« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Endorcing Newt Gingrich — Why I support him to be the Next President

I am not affiliated in any way with any of the candidates, but have decided that I think Newt would do the best job as president.  I will start by saying that what I am looking for in a president is as follows:

1.  I want someone who can and will set us on a course to balance the budget, will improve the economy, and will improve the quality of life for Americans

2. I want someone who will make government smaller, increase freedom, and promote conservative values

3.  I want someone who is pro-family, pro-life, pro-America, and who will stand up for our values, tradition, and culture

4.  I want someone who will protect the security of Americans and promote peace through strength

5.  I want someone who will make the case to Americans for small, effective, limited government, personal freedom, life, family, and the American way

I have carefully looked at each of the candidates, and for a long time looked for a knight in shinning armor.  However, that is not what we need.  We are America.  We need a minuteman.  A freedom rider.  In our history, the greatest of our presidents and leaders were deeply flawed men.  George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and others owned slaves.  Alexander Hamilton had atleast one affair.   Reagan signed a liberal pro-abortion law, divorced and remaried.   I could go on; but the point is that many of the greatest political leaders of our country have been flawed, imperfect individuals.  What we need today is a great leader.  Not someone who is a saint; not someone who is perfect; we need someone who can change Washington.

From 1994 – 1998 Speaker Gingrich did what needed to be done to turn our country around.   First, he did the politically impossible, he lead the Republican Revolution, and with his Contract with American the GOP took control of the House for the first time since 1952.  He did what Reagan could not do.  He made the case for conservative values so well, the House turned GOP for the first time in 40 years.  Second, he kept every article in the contract.  Every single item he agreed to bring to a vote was brought to a vote.  He didn’t win every battle, but won many.   His victories include cutting taxes, balancing the budget, and reforming welfare.  All with a democrat as president. 

Soon after Gingrich left Washington, Washington went back to business as usual.  A GOP House, a GOP Senate, and a GOP president unbalanced the budget.  The fact of the matter is that Gingrich was not just along for the ride, he was the leader of the revolution, and when he left, the fire slowely burned out.  The GOP won in 2004 based on social issues and national security.  The GOP that won the House in 2010, frankly, has not performed nearly as well as Gingrich did in 1994.  Poll after poll shows that Obama is unpopular, and at the same time that voters are not very excited with the GOP.  Obama polls better against every GOP candidate and better against a generic GOP candidate than he does against no-one.  In other words, there are voters who do not approve of Obama, but also do not like or trust the GOP.  As Speaker, Gingrich offered a clear comparisson between the GOP and Clinton.  He won based on having a better plan and a better idea.  In 1996 Dole lost to Clinton.  Why did Dole lose whereas Gingrich won?  Because Gingrich campaigned on something and did it.  He outlined a clear vison, and a clear comparison between his vison and Clinton’s.  Dole, meanwhile, ran as simply someone who was a generical Republican who was not Clinton.

In today’s race for the GOP nomination there are several candidates who claim they are the best.  We have only one who actually was in a situation like this before and turned the country around.  That person is Gingrich.  Gingrich alone has the depth of knowledge, the experience, and the ability to beat Obama and to turn the country around.  People often say the devil is in the details.  For Gingrich, he knows and can talk on the details.  Cain and Perry fall short when they need to talk in more depth.  Romney contradicts himself.  Gingrich and Gingrich alone is the best candidate to make the case for an alternative to Obama (rather than just the case against Obama), and he and he alone is best possitioned to actually govern in a way that will balance the budget, improve the economy, and turn the country around.

I did not expect to endorce, but I choose to endorce Gingrich now because he, and he alone in the GOP field, can — not only make the case against Obama — but can actually provide a realistic alternative.  Obama will be running against a person.  His plan is to attack that person and take the spotlight away from his failings.  Cain’s 999 plan is a target, and Cain has failed in defending it.  Perry failed to show he can defend his plans.  Romney is a flip-flop and will be used in attack adds against himself.  Gingrich will be attacked, but showed in the 1990s, and has shown his time around that he can fight back.  Gingrich can hold the banner for conservatives, and fight the fight of ideas against Obama.  In 2012, the race will come down to what the GOP candidate’s vision is.  Only Gingrich can win that fight.  In the end, the election will be won as American won its independence, not by a knight in shinning armor, but in a leader — like Washington — who is flawed and imperfect, but who has the will to fight again and again, and the cunning to fight in a different sort of way.   Gingrich showed that ability in the 1990s, and has shown it so far this campaign.  I believe he has what it takes to win the battle for the White House, and then to win the wars to balance the budget, right-size government, and promote conservatism.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • falgore

    nt

  • andystone

    Tried to recommend, but didn’t go through, will try again later. Also, minor spelling – “endorse”.

    • logicalpositivist

      It kind of lets us know who we’re dealing with.

