« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Union Leader Endorses Gingrich for President

By: Dan Spencer (Diary)  |  November 27th, 2011 at 11:34 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The New Hampshire Union Leader, New Hampshire’s largest newspaper endorses Newt Gingrich for president:

America is at a crucial crossroads. It is not going to be enough to merely replace Barack Obama next year. We are in critical need of the innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership that Gingrich has shown he is capable of providing.

He did so with the Contract with America. He did it in bringing in the first Republican House in 40 years and by forging balanced budgets and even a surplus despite the political challenge of dealing with a Democratic President. A lot of candidates say they’re going to improve Washington. Newt Gingrich has actually done that, and in this race he offers the best shot of doing it again.

[. . .]

Truth be known, many in the liberal media are belittling the Republican candidates because they don’t want any of them to be taken as a serious challenger to their man, Obama.

Readers of the Union Leader and Sunday News know that we don’t back candidates based on popularity polls or big-shot backers. We look for conservatives of courage and conviction who are independent-minded, grounded in their core beliefs about this nation and its people, and best equipped for the job.

We don’t have to agree with them on every issue. We would rather back someone with whom we may sometimes disagree than one who tells us what he thinks we want to hear.

Newt Gingrich is by no means the perfect candidate. But Republican primary voters too often make the mistake of preferring an unattainable ideal to the best candidate who is actually running. In this incredibly important election, that candidate is Newt Gingrich. He has the experience, the leadership qualities and the vision to lead this country in these trying times. He is worthy of your support on January 10.

The endorsement gives former House Speaker Gingrich additional momentum, or as the Gingrich Campaign calls it “Newt-mentum,” after he has climbed to the top of national GOP polls.

A Suffolk University/7News poll released last Tuesday found Romney leading with 41% of likely GOP voters surveyed. Gingrich was tied with Ron Paul for second with 14%.

Another poll by the American Research Group last week showed Gingrich closing the gap in New Hampshire but still trailing Romney by 11% — 33% t0 22%.

The University of New Hampshire WMUR Granite State Poll, also released last week found that among likely New Hampshire Republican Primary voters prefer Romney 42% with Gingrich in second place with 15%.

Gingrich surged 18% between American Research Groups September and November polls, but David Paleologos, director of Suffolk University’s Political Research Center, says a Romney loss in New Hampshire is unlikely:

“Every Republican candidate that surges in the national polls hits a firewall in New Hampshire. We’ve seen this with surges from Bachmann, Perry, Cain and now Gingrich. A Romney loss here is highly improbable, and Romney’s best insurance policy in New Hampshire is Ron Paul, whose fixed support takes 14 percent off the table.”

Mitt Romney’s failure to win the Union Leader editorial board’s endorsement is a setback for the former Massachusetts Governor, who continues to struggle with Conservative Republican voters.

In an interview on CNN, Union Leader editor page editor Andrew Cline said the paper picked Gingrich because he had the political experience to enact much of his platform:

“Romney’s a guy who wants to be liked,” Cline said. “He’s a politician who wants to be liked. Gingrich is a politician who wants to be respected, who wants to actually accomplish – he has an agenda that he wants to set in place.

I’m really not sure precisely what we get out of a President Romney who might very well be a good president, but we don’t really know,” Cline added. “So given the choice between the candidate who wants to be liked and the candidate who wants to be respected, we would rather have the guy who wants to be respected.”

I don’t put much stock in newspaper endorsements, but with six weeks left before New Hampshire voters cast their ballots, the Union Leader’s endorsement may give Gingrich an edge as Republicans ask which candidate is best positioned to defeat President Barack Obama.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Common_Cents

    and get a little bit of support from the Romney supporter camp.

    Nothing but a big win in NH is a loss for Romney. Gingrich could close the gap.

    I think people are realizing its getting late for any more anti Romney rises and falls and there will be more consolidation quickly for Gingrich.

    • lucasblack

      This race just gets more interesting by the day! Newt is actually exciting people which Romney has been unable to do up to this point.

      • andystone

        in order to achieve things: Mitt had one of the bluest of blue states, Newt had Clinton and the Democrat Senate. And they both did achieve things and I respect that. The association and compromises have tainted both of them, to some degree; but the big difference is that Newt drove a much harder bargain. Whenever he compromised, it was never anything essential, and he had the courage to go through a whole federal shutdown and subsequent media assassination in order to achieve fundamental Conservative goals like welfare reform and a balanced budget

    • newsscooper

      Newt, Schmoot. Many people forget that Michele Bachman had a first surge that made her the GOP Presidential Primary frontrunner.

      A long line of conservative men had their shot and fizzled. Rick Perry and Herman Cain surged and fizzled. Ron Paul is a great man but a Libertarian. Mitt is too closely associated with ObamaCare and has peaked.

      And even if secular conservatives can forgive Newt for his soft-on-illegal-immigration stand and being a consummate insider, some Evangelicals still view him as a serial adulterer. And Huntsman is too liberal and too late.

      That leaves Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann. And while Rick espouses many principled stands stands, conservatives don’t trust him since he backed liberal Arlen Spector against Conservative Pat Toomey.

      According to WebToday.tv this leaves Michele Bachman for a second surge. I tend to agree.

  • throwback59

    for his amnesty comments at the last debate. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

    • concrusade

      Newt is a conservative thinker, but a liberal doer.

      • avagreen

        Do you say?
        ;)

      • tomatin

        Newt was single handedly responsible for ending a big part of the Welfare State and Banking Regulations before the Dumbocrats got back in power.

        • logicalpositivist

          But it will not play well with independent voters.

          That Newt was paid by Freddie Mac is beyond dispute.

          I can’t believe that Newt’s record as a flip-flopper isn’t the subject of its own diary here yet. There should be video clips and photos to accompany it.

          • heraklios

            Romney is the greatest flip-flopper of all time so whatever changes of opinion Newt has had (and I’m not sure he has ever flip-flopped on anything), Romney has changed his ten times more. The Obama campaign has already pidgeon-holed Romney as the ultimate flip-fliopper and no way he will ever live that down!

      • Marcus_Traianus

        Newt’s consultancy and contracts with any companies for which he did business explicitly stated he would NOT be lobbying in any capacity. He is not a registered lobbyist.

        Now one day we can talk about the content of his advice given to Fannie/Freddie. But hopefully we will be comparing it to the gratuitous donations Fannie/Freddie gave to Obama. That would be overtly political for those who have trouble keeping up.

        • logicalpositivist

          I don’t really care what he told Freddie Mac executives. The point is that they paid him to give them advice. They also wanted him to convince Republicans not to cut their funding.

          It is clear that Newt was paid to help Freddie Mac. What is not clear is whether his advice, whatever it was, improved things at that failing organization.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            A company that gives bad loans is nothing like a company that kills. I can’t believe you actually said this.

          • jaykali

            Not sure it will matter tho bc Freddie probably wont release details and Gingrich can just make up details that make him look good like ‘gee I told them giving out all these loans was a bad idea’

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            —no=text—

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      I know for some of you that anything short of catapulting them back over the border will equal amnesty, but Newt’s position isn’t any different than Romney, Perry and Bachmann, and none of them support amnesty. Yes, I know you won’t agree.

      • edstate

        Don’t you think, maybe, the problem is HOW Newt stated his position?

        He essentially accused Conservative Americans of being meany racists, while “daring to care about other human beings” and staking out a fake position on this issue (Where do we draw the line? How many years of successful evasion? How many hours logged at a church? How many kids?)

        Just like sitting on the couch with Pelosi (and just like the way Perry broached this issue), you simply can’t wag your finger at voters, tell them they’re stupid, and then blatantly kowtow to the MSM.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          It’s funny too, because he was defending Perry and his position. There in fact people out there the really want to catapult them back over the border, and I have no problem saying that’s cruel. Newt and Perry recognize it’s a complex problem that’s been exacerbated by a de-facto open border for a long time. Saying “enforce the law” may work for some, but it doesn’t work for me.

          The details of how it works out in the end still have to be determined, but both Newt and Perry recognize that we need to secure the border before we move on to deal with the more complex issues. In the end there will be some that came here illegally that end up as citizens. If you want to call that amnesty that’s fine, but they aren’t proposing the same thing that the Democrats mean by it, nor even what GWB meant by it.

          If it’s important to you to ignore years of conservative success by both Gingrich and Perry for one statement here or there, by all means, go right ahead. Everyone has to have some criteria for making their decision.

          The most important issues for me are success at implementing conservative policy. Both Newt and Perry have done that. Newt has more baggage to be sure, but Perry has a problem articulating his positions and connecting with the people. I haven’t decided yet, but nothing either has done are deal breakers for me.

          • throwback59

            the illegals come here with the hope of voting? They just want to stay and work, their loyalties will always be with the home country. Tell an illegal that he can stay but won’t be able to vote or become a citizen and he’ll take that deal any day. You would be giving him exactly what he wants.
            This is no different than telling a car thief that if he keeps the car for 5 years without getting caught, comes forward and pays a fine he can hold onto the car but won’t actually own it.
            As to “cruelty,” I’m waiting for amnesty supporters to discuss the cruelty that is done to the estimated 2 dozen Americans who die at the hands of illegals every day (murder & drunk driving) not to mention the robbery and rapes they commit.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Can we now just take immigration off the table since there isn’t a dime’s bit of difference?

          • throwback59

            -Maybe we can draft Steve King.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Can we just pretend the guy doesn’t exist? That works for me.

          • jaykali

            I dont know why we rake republicans over the coals of this issue that is so on the periphery right now. Even if you elected the ‘softest’ Republican on immigration it doesnt matter bc this issue is at a stalemate and will continue to be so for numerous election cycles. All it is is a political football. Democrats say conservatives are anti-immigration, Republicans say Democrats are pro illegals and these illegals are causing crimes and stealing jobs. Democrats want amnesty, Republicans want a fence. Nothing is going to happen anyways, I just roll my eyes when we get mired in immigration talk.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            This election is about jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs. And more jobs.

    • Marcus_Traianus

      …something tells me the general electorate has numerous other issues which are bigger priorities.

    • paulnashtn

      Newt?s plan may eventually lead to some amnesty of sorts but that is down the road, Newt and & I think, ALL of the others, have emphasized the need to close the borders before you can even to logically deal with those that are here. THEN you have to decide what to do with those that are the parents of anchor babies that are in their teens that have never even been to Mexico or some other S. American country. Plus is legal alien status with no path to citizenship really amnesty? That is what Newt proposed.

      • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

        Gingrich didn’t promise anything to anyone that they didn’t already have, courtesy of a democrat Congress and Ronald Reagan.

        “No, Oz never did give nothin’ to the Tin Man, that he didn’t . . . didn’t already have.” — America’s Greatest Hits

    • keepithonest

      there is a good possibility Obama campaign will destroy him, and perhaps the party, should he be the nominee. Newt will always have the baggage of his ethics violations and the fact that he was forced to step down as House Speaker because of those violations. The very fact that we would nominate him knowing this would question the party credentials.

