Posted on 03/04/2012 8:16:24 AM PST by VinL
Newt Gingrich cited Rick Santorum's come-from-nowhere campaign wins last month as justification for plowing ahead with his own flagging presidential campaign.
"I'm taking Rick Santorum's advice," Mr. Gingrich, a former House speaker, said Sunday on CNN. "He stayed in, he was running fourth in every single primary, suddenly he very cleverly went to three states nobody else went to, and he became the media darling and bounced back."
Mr. Gingrich said he is optimistic two days before Super Tuesday, when voters will go to the polls in 10 states, including Georgia, where the former congressman's political career began.
"I'm very confident in the largest state that will vote on Tuesday, Georgia, which has more delegates than any other state, we're going to win a very decisive victory. We're going to do well in Tennessee, Oklahoma and Ohio, and many other states. I'm happy to continue."
Mr. Gingrich brushed aside host Candy Crowley's questions about the controversy surrounding radio personality Rush Limbaugh, who apologized Saturday for using inappropriate language to describe a student who testified in a congressional hearing in support of the Obama health care act.
"The Republican Party has four people running for president, none of whom is Rush Limbaugh...
He said Mr. Limbaugh's apology was appropriate, but Mr. Gingrich continued his criticism of an apology that President Obama issued to calm anti-American riots that erupted after the inadvertant burning of Korans by U.S. forces at an Afghanistan base.
"I don't believe the president saved lives by what he did," Mr. Gingrich said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Newt will rise again.
The Bulldog 2012
Let's hope sanity prevails and we pick the best conservative candidate instead of settling for another milquetoast. Too many, normally sane Freepers seem ready to settle despite all the past rhetoric about doing just that.
I just filled my gas tank and sent the differnce of what I would have saved if it was $ 2.50 per gallon to Newt.
I hope people wake up to what a catastrophe rising gas prices are for our economy. This one issue, Energy, drives the price for everything we buy. If we are serious about gaining energy independence, creating millions of jobs, and keeping our economy from being destroyed by the Obama/Chu 999 Plan of $ 10.00 per gallon gasoline, we’d better elect Newt Gingrich. Otherwise, we may be moving to Venezuala to improve our standard of living.
This issue is so serious that I don’t understand how those not voting for Gingrich are going to rationalize that they helped bring about the destruction of our economy.
I wish he would have spent more time in Michigan and been more competitive there.
Well Santorum won 3 states and that is why he stayed in the race. Gingrich needs to win 3 states on Super Tuesday to stay in the race. Let’s see if little Newt can achieve that. Winning Georgia is not enough. 3 state or out Newt. That is what Santorum achieved.
Well, not really. Those were non-binding processes. Santorum got ZERO committed delegates from those three states. In fact Missouri will chose their committed delegates via Caucus (another BAD process) at the end of this month...yeah, after Rick supposedly won them already.
Those caucus events can choose whomever they wish.
Santorum won the IA caucuses. Had Gingrich not split the conservative vote in Michigan, Santorum would have won, and Romney’s candidacy would have been up in flames. At this point in time Gingrich is sadly playing the role of spoiler. With an unbridgeable gender gap with women (some 20-24 points behind Romney) and with sky-high un-favorability ratings, we really don’t have a recipe for a revival. PPP polling is notoriously unreliable. They were predicting a Romney blowout in MI and it simply did not happen.
Santorum won the IA caucuses. Had Gingrich not split the conservative vote in Michigan, Santorum would have won, and Romney’s candidacy would have been up in flames. At this point in time Gingrich is sadly playing the role of spoiler. With an unbridgeable gender gap with women (some 20-24 points behind Romney) and with sky-high un-favorability ratings, we really don’t have a recipe for a revival. PPP polling is notoriously unreliable. They were predicting a Romney blowout in MI and it simply did not happen.
Newt has to win more than just Georgia to be able to stay in the race.
I now have doubts if he or Rick can do it. If they eventually have to drop out, then I would have a sit down with the candidate (establishment) and tell them that they had better either get in line with the conservatives or they will see a third party candidate and VP candidate.
Steelfish, my friend, Rick should have bowed out after Fla for the sake of the movement.