  • Common_Cents

    As well as a 2 pt lead in a national generic poll lead against Obama.

    It seems Gingrich has broken glass ceiling and the Romney paradigm. It is now a Newt-Anti Newt race.

    • logicalpositivist

      Oh wait. No they’re not.

      Oh wait. Yes they are. He now has Dick Morris’s endorsement.

      Dick Morris is well known for his shrewd political advice and prognostication.

  • deVere

    Aside from Nancy Pelosi, he’s also pals with Al Sharpton.

    I honestly think you’d get smaller government from Obama fighting a Republican Congress than Gingrich leading a Republican Congress. But the judicial nominees by Obama would be much worse.

    • heraklios

      but we’re still not voting for Romney, not matter what

      • deVere

        If I followed your “rule or ruin” example, I shouldn’t vote for Gingrich against “anyone” either. I do have a genuine feeling of comtempt for Newt Gingrich, but it’s possible I would vote for him if I thought it was best for the USA.

        There’s still one month left for the Republican electorate to come to it’s senses.

        I’m hoping they will rediscover the genuine merits of Rick Perry.

        • heraklios

          .

          • deVere

            It’s your privilege. But why would you expect anyone else to be influenced by your opinions?

          • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

            otherwise, passing up the chance to replace the guy in office could be seen as wildly irresponsible, or possibly even stupid! Oh… wait…

            Do you really think Obama will be BETTER for our country with another four years than Romney would be? Really?

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            No, really. You only want to play if we play by your rules. There’s absolutely nothing that you can say here that will be of any value whatsoever. There’s no reason to take you seriously, or even consider anything you have to say.

            I’d say Hinz rule, but you aren’t even worth that.

          • logicalpositivist

            He is the “anti-Romney” bot.

            His contributions all remind me of “Green Eggs and Ham”.

            Would you like Romney in a box? With a fox? On a train? In a plane?

        • tea4me

          They already have. You just haven’t figured that out yet for yourself.

    • Common_Cents

      and will do great damage to the country if we don’t win.

    • bzip

      That’s right I almost forgot the Sharpton meno:

      Newt Gingrich Al Sharpton Education Tour
      http://youtu.be/wwDoTg-Kljw

      • JSobieski

        Reaching across the isle in the context of improving schools is a sign of strength, not weakness.

        Believe it or not, most voters aren’t looking for partison warfare. Having photo ops like the video with Sharpton just makes it easier for Newt to show that he tries to find ways to work with people.

        I am not familiar with the specifics re: the Macon school district, but a video like this is actually an asset in a general election campaign.

        Newt is such a Hitler right-wing nut that he teams up with Sharpton?

        Is it against conservatism to employ intelligent tactics from time to time?

        Unlike the Pelosi video where Newt is aiding the enviro-nuts, the Sharpton video in no way appears to aid the left of leftist policies.

        • wonkish1

          In my opinion, that is Sharpton joining the right not the other way around.

          • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

            nt

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          Newt is the better choice between him and Mitt.

      • barleycorn

        If Gingrich convinces a few superficial non-thinking dopes to vote for him because of a photo with Al Notsosharpton, then I say have tea with Al once a week.

        This absurd revulsion that some “conservatives” have for even acknowledging that liberals are human beings is a mirror image of the lunatic left.

      • logicalpositivist

        It’s important.

  • Common_Cents

    But instead of as predicted by many, that people would be talking about his baggage, they were actually talkin turkey about Newt’s Contract with America II and how he could be the one to nominate. Evidenced by his post thanksgiving surge in nearly all the polls.

    • clowngirl

      Most people aren’t really as interested in the baggage as pundits think.

      • Common_Cents

        that people would be talking about his baggage over dinner. Looks like they were talking about how he is the man with the plan.

        The guy inspires confidence. America is desperate for confidence.

    • logicalpositivist

      that he is suddenly leading in the polls.

      The consensus was that he will come back down to earth once Republicans realize how much flip-flopping he’s done on abortion, gay rights, taxes, and other issues.

      We’ll see. At this point, I’d say that Gingrich and Romney have almost equal chances of getting the nomination. Romney is following the path of both Bushes, Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon: get endorsement, get funding, win in Iowa, New Hampshire, or both.

      Gingrich is clearly hoping that the Tea Party right will unify around him. If he succeeds, it will be like threading a needle. He can’t beat Romney with half of the Tea Party behind him. He needs at least 75% of the Tea Party behind him to do it.

      The Tea Party has to get used to the slogan: “Newt: Because he doesn’t flip-flop as much as some of the other candidates.”

