You nailed some of the main points - which is that Newt was able to articulate what we believed, and was making that the focus of his campaign. Newt, flaws admitted - also had the most successful track record of implementing conservatism than any of them. And third, ALL of us - 100% of us - knew of Newt’s flaws and decided that based on the above reasons, he was the best choice.
It was the low information Santorum supporters who would come to FR daily and bring up some part of newt’s past as if no one knew about it. The Newt supporters readily admitted his flaws. The Santorum supporters STILL haven’t figured out that Rick is a big gov weenie who is socially conservative.
Santorum is a frigging loser who needs to go away.
Walker at 10% in IA, Cruz at 7%.
http://townhall.com/columnists/neilmccabe/2015/01/13/draft-n1942438/page/full
“Rick Santorum, who won the Iowa caucuses in 2012, was not included in the poll.”
http://politicalwire.com/2015/01/13/romney-is-clear-frontrunner-in-iowa/
16% Evangelical seems low.
http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/iowa-poll-romney-leads-nascent-iowa-field-with-21-bush-at-14-walker-10/
LOL!! Well said!
But in the end, folks, Gingrich was unelectable. You can’t beat an unpopular elected official (Zero) with someone even more unpopular (Newt). It’s common sense. Santorum didn’t have his baggage. Still, none of these guys should’ve been running for President at all if the GOP was serious about winning.
I would offer a suggested correction:
The Santorum supporters STILL haven’t figured out that Rick is a big gov weenie who pretends to be socially conservative.
Santorum lacks the essential moral compass to recognize that a preeminent social value goes to understanding who hs responsibility for what. He, like the mainstream Leftists who seek to use central Governmental power to force uniformity on the public, would solve "social" problems in the same manner as Leftists seek to solve economic problems.
He is at best an eccentric Leftist, who gives endless lip service to certain Conservative social values; while carefully avoiding the preeminent Conservative social value, which is a recognition of the moral responsibilities of individuals--both as individuals & as members of local communities, sovereign States, etc..
His whole simplistic, half-baked approach, is a diversion from contructive approaches to the actual problems of our times. Indeed, his approach is one of those actual problems.
William Flax