

weeklystandard.com ^ | Nov 17, 2011 | JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

[Berlin_Freeper]

The latest Fox News poll shows Newt Gingrich leading the Republican presidential field, edging Mitt Romney. Gingrich now has the support of 23 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, compared with 22 percent for Romney, 15 percent for Herman Cain, 8 percent for Ron Paul, 7 percent for Rick Perry, 6 percent for Michele Bachmann, 3 percent for Jon Huntsman, and 2 percent for Rick Santorum.

Support for Gingrich has almost doubled over the past three weeks. Over that span, Gingrich is up 11 percentage points, Bachmann and Huntsman are up 3 points apiece, Romney is up 2 points, Paul and Santorum are down 1 point apiece, Perry is down 3 points, and Cain is down 9 points. The number of respondents who are either undecided or want someone else has dropped from 17 to 14 percent.

[jwalsh07]

Man, I like Herman but his breadth of knowledge is just not what it should be. The average poster on FR knows more about world affairs than Herman does. America already elected a guy like that and it’s not working out real well.

[jwalsh07]

Very funny Marvin.

[ontap]

Yea! those black helicopters are gonna be arriving anytime now!!!

[so_real]

This is sleazy advertising disguised as reporting. Fox News *wants* us to believe the Tea Party is behind Gingrich's rise. So that is what they report. But that is ridiculous. Gingrich was the one who felt the Tea Party was becoming a militant right wing group. Gingrich was the one who touted the importance of the Tea Party movement was "exaggerated". Gingrich is not a strong ally to the Tea Party as is Bachmann or Cain. But since Fox recognizes the importance of Tea Party support, they are manufacturing a sense of that support for their chosen candidate. I am Tea Party, grass roots, and We the People. I'll dance with the ones who represent me in these debates. That's Cain / Bachmann / likely Santorum / maybe even Paul. Don't believe for a minute that just because Gingrich has a rich political history and knows a good answer for every question that he has our best interests in mind. He's a favor-trader just like every other career politician.

[who knows what evil?]

Well, I’m a Newt supporter, but I intend to hang around FR and battle the circular firing squad. When they attack Herman Cain, I’m gonna defend him on his pluses. When they attack Rick Perry, I’m gonna point out his strong points. When they attack Milt Rominy or Barry the White Hut bassturd, I’m gonna shut up and let the work go forward.

Excellent strategy...

[MHGinTN]

If they had entered, the same circular firing squad would be gunning for them also.

[tuckrdout]

Thanks for the reminder.

He is NOT who America needs. Newt is for Newt.

[jwalsh07]

No doubt and unless conservatives coalesce around somebody, and at this point I’d say Newt if only because he can at least articulate a conservative message based on all three legs of the stool, the Rockefeller Republicans will once again get their way and it will end up Romney.

[MurrietaMadman]

History of Newt as I remember it. Thank goodness someone else took notes.

From http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=36799

In 1994, Gingrich described himself as “a conservative futurist.” He said that those who were trying to define him should look no further than The Third Wave, a 1980 book written by Alvin Toffler.

The book describes our society as entering a post-industrial phase in which abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, and divorce are perfectly normal, even virtuous.

Toffler penned a letter to America’s “founding parents,” in which he said: “The system of government you fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented - a democracy for the 21st century.” He went on to describe our constitutional system as one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.”

[MHGinTN]

And I’m for me. But let’s discuss the actual platforms of the candidates rather than patting the circular firing squad on the back. Do you have any, ANY posts from VirginiaRidgerunner/TimberRattler where that poster promotes the pluses of his/her/its chosen candidate? Well then, jump right into the circular firing squad it invites you to.

[MHGinTN]

Ah yes, another summer of ‘08 sign up here to educate us. And whom do you support? Jump right in here, 08er, the circular firing squad ain’t half filled yet. Your choice, Milt or Barry Bassturd, will be the default candidate when you’re finished. [That’s your cue to tell us you hate Mitt and are worried about Herman’s fox paws ...]

[marty60]

It seems some that claim to be representing the Tea Party apparently have MPD. Gingrich Interview. Even David Gregory was nonplused, telling Gingrich, “But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting, which is completely changing Medicare.” So Gingrich, the lover of big, extraordinary ideas, suddenly proclaimed timidity a virtue: “I think that that is too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose upon the — I don’t want to — I’m against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.” It sure didn’t take him long to migrate from the “idea man for the GOP” to political hack. Frankly, Republicans would do better to nominate Erskine Bowles than Gingrich. And then to top it all off, Gregory asked Gingrich about several of his statements backing the idea of an individual mandate. Here was his chance to distance himself and plunge the knife into Romney. Instead he picked up the knife and stabbed himself: GREGORY: What you advocate there is precisely what President Obama did with his health-care legislation, is it not? GINGRICH: No, it’s not precisely what he did. In, in the first place, Obama basically is trying to replace the entire insurance system, creating state exchanges, building a Washington-based model, creating a federal system. I believe all of us — and this is going to be a big debate — I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care. . . . GREGORY: You agree with Mitt Romney on this point. GINGRICH: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay — help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond — GREGORY: Mm-hmm. GINGRICH: — or in some way you indicate you’re going to be held accountable. GREGORY: But that is the individual mandate, is it not? GINGRICH: It’s a variation on it. GREGORY: OK. GINGRICH: But it’s a system — GREGORY: And so you won’t use that issue against Mitt Romney. GINGRICH: No. But it’s a system which allows people to have a range of choices which are designed by the economy. But I think setting the precedent — you know, there are an amazing number of people who think that they ought to be given health care. And, and so a large number of the uninsured earn $75,000 or more a year, don’t buy any health insurance because they want to buy a second house or a better car or go on vacation. And then you and I and everybody else ends up picking up for them. I don’t think having a free-rider system in health is any more appropriate than having a free-rider system in any other part of our society

[Deb]

Be careful not to be mean... his feelings hurt easily.

[nfldgirl]

What about “the Mrs.” interview left you unhappy?

[Timber Rattler]

[lonevoice]

From listening to the MSM, including Fox, all the candidates who might have threatened Romney are in various stages of implosion that will render each of them completely unelectable.

This has been in process for over 6 months now, and it's almost complete. Come back in 2 months and tell me I was wrong.

[McGavin999]

It's very well known that Newt cheated on his first wife with his second wife, and cheated on his second wife whith his third wife.

As to being high and holy, that is what the sacrament of marriage is all about. If you don't want to live up to them, get a divorce BEFORE you start sleeping with someone else.

No, I don't think Romney is a shoo in and won't voite for him PERIOD, but I don't want a serial adulterer in the WH either.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together remembers that Newt was sleeping with his congressional aide (who became his third wife) while married to his second wife and prosecuting Clinton.

I don't demand pruity from a candidate, but I want someone who keeps his word to God and his wife.

[ontap]

I have at one time or another supported most of these candidates and what lost me was what heard with my own ears. Reagan and Bush 1&2 all got elected with a hostile media. Sorry but these candidates have noone but themselves to blame for their numbers.

[Mechanicos]

Rule 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

[MHGinTN]

So, you want Rominy. Thanks for finally revealing your agenda.