  • lastgopinillinois

    Ron Paul 35 %
    Newt Gingrich 29%
    Herman Cain 18%
    Michelle Bachman 7%
    Rick Santorum 3%
    Rick Perry 2%
    Mitt Romney 1%
    Total number of votes at this point is about 8300 taking the poll

    I believe that Newt could be effective in promoting your items # 1, 3, 4 and 5. but Item 2, I do not believe he would satisfy me in reducing the size of government. Ironically, in your item #5, I think he would be very effective at delivering the conservative message in favor of limited government.

    Hmmm. Talks the talk, but walking the walk? I dont see the evidence. Look at his website and choose for yourself.

    Nevertheless, nobodys perfect and he continues to gain popularity in the polls thru March, I may vote for him in the primary myself. Although, I would prefer Rick Perry on policy issues.

    • snowshooze

      Number like that have to be from outer space.

    • gekster

      I go to the site, and they don’t have one.
      You have a link.

      • lastgopinillinois

        http://connect.freedomworks.org/node/194696?source=DEC1

        This is it updated as of Dec 1st

        • logicalpositivist

          So freedomworks is like a hang-out for Paultards? Just kidding. I like Ron Paul. Just not enough to vote for him. ; )

  • Common_Cents

    Incredible hour long interview. Will prob re-air Hannity later tonight and be online in the next couple days.

    The guy is just solid and he can communicate his plans clearly.

    He is aggressive and will smack down obama. What a breath of fresh air over McCain’s surrender campaign.

    • Tbone

      as he just kept hitting it out of the park. A great interview.

      • Common_Cents

        hehe

        • Common_Cents

      • logicalpositivist

        the more I realize, “This guy could actually be president.”

        Will someone in the media PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD do their job and ask Newt Gingrich if he EVER ONCE had a job while in high school?

        I’m dying to know. Right now. Please.

    • intensity

      This battle will get pretty ugly. Gingrich has tons of stuff that could be used against him.

      But Obama really fell short in several areas these past few years.

      It may all come down to debates-which Gingrich would win.

      • Common_Cents

        Finally, someone who is calling obama out for being a disaster, ridiculing him about teleprompters, ridiculing his terrible background, ridiculing his policy, ridiculing his socialist cronies.

        This is going to resonate huge in the general.

        People have been waiting for this direct attack.

        Gingrich should have ran last time as McCain was so terrible.

        • logicalpositivist

          He is keeping his focus on Obama, not Romney.

          My question is: will this strategy work?

          History has shown that most people don’t really vote FOR their candidate, they vote based on fear and loathing of the other guy. (Remember that psychologists say that the act of voting, sending a small amount of money to a candidate, and/or volunteering to work on a campaign are all irrational acts.)

          Newt’s got to win a primary before he gets to face Obama.

    • federalfarmer1

      This is how you advance conservatism.

      • federalfarmer1

        Still efective though.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    Go back into your “Create New Diary” tab, pull up this post, and edit the title. While typos can happen all day, every day (-and I am a typoholic), you’ve misspelled “endorsing” in your body text, as well (perhaps you are confusing it with “enforcing”).

    In substance, I tend to agree. If you are looking for an actual harvest of results in the Conservative Garden, there is no better gardener than Newt.

    Ron Paul, for example, has been knocking around the halls of Congress, off and on, for twenty-five years, and all he’s got to show for it is a congressional parking permit. Newt has actually changed the trajectory of federal programs headed for insolvency. He’s proven he’s up to the task. Newt may be a little over the top with the white papers, and the superlatives, and the confident verbosity, but, dammit, he’s done the hard work, and fashioned the victories.

    • logicalpositivist

      It kind of looks exotic.

  • intensity

    Please keep in mind our main goal, which is to beat Obama.

    It seems like we have 3 viable candidates left-Gingrich, Perry, and Romney.

    Of these, I would only support Perry first, then Gingrich.

    And does anyone know who the folks in Iowa are embracing as their big anti-Romney conservative candidate???

    • conservativeparrothead

      They cut their potential list to 4 a week or so ago: Bachman, Santorum, Perry and Newt.

      Two of the other religous organizations chose to stay “neutral”, which IMO seems like an endorsement for Gingrich. With some of his baggage, maybe they dont want to publicly endorse him, but by not supporting another candidate, it keeps them from getting a bump or surge.

      Right now, in Iowa, the anti-Romney looks to be Newt Gingrich, as he leads in most of the polls there. The other three conservatives possibly getting the FL Endorsement are all in single digits, even in you combined all three of them right now average of most polls, Im not sure you surpass Newt. Plus Im not sure that you wouldnt see some of these candidates in Iowa, work behind the scenes to say, “if it doesnt look like Im going to win, here should be your 2nd choice”…because remember this is an open forum in the caucuses.

      Santorum, has said many times that the candidate he agrees with most is Newt Gingrich, and Santorum, someone who believes greatly in foreign policy is not likely going to support Bachmann or Perry because Im sure he feels they would be not qualified in this area.