      Before you all jump at me, I should mentioned that Newt has been a favorite of mine for many years because of his leadership in the house during the Clinton era. It was a rough and tumble time and the battles between Congress and the White House were particularly rough. So many investigations of the Clintons and members of congress in general.

      Nearly all of the accusations brought against Newt were not proven upon investigation. He needs to address this in a national conversation before he goes further.

      To keep it honest, I am a Perry fan and if it were not for his ethics issues Newt would be my second choice. There is no person like him in the debates and his knowledge would give the Dems a run for their money. He knows where all the bones are buried. I love to hear him discuss the history behind his comments.

  • jeepingeoff

    “We don?t have to agree with them on every issue. We would rather back someone with whom we may sometimes disagree than one who tells us what he thinks we want to hear.”

    • tomatin

      nt

    • logicalpositivist

      Than the conservative UL should be endorsing Obama. After all, he is a candidate with whom they sometimes disagree.

      It is clear that the UL has it in for Romney. They did in 2007, Romney did not expect anything different this time around.

      Their endorsement of Gingrich and their characterization of him as someone who doesn’t “tell them what they want to hear” is just plain ignorant. Gingrich is more of a career politician than any other candidate this year. He’ll tell anyone what they want to hear. Even Freddie Mac.

      • heraklios

        slimeball, scumbag and ‘neer-do-well; just like most of us on here do.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    “Readers of the Union Leader and Sunday News know that we don?t back candidates based on popularity polls or big-shot backers”

    So they happen to back the guy who just took his first steady poll lead.

    • Common_Cents

      wwithout directly naming him

  • Whacker77

    Are we really going to nominate Newt for president? I find this idea completely implausible and scary to be honest. Fortunately, we came to see Cain was not ready for prime time, but might we find the same out about Newt when it’s too late?

    Newt’s riding some momentum, but we ought to ask ourselves this question. Is our dislike of Romney so high we’re willing to nominate an ethically challenged former speaker who was run out of office by his own people? That seems like a stretch to me.

    Regardless, Newt could happen so what then? What if Newt wins Iowa and springboards to New Hapshire with a strong showing and then wins South Carolina? He would probably be the nominee, but are cooler heads really going to stand by as Newt is nominated? I doubt it.

    I’ll make this prediction. If Newt gets a head of steam and knocks out Romney early, I think there will be a convention challenge. The Republican party’s not going to let a winnable race slip through its fingers with Newt at the helm. I think the polls will show Newt lagging behind Obama and the pressure will be immense to drag a white knight into the race at the convention.

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      …because that’s the word I’d use to describe your prediction here. There’s no way that a candidate that wins 50% +1 of the delegates doesn’t become the nominee.

      And yeah, I’ll take Newt over Romney. At least with Newt I know he’s pro-life and has balanced budgets before.

      • logicalpositivist

        He has balanced budgets.

        And he doesn’t have any history of accepting money from Freddie Mac in exchange for defending policies that contributed heavily to the bank-made bank crisis of 2008.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          Romney balanced the budget by large increases in fees. He also set up Romneycare which has destroyed the Mass. state budget.

          As for whether or not he’s pro-life, that remains to be seen. Like every other issue, he’s held every possible position on it at one point or another. All I can say at this point is “I hope he’ll govern pro-life.”

          • logicalpositivist

            The better question is which Newt Gingrich is running for president. The warm-mongering anti-climate change Newt who supported an individual mandate on healthcare before any other Republican candidate did? Or the conservative candidate who says all the right things at debates but cuts deals with Clinton, John Kerry, and Pelosi when he’s not debating.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            I think we should propose a modified Hinz rule for Romneybots. Just reply, “you’re right”, because when you’re talking about Romney’s position on something, no matter what is stated it was right at some point or another.

          • heraklios

            Naw! While he might say he’s that now, he’s just flip-flopping again like he has his whole career. Just look at ROmney’s record in MA and the statements he made while running for Gov of MA and U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy. That tells you all you need to know about Mitt Romney.

        • texasref

          You Romney folks had better swallow the pill now that your man has no shot.

          • logicalpositivist

            Romney has a great shot right now. Better than any other Republican.

          • texasref

            Poll Date Sample Gingrich Romney Cain Perry Paul Bachmann Santorum Huntsman Spread
            RCP Average 11/13 – 11/20 – 23.8 21.3 15.5 8.0 8.0 4.8 2.3 2.3 Gingrich +2.5

      • Whacker77

        I’m not so sure Newt would have the delegates needed to win on a first ballot because I don’t think there would ever be a coalesing around him. Why would Santourm and Bachmann quit the race if he’s leading? After the first ballot, delegates can vote for whomever they choose anyway so it could happen.

        If Newt is the leader heading into the convention, but doesn’t have enough delegates to win and he’s trailing badly in the polls, you don’t think there would be a convention challenge? I sure do. Why go down with the ship just because Newt won Iowa and South Carolina?

        Ultimately, I don’t think Newt will be the nominee because he has almost no campaign to speak of and that matters. I think that will be his undoing, thankfully, because I believe he would be a train wreck.

        It’s time for Republicans to decide if we’re more interested in being a protest party or a party that wins elections and governs.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          Bachmann had her 15 minutes in the sun. Santorum never did. If you add their support and multiply by 5 you don’t get to what Newt or Romney has right now.

          The system is gamed to prevent the likelihood of a convention challenge. I fully expect that we will have a candidate before I make it to the caucuses here.

          By the way, they said the same things about McCain’s campaign around this time in 2007. Sure, go ahead, and say Newt is McCain. He isn’t, but that won’t matter to some. I’d be happy with Newt or Perry. I’d tolerate Romney. The rest are just sucking oxygen out of the room.

          • texasref

            ok, noted

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            But we’re looking for a President here. At least Romney has been in charge of something before.

          • logicalpositivist

            nt

    • texasref

      Newt Gingrich is the Republican frontrunner. Therefore it’s pretty safe to say he has a shot!

      The only ones with a shot at this nomination are Gingrich, Cain, and Perry. Any discussion of any of the other candidates except to point out their inevitable political demise is superfluous.

      Paul has no shot because offering friendship to Iran.

      Bachmann has no shot because Gardasil.

      Santorum has no shot because
      A) gay = man-on-boy = man-on-dog
      B) He couldn’t win re-election as an incumbent
      C) He earns 2% in the polls or
      D) All of the above.

      Huntsman has no shot because disloyal “naked ambition” (E.E.). Oh yeah, and he also earns 2% in the polls.

      Romney has no shot because “he will say or do anything to get himself elected.” (E.E.) People see through this sort of thing. Well, 80% of the Republican primary electorate does, anyway.

      It’s down to three, everybody. We still have time to decide which one is best, so don’t panic!

    • porkandcheese

      I am still sour on most of this field except a grudging respect for Perry. But a wild card at the convention could be good, if it’s not Christie.

  • tomatin

    Face it if Romney can’t win in his own backyard he’s toast.

    People need to stop lying about Newt’s position on illegal immigration because he’s not for amnesty.

    • http://redmerrimack.blogspot.com/ charliebravoNH

      Newt doesn’t support that for long time illegals. Newts position is best because it removes the political liability of removing long time illegals who have settled here without giving in to the Dems by granting citizenship and allowing them to vote.

      • acat

        Pleased to see we agree on that.

        Could you speak to how Newt’s position is different from Perry’s? This is one of the cases where the guy who’s actually done the job – Perry – may have something to say, eh?

        Mew

        • annie54

          and the two of them will be going to N.H. together, according to some news sources yesterday. No one, but no one, understands immigration better than Perry. Perry probably can’t win new N.H., but anything above “2″ would be good; however, N.H. is mid January, so anything can happen.

          Newt is full of surprises and I believe, can look right into one’s eyes and argue/debate his surprise stance on an issue. Who knows what to expect from him?

          I’m still holding out for Governor Perry. Yesterday, Politico had a very good article on him (talk about surprises).

          • logicalpositivist

            The Union Leader endorsement is huge.

            As must as I can’t stand Newt, I can see that this endorsement will help him a lot. Newt’s candidacy just got a new lease on life.

          • acat

            ..what do you base your dismissal of Sheriff Joe on? Is it fact, or your gut?

            Also, as you cannot stand Newt, who do you like?

            Mew

          • avagreen

            on another thread somewhere.

            Can you remember what/where you wrote this?
            I didn’t click on the link you embedded, so I’m not sure what you were saying…….sometimes your humor is rather subtle.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            I have no idea if there is value to Joe’s endorsement of Perry in NH, just guessing (as a current resident of Phoenix and a former resident of NH), I would guess it’s pretty limited at best. The Union Leader endorsement is interesting, but they have a really spotty record at being able to impact the Republican primary. They did endorse McCain over Romney in 2008, and McCain won but my sense is that his win had more to do with the fact that he’d been out of money for a while and everybody just ignored him and his win was a rebound thing. Again, a guess.

            I will note here that Sheriff Joe is all bluster and BS, and an exceptional politician. His record as Maricopa County Sheriff is politicized at best and very arguable. He makes lots of noise about what a great guy he is and how much money he saves the taxpayers, but when you factor in the cost of lost lawsuits against the department it’s probably a break even at best. His policies have probably cost the county $350 to $500 million in litigation. The other Sheriffs in the state, and the vast majority of police chiefs – especially Phoenix, which IS Maricopa County – generally have no use for him.

            One way or another I would guess that Perry is toast in NH. Southern boy, the southern half of NH is pretty purple, and they tend to like their northeasters when push comes to shove.

          • logicalpositivist

            You can hype this endorsement all you want.

            I won’t stop you.

            If it helps prevent the trainwreck that is the Newt Gingrich candidacy, then I support you.

            I can’t stand Newt. I like Romney. I could settle for Huntsman. I don’t know who my third choice is. Do I need one?

          • http://redmerrimack.blogspot.com/ charliebravoNH

            but Joe Arpaio is pretty popular here in NH. Arpaio visited the Nashua Republican City Committee last year and drew a pretty good crowd. Arpaio’s tough law enforcement is pretty popular. NH is not MA where criminals are coddled. Mary Winkler and Andrea Yates would still be in jail if they got convicted in NH.

          • texanlady

            I have switched from Perry to Newt. Both have a practical view on immigration. Perry cannot answer questions on foreign policy. He does not know enough. I had no idea he would perform this badly when I initially supported him. Does anyone really know what Romney’s stand on anything is?

          • greyeagle

            I don’t think you watched the last two debates. He was articulate and knew foreign policy very well. I am from TX and will continue to support Perry.

          • constitutional

            http://www.redstate.com/constitutional/2011/11/27/the-hilarity-of-newts-candidacy/

        • tomatin

          I would go for Gingrich or Perry to set the record strate.

          The only problem is faux conservatives let the LSM define Perry.

          I also like Gingrich better than Perry to debate Obama though I think Perry would do much better against Obama than people think and way better than Romney who would be agreeing with Obama if not by word by action.

          Just think about how great a Gingrich/Perry ticket would be. It couls start another GOP dynasty.

          • texanlady

            Perry brings nothing but Texas, and the GOP wins that in any case. Newt needs to reach into the midwest. Pawlenty would be better.

