[Cincinatus' Wife]

[“Sophisticated” Newt] In February 2009, he [Newt Gingrich] assessed three potential Republican nominees:

Alaska’s Governor Palin, John McCain’s running mate in 2008, could be “very formidable” as a presidential candidate in 2012, Gingrich said. But he stipulated that would be the case only if she “seeks out a group of sophisticated policy advisers” and “spends time developing a series of fairly sophisticated positions.” He noted that “Palin starts in Iowa with a substantial advantage. I think she has a very big base among the fundamentalist wing of the party.” He also mentioned two other potential Republican presidential candidates. “If the economy is still a mess a year from now, then [former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt] Romney’s economic credentials start to come back in an important way,” Gingrich said. He cautioned that “Romney has got to figure out how to close the sale.”

And if Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison becomes governor of Texas, the second largest state, “she is an instantly formidable candidate,” Gingrich said.

**********************************

SO.....Will the Bushes back Romney or Gingrich?

**********************************

Yesterday (Dec 1, 2011) Mitt Romney was in Houston visiting George HW Bush. The Bush-Rove Machine ran Kay Bailey Hutchison’s primary challenge against Gov. Rick Perry in 2010. Perry won. Hutchison has publicly stated she will not support Perry.

Donors to Bush absent for Perry “WASHINGTON — Fewer than one in 10 of the top fundraisers who helped George W. Bush shatter records for presidential campaign money in 2000 and 2004 have donated to Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s 2012 presidential campaign, a Houston Chronicle analysis of Federal Election Commission data has found.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney holds a wide lead over other GOP presidential hopefuls in donations received from the 939 “Pioneers” and “Rangers” who raised at least $100,000 each for the Bush presidential efforts.”……

Are Conservatives Ready to Forgive Newt Gingrich His Sins? ………..”If Newt can withstand the rehashing of Tom Coburn’s book — a book that portrays Gingrich as talking the talk, but betraying the talk once in office — we may have our anti-Romney. If not, I think Rick Perry may yet have a second coming if he is ready. I say that having asked many callers to my radio show who are Cain supporters where they would go. Most say Newt. The others Perry. And if Newt implodes? They almost always say they’d go to Perry — Romney is rarely their choice.”…….

[Berlin_Freeper]

11 hours ago – RUSH (Limbaugh): The Atlanta Urinal & Constipation

[TigersEye]

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

There's a trusted source of news and information. /s

[montag813]

If/When Cain departs, I can’t see his support going to Mittens, even if he endorses him as he did in 2008. It may well put Newt over the top. As far as Perry, he seems lost. He polled like 1% in that FL shocker yesterday. He is spending $ on ads in Iowa rehashing the debate gaffe, with humor. It isn’t working. What is his path to the nomination?

[FlyingEagle]

Sir Bedevere: What makes you think she’s a witch?
Peasant 3: Well, she turned me into a newt!
Sir Bedevere: A newt?
Peasant 3: [meekly after a long pause] ... I got better.
Crowd: [shouts] Burn her anyway!

[TigersEye]

...said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., ... "The real purpose of a president, I think, is to find common ground with Congress to solve our problems. ..."

Lindsey Graham. Always the JACKASS!

[nathanbedford]

Cincinatus' Wife:

I am impressed by your indefatigable representation of Rick Perry and your adamant opposition to Newt Gingrich, whom I support. Last night I published the following reply in this thread:

"Gingrich's unpredictability raises concerns"

(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2815052/posts)

I presume to repeat it here because I think it explains why these objections to Gingrich which you so diligently publish have found no traction and, in my judgment, will find no statistical resonance; so, it is very likely that Gingrich will gain the nomination.

In effect, I am saying that the battle you are fighting so well has no relevance to the mood of the electorate in these extraordinary times.

A word about Rick Perry. I believe his much ballyhooed comeback is a hope forlorn. He is facing one insurmountable obstacle, no American wants to be embarrassed by his president and Perry unfortunately has embarrassed us as he embarrassed himself. We want our champions who represent us before the world to be someone we can be proud of not someone who is liable to embarrass us. We (the whole electorate including the mushy middle not predominated by FReepers) would rather have a scoundrel like Clinton than a patriot like George Bush with a tendency to step on his tongue.

Here is yesterday's reply:

At the end of the day the Tea Party will embrace Newt Gingrich. To assume that the Tea Party was about a checklist of conservative principles is to misunderstand the energizing impulse that created and sustains the tea party. The tea party is aroused because they feel, quite reasonably, that their country is slipping away and the danger is not remote but imminent and catastrophic.

They did not gather in their millions across the village green of America because the Congress did not put the decimal point in the right place, the Tea Party exists out of the conviction that they must save the Republic.

So they seek policies toward that end and those policies inevitably are conservative policies because conservatism is patriotic and prudent. But they are not conservatives who seek conservative policies, they are patriots who seek national salvation.