      Bachmann, probably holds some bitterness towards Perry for stealing her Ames Straw Poll thunder, announcing on the same day that she won and then showing up in Iowa later that weekend.

      The next 32 days are going to be very interesting. I think there are two more debates in Iowa, before they vote.

      • Common_Cents

        Gingrich is the only candidate that hasn’t signed the IA marriage pledge. that is the one thing holding back his endorsement. I think he is trying to finess not signing it to help in the general w/ independents who disagree w/ one man/one woman pledges. Gingrich will probably argue that is a states issue, a smart approach.

        I think you’re right that if any coalition goes “neutral” it is really an endorsement of Gingrich.

        The question that remains is can Gingrich’s overall polling influence translate strong enough at the caucuses where people are in a room convincing each other. Will be a test on unconventional campaign. Although Gingrich plans on having 7 offices in IA for a last ground game GOTV push before the caucus.

      • logicalpositivist

        organization started by Bob Vander Plaats, a three-time failed candidate for Iowa governor.

        He is very, very tight with Newt Gingrich. If his people want to stay employed, they will agree with Bob that Newt should get their endorcement (sic).

        An astro-turf is an organization that looks like a grassroots political organization but isn’t really grassroots. I think ACORN qualifies as an astro-turf.

        The real grassroots social conservatives in Iowa are organized in Iowa Right to Life and/or the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition. These organizations are not endorcing (sic) any candidate this year. They are wisely biding their time so as not to waste an endorcement on a candidate who does not win the GOP primary.

        Other than 2008, when a lot of Republicans got shocked, I can’t recall a time when the GOP nomination didn’t have a clear front-runner by this point. The Iowa grassroots groups don’t want to bet on any candidate because the field is so fractured.

  • Common_Cents

    “Gingrich has put 10 paid staffers on the ground in the state including a mix of longtime trusted aides and tea party activists. That gives him the largest campaign operation in South Carolina, The Hill newspaper reported this week.

    Gingrich has also set up five campaign offices across the state. He attended the opening of his fifth office in Bluffton on Tuesday. On Wednesday, he wrapped up his swing through the state, which is set to hold the South?s first Republican primary on Jan. 21.”

    Also opened up a HQ office near Des Moines and has 5 paid staffers in the state.

    • Common_Cents

      Next, he’ll be back in Iowa, where his campaign has just signed a lease on space in Des Moines and plans to have seven offices by the time of caucuses, just five weeks away on Jan. 3. In New Hampshire, where Gingrich recently got a boost in the form of an endorsement by the state’s biggest newspaper, he has three offices and eight staffers.

  • reggie182

    Gingrich is capable of putting together a sizeable and competent campaign staff in Iowa and New Hampshire as well. The money is starting to really pour into his campaign and he’s on the right track toward winning the nomination.

    • logicalpositivist

      ?Newt?s hand is always six inches from the self-destruct button.?

      This echoes the thoughts of Republican Senator Richard Burr (of North Carolina), Republican Senator Tom Coburn (of Oklahoma) and Republican Senator Charles Grassley (of Iowa).

      None of these senators have endorsed any candidate this year. All of them have expressed some doubt as to whether Newt would be a good candidate and/or president.

      To say that Newt has some personal and political baggage is like saying Los Angeles has some bars and night clubs.

  • Common_Cents

    “When a presidential candidate makes a promise, it’s always useful to ask: How are you going to pull that off? There usually isn’t an answer. Health care will be repealed, the budget balanced, and 15-minute brownies made in 10. Newt Gingrich is the only candidate who talks about how he would actually enact some of the promises he makes and the changes he would bring to the office of the presidency. Whether you agree with him or not, this is a useful and laudable thing. Candidates should be able to show that they have some concept of how to engage the massively complex organization they hope to take hold of. This would tell us something about them, and force those of us casting votes to be more realistic about what presidents can accomplish.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57334667-503544/gingrich-knows-what-hed-actually-do-if-he-won/

    • logicalpositivist

      If so, that’s fine. I just thought that the Tea Party was looking for an outsider to “shake things up a bit”.

      I was for the more experienced insider when I had to choose between McCain and Obama. At this point, I’d prefer an outsider who is not a career politician. Someone with business experience, intelligence, and class.

      • Common_Cents

        Little or no insider funding.

        Here’s some interesting polling detail info on Gingrich’s potential for even a bigger lead and his chances in IA.

        “In the NBC/Marist poll, Gingrich?s leads Romney among self-dentified ?conservative? caucus-goers by 14 points; among those who call themselves ?very conservative,? Gingrich?s edge over Romney is three to one (29 percent to 10 percent).

        Why is that significant? Because in presidential primaries and caucuses, ?true believers? ? the most ideologically driven voters in each party ? are by far the most likely to turn out on what will almost certainly be a cold day in early January.”