          • Tbone

            as white bread and unsalted butter.

          • Xasteius

            Pawlenty would be a good balance for Newt as far as temperament. My fear would be that Newt would steamroll Pawlenty.

          • Tbone

            Second, he wouldn’t care.

            More importantly, this is the view of 99.9% of the electorate.

          • Xasteius

            Nor would I have become a conservative.

          • Tbone

            unanimous in this position.

          • Xasteius

            does get the nomination.

          • lucasblack

            Rubio brings Florida and along with Gingrich’s record of Hispanic outreach, gives him a real boost in the southwest.

          • avagreen

            http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/30/7528235-inhofe-perrys-the-one

          • avagreen

            Kansas:
            http://news.yahoo.com/kansas-conservative- governor-brownback-endorses-perry-181451061.html

            And, then there’s the fans of Sheriff Joe Arpaio
            http://t-800.newsvine.com/_news/2011/11/27/9051308-arizona-sheriff-arpaio-to-endorse-perry-for-president-the-raw-story

            Or, any of the hispanic population
            http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2011/09/28/perry-immigration-strategy-may-help-woo-hispanics/

            http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/09/perry-and-the-hispanic-vote-why-he-might-be-the-gops-best-shot-in-2012/245042/

            The evangelical vote since Cain and Bachmann have plummeted?
            http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/05/bachmann-v-perry-for-the-evangelical-vote/

          • avagreen

            Meanwhile, the Republicans have their own firewall. Almost any sentient GOP nominee will carry Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Idaho (4), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Utah (6), West Virginia (5) and Wyoming (3). These 18 states have 105 electoral votes.

          • Scope

            last debate, there were in fact a number of times that some other candidates agreed with Rick Perry, especially with his position on privatizing the TSA operation. Gingrich himself agreed with Perry at least a few times. Much of what Gingrich is now saying, has already been stated, or put in writing by Perry. Gingrich is definately a much better BS’r, but I’ll go any day for someone who thinks before he speaks, and hasn’t flip flopped on his long held positions, which Gingrich has done constantly since he announced his run.

            It’s hard to see how anyone can switch from a conservative candidate to a moderate. Is it just because Gingrich is currently leading in the polls?

          • avagreen

            “Perry would help republicans carry Colorado and New Mexico”

          • texanlady

            I said that a few weeks ago. I thought he would get some Hispanic support but don’t believe it is the case now.

          • greyeagle

            Perry has a good chance of bringing in the southern states at least. It is too early to tell yet.

          • carolynr

            Texanlady….I hope that you saved the foreign affairs debate from CNN. You will find that you have both Romney and Gingrich…along with Santorum agreeing with Perry. Concerning immigration, Perry knows how to secure the border…Gingrich has ideas…but has never had to deal with any of this in real life. We have had enough of academia…don’t you think. What questions could Perry not answer concerning foreign affairs. He knows as a CIC, as a soldier and as a candidate. Newt and Romney have never served in the military. But I digress…he had it right with Iran, he has it right with Pakistan…and you do know that Pakistan just shut off our entries into Afghanistan.
            So…my questions to you are: Smaller Government, better tax plan, jobs plan, energy independence and 0 foreign aid.

            Tomatin…you want a mopping of the floor of Obama. However, who has the perspective, the policies and the “guts” to put them in place…Gingrich or Perry. Which candidate has been playing the system…and you have your answer.

          • avagreen

            NT

          • Scope

            during the last debate, he was correct. Bachmann did the same thing in that debate as she did with the Gardisil issue in an earlier debate. If she had stuck to her original argument about Pakistan’s nukes, and left it there she would have been OK, though I don’t buy her argument that we have to be help at gunpoint by them because they have nukes. When Perry said that we need to stop sending them blank checks, she called him highly naive, and said that we are not just sending them blank checks, and that the money we are sending them is for their intelligence co-operation. Ha, too funny when their military, who is running the country hid bin Laden for 6 years, with him living 2 football fields from theuir main military base.

            I did some research on the funding to Pakistan, and they are in the top 10 in US foreign aid. In addition to the Congressional funding which pays for things like building houses, roadways, hospitals, agricultural help, food aid and etc., they are also getting funding out of the Pentagon budget, which goes for military projects which is what Bachmann may be referring to. Pakistan has been getting funding from several sources such as the IMF, which the US also contributes to. There are other international agencies that send Pakistan aid as well. Of course we hear now that China is trying to gain influence in Pakistan, and with some success. After the binLaden killing, when we found out that the Pakistan military was probably complicit in hiding him for all these years, there were fireworks in Congress over Pakistan’s foreign aid. Many wanted to cut that foreign aid back. Bachmann wouldn’t know that though as she has been absent from Congress since she announced her presidential campaign. In short, Perry was correct, we are in fact sending them blank checks, but unfortunately no one is doing any fact checking on debate statements.

          • texanlady

            Perry can’t BS about foreign affairs. He does not know enough. Neither does Cain. Perry has played the system masterfully in Texas. Knowledge of state government is not enough. Perry should have prepared better. The posters on here know more. I am disappointed. Voting for Gingrich.

          • buckedup

            NT

          • sunshinek67

            —

        • oldlady

          difference between granting an instate break on college tuition and giving whole families of people (how many relatives are going to be included?) lifetime legal residence. But it seems that many so-called conservatives who were ready to hang Perry for his view are willing to give Newt a pass.

        • usa1776usa

          done the job. I like Newt but Perry has been my choice from the beginning. Amazing that folks can so quickly dismiss actual records of accomplishments and a great conservative vision in favor of smooth talk on a debate stage.

      • westcoastpatriette

        in the discussion regarding illegal aliens.

        And I disagree with your definition of amnesty. Amnesty is not the granting of citizenship. Technically, amnesty is withholding the penalty due–which in this case, as current law dictates, the penalty for being in the country illegally is deportation. So, allowing them to stay–no matter the preconditions–is a form of amnesty.

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          55555

        • Scope

          Gingrich plans on doing with the whole new class of residents he would create if they are allowed to stay here and to be considered legal, but not a citizen?

          • westcoastpatriette

            is that they would not be citizens, not allowed to vote and not entitled to entitlement programs, I believe.

            So, as you mentioned below, the plan sounds constitutionally unworkable and I see it as just one more grandstand by Newt trying to sound more brilliant than everyone else. I also highly doubt that Newt cares one hoot about illegals.

          • Scope

            that would mean they can lawfully get a job in the US. Would they not be required to pay SS and Medicare taxes since they won’t be eligible to collect those benefits?

            Agree with you totally. This is just blowing smoke by Gingrich.

      • Scope

        be done with those illegals in this country for 25 years, if not granting them citizenship? Is he proposing a whole new class of people in the US, legal but not a citizen. What rights/benefits would that whole new class of people be eligible for? Would they be eligible for a Social Security number, welfare, unemployment, Social Security benefits? What about their children?

        Gingrich is saying he is not for amnesty, but has he made clear at all what would happen to those long time illegals? If he doesn’t explain that in detail, he is just blowing smoke that he is not for amnesty.

        • texabama

          some BS about “citizen boards” and red cards. For someone who supposedly knows the Constitution, I don’t know how he could contemplate immigration policy at the local level. Isn’t the whole firestorm with AZ, AL and others because they are trying to initiate immigration policy at the state level when it’s a federal issue?

          • Scope

            or “community boards” as I read it somewhere else. That would mean that each community would appoint a board to decide if an illegal should be made legal. What happens when they decide that an illegal is not qualified? Are they going to put them in jail and call ICE to come and deport them? Will the community buy them a one way ticket back to Mexico?

            Honestly, I don’t think that Newt thought through the statement he made in the debate, and is now trying to scamper to put some meaning to what he said. He really doesn’t have an answer except to admit he really did mean amnesty.

          • oldlady

            I read an article by Mark Steyn pointing out some of the holes in Gingrich’s ”community boards” idea. How and by whom does he propose to put these boards in place? What happens when one family who lives in North Podunk are made legal residents and then their cousins family who live down the road in South Podunk get deported? Hmmmmm…. and where’s the ACLU going to be on all of this, standing by with gags in their mouths? What is to stop other illegals from then moving to North Podunk where they are more likely to get a pass. And all the illegals will move out of South Podunk to go to a town which has a reputation for being more lenient? What a mess……

          • oldlady

            with one of the 1000′s of lightbulb type of ideas that are rattling around without spelling out how the idea could be put in place or the consequences of his off-the-wall ”idea”. As I heard someone describe Newt recently…. he’s a man of a thousand ideas and the attention span of a 2 year old.

          • texabama

            You nailed it. He can talk a mile a minute and it sounds good until you go back and think over what he said. Not only is the community boards idea unworkable for the multitude of reasons already stated, but, “Hey, CONSERVATIVES! I thought the whole idea was to get a smaller, more fiscally responsible government. How does setting up thousands of community boards jive with that?”

          • Scope

            are an outreach into the communities with federal government rules and regulations, but it reminds way to much of Obama’s “Community Organizing” push. We all know how that has worked out. ACORN anyone. Hey, now wait a minute, wasn’t Freddie Mac also on board with home loans to low income people, and it was pushed by Freddie Mac?

          • texabama

            I’m sure they’d have to have just the right quota (but not be a quota) of ethnic diversity. And by identifying our “needy” brethren then we can make sure to plug them into all the necessary social services and sundry agencies available.

          • Scope

            As I said though, what happens with those deemed unqualified, if there ever would be such an animal.

        • Common_Cents

    • oldlady

      not for amnesty hasn’t been paying attention to what he’s been saying for years about wanting them to have that ”pathway to citizenship” (a/k/a amnesty) that so many other RINOs have said also. Don’t think that someone in his opposition won’t come out with a video of him having said this. I’ve seen and heard him say it with my own eyes and ears.

      • Scope

        As I’ve said before, he is fighting the word amnesty with his position, but as you so aptly pointed out elsewhere he can try to parse his words, but he won’t survive this. If the in-state tuition issue took Perry down in the polls, this will also. Great comments oldlady.

        • heraklios

          so immigration might hurt Newt (although it shouldn’t) but I highly doubt it will threaten his survival.

          • acat

            Since before the so-called Reagan Amnesty until now, it’s been building as an issue…

            The truth is that there’s just one reason for someone to discuss the ratio of amnesty vs. deportation – for there will be some of both in the end – is to divide the “deport ‘em all”s from the “some form of amnesty”s and keep the border open.

            Mew

          • sethellis

            I disagree with how this debate has been framed. Amnesty is not about whether or not they become legal citizens like Gingrich has argued. This also has nothing to do with deportation either. Nobody has endorsed deportation.

            There is a third option. It is called legal immigration. There is no reason to create a special pathway. Those that are already here can get in line with everyone else.

          • acat

            Quite a few people, starting with Tom Tancredo, are shouting “Deport ‘em all!” at any camera crew that’ll listen.

            The Dem equivalent is “They’re here, make ‘em citizens” – with an eye toward creating a new voting bloc.

            Insisting otherwise is .. strange.