Instead, he ran negative ads against Newt in the midwest. When I suggested his tactic was hurting conservatives and he was playing the “spoiler”, Rick’s supporters said it was his right to pursue his strategy to gain the nomination.
Thus, Rick set the rules-—he can’t now be heard to inveigh against Newt for playing by those rules.
But after FL, Gingrich took a two week hiatus and Santorum romped in to win a crucial trifecta.
I agree with you-I made that point previously. Rick and Newt could team up and demand a coalition candidate acceptable to conservatives, at the risk of them bolting the party. Though I doubt they will do so.
“Gingrich: ‘I’m taking Santorum’s advice’”
Of course he is taking Santorum’s advice. If he took his own advice he’d have to quit.
Santorum lacks humility, and his gratuitous "family values" spiel alienates A LOT of perfectly good, moral people who don't have families or who are not particularly family-oriented.
What, exactly, ARE "family values"?
Are they the same as Christian values, and if so, why not just say, Christian values? And IF so, how does the word "family" substitute for "Christian" -- does it mean that a person who doesn't have much or any family, is less Christian than the person who centers his/her whole life around his/her family?
Santorum says ludicrous things like "to have a strong national economy, we must have strong familes."
Think about, analyze, that statement: "To have a strong national economy, we must have strong families."
Really? Then why doesn't Ethiopia, or Mexico, or Italy, or any of a number of other nations where families are strong, have a strong national ecnomy?
Clearly, Santorum is being wholly gratuitous trying to connect family values with the economy, and he is being WRONG. But emotional people will only grasp the warm fuzzies of "family values" and miss completely that it's cotton candy fluff, and absurd spin as ONLY a consummate pandering politician can spin it.
Santorum makes a couple of things loud and clear. First, he is convinced that he is morally superior to me. Second, he thinks because I don't center my life around children and grandchildren, I'm a second-class citizens and therefore he doesn't need to address me or my concerns.
Newt Gingrich talks to EVERYONE. The solutions Gingrich proposes are directed to and will benefit EVERYONE, whether they're family-oriented or not. Newt doesn't schmooze with gratutitous nonsense like "family values." Newt knows he's a sinner and that he has no call to present himself as better in that regard than anyone else.
Your guy Santorum is a phony baloney who thinks he's MORALLY superior, and THAT, my FRiend, is unChristian. He is also a big government guy. Muster courage and READ about his record, then do the Christian thing and FACE IT, face the fact that Newt is EVERY BIT as good and moral a Christian as Santorum, but a much better political visionary.
Godspeed Newt Gingrich.
bfl
I know what happened- because I posted at the time. Within days after Fla, Rick ran ads against Newt picturing him with Obama and claiming Newt was no different. At the time, Newt was still up in Gallup- the ads were significant in elevating Newt’s negatives in the states you reference as “crucial”.
Newt, up until the last 2 weeks, had never run a negative ad against Rick.
That’s just fact. I don’t say anything negative about Rick- I’m just saying here, Rick had the opportunity to drop out and coalesce behind the frontrunner- but choose to compete and go negative. Fine, that was his call.
But now, he can’t apply a different standard to Newt.
I am a realist. The reason Newt has had problems is his past, fair or unfair, is that he is a known commodity. He has been on the same page as Romney at times. Not because he was a Senator or Congresscritter or that he was supporting the agenda of his President, but because he joined in with policies that were left when he had no reason to do so other than that is what he wanted to do.
In this election, on the GOP side, you can be for Romney, and the whole election is about finance policy, or you can be for Santorum, who is a blend of finance and socially conservative policy. In between, gets you Mitt, who has far more private sector experience than Newt.
It really is that easy.
I will say I will vote for the nominee, because there is no person worse than Obama.
I leave it up to the candidates.
Duke it out as long as you are smart enough to know when you are doing more harm than good.
I will vote for the winner.
We go over the same ground. Newt masterminded the takeover of Congress from 40 year Dem rule— that’s hardly an insider. Neither Romney or Rick could have done that- nor would they have tried.
I could go point by point wt Rick and Mitt- and by their governance, provide evidence that they are “insiders”, “unprincipled” and/or are “leftish”.
But, I don’t get into those negative arguments- I’m not going to change preconceived views, nor would I try.
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.