        “In the Register poll, 43 percent of likely caucus-goers name the former House Speaker as either their first or second choice. And, Gingrich is the preferred alternative to businessman Herman Cain, who suspended his campaign on Saturday.(The Register poll was in the field before Cain?s suspension announcement.)”

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/newt-gingrichs-high-iowa-ceiling/2011/12/04/gIQA3pGmVO_blog.html

        • Common_Cents

          .

  • Lesstressrx

    Are you kidding me. Gingrich and small government. Gingrich is large government. Has always been and will always be. He may be a good leader, but don’t elude yourself in believing that Gingrich is a small government man. He works with the democrats real well. Yes he is a good debater and a smooth talker. Sound like anyone we know? I would rather have Gingrich than Romney no doubt, but if you want a smaller government, better look to Rick Perry. He really is the only candidate that is taking on Congress & talking of cutting their time in Washington. You better believe they don’t want that. He wants to rid us of all the crazy regulations, He will close the borders, ask Sheriff Joe if you don?t think so. Because he isn?t a smooth debater has nothing to do with abilities. His energy plan will get millions of Americans working immediately. He has transformed Texas. Not a small state. He has a proven record, but no one seems to be talking about it.
    The media, Washington elites, Karl Rove, Dick Morris, talk show hosts and most of all Congress doesn?t want this man. He would shake things up. With Gingrich, Washington would remain Washington, same ole same ole with a twist of conservativisim and hopefully a balanced budget.

    • westcoastpatriette

      Agree with every word. Especially, the media, Washington elites, Karl Rove and Dick Morris–they all despise Perry. It’s pretty amazing as it reveals just how embedded all of these oldtimers are–regardless of which party they are in. They are so threatened by Perry they can’t see straight.

    • logicalpositivist

      Dick Morris is one of only 20 people who will allow their name to show up on a list of Gingrich endorcers.

    • deVere

      Management, it is time to improve the interface.

  • constitutional

    1. I want someone who can and will set us on a course to balance the budget, will improve the economy, and will improve the quality of life for Americans

    He didn’t balance the budget. http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/clintons_bogus_balanced_budget/
    - See questions below for “improving quality of life.” And he certainly and obviously won’t be a pro-freedom president–see my answers below.

    2. I want someone who will make government smaller, increase freedom, and promote conservative values

    In 2008, he hailed John McCain?s efforts in the crafting of the TARP legislation:

    Gingrich put out a statement hailing McCain?s eleventh-hour intervention. ?This is the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate and rivals President Eisenhower saying, ?I will go to Korea?.? Eisenhower?s pledge was enough to reassure voters that if elected he would find a way to resolve the Korean conflict. McCain?s high-octane involvement in the bailout is meant to convey the same sense of stature and leadership, and to provide cover to reluctant Republicans to support a deal that runs counter to everything they thought they stood for.

    continued…… http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/284472/newt-gingrich-said-iwhati

    Also, how is a self-described “Teddy Roosevelt Republican” going to help us? http://www.verumserum.com/?p=34603

    3. I want someone who is pro-family, pro-life, pro-America, and who will stand up for our values, tradition, and culture

    http://articles.sfgate.com/1995-04-10/news/17801484_1_poor-women-school-prayer-anti-abortion-lawmakers

    4. I want someone who will protect the security of Americans and promote peace through strength

    Perhaps he’ll do that, I don’t know. But a double-fence or a border fence isn’t going to do that.

    5. I want someone who will make the case to Americans for small, effective, limited government, personal freedom, life, family, and the American way

    ” make the case to ”

    This is ridiculous on its face. If you wan’t Ronald Reagan, you’re going to have to dig him up. But if you’re going to elect a progressive, big-government loving liberal like Newt so he can “make the case” for you.. there is a candidate for you: Barack Obama.

  • intensity

    …think Newt would prevail in a general election over Obama??

    • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

      Or are you looking for complete, reasoned answers?

      • intensity

        Everyone keeps saying that Newt is so unelectable, but he’s at the top of every poll just a few weeks prior to the primaries.

        And Obama is certaintly not the most liked president we’ve had.

        • windwaker24

          Bill Clinton, for some reason, still is. If Newt is the nominee, Obama is going to have Clinton campaign for him like nobody’s business. Think back to that strange press conference in the summer where Obama relinquished the podium to Clinton. I can see him doing something like that again. So, Newt will be running against TWO presidents instead of just one, and who knows what unreleased dirt Clinton has on Newt.

          Then, there is probably going to be an issue with Calista being the first lady. We’ve never had a mistress (to my knowledge) be a potential first lady. “I cheated because I was working too hard for my country” is not going to sit well with female voters. Look for that to be played over and over again. That has to be the lamest excuse ever, and for a man as smart as Newt I have to say what was he thinking when he uttered those words.