            Your idea, which I’ll paraphrase as “if they’ll get in line now, we’ll forget they crossed the border illegally” is a form of amnesty in that it forgives something.

            Mew

        • greyeagle

          The TX instate tuition is nothing like Newt is proposing. However, Perry has been nearly destroyed by this issue. tuition is just that. Not amnesty/citizenship like what Newt proposes. There is a big difference.

  • BigRedConservative

    Huntsman bet the ranch on New Hampshire, and if the most important paper goes and endorses Gingrich (for reasons I know not) then Huntsman has just lost his raison d’etre for staying in the race. Which is a shame.

    • http://thethinkingvoter.blogspot.com abierubin

      http://www.redstate.com/abierubin/2011/11/22/resist-we-much-%E2%80%A6-mr-gingrich-for-he%E2%80%99s-character-assassination-for-conservatism/

    • acat

      It’ll be interesting to see when – not if – Huntsman lowers his banner, and more interesting to see who he endorses.

      This is not looking good for him. Wonder if any of the paw full of pro-Huntsman folk on Red State will have much to say?

      Mew

      • Common_Cents

        or maybe Obama ;)

        Newt could get Santorum and Cain support which would help in the family values and outsider/tea party areas. Not sure about Bachmann since she has come out against Newt on illegal immigration. Has she done a deal w/ Romney or just trying to stay in the race? I think she’ll end up endorsing Gingrich tho if she’s not a Romney VP/cabinet candidate.

        Huntsman was asked by Wallace today and he said he would support the R nominee and would not run 3rd party. It took a bit of work to get that out of him so take it for what its worth.

        • logicalpositivist

          She and Cain have made it pretty clear that they are more likely to endorse Romney than anyone else.

          • Xasteius

            Don’t know if the supporters of either would go to Romney because he is antithesis of the Tea Party.

            Perry’s chances are basically up to Perry at this point.

          • Tbone

            The only thing Cain could have done to lose more support would have been to turn white.

          • carolynr

            whoever will give her the VP slot.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            I mean, really. And, based on her performance, the best thing the poor guy who ends up with her endorsement could say is, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

          • Common_Cents

            1. she has some loyal supporters
            2. most importantly, it will be newsworthy and keep the candidate in the news cycle and provide more exposure

            Look at the UL endorsement. Not quite predictive but a big boost to Gingrich if he can capitalize on the exposure.

  • ayhr86

    But if we have to chose between these 2 rinos Ide go with Mitt bc if you’re not getting a conservative like Bachmann we may as well elect the most electable candidate

  • Finrod

    .

    • Common_Cents

      it’s up to the candidate to turn that exposure into legitimate support.

      McCain laid down and surrendered during his campaign, I doubt Gingrich will do the same.

      I think the Leader endorsed Reagan as well.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    He can split the NH liberal vote with Romney. It was already a given that the most liberal candidate was going to win NH, so how does this affect the primaries other than to indicate that the NH newspaper editors are seeing the liberal side of Newt’s chameleonic persona.

  • Tbone

    Perry is still the only one with a successful, conservative resume.

    • snowshooze

      And I hope he recovers from this slump which I have never understood.
      All the talk of the balanced budget they had… it was never balanced. Not even close, at any time. It was dissected and compartmentalized.
      That was Enron accounting.
      I do agree however, that it is substantially worse… horribly worse than it ever was and beyond anything we could have imagined back in the golden Newt days.
      I am not against Newt, but I do still prefer Perry as the best all around selection at this point.
      Newt is amazing, but he scares me too. It is impossible to surely predict how he would manage.
      Perry, on the other hand… is still on the job. Being a Governor is far more difficult than being any other form of political creature.
      The job is second only in complexity to being President.
      Congressmen have duck soup by comparison.

      • avagreen

        I admire him all the more.

        http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/main/article.aspx?id=12888
        Since wildfire season began on Nov. 15, 2010, Texas Forest Service and fire departments have responded to 29,540 fires that have burned 3,978,201 acres.

        Every county in the whole State but one has had fires for the past 300+ days.

  • breaves

    It looks like it will probably end up being Newt, but I will be watching over the next month.

    • breaves

      I’ve met several candidates. My heart wants me to caucus for Santorum or Bachman, but I know they really have no shot. I cannot caucus for Romney. It appears my choices will be Newt or Perry.

      • concap

        most people are placing there own personal needs and the needs of a political party above that of the Nation.

        You stated.
        I?ve met several candidates. My heart wants me to caucus for Santorum or Bachman, but I know they really have no shot. I cannot caucus for Romney. It appears my choices will be Newt or Perry.

        In reality, it looks like

        I?ve met several candidates. My heart wants me to caucus for Santorum or Bachman ( the Constitution), but I know they really have no shot. I cannot caucus for Romney. It appears my choices will be Newt or Perry. ( to compromise)

        May be I’m wrong.

        I place the Constitution to the far right, and anyone who advocates any thing on a federal level that is not in 100% compliance of the Constitution as written (not interpreted) is to the left of the Constitution.

        The more things a person advocates non Constitutional, the farther they are to the left.

        Being 100% for the Constitution makes a person conservative, not a Conservative..
        There are as many Conservatives as there are people.
        Every one is trying to conserve what they believe in through politics, left or right.

        Why do people just call them selves a generic ?Conservative? ?. If they are for the Constitution as written, why don?t they call them selves a Constitutional Conservative ( No social issues on a Federal level ) and differentiate them selves from the other so called Conservatives that have compromised away all of our lost freedoms in the last 60 years?

        Why is it no one on this site but me calls them selves a Constitutional Conservative? Is it because there are none on this site? If there is, why are they hiding the fact?

        Do you think it is best, one should always back the person in the primaries who is deemed Constitutionally farthest to the right (based on my definition of right) and brings (no social issues) to the Federal level, wither they personally like that person or not. If that person drops out, or is found non deserving, one should then pick up the flag of the next person deemed farthest to the right, so on and so on. Any one 100% for the Constitution should not even talk about anyone on the list left of the person deemed farthest to the right until it is his or her turn.

        Do you believe to back any one left of the person deemed farthest to the right is a COMPROMISE to the existents of our Constitution and the Nation, and that?s why we end up with people like Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Bush II and others like them.

        Do you think any one who backs any one left of the of the person deemed farthest to the right, mainly does so because of (ME, ME, ME) and places their own personal social issues before the Constitutional need of the Nation on a Federal level?

        Do you believe, this FORCES you and others through Federal taxation and legislation to back their personal cause. Is this not a fight for the State or local level?

        Do you think the more a candidate believes in making non Constitutional issues an issue on a Federal level, the farther they are to the left? Also, considering their oath of office, the more criminal they are?

        Do you think one should all ways vote for the candidate deemed farthest to the right wither they personally like that candidate or not, no matter WHAT?

        Do you think if the vote for President, comes down to some one, one does not like, one should simply vote for the person that is farthest to the right?

        Do not, NOT VOTE,

        Do you think, if one would follow this idea, it should not come down to voting for the lesser of the two evils because the one we end up with will be the one who will best represent the Constitution and not the personal social issues of others.

        Be ?A? political. You do not have to be political to vote. You need only an ideal on which to base your vote (just make it the Constitution). Rate who you back in the primaries by how they appear to uphold the true meaning of the Constitution as written (not interpreted).

        Until there is a movement that is ?A? political, and who?s goal is the reinstatement of a Federal Government that is strictly run under the guidance of the U.S. Constitution, there is no hope for our Nation as intended by our founding Fathers?.

        The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
        You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
        When you vote on a Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
        When I vote on a Federal level, the only thing I?m forcing on any one is the Constitution,

        Constitution
        Rule of Law
        Capitalism

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …I analyzed the rationale for this endorsement…
    http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111127/NEWS/711279999
    …and found it wanting.

    After having reviewed comments posted thereafter, I retain this perspective:

    *

    Let’s parse your criteria:

    “conservatives” – he is an elitist/statist, never denying the intent to use Big Government to tinker.

    “courage” – judgment-call, but evacuated the House after ethics-violation cost him Speakership [and intransigence led to Clinton re-election].

    “conviction” – listen to wandering comments on Libya on FNC and note only one common-denominator: disagreement with whatever BHO was doing @ the time [even as it evolved]. Specifically, he predicated his flipped position regarding the military action against Libya on the flipped position of BHO ["once President Obama declared on March 3rd that ?Gaddafi has to go,? he put the prestige of the United States on the line"] without articulating his own posture regarding the need to adopt a policy-position regarding such conflicts, wherever they might arise [Central Africa, Syria]. Therefore, if he felt Libya constituted a “strategic interest” of America, why didn’t he initially advocate an aggressive posture ["swift and decisive action"], if he felt Libya didn’t constitute a “strategic interest” of America, why didn’t he explicitly state this observation and its rationale, and if he felt American lives were at-stake when functioning through NATO ["Obama ended up putting American troops in harm?s way under the auspices of a UN resolution for a chiefly humanitarian mission"], how could that have occurred when NATO commanded no American troops and no American lives were lost?

    “independent-minded” – one must differentiate the “intellectual” mantle he has created for himself [manifest, in particular, during the debates] with the contents of his books. His support for the Individual Mandate is vigorously argued: Real Change [2008, page 227: "Everyone should be required to have coverage"] and Winning the Future [2005, page 116: "You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance."].

    “grounded in their core beliefs about this nation and its people” – Regarding the Middle East, the essence of his position ["Israel will continue to receive a robust package of aid from the United States under a new merit-based approach to foreign aid"] is based on a viewpoint ["Israel is one of America?s closest friends and a key strategic ally in a dangerous part of the world"] that is vulnerable to attack by those Republican neo-isolationists who adamantly oppose the “neo-con” approach to Foreign Policy. What is unstated is the specific criterion he would emphasize when justifying not only the continuation of prior commitments ["multi-year aid agreement"] but also whatever expansion thereof that might arise…such as the necessity to engage in military action against Iran.

    “best-equipped for the job” – All that insider-stuff [Freddie-Mac] justifying having made seven-digits due to the intent to function as a “historian” … does this rationalization pass the scratch/sniff test?

    *

    Concur with rationale to eschew Romney, but those who promote Huntsman must rationalize myriad postures/behaviors that contrast with GOP-Conservatism [notwithstanding his overt expression of scorn regarding the ethical expressions of evangelicals...claiming "science" solely to himself]. From enhanced interrogation to defense of articulation of BHO’s flawed China-policy… he lucidly demonstrates the danger of reliance upon “moderation.” He’s the darling of Morning-Joe, an observation that speaks for itself when compared/contrasted with the GOP-electorate.

    *

    ALSO, regarding Newt’s prior conduct, I advised reviewing….”Breach of Trust” by Sen. Tom Coburn.

    • Scope

      about the UL endorsement was listening to Drew Cline, editorial board director at UL, talk about them making their choice on who to endorse. The CNN host asked him who came in second and he said Perry. It would seem that the board, how ever many of them there are, took a vote, and the more moderate votes went for Gingrich, and the conservative votes went for Perry. It makes sense that a Northeastern state would have more moderates. I think that the fact that the guy said that Perry came in second speaks to a certain amount of support Perry has there that you would never know by the NH polling numbers. Cline also most definitely spoke about Gingrich’s baggage, and said that he will have to overcome that. Let’s see what happens next week when Perry campaigns in NH with Sheriff Arpaio.

