Romney:I talk to Gingrich more than I talk to Santorum

Mitt Romney today indicated that he has been in closer communication with Newt Gingrich in recent days than with Rick Santorum:

Romney said he wasn’t surprised by Gingrich’s sentiment, expressed over the weekend on “Fox News Sunday,” that the former Massachusetts governor had all but wrapped up the GOP presidential nomination.

“It was not a surprise, he and I have spoken from time to time, and actually we have also gotten together with our wives and spoken,” Romney said. “We’re pretty open-eyed about this, as we talk about where we are at this stage. In all likelihood I will be the one that gets the delegates to become the nominee.” …

As for his closest competitor Santorum, Romney said he didn’t speak with the former Pennsylvania senator as often.

“We haven’t had as much interaction, although at each contest’s conclusion we speak with each other,” Romney said. “I call him, he calls me, we exchange congratulations. And we’ve had a chance to chat from time to time, and we continue to have a personal respect for one another.”

So, yesterday, Newt Gingrich randomly announces that he will support Mitt Romney if Romney becomes the nominee. Today, Mitt Romney says he talks more to Newt Gingrich than to Rick Santorum. It’s enough to make you wonder if the real alliance all along was a Romney-Gingrich alliance. Rick Santorum certainly thinks Gingrich steals more voters from him than from Mitt Romney. Ron Paul, meanwhile, has been in no hurry to promise that he’ll support Mitt Romney if (when?) the former Massachusetts governor becomes the nominee.

Just kidding. I don’t think the presidential primary process works quite like Survivor, as similar as it sometimes seems. Instead, I think all the candidates are considering what’s next for them. While Romney looks forward to the nomination, Rick Santorum wants to ensure he doesn’t consign himself to irrelevance with a loss in Pennsylvania, Newt Gingrich wants to ensure he’s still known as an “ideas man” in the conservative movement and Ron Paul wants to pass his movement on to his son, Rand. Fortunately for all of them, those aims aren’t exclusive of one another.

I agree with you. The GOP-E have said as much, that they for sure want the Senate and to hold the House, (and secure their own paycheck and entrenched power) but seemingly feared a conservative nominee would risk all that.

The Republican Party is despised by all the Republicans I know. If Newt were younger and wanted to, he has the proven stature to have mustered a Third Party of consequence, given his record, experience and enormous accomplishment.

The GOP isn’t expecting to win with conservatives participating in huge numbers this time around, and certainly not with those who are passionately pro-life.

The GOP is certainly not writing off conservatives. They are willing to write off a certain segment of social conservative voters because they believe catering to them just ends up alienating more moderates/independents than it's worth. The GOP is simply not going to tailor a national campaign to people who believe contraception is evil and that we need a war on porn. They will try to appeal to those voters on other issues, but they know they will lose some and never get the kind of turnout among that demographic that a Pat Robertson, Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum can get.

BHO2 has so thoroughly demolished the Democratic Party’s white working class base this gives the GOP a chance this year to take the Congress - both House and Senate - and the White House. Independents, white working-class Democrats, and Conservative “anybody but Obama” voters can carry the GOP this national election.

I think you are way too optimistic. I think government dependence is so high and so accepted now that most of those on the government dole will vote for whatever candidate is most likely to keep the gravy train rolling. Once upon a time when the economy sucked, people were inclined to give the other guy a chance. Now it is all about voting for who can keep the Obama bucks coming. I hope I am wrong, but I think Romney is a poor candidate so my hunch is he will lose narrowly. Santorum would have lost in a massive landslide that would have taken our House majority down with it. Hopefully next cycle we have a better slate of candidates.

I hope you are wrong on the tea party fade.

The Marxists were far more patient in methodically worming their way into power. Some may have even talked our game to get there.

Also, I wonder if the Catholic Church asserts Her considerable influence that it will help cause a renewal of interest in educating not only Her own flock in the faith, but also that ALL conservatives will begin to wrestle away from the communists their indoctrination by, for and of the public schools, universities and academia?

The Church and the schools must be taken back in the name of freedom, before anything good comes to us.

Good and very in-depth informative post.

Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt is a former Navy chaplain who runs The Pray In Jesus Name Project ...

I pray regularly in Jesus' name that the Almighty vanquish Romney and Obama and raise Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and other limited government politicians to elected political office in the USA.

Limited government is the best friend of Christian morality. Government "morality" creates and supports whole classes of people who adapt immoral lifestyles, makes taxpayers subsidize it, and punishes free citizens when they peacefully resist. Government punishes Americans for attempting to live morally.

Trim, hack, prune, and cut away Federal government, and people will begin to live morally again because a) it will dry up government programs supporting immoral lifestyles, from welfare to birth-control-required medical "care," and b) it will shut down agencies that punish, via discrimination "laws," free people exercising their rights to live morally by, say, allowing prayer and posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools, or hiring a teenager who not only needs the money, but who needs the mentoring and direction, part-time and paying him his true-market wage. That's immoral in today's Federal environment -- minimum wage laws, child labor laws -- God help us!

Vote for liberalism, reap liberalism. Voting for Romney is as nuts as voting for Obama. I pray enough thoughtful Americans vote third party that Obama squeaks in on a 34 - 39 percent plurality.

Most Americans are sick of all of the five main liberal issues -- global warming regulation, nationalized health care, gay marriage (and all it represents), on-demand abortion, and liberal activist judges. Obama and Romney have documented records of being like-minded liberal on all those issues.

Most Americans think Obama is a crappy president. If most Americans use their vote, they can create a situation where Obama in the White House is heavily damaged politically when 60 to 66 percent of the American vote is AGAINST him, and where the stupid, compromising, weak GOP Establishment fails. The ONLY WAY to defeat liberalism is to vote such that it loses, even -- especially -- in the Republican party. It is THE ONLY WAY to beat it.

I'm voting ABOOR.

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.