When they judge a presidential candidate they will not measure him against a conservative matrix, they are going to ask themselves whether he can save the country. In other words, above all they want a man of vision, a man who can articulate that vision, a man who can carry the country.

Gov. Perry simply disqualified himself from that description. Newt Gingrich among all the candidates alone possesses the potential to be great. He could also be a great disappointment. But we must take the chance because a business as usual president simply is not the man for the times. There is a sense that this is a time of destiny for Gingrich.

To offer the following observation is knowingly to court the cheap and easy rebuke but it nevertheless must be said: the American people are awakening to the danger which is buffeting them from abroad and from within. They fear for their country and for their children. They are turning to a man whom they would not otherwise consider normal times. The historical parallel is Winston Churchill in 1939-1940.

This is not to say that Gingrich is in the same class with Churchill but the resemblance is remarkable. Both are possessed of the highest intellect, both are successful authors, both have vast parliamentary experience, both are seemingly controversial, both are accused of being fountains of bad as well as great ideas, both are masters of oratory, both have been cast into the wilderness and come back, both have been accused of ideological impurity, Churchill having crossed the aisle twice, both have farsighted vision.

England would never have turned to Winston Churchill if it were not the hour of her greatest peril. Newt Gingrich is not Winston Churchill but he might just be Margaret Thatcher. The rest of the field cannot even compete in the same league. If we entrust Gingrich with the office and he missteps at least we will have taken our best shot. It is not ideological purity that we need to save the country but leadership, even charisma. We have no choice but to take the risk of nominating Gingrich just as England had no choice but to turn to the one man that could save her.

This is why The Tea Party is able to embrace Gingrich and this is why the base of the Republican Party is even now embracing Gingrich, and this is why he will prevail in the election. It is not just a matter of eliminating the other candidates, that is not why England turned to Churchill, there were, after all, other men of substance but there was no one else who held the promise that Churchill held to save the world-and no one carried such a risk as Churchill.

They had to assume the risk to get Churchill.

[PGalt]

Thanks for posting; Very interesting, well-stated comment. Fascinating thread. BTTT!

[Mister Da]

If Newt were to beat Obama next November, he would be taking office from a 1 term President driven out of office.

That should give Newt good reason to keep his promises & not flip to liberalism.

Also, if Newt wins, that will likely mean the Pubs have made gains in both houses of Congress. That would help Newt stay with a conservative program.

I know this is not guaranteed, but it is likely.

[eastforker]

I want to remind you of an article you posted a few days ago. You praised Perry for not attacking other candidates. Also, Perry showed admiration for Newt in saying a perfect running mate would be a combination of Herman and Newt.So if RP were to be the nominee and he chose Newt as a running mate, how much dammage have you done so far running down Newt. Take a page out of the Perry playbook and quit knocking the canditate Perry might just pick for a running mate.

[Cronos]

I honestly think Perry is not a viable candidate -- not that I dislike him and I do acknowledge he's done a good job in Texas, but let's look at the reality:

1. he is a professional politician unlike, say Cain
2. despite this, running Texas is unlike running the Fed because Texas doesn't have that complexity -- the country would be better off if it copied Texas in many ways, but the fact is that at a federal level it is highly complex and he may not be able to navigate through this to even dismantle the system.
3. most important he will be massacred by Obama in the debates. We can say folks should look at performance, but remember -- Obambi got elected having done NOTHING, so even taking all the good that Perry has done in comparison will be ignored by the rest of the electorate if he humms and haws.

Keeping this in mind, the only 3 (maybe 4) candidates who can demolish Obambi in debates are Romney (yes), Paul, Cain and Gingrich.

Romney no one is going to support. Paul is a maverick and would not get much of a vot. Cain and Gingrich are the viable alternatives

Perry for all his good, is not a viable option.

[Mozilla]

Rush and Beck want Bachmann. So I hope she makes a comeback.

[Toespi]

You have pretty much consumed every thread with your hatred for GIngrich. You repeat just about everything liberals are presenting against him. Assuming you are a Republican, do you understand the damage you are doing? I pray that Perry, Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich, Romney, Hunt, Cain all continue to do well in striking a contrast between themselves and Obama. He is your enemy, not Gingrich so please think of one positive thing about him, give us the attributes of Perry and move on. We have had nothing but negatives for three years can we start celebrating the end of the Obama era.

[Toespi]

You have pretty much consumed every thread with your hatred for GIngrich. You repeat just about everything liberals are presenting against him. Assuming you are a Republican, do you understand the damage you are doing? I pray that Perry, Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich, Romney, Hunt, Cain all continue to do well in striking a contrast between themselves and Obama. He is your enemy, not Gingrich so please think of one positive thing about him, give us the attributes of Perry and move on. We have had nothing but negatives for three years can we start celebrating the end of the Obama era.