      • sunshinek67

        Moderate Republicans are threatening to dispel conservatism into extinction

        • Scope

          devastating to Romney. He has been putting all of his efforts into NH, and not so much in Iowa or SC. Then he gets this slap in the face. No matter how hard some of the pundits, the so-called conservative writers, Fox and everyone else pushing for Romney have not been able to help him. His hiding out and refusing to do any TV interviews, except with his good buddy Hannity, is not helping him either. The rest are wide open for criticism for everything they say, and are dealing with it, not hiding out. With Gingrich’s positions becoming more widely known, he won’t be able to call himself a conservative with a straight face for very long, his many positions have been moderate at best.

          Each time someone dropped from the lead or second in the polls, they went to the next not-Romney flavor, and did not go to Romney. Cain’s train is off the tracks big time, and after his interview with Candy Crowley this morning, I can’t even imagine him retaining his 3rd position in the polls. It’s out there everywhere that Cain is blaming everyone else for his campaign mistakes. Who would be the anybody but moderate Gingrich alternative? Why of course it will be Perry. And, I really do believe that Perry has much more support with the voters than the all over the board polls are showing, despite the media’s attempt to blacklist him.

          Hey, a month is an eternity in politics. That is just about enough time for Gingrich to lose patience with the whole discipline thing. With Gingrich, time is on our side.

          • changeforrickperry

            I think the fact that the Union Leader’s second choice was Perry says a lot about his undercurrent of support. My only concern is that Gingrich will still be having his time in the sunshine when the Iowa caucuses come around.

            One of the men at church this morning asked, “Does anybody know what happens in 37 days?” “New Years?” I guessed. “No,” he said, “you’re two days off.” I figured it out then (pretty shocked he’d bring it up in church!) and said in a tiny voice, “Oh….you mean Iowa caucuses?” (One time this very dear man was preaching from the Book of John, and talking about Nathaniel who said, “What good can come out of Nazareth?”; our friend said, “Kinda reminds you of the way the media talks about Paint Creek, doesn’t it?) Anyway, it made me realize just how close we’re getting to actual voting, and it’s a little scary.

          • nathanalbright

            About the Israelite in whom there is no guile (whose name was Nathanael, by the way). The good news is that this disciple became a disciple of Christ because he was guileless, even with his prejudices against Nazareth, once Jesus Christ showed his knowledge of what Nathanael was pondering and musing.

          • sunshinek67

            CommonCents STILL has not responded my earlier posts (2x) to what Obama could never say to Perry on a debate stage. No wonder there, knowledge that your candidate has so much baggage causes one to pretend that thread doesn’t exist. Gingrich is a “history” lobbyist wired to Washington on the most inside track that exists. Everyone knows this. He’s where he is because of 30-60 second soundbites from his internal thinktank. But he still has record that he is not going to be able to run from for very much longer. When tested, he gets testy. He, like Romney, has anger issues. But, for the record, he is the lesser of two evils.

            Supporters of Gingrich and Romney have turned redstate.com into bloviated spin rooms. And that is what it is~

          • Common_Cents

            Is obama gonna say, “golly gee, Rick is a pretty good squeaky clean candidate.” ?? LOL

            It doesnt matter who it is, it will be a very negative campaign by the left. Real, exaggerated, made up, “anonymous” etc…

            They didn’t go after McCain?

            Again, the discussion of candidates boils down to record vs. electability

          • sunshinek67

            Weak argument. Remember, the best debater got the White House last time. I never said Obama wouldn’t go after Perry. That is not a sound argument based on what I prefaced earlier.

            What Obama WON’T be saying to Perry:

            1. You support amnesty
            2. You support individual mandate
            3. You are a wealthy former lobbyist
            4. You resigned SOH amid ethic violations & ostracized from your own party
            5. You are a serial cheater on wives with health problems

          • Scope

            I don’t believe that sunshine ever said that Obama wouldn’t have ammunition against Perry. Your botness interpreted it that way.

            Why would “record” versus “electability” have to be a split option? We can have a candidate that has the record, and the electability in Perry. Your candidate has a terrible record, and will be shortly widely seen as unelectable. The polls will reflect that soon, for anyone requiring polls to choose their candidate.

            A funny thing I did notice in some of your posts is that you are leaving the door open for a Perry comeback, just in case your guy does the big slide. Hedging your bets huh?

          • heraklios

            but he needs to move up a bit in the polls or do something dramatic to show he has staying power.

          • Scope

            rather than an issue voter? I thought so, but, I know you aren’t the only one. That’s why we are where we are.

          • heraklios

            I have to admit, Perry’s performance in some of the debates has shaken my confidence in him. What happens if he has a 45 second brain freeze in one of the October, 2012 debates? I think a few weeks of strong, enthusiastic speeches and debate performances might assuage my fears a little but I’m still definitely wary of Perry despite being in agreement with him on the issues more than any other candidate

          • lucasblack

            We prefer to be known as ‘Newtrons’.

          • Common_Cents

            Winning in Newt Hampshire, hehe

      • http://redmerrimack.blogspot.com/ charliebravoNH

        should be a boost for Perry. Arpaio is pretty popular here among Republicans and Independents. Perry has a pretty good team in NH, it is not inconceivable for Perry to rise in the polls in here. He has been running some good ads of late.

        • changeforrickperry

          I’m so excited to hear that! Proof positive that things may not be as the All-Powerful All-Knowing Polls would suggest?

  • TSquared

    Sure Perry seems like a great guy and there appears to be much to like about his record.

    However, Perry has suffered the deadly vote of NO CONFIDENCE. Do you folks really think that people are going to get behind a guy that requires the proverbial “fingers to be crossed” in the hopes that he doesn’t implode every time he’s about to speak?

    Really?

    • gekster

      I don’t seam to recall that any votes have been cast yet.

      • TSquared

        You know full well what I mean by that…

        Perry ascended to the largest lead in the polls to date only to find himself standing in the crapper today. He finds himself there not due to Gardasil, In state tuition for illegals, or any other policy position. He’s there because of 4 poor debate performances, the infamous 53 seconds, and the lack of faith that this won’t become a repeating theme. That’s the vote of no confidence that I was talking about…

        • gekster

          You probably leave a baseball game in the first inning when the opposing team gets a run.
          No ones out until they get voted out.
          The only thing I can deduce from your post is that you arn’t for
          the most conservative, but the presumed most electable.
          Well, Romney would be a hold your nose to vote for kinda guy.

          • TSquared

            Then here you go:

            Perry has about as much chance now to win the nomination as the Colts have of winning the Super Bowl.

            As to whom I’m for: I’m for the most conservative candidate that we can get elected. Simple. Perry unfortunately no longer fits into that category.

            Don’t get me wrong. I had high hopes for Perry when he first got into the race. I thought the rest of the field was a huge crap sandwich and that it needed salvation. However, my hopes for Perry were dashed the first time I saw him speak off the cuff (although I thought his delivery of his announcement speech was great). Where we are today is no surprise to me.

          • logicalpositivist

            I’d be willing to bet against Perry at this point. I don’t see Republicans flocking to him at this stage of the game.

            Romney is still the favorite and Gingrich is the dark horse.

          • logicalpositivist

            I held my nose and voted for McCain in 2008. I held my nose and voted to re-elect Bush in 2004.

            I’m not as concerned about Romney being the nominee as I am having Newt as the nominee.

            And Perry, in case you didn’t notice, is circling the drain right now. He won’t finish in the top three in Iowa or New Hampshire. Bet me. Right now.

          • heraklios

            a bunch of the people posting on RedState, along with conservatives all over the country, staying home or voting third party on election day. Romney will lose by 10 points to Barry O. Moreover, if Romney is the nominee some prominent politician or businessman (Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul) will jump into the race with a well-funded third party bid. Face it, Romney’s just not happening.

          • logicalpositivist

            Polls show that Romney would be the strongest Republican against Obama.

            You’ve already indicated your intention to vote against the GOP nominee or start a third party. In fact, you were warned that you would be banned if you did it again. FYI.

          • heraklios

            “I don’t like your viewpoint, so let’s ban you!”

            I’ve got news for you: A year away from the election with 8-9 candidates still fighting in the primary, your general election polls are about as worthless as your candidate is. Your candidate will NEVER be President of the U.S.; better start reconciling yourself to that now. Many conservatives would rather see Barry O re-elected than see your candidate win. That’s a FACT.

          • changeforrickperry

            This guy has been spouting Puddleglum logic all day–or to borrow a more familiar literary figure, he’s been acting like Eeyore towards us anti-Willards. I’ve been watching him most of the afternoon.

          • heraklios

            ..

          • changeforrickperry

            People on the fence, disillusioned Cain supporters looking for an alternative, Southern Democrats, even campaign staffers…Hey, we know the Perry Campaign, at least, reads RS. You just never know how one comment might affect someone, for good or ill.

        • greyeagle

          The last three debates have been good, and the last two of those excellent. He got in late, and the others have been running for months. Don’t count him out yet. By the way, those so called debates run by liberal moderators are not a picture of an individuals ability.

          • lizzie

            http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/11/27/so-why-did-we-have-to-hear-about-a-no-fly-zone-over-syria-from-rick-perry/

            From the excellent J.E. Dyer:

            “The weird thing about Governor Perry?s ?Syrian no-fly-zone? moment was not that he talked about a no-fly zone (NFZ) with the Fox news pundits, and then reiterated his comments in the GOP foreign policy debate on Tuesday.

            The weird thing is that there seems, in fact, to be a proposal for a Syrian NFZ ? one in which the US would reportedly provide logistic support ? and it took a GOP candidate to tell us about it.

            Perry took a lot of heat for ?bringing up? the idea of an NFZ for Syria. But foreign news agencies have been furiously reporting for nearly a week that negotiations are underway for such a measure. The plan, as sketched out to date, would involve Arab and Turkish air forces enforcing the NFZ, with the US providing logistic support. …”

            [I await any echo that smacks Mitt Romney's condescension to Gov. Perry on this during the Wed. Nov 22 debate.

            Imagine that, Rick Perry as foreign policy guru... :) ]

          • 1bunny

            from promo during Steelers game and Leno’s site.

    • Scope

      that Perry has suffered a vote of no confidence than the same would apply to all of them sitting at the top in the polls, only to plunge back down to earth. That would also apply to all of the candidates that have never gotten out of the single digits. So, who’s left?

      • TSquared

        I’ve argued that none of those (Bachmann, Perry, Cain) who previously held the Not Romney seat only to later crash and burn will likely experience a phoenix like resurrection – at least not at this late juncture. I also think it improbable – but not impossible – that Santorum will get a last minute test drive for the Not Romney slot. Huntsman who? Paul will not be the nominee.

        So that leaves Newt as the last viable Not Romney candidate standing. If Newt is successfully taken out, then it will be Romney. That’s the way I see it.

        So the question boils down to: Who’s it going to be? Newt? or Romney?

