« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Money for Santorum

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  January 22nd, 2012 at 01:20 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I can confirm tonight from multiple sources that phone calls are in fact occurring between Republicans in Washington and among evangelical leaders to raise money for Rick Santorum rapidly.

The sources tell me that this is not for a Santorum win, though the evangelicals I spoke to continue to hope it is possible. This is to stop Newt Gingrich. One evangelical leader I spoke to said, “If Newt wins, we won’t be able to make family values an issue in the general.” One lobbyist I spoke to said, “They [the GOP leaders in DC] are really nervous about Gingrich and they think he’d be a disaster. The best way to shut him down is to prop up Rick.”

Florida is going to get interesting.

Tags:

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • WA_Cowboy

    I say this as a social conservative to. the. bone.

    I would rather have a man as president whose vision for this country matches mine — even if he cheated on his wife, than a guy who is great on family values but not so great on fixing this country.

    to put it another way, when are most of these evangelicals going to learn that the #1 qualification for president isn’t being an evangelical (even as much as I would like my president to be Christian)

    or to quote Martin Luther: “I’d rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian”

  • Hooah_Mac

    But it sounds like they are trying to raise money for Santorum so that Mitt will win? In that case a vote for Santorum is intended to be a vote for Mitt. Not really a smart plan to prop up the social conservative so that the social moderate beats the social conservative with baggage.

  • dajeeps

    Inquiring minds would like to know about the little men (and I mean that in every sense of the phrase) behind the curtain.

  • Hooah_Mac

    The GOP leaders in D.C. should shut up now, they made their play to shut down Perry, and it backfired and buoyed Newt. They should just realize in a post tea party world they can’t count on getting their way. The base has had it with them. The GOP leaders may have derailed the best candidate, but they can’t make the base shut up and accept the candidate the GOP leaders have chosen for us.

  • honor

    This is exactly what Romney wants. We don’t want a moderate, and we can’t allow Romney to divide and conquer. It’s that simple. Gingrich isn’t perfect, but he’s very intelligent, would squash Obama in debates, and could win. He’s far more conservative than Romney and with a Florida win has the momentum to win it all. We don’t need a moderate, we don’t need another Dole or McCain and supporting Santorum only helps Romney in the end.

    Seriously, look at the primary map, Santorum can’t win any big status. And if anyone really thinks Romney will run on family values that he actually cares about in the general than you are sadly mistaken.

    tl;dr Supporting Santorum only helps Romney which only helps Obama in the end. Support Newt.

  • snowshooze

    nt

  • azaeroprof

    #1 – family values is NOT going to be a major issue in this campaign regardless of who the GOP nominates. We could nominate Dr. Dobson himself and it still wouldn’t be.

    #2 – Family values is an issue that, frankly, won’t work against Obama. Say what you want about his failed presidency, but by all accounts he is a decent family man and any attempt to use “family values” against him will not be effective.

    (Full disclosure: I am a Conservative Baptist social Conservative who believes that abortion is the American Holocaust.)