          Lastly, there is probably going to be an issue with his ethics violations and forced resignation. Congress is at 12% approval last I heard, and people are not happy with the gridlock and crazy antics of Congress. Gingrich embodies that spirit of gridlock and distrust of Congress. Obama (and Clinton) will be peeing their pants for that fight alone.

          • lineholder

            It will be a serious error of judgment at this point for them to underestimate Gingrich. Clinton may still be relatively well-liked, but he doesn’t have a leg to stand on saying word one to Newt about (1) infidelity in marriage and (2) ethics violations. As far as that goes, all the various Executive Branch end-arounds that have occurred during Obama’s term don’t exactly present this President in the best of standing where ethics and gridlock are concerned, does it?

            So let them bring it and pee. Because Newt can hold his own on either of these types of issues.

          • David123

            as a husband and as a father. “Loyalty and love are such important values – we’d be fools not to re-elect a President who has those wonderful values in overflowing abundance.”

            Maybe the Obama’s develop and start praising a “strong families initiative”.

          • lineholder

            but I think a greater number of people have become consciously aware of where things are headed right now in this country, particularly in an economic context. And that’s where the Obama’s will lose, because the greater plurality of people in this country don’t want what Obama is selling economically.

          • David123

            as the nominee, the country gets to move in the right direction, and we don’t lose votes over our candidate’s lack of personal family/moral values.

            It will be very bad for America if Newt is the nominee, and then he implodes.

            Romney may well not get the nomination, and it may be hard for Perry to get the nomination, and it may be extremely hard for Santorum to get the nomination. However, if either Perry, Santorum, or Romney gets the nomination Obama becomes a one-term president; if Gingrich gets the nomination, Obama just might get a second term.

          • lineholder

            to disagree on your last point. I think the people who are choosing Newt are doing so IN SPITE OF his past, faults, flaws, weaknesses, etc. The Dems could very well try to play on those things, but that doesn’t mean it will be effective to the point where Newt would automatically lose to Obama.

            On a different note, I would prefer that the candidate who is nominated on our side has a strong history in high moral standards and strong family values. But I’m also enough a realist to understand that if one of these other candidates doesn’t get off their duffs and make the “sell” (see my comments below pertaining to our nation’s future) in a way that connects with and inspires voters, then we’re at major risk of Obama getting re-elected. And if our guys can’t succeeding in doing that in the primary, why should anyone believe they’ll succeed in doing it during the general?

          • windwaker24

            I don’t think Obama and Clinton will go that low. I think they will stick with the “do-nothing Congress” meme. I agree the gridlock is totally Obama and the Senate Dems’ fault, but sadly most people don’t see it that way. If they did, Congress wouldn’t be at 12%. Obama would be at 12%.

          • lineholder

            This is a really simple “sell”…what do we the people want this nation to become? If we want to go the way of Europe, vote Obama. If we want something other than going the way of Europe, vote Republican. And then follow it up with American exceptionalism, how it is still possible to turn back the tide and alter our nation’s future, but it is dependent on making a wise choice as to who our next leader will be.

            I’m not gung-ho in favor of Gingrich, but given the reality that most people who are choosing to support him are doing so IN SPITE OF his faults and weaknesses, I don’t see the Dems being able to use much of that against him. It just won’t be effective, and it could even backfire (which is the point I was trying to make above)

    • David123

      Santorum, Romney, Huntsman, and Perry have all won statewide elections – not Gingrich.

      Santorum, Romney, Huntsman, Bachman, and Perry have all managed to stay married to the person they pledged to be true to – not Newt.

      Newt got removed as Speaker of the House for ethics violations – but he still had a job to do as a simple House member – representing the people who actually live in his congressional district. He quit in a snit. Some people on this site were quite vocal attacking Sarah Palin for being a quitter – the quitter label fits Newt quite well.

      Newt can be painted as the poster child for conservative hypocrisy for impeaching Clinton due to adultery while he was committing adultery himself.

      If I was Obama, I’d want Newt to be the nominee.

      • lineholder

        Newt knows from his experiences during the Reagan years what it means and what it takes to “sell an idea to the American people”. Obama can’t sell socialism. That’s why everything he and his buddies touch is turning to dust.

        For all his faults and baggage, I do believe that if Newt set his mind to it, he could sell Conservatism to the American people, particularly to those who might ride the middle, and especially on economic and foreign policy issues.

        • intensity

          The thing about Newt is, although he has a long history and skeletons in the closet, everyone already knows about them. He’s not having daily gaffes and mistakes, which make him all the more credible.

          And he’s still polling #1 right now.

          I think american people have accepted Newt’s record and current position and are ready to support him all the way to the nomination.