        • texanlady

          I agree that it will be Newt or Romney as things begin in January.

          • logicalpositivist

            That will make it nearly impossible for him to collect any delegates there. Although the primary is a “beauty pageant” primary, I can’t see the General Assembly of Republicans in Missouri sending any delegates to a candidate who failed to file paperwork in time.

        • logicalpositivist

          Newt has too many problems. Too much baggage. Some of his ideas are good (stopping Iran from going nuclear). Some of his ideas are hideously bad (individual mandate for health care, warm-mongering, repealing child labor laws, etc.)

          It just can’t be Newt.

    • logicalpositivist

      The belief that he will one day be president will never be extinguished here, no matter what happens.

      • heraklios

        Personally, I could see Michelle Bachmann, Ricky Perry, Newt Gingrich and even Jon Huntsman being excellent Presidents. There is no shortage of talent in this field. It’s too bad the Wall Street/East Coast Rockefeller Republican establishment is trying to shove Mitt Romney down our throats, destroying the GOP int he process.

      • David123

        as McCain, and for that matter Obama, seemed exactly 4 years ago.

        • changeforrickperry

          Right on. It ain’t over till it’s over.

      • changeforrickperry

        nt

  • capitalistpig

    Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Apaio is going to campaign with Perry and endorse him next week.But im not surprised RS hasnt reported this yet.His endoresment was highly sought after by Cain,Bachmann,and Romney.

    • logicalpositivist

      The endorsement really didn’t help Romney all that much, especially not in politically-isolated New Hampshire.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        over a very strong Conservative, Matt Salmon. Salmon lost by less than one percent.

    • bzip

      To me the Sheriff Joe endorsement is far bigger then NH paper endorsement, Joe carries far more weight in todays’ elections and the conservative base then any NH paper endorsement.

      Now for those who don’t know I guess Perry placed high in the NH endorsement;

      Gingrich wins Union Leader endorsement
      http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/195509-gingrich-wins-nh-union-leader-endorsement
      ?Drew Cline, editorial page editor for the Union Leader, spoke about the board’s decision on CNN Sunday morning. Cline said that the board’s “two favorites were probably Perry, Gingrich.”

      • lucasblack

        I had to laugh at the idea that the endorsement of Sheriff Joe was equal to or greater than the endorsement of the Union-Leader. What I can’t figure out is why Perry is taking him to NH – IA would be a more receptive state, I should think.
        As for Perry being number two in the endorsement list of the UL – this is one of those cases where close doesn’t count. Perry will be lucky to finish anywhere higher than 5th in NH.

  • supergirl2911

    Someone tell me that the “It’s going to be Newt and Romney” story is just the media ready to write their stories before Christmas. I think I am going to be sick.

    • logicalpositivist

      Those are your choices. Pick one.

      Try not to pick the weaker candidate.

    • changeforrickperry

      Last month we were sure it would be “Cain and Romney.” We’ve got 37 more days until the Iowa caucuses and ANYTHING can happen. Including The Newt’s implosion. He has a history of putting his foot in his mouth (“right-wing engineering,” anyone?) and can certainly do it again. Especially as his ego inflates.

      (Bear with me, you folks who see me struggling against discouragement here at times. The best way to fight it is to preach to yourself and help others struggling with the same thing. Now is not the time to give up the ship–and I’m forcing myself to remember that every single day.)

  • septembergurl

    is important because it opens up the real possibility that Romney might not win NH. Up till now at least a plurality win had been the expectation, given his steady 40% in the polls, which along with Paul’s steady 10-15% would make it very difficult for anyone else to put together a plurality, assuming most stayed in after Iowa.

    Along with the likelihood of only a fair showing in Iowa, and a loss in South Carolina, this would rob Romney of the “frontrunner” status and we would then hav a real contest among three or four (possibly more) strong contenders, including Romney.

    as a (perhaps the) Huntsman supporter, I realized some time ago that Huntsman would not receive this endorsement. The UL has been extremely critical of him and I don’t believe he had the sit-down with the editors. So, it hasn’t been a factor for me, and given the non-predictability of the endorsement (Buchanan twice, DuPont, Forbes, etc) I don’t much care, as long as it isn’t Romney. Feel free to treat this as spin.

    • logicalpositivist

      Don’t think for a minute that a candidate, say Huntsman or Perry, can strike out in Iowa and New Hampshire and come back to win the election. After McCain won New Hampshire in 2008, he was the front-runner. Huckabee and Romney tried to win some of the other primaries but to very little avail.

      The winner of NH next year will be in a great position to take the nomination. Especially if he can capitalize on the win by taking Florida and then California.

      • septembergurl

        so that scenario doesn’t frighten me. My belief is that Newt will not go the distance, however.

        The comparison with 2008 is not really apt. The RNC has changed the rules of the early states primaries. McCain won the nomination because a lot of the states he won were winner take all. Florida is the big example. The rules have been changed so that no state primary can be WTA before April 1. As a result the delegates will be proportional and many more candidates will be able to stay in the race. So Perry and Huntsman can take, say third in Iowa (Perry) or second or third in NH (Huntsman) and stay in the race.

        Newt is not going to win Iowa. He could do well in NH and come into SC with a head of steam…I don’t see him winning Florida, then Nevada and Michigan provide a Romney comeback. I’m seeing a long fight among 3 or 4 as I said. The rules make it likely. Perry and Paul will be around for a long time as well.

        As I see it, the UL wanted to endorse Perry but went with Newt because they worried about Perry’s ability to carry the argument to the Dems. I think they will regret the choice they made.

        • Common_Cents

          The proportional delegates. That will prob serve to keep more candidates in longer if they have the money and support. Gingrich could win IA, 2nd in NH, and 1 or 2 in SC. I think he’s working FL pretty hard too but prob too early to tell what’s going on there.

        • heraklios

          Last time I checked he was leading the polls there

          • intensity

            Romney will not win Iowa. Not with its christian, evangelical base.

          • septembergurl

            Santorum, Romney and perhaps Perry will run ahead of Newt. Also Herb Cain might run well there. It’s a caucus, favoring organization and passion. It’s a bit hard to poll as you would posll a primary.

            So yeah, I don’t think Newt will win. 1. Organization 2. Religious conservatives.

            We’ll know in a month and a week.

        • Common_Cents

          Seems like a conflict is at hand. FL has 50 delegates compared to 65 total for the 1st 3, IA, NH, SC

          Gingrich has been getting standing room only crowds and having to book larger venues. Prob good for Newt that Cain was an early leader, as Newt will prob pick up supporters.

          Rubio has said he’ll stay neutral on endorsing. Wondering if he might be angling for a VP spot? Probably tough for Perry as I’d think Rubio would likely endorse him.

        • Common_Cents

          This is even before the latest Cain allegations.

          Insider Advantage polls in IA and SC Nov 28 Real Clear Politics:

          38% in SC
          28% in IA
          27% in Newt Hampshire, almost caught Romney.

          “Gingrich, a former congressman from Georgia, has 38 percent, followed by 15 percent for Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Cain, a Georgia native, had 13 percent.”

          ?Gingrich has consolidated a substantial lead among those who consider themselves Republicans, which are the more long-time GOP voters,? said InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery. ?The independents who had supported Cain are moving to Gingrich as well.?

          The pattern is repeating itself in other early voting states, as illustrated in other polls Towery?s organization conducted Monday night.

          In Iowa, Gingrich leads with 28 percent, followed by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul?s 13 percent and Romney?s 12 percent.

          In New Hampshire, Ging?rich has 27 points to Rom?ney?s 31, putting them in a tie once the margin of error is considered.

          In the article, they also show Gingrich doing much better w/ females than Romney. Wow, that baggage is really working!

      • clowngirl

        Don’t get me wrong. I’d love to see Newt win New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina then coast to the nomination.

        But if these polls are anything close to correct it means that Newt would have to either take support directly for Romney or consolidate almost 100% of the not Paul/ not Romney vote.

        I wonder to what extent Ron Paul is a spoiler for Romney. Given Paul’s out there foreign policy views – it would seem that those who support Ron Paul wouldn’t otherwise be voting Republican anyway– but then his support is pretty consistently around 8-10% which is a lot higher than the 1% or so who typically vote libertarian in Presidential elections. Apparently Romney is also the most common second choice for Paul supporters. So him being in the race may actually hurt Romney.

        If you remove the Paul supporters, Romney’s pretty close to 50% on the rest ( if my theatre major-math hasn’t led me astray) but I wonder how loyal they are to Romney. perhaps they’d jump ship if Newt starts really gaining momentum.

        Has anyone seen a poll on how many New Hampshire Romney supporters are certain of their choice?

  • royatblov8

    I haven’t made of my mind yet, but Newt is sounding good for the job. Let’s not forget the House and Senate which needs a good cleaning. Visit my site http://www.blov8.com for more articles on politics in America… Thanks

    • bzip

      Please tell me you didn’t know:
      Newt was a bigger flip-flopper then Romney on core conservative issues.
      Newt was for the mandate,
      Newt was for global warming.
      Newt had a ethic violation that basically his own party voted him out. Newt has crony capitalist ties, lobbying ties.
      There are load and loads of items that would suggest Newt is a disaster.
      Newt has a disaster of personal baggage.

      I am personally thinking Romney is more conservative and a better candidate then Newt and that in itself is a statement.

      • logicalpositivist

        But on the above points, you are absolutely correct.

        Newt is a deeply flawed candidate who has a history of flip-flopping and questionable alliances. If I have to choose between Newt and Mitt, the choice will be easy. I will vote for Mitt.

        • texabama

          but I think voting for Newt would put me 6 feet under. I believe both will do whatever is politically expedient, but I think Newt carries this over into all aspects of his life (whatever works at the moment).

          • heraklios

            No one following politics back in the 1980s and 1990s can doubt Newt’s conservative credentials. Newt’s support of global warming is most troubling to me, yet a lot of conservatives were snowed by the scientists a few years back that “the science is settled.” So many ideas have been tossed around about healthcare over the past decade, then if he advocated a mandate at some point, I’m not particularly concerned about that either. Heck, Romney has unequivically backed cap and trade and the mandate which in office so to say these are good reasons to vote Romney over Newt makes no sense.

          • texabama

            global warming and the individual mandate. Even with Obama in power, Newt chose to endorse the most liberal Republican he could find (Dede Scozzafava). And that was knowing that card check could still be on the table. I’m also not convinced that his “consulting” work was conservative in nature.

          • lucasblack

            It used to bother me when people would try and say Newt wasn’t a conservative, but then I realized that many today would consider Ronald Reagan a RINO. To the extent that people like Newt are considered ‘moderate’ is a reflection of my much they moved the Overton window. I would suggest that Newt was the most conservative house speaker ever – more so than Hastert (and his loathsome #2, Tom Delay) and Boehner. Mind you, I like Boehner, but no question Newt was more conservative than he is.

  • mariagomez

    I like Newt, but he has changed political positions as much as Romney. Although Newt is tons smarter than Obama, I worry that he can’t beat Obama in the general election. I can’t believe it has come to this…

    • logicalpositivist

      If Newt becomes our nominee, a golden opportunity will slip through our hands and we will have to wait until 2016 to re-take the White House. I like Newt as a person. He is smart. I enjoyed reading his policy-laden book, “Winning the Future”. But he is too flawed as a person and a career politician to beat Obama. Too much baggage.

    • heraklios

      We KNOW that Mitt Romney can’t beat Barry O. because half the conservative base will stay home or vote for someone else if Romney is the nominee. With the other candidates, who knows? They MIGHT not be able to beat Obama, but maybe they can!

    • tomatin

      If Newt ran it would go allot like Reagan did against Carter. The polls would have Carter ahead until the debates where Reagan crushed him.

      All Obama would have to do to destroy Romney would be to point out all the positions Romney agreed with Obama on like Romneycare, stimulus, pro-abortion, etc.

      Perry would do better than Romney in debates too because he’s the most genuine but on complex issues no one beats Newt.

      Gingrich/Perry 2012 is a ticket I could sink my teeth into.

      I get conservatives bashing Romney he’s flip flopped on the most important conservative issues but except for Huntsman and Paul all the other candidates have firm conservative positions.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        although libertarian, technically speaking, both Huntsman and Paul are more conservative than Mitt.

        Literally everyone is more conservative than Mitt unless they are actually a Democrat.

    • clowngirl

      You’re at least the second person to post something like “Newt flip flops as much as Romney”

      Where are you guys getting that?

      Are you suggesting that Newt has flip flopped on as many issues as Romney within the same time frame as Romney? Or is it just that – over a period of more than 50 years in politics he’s changed his position on roughly the same number of issues that Romney flipped on between the time he ran for Governor and President.

      Flip flopping in and of itself isn’t a deal breaker for me. What bothers me so much about Romney’s flip flopping is that it’s such transparent pandering.

      The difference between Romney and Gingrich was well illustrated during and after the National Security debate. Gingrich took a position that some conservatives may not like – but was willing to say (essentially) this is what I believe – people may or not like it and I may lose some support- but I’ll stand by my conviction. Romney (through his aide) was unwilling to clarify his position even when asked 7 times. It seems pretty obvious that he doesn’t care to stand for anything just to pander to the base now and then to the general electorate if he gets the nomination.

    • lucasblack

      I worry a bit about this too, but eventually I felt that Newt was worth the risk. I won’t cry if Romney gets the nomination and wins, but I do think that the situation in the country is bad enough that Newt can overcome his negatives to win. And I just dream of how much the liberals and the Media would HATE that!

  • intensity

    Rick Perry is a right-wing conservative has a great record, and boasts an awesome platform.

    He interviews well, does Q+As well, but consistently crumbles and struggles in debates.

    I really hope he improves with debates so he will be a bonafide contender next year.

    • logicalpositivist

      At the Michigan debate, he was allowed to bring notes. He either didn’t bring notes or he jumbled them up so that he couldn’t find his talking points.

      I don’t see his campaign coming back. It’s hard to get a third chance with primary voters.

      Newt debates well but doesn’t make good decisions outside of the debating room.

      • txpat

        He has done very well in all of those, but never gets any credit for improvement.
        His error would be he focused on bring in money and not studying for the debates, but who can say that was really wrong.
        He brought in lots of money and able to use it now for exposure.
        He now has people working with him on his debate performance and that is why he has turned it around.
        Take look at his last debate and compare to his first debate.
        It is like night and day on the improvement.
        I also would add that actions speak louder than words.
        His actions as a whole as Gov of Texas is more impressive than talking points that are not worth the breath they are spoken with.

  • donald_24

    Newt is not running for president. He is doing a book tour that is disguised as a campaign. He is fooling you guys to enrich himself and none of you have noticed.

    But don’t take my word for it:

    “And on Saturday, at least 500 stood in line for more than four hours at a Books-a-Million bookstore, where Gingrich and his wife, Callista, posed for photos and signed books, t-shirts, photographs and other memorabilia.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-attracts-crowds-in-florida-as-rivals-continue-attack-on-immigration-stance/2011/11/26/gIQAUeeVzN_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

    Is Newt Gingrich Run for President a Scam to Sell Books?

    http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110627/us_ac/8698671_is_newt_gingrich_run_for_president_a_scam_to_sell_books_1

    • texabama

      While he may have conceived of a bookselling tour, I think he stumbled into a campaign. And having seen that people really do like to hear him talk…

  • donald_24

    Romney will be the nominee. He will win New Hampshire. And he will win all of the big states that have all of the delegates, like NY, CA, Michigan, etc. I really don’t see the other GOP candidates winning primaries in BLUE states. Perry and Cain have little appeal outside the South. Romney, however, will win the Northeast. He will win the Northwest. He will win the upper midwest. And I can even see him winning the Southwest. The other canddates will share victories in the Southeast. Sorry Perry supporters, but right now your candidate is a regional guy with no appeal up north.

    • heraklios

      These states are voting for Obama in November regardless of who the minority GOP faction in those states supports in the GOP primary. I’m more interested in nominating someone who has broad, deep support in the red and purple states so we can win the White House.

      F.y.i. if it was up to me, the states voting GOP in November would get the number of delegates allocated to their state doubled or tripled. No way a bunch of blue states who never support our candidates in November should get to choose our nominee.

      Anyway, I hope you’re wrong because a Romney nomination means a lot of the conservative base stays home or votes third party which means a big Barry O win in Nov.

      • donald_24

        The Blue States have the bulk of the convention delegates so a GOP candidate MUST win them in order to win the nomination. They cannot rely mainly on Red and purple states. That is a losing strategy. California is #1 with 172 delegates. NY is #3 with 95 delegates. Illinois has 69 delegates. I think Romney can win all these states. And that is not counting Mchigan, Romney’s home state, and Utah, which, for obvivous reasons, Romney will win. Romney is not competitive in the South. But, as McCain showed, you can lose those states and still be the nominee.

        • heraklios

          but how did he do in November?

          Relying on blue state delgates to win the nomination without building support in the South and West is a losing strategy for any Republican. Romney is so onerous to Southerners that traditionally GOP states would be ripe for the picking by a strong third party candidate.

        • greyeagle

          Romney can’t win TX and probably won’t win Florida. These two states will be a must win. Romney won’t likely win the southern states and will need them.

          • heraklios

            He might squeak by if it’s him and Obama, however, any significant third party candidate draws away enough conservatives to leave a bunch of southern states in play.

      • lizzie

        if they give the 50% of voters who stayed home in 2008 a reason to vote. mostly ‘dem’ ethnic Catholics stayed home. Reagan won NYS in 1980 for a reason: demographics.

        and can counter what will again be the only way for dems to drive female turnout in Manhattan – make Sen. Gillenbrand the poster girl for “protecting women’s reproductive rights”. Worked in 2010 when voter enthusiasm for governor was near zero, but the dems knew voter turnout for downstate suburban CDs was going to be high.

        One of Gingrich’s tests is how badly he polls with women in general.

        But, Gingrich is holding a Town Hall on Staten Island, NYC next Saturday.

        btw, there continue to be annual secessionist movements for NYC, for Staten Island, and for Long Island. Secession is NOT just about Texas :)

        • donald_24

          As someone who was born and raised in Manhattan, there is zero chance that Perry or Gingrich will win NY in a general election. 2010 was a good year for the GOP and they got clobbered in NY. They lost the governor’s election. They lost both US Senate races. They lost attorney general. They lost state comptroller. NY is not competitive for the GOP.

          • heraklios

            yet another reason why NY should not be a consideration in who the GOP nominates.

          • greyeagle

            I guess it depends on how many people are out of work in your state. Perry has by far the best jobs/energy/budget plan. That would likely influence the voters. Right?

    • tomatin

      So Romney will lose Blue states by a lower margin. Whoopeee! With Romney VA, NC and FL are gonna go to Obama again.

  • lizzie

    especially because Cline did NOT have to answer.

    Keeps Perry in play long enough to get through two more televised debates in Iowa Dec 10 (primetime on ABC) and Dec 15 (Fox News), and two in New Hampshire Jan 7 (primetime on ABC) and, for some reason at 9am ET on Sunday Jan.8, live on NBC – co-host is the Union Leader.

    I still do not know why Perry is bringing Sherriff Joe to New Hampshire this Tuesday, except to capture the news cycle. Just would make more sense to do it in Iowa, where Perry needs to break into the top 4 inconclusive cluster.

    I did not watch Gingrich’s very recent U-L interview, but Perry was terrific with them on Oct. 28. http://www.c-span.org/Events/Rick-Perry-Meets-With-New-Hampshire-Newspaper/10737425109/
    in a 71-minute no-time-limit forum.

    I detect the U-L trying to slow down both the inevitable-Romney, and the spoiler-Paul.

    Gov. Perry is a force of nature, so resilient, with grace under fire.
    Just needs to keep workin’ on those sixty second “debate” responses in time to break through in Iowa and NH.

    • Scope

      If it is in NH or in Iowa, hopefully the news of the endorsement will get out there. I will bet that the MSM downplays the whole thing. Ha, they are already attacking Arpaio for being the devil incarnate for being so cruel to the illegals in his prisons, and for being against their “civil liberties” even though they are not protected with any civil liberties, they are illegal, and have no right to be protected by American civil liberty laws.

      • lizzie

        media coverage because Nashua is so close to Boston.

        NO ONE wants to go to jail in Arizona – makes Texas prisons look like Club Med. Actually, Oregon prisons apparently are like Club Med :)

        Chain gangs are alien to Yankees.
        We see prison road crews in orange jumpsuits along our roads, without shackles, one guard.

        I understand why Perry needs Arpaio, but does not mean it is such a big + to everyone who still thinks the GOP base forgot their priorities 1) JOBS, 2) repeal Obamacare, and 3) the deficit.

        real life beckons…may be back in a week :)

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          is Arpaio’s endorsement a net plus???

          • izoneguy

            But I would want to hear why Joe is endorsing Perry

        • donald_24

          Here in Blue state America, prisoners working on highways would result in an ACLU lawsuit and an AFL-CIO lawsuit.

      • lizzie

        media coverage because Nashua is so close to Boston.

        NO ONE wants to go to jail in Arizona – makes Texas prisons look like Club Med. Actually, Oregon prisons apparently are like Club Med :)

        Chain gangs are alien to Yankees.
        We see prison road crews in orange jumpsuits along our roads, without shackles, one guard.

        I understand why Perry needs Arpaio, but does not mean it is such a big + to everyone who still thinks the GOP base forgot their priorities 1) JOBS, 2) repeal Obamacare, and 3) the deficit.

        real life beckons…may be back in a week :)

    • greyeagle

      I hope Fox is better this debate than the previous one. They have been very ugly to Perry in the debate they moderated and were borderline rude during the interviews.

  • intensity

    Newt wil not implode the way Bachman, Perry, and Cain did.

    His amnesty thing won’t hold any water in some time.
    The difference is voters see him as a viable candidate to beat Romney and Obama.

    • tomatin

      Newt has also been vetted so the media won’t be able to define him like they did with the others.