          • lineholder

            I agree with you that in Newt’s case, most people who are choosing to support Newt know about his skeletons and they are choosing him anyway in spite of them . And I can see various reasons as to why they would do so. If you really think it through, given that they’ve chosen him in spite of the bad things, they probably won’t be easily swayed to change their minds. So you may be correct in saying that they’ll support him all the way to the nomination.

            I don’t think more skeletons will change people’s minds, but if another candidate succeeded in presenting Conservatism to the American people on broader scale or in a more inspiring way than Newt has so far…that might do it.

            We’ll know more for sure beginning in about five weeks.

          • bonnman

            For those of us into politics, its common knowledge and so its ancient history but for the general population and the 18 – 30 demographic it’ll be all new information.

          • logicalpositivist

            You have no idea what’s coming down the pipes. We’ll get to hear about which of his mistresses was a screamer, what his weird kinks are, etc.

            With Cain, no one knew anything until the guy became a front-runner. Then the truth came out. (Or the lies, if you’re a Cainiac.)

            With Gingrich, he is just now enjoying the sunlight of first place in the polls (third place in the endorcement race and 4th or 5th in the money race).

            Soon, the skeleton’s will come dancing out of the closet. Ask Jack Ryan about how many of his skeletons came out of the closet BEFORE he became Obama’s opponent in the general election. Just ask him.

          • donald_24

            I’d be willing to bet that there are more skeletons in Newt’s closet that we don’t know about. How many people knew about hsiisFreddie Mac ties a month ago? First it was $300,000 and then skyrocketed to $1.6 million.

        • logicalpositivist

          he’ll win.

          It’s as easy as that. Unfortunately, the average voter in 2008 was too busy laughing at Tina Fey’s bad parody of Sarah Palin to be able to NAME A SINGLE ISSUE.

          So just wait. See what SNL will do to Gingrich once Gingrich seals up the nomination. I guarantee you that Newt’s new position on child labor will get lots of comedy airtime. (The “No Child Unemployed Act”?)

      • intensity

        I think american people will want to talk about the present and future, not the past.

        Newt’s past..i.s his past.
        Things like the economy, oil, and relationships with 3rd world countries definitely take precedent over something that happened in someone’s life over 20 years ago.

        • windwaker24

          I think because of Obama, people are going to start paying attention more to past actions. Thinking of future aspirations only (Hope and Change) got us Obama and our present state. We’ve come to see what a person does in their past may tell what they will do in their future. From Obama’s past, we see that he liked to lead from behind (Voting present or not being present at all). He currently acts that way now.

          • Wubbies World

            However, as opposed to Mitt this time or McCain last time, I can vote for him as the nominee without having to drink heavily before hand. However, we all know we are not going to get a prefect candidate or a person who agrees with everything I want in a candidate. Perry has become my actual first choice, but that hope is fading. However, if he is on the ballot in June, I will still vote for him as of this point in time. Then come the general, if Newt is the guy, I am good.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Its

            endorsing with an “s”

            just saying

          • logicalpositivist

            Hmm?

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            grabs!

          • logicalpositivist

            I would be comfortable voting for Romney next year.

            If I absolutely have to, I will hold my nose and vote for Newt Gingrich.

            Please don’t make me hold my nose. My nose has to breathe sometimes.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            apple…

        • logicalpositivist

          they will be willing to vote for Romney or Gingrich over Obama.

          Both Romney and Gingrich have issues in their past. With Romney, it’s mostly stuff that he’s said. With Gingrich, it’s stuff that he said and did.

          But I think that the American people do want to talk about the present and the future. Therefore, either Romney or Gingrich should be able to defeat Obomba.

      • logicalpositivist

        Newt was also involved in the House banking scandal of 1991.

        He kited checks along with Dana Rohrabacher, and several other Congressmen.

        Newt has supported taxpayer funding for abortion in the past, a position that he has now flip-flopped on.

        I don’t think that Newt will be able to handle the spotlight.

    • ripusa32110

      I can’t stand Obama but I think there might be the old switcheroo and Obama decides not to run for reelection right after the Iowa caucuses. Then, what would it matter if the preident of the debate club team, Newt Gingrich, is the nominee if it’s Hillary Clinton on the stage with him. Gingrich loses to Hillary and would lose to Obama if Obama smartly agrees to allow a third party candidate to be on the debate stage with the GOP and Dem. party candidate. Especially if it would be a more conservatve third party canddate. Not advocating but just thinking out loud likie that lizard Newt Gingrich.

    • logicalpositivist

      Newt would carry most of the South, and a few sagebrush states.

      We’d be conceding Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and possible Indiana to Obama.

      In short, we’d lose.

      Only Romney is currently polling ahead of Obama in Michigan, Florida, and New Hampshire.

      • APA Guy

        “We?d be conceding Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and possible Indiana to Obama.”

        First, I live in Indiana…and I can tell you that Obama isn’t winning this state..even if Ron Paul is our candidate.