      I still think Perry has a chance if the truth gets out there but face it the GOP mainstream are stopping that from happening.

  • tomatin

    He comes across like the tin man and never loses but never wins debates because he’s so afraid to move from his talking points.

  • tomatin

    our chances to have a real conservative candidate.

    Unfortunately the GOP is using Dumbocrat rules and putting too much emphasis on debates rather than old fashioned campaigning way too early. If Perry in particular had a time to define his campaign and build momentum instead of being forced to jump into debates the first week he declared things would be quite different now.

    Instead we have Romney the guy who has been running for president for six years who just feeds the media talking points when debating who is the de facto nominee.

    The more I think about it the more I’m gonna have a tough time not sitting this one out if Romney is the candidate. I almost choked voting for McCain. I don’t know if I can take voting for Romney who makes McCain seem like Reagan.

    • wonkish1

      Because early money usually went more establishment types and then they could just spend their opponents into the ground.

      Less debates would be worse for the primary process.

      And while I’m not a huge fan of Romney he is way, way, way, way better than McCain. McCain was a D-Bag that would sell any conservative out if he could get a nice puff piece written about him.

      I get that things seem bad because its easy to not remember how rough it was in the primaries of the past, but just because you fail to see how bad some of our primaries have been in the past doesn’t mean they weren’t.

      Since Reagan we’ve had to deal with HW, W, Dole, Forbes, Keyes, Buchanan, McCain, Huckabee, etc. I mean in 2008 Romney was considered as one of the ‘more conservative’ of the group(a testament to how bad 2008 was more than anything positive for Romney).

      Now I haven’t officially decided on any particular candidate yet, but I’m very, very happy that no matter what candidate ultimately gets picked he or she will for sure be better than McCain in 2008, probably be better than W. in 00 and 04(from my objective view Romney would probably be a very slight improvement on W.), and better than HW and Bob Dole in 88, 92, and 96.

      So how someone couldn’t at least be content with whoever gets picked(given our past choices) I have no idea. They would literally have to be blind to all of our past candidate(excluding Reagan).

  • jaykali

    I have been a Romney ‘defender’ I guess but I like Gingrich. I mean I am concerned ab a few things a) money b) more personal baggage than Romney c) as much flip-flops as Romney d) doesnt poll as well with independents, e) doesnt poll as well against Obama at the moment although that could change.

    I think he’s more conservative than Romney and proved he could work in a bi-partisan way in the 90s altho that was a different era, w/different circumstances and he still wore out his welcome. I think he suffers from ‘believability’ in the general. I like that he is an attack dog and obviously he would be great in debates. But he also is a flame thrower and might sabotage his campaign at any point.

    Romney’s ‘play it safe’ strategy might be annoying for conservatives, I personally will go for any strategy that wins. Like in sports it’s not always the flashiest competitor that wins. Anywho will be interesting to watch bc it looks like Gingrich could be a player in ANY state.

  • jaykali

    One of these non-Romney candidates surge and everyone wants to get out the shine box and try to make the candidate seem like he/she is a good candidate but lets face it, all of these candidates aren’t very good. This is a weak field. Of the candidates that have at least had 1 moment in the sun (like front runner status) we have had: Romney, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, & Gingrich. These just aren’t good candidates, and I tend to think Romney has the most realistic chance of actually winning, politics aside. We have people on these boards adamantly defending whoever the latest flavor of the month is as if they’ve been in their camp the whole time but I just don’t believe it. If we had a good candidate that people actually could go for like Marco Rubio just as an example of someone who is a conservative hero at the moment, or a Paul Ryan or Chris Christie or someone like that they would be running away with this nomination. The reason why no one can stay in front for more than 2 seconds is that these are ALL CRAPPY candidates. This is extremely frustrating bc I know we all want somebody that is a) a good conservative and b) can actually win but we don’t know for sure that anybody meets both those criteria. The thought of Obama getting re-elected after everything that’s happened makes me sick to my stomach, literally. I hope we can sort this out.

    • heraklios

      You have a former Speaker of the House, 10 yr Governor of Texas, Gov. of Utah, a CEO, 2 congressmen/woman, former Senator, former Gov of NM, former Gov of Louisiana and others.

      Romney actually has fewer qualifications than many of the others. A failed Governor of MA who declined to seek re-election because he would have lost. A disciple of big government, high taxes and the welfare state. A divisive figure on a personal level. A politician who has changed his position 180 degrees on every major issue in a year when voters seem to value strength, leadership and fidelity to core principles.

      • donald_24

        Unfortunately 2 of those candidates you referred to, Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer, aren’t being let into the debates, which is a disgrace. I’m actually a big Roemer fan and I suspsect he would be well into the double digits right now if they let him into the debates.

        • acat

          Are you from Louisiana?

          Mew

          • donald_24

            I’m from NJ. I like Roemer’s ideas about campaign finance reform. I would like to see a political system free form corrupting money. No union money. No corporate money.

          • acat

            Money cannot be removed from politics. It’s always been there, it always will be there, unless the Libertarians prove to be right about utopia… something I consider rather unlikely.

            The best we can do, in my opinion, are harsh, far-reaching sunshine laws – the source of every dollar spent in an attempt to change the laws or policies of government by any individual, corporation, or organization (including but not limited to unions, churches, or bowling leagues) must be reported on a public, freely available, freely searchable web site within 30 days, jail time for individuals, officials, etc. if caught in violation.

            That won’t remove money, but it will make it much more obvious to union rank-and-file, who can then opt to elect new union leadership.

            Mew

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          The disgrace is that more candidates aren’t being left out.

          • jaykali

            How many republicans even KNOW that Buddy Roemer is running for president? Sigh, I feel like ppl are delusional around here. This is not a strong field people.

            In 08 had the darling of the party Obama, who was their great hope like maybe a Marco Rubio is for conservatives and they had the heavyweight clinton machine in the top tier. We don’t have anything like that. In 2000, it was Bush early. This is looking alot more like a Bob Dole year than anything else.

          • acat

            (usually as barbs to Erick for not including Roemer in the Horse Race diaries)

            (cheshire grin)

    • jaykali

      If Gingrich can keep from faltering he is the anti-Romney. And if conservative coalesce around Newt I can live with that. He has a lot of flaws but so much ab national campaigns is messaging and Newt can certainly do that. I have serious doubts but I feel like Romney will never go above 25%. With Cain most certainly dropping around, his support will go to Gingrich and once that happens he becomes the inevitable anti-Romney and I think will get some more scraps from the other candidates like Bachmann and Perry. At least he’s more exciting and I think if he pears himself with the young up and comer Marco Rubio they would look great together.

  • trevorb

    I still think Gingrich winning is a long shot. He’s surged, just like another candidates have and while he has an advantage in which he’s more well know, it’s still going to hurt him. Kind of a shame, because in a debate, he could chew up and spit out Obama.

    His greatest handicap is his personal life, more than anything else. People are going to take a long, hard look at Newt and wonder if he’s really someone they want to nominate. I like him more than many of the others, though I’m not officially supporting anyone right now, especially since he generally doesn’t go after his fellow Republicans.

    I hate to say it, but the GOP nominee is likely going to be Romney. I don’t like him, or trust him at all, but if I have to, I will vote for him because the alternative is another 4 years of Obama. The only other candidates I think really have a shot are Gingrich and Perry.

  • donald_24

    Mitt Romney has proposed destryoying thousands of high paying tech jobs. In Romney’s 59 Point “Jobs” Plan, he proposes increasing the number of H1-B work visas, which will result in American tech workers, such as engineers and scientsists, being fired and replaced with cheaper foreign labor. Those lucky enough to keep their jobs wil see their wages plummet.

    Romney’s jobs plan says “These workers would not displace unemployed Americans. Rather, they would
    fill high-skill job openings for which there is currently an acute shortage of labor”

    This is complete and utter nonsense that has been discredited by experts who have studies this issue… experts such as Norm Matloff of UC Davis and Ron Hira of the Rochester Inst. of Technology. Romney’s so called jobs plan offers nothing but corporate talking points.

    Make no mistake about it, Romney will not create any jobs and unemployment under a Romney Admin. will remain at 9% or above.

  • Common_Cents

    “I already said that if he wants to use a teleprompter, then it would be fine with me. It has to be fair. If you [were] to defend ObamaCare, wouldn’t you want a teleprompter?” Gingrich asked.

    “Now, just for a second I’m going to go in the detour and I’ll try to explain why I’ve been and he’ll say yes. There are two reasons. The first, is ego. Can you imagine him looking in the mirror? Graduate from Columbia, Harvard Law, editor of the Law Review journal. [Against] the greatest articulator in a Democratic book?”

    “How is he going to say that he’s afraid to be on the same podium as a West Georgia College student?”

    Real Clear Politics-source

  • Common_Cents

    “An influential evangelical group, the Family Leader, which opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, named Mr. Gingrich one of four candidates in the running for its endorsement.

    ?I never thought I?d get excited about Newt Gingrich, but in terms of ideas and the ability to articulate ideas and his grasp of history, there?s no one better,? said Matt Reisetter, development director of the Family Leader.

    Regarding Mr. Gingrich?s personal indiscretions, Mr. Reisetter said: ?I?ve heard him speak very candidly about those things, and I?ve been convinced he is remorseful. I?m willing to forgive and move on.?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/us/politics/newly-popular-gingrich-tries-to-prove-hes-not-just-the-latest-anti-romney.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1322465879-NW56oZlN1wEO2H2g5KhCkA

    • Common_Cents

      Should be interesting.

      • heraklios

        This tells me more than anything they think Newt is a better bet than Mittens Willard

    • ripusa32110

      I just hate euphemisms for adultery. I hate the moral decline in this country and I cannot fathom why social conservatives are willing to buy what Newt is selling. You know, sins are forgivable but in this world there are repercussions to those past sins. I truly believe Newt Gingrich forfeited any right to the presidency due his serial adultery. He wanted Calista as his mistress for 6 years and that was their choice. Now I have to accept a first lady who slept her way to the White House? NO WAY! I’m sick of the evil beltway and their own code of morality that whatever they do is acceptable. Sell yourself to Freddie, Fannie and Big Pharma and lie through your teeth that nothing you do is wrong. Forget Newt Gingrich. I’m not buying your bull.

  • radicalrighty

    Bachman, Perry and Huntsman and multiple congressmen in calling for Eric Holder resignation?

    It’s disconcerting that our top two guys apparently hate to burn bridges in DC.

  • Wayne

    Perry/Newt is a better combination than Newt/anyone of the top candidates.

    With Perry at the helm, Newt would assist in navigating the dangerous shallows of the treacherous Washington reefs.

  • cwfoster

    After the previous articles about the NLRB, I read “Union Leader Endorses Gingrich” and thought Richard Trumka or somebody had decided to weigh in on the GOP primary to throw a wrench into the works.

  • ohiohistorian

    My questions was: Andy Stern, or another Union Leader? It took reading the article to determine that we were talking about a newspaper.

  • Common_Cents

    the romney paradigm is over.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      It was never Romney vs not-Romney except in the Internet bubble.

      And it’s not that now.