        Second, Obama’s job-approval rating is significantly less than 50% in EVERY state you listed except MI..and even there he is sitting right at 50%. Once Gingrich articulates the failures of Obama’s presidency, he’ll be lucky to be at 40% when all is said and done.

        Remember also that losing FL and OH means Obama has virtually ZERO paths to re-election…and the election dynamics of those states have swung dramatically to the Right in the past 2 years. Obama also isn’t winning VA.

        Now, tell us again how Newt would lose to Obama…

        • donald_24

          If Newt would lose Kansas to Obama, I don’t see how he could win swing states. That’s like a Democrat losing New York.

          http://www.redstate.com/benjaminhodge/2011/11/26/in-kansas-newt-gingrich-is-losing-to-obama-40-to-45-according-to-surveyusa-in-kansas/

          • APA Guy

            Man, people sure are going to extreme lengths to push Gingrich out the door…very telling indeed…

            If ANY Republican candidate loses Kansas to Obama, I’ll jump from the capitol dome.

            You know better than this and really discredit yourself by resorting to a Daily Kos poll to make your so-called “point”.

          • wonkish1

            On the RCP list.

            Still though by weaker I mean I usually add an extra couple margin of error points onto their polls.

            And there are always outlier polls even with the most reputable pollsters. That’s why people prefer the RCP average.

          • APA Guy

            …but their results were so wack that even those orange nuts cast them away in lieu of PPP…my bad.

          • wonkish1

            I think your right that they used to be with Kos way back when.

            But PPP has been their’s for a while now.

            Again SUSA is a pretty crappy polling outfit maybe slightly better than an internal polling outfit.

            I would expect more outliers from a SUSA than most outfits.

          • Common_Cents

            It’s so far off.

            Support is split among our primary candidates.

            Let’s see the head to head once we get a nominee and all support coallesces around one candidate against obama.

            Secondly, candidates/media are mostly attacking each other in the primary, and not focusing effort on exposing obamas terrible leadership.

            This sways these early head to head polls.

            The fact that we are even close to obama w/ any candidate sends a huge message.

  • Common_Cents

    It will be a pretty big endorsement that will suck up a lot of media oxygen.

    So will Palin’s whenever she endorses.

    • avagreen

      considering this is the same thing that Perry has done that upsets so many:
      ?They thought he would shake things up, and that?s what they want.?

  • Common_Cents

    • Common_Cents

      Gingrich’s ad was produced by Lionel Sosa, a veteran of GOP presidential campaigns including Ronald Reagan’s. Sosa also advised Republican standard-bearers such as George W. Bush and John McCain on reaching out to Hispanic voters — an important bloc in this election.

      Sosa was critical earlier this year of GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who came out swinging against Texas Gov. Rick Perry for signing a law that allows some children of illegal immigrants to receive in-state college tuition. Sosa told The New York Times that Romney “can write off the Hispanic vote” with that kind of view.

      http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/12/newt-gingrich-tv-ad-donald-trump-hispanic-voters/1

      Wonder how Gingrich is doing among hispanics?

      On the Cain endorsement, mmmm, wonder if it now might be Romney. I have seen public praise of Cain by candidates except for Romney, wonder if he has a deal and doesn’t need to appeal publicly.

  • Tbone

    Why was that?

  • federalfarmer1

    Not promote conservative causes.

    Everybody know that.

  • logicalpositivist

    He was supposed to be the guy who had that “vision thing” that President GHW Bush lacked.

    He was going to carry conservatives to the promised land. And he deserves respect and recognition for the courage he showed by holding Bill Clinton’s feet to the fire for lying under oath, even when he knew that the ensuing bruhaha would cause voters to turn against him.

    It was an open secret that Gingrich was not faithful to his wife at the time that he led the impeachment proceedings against Clinton. The best defense the Democrats could offer for Clinton’s lying under oath was “Everyone lies about sex, just ask Newt Gingrich/Bob Livingston/Henry Hyde”.

    The problem with that defense is that it isn’t relevant to the issue of whether or not Clinton lied under oath when asked if he had “any sexual contact” with Monica Lewinsky” (“sexual contact” was spelled out in the definitions portion of the request for admissions, sorry Bill).

    But when the GOP lost House seats in 1998, it was clear that Newt, although courageous, was hated by the American public even moreso than Bill Clinton, who was strangely surging in the polls. (Strange because, why would someone who admitted to cheating on his wife and lying under oath suddenly be loved by the American public?)

    So after 1998, Gingrich, who had survived an earlier coup attempt by Tom Delay, Dick Armey, Tom Coburn, and others, wisely decided to step aside before Bob Livingston and his supporters pushed him out. Had Gingrich been ousted by his own party in 1998, no one would consider him a viable candidate today.

    Because he stepped aside, he has a small chance of getting an unthinkable “second act”.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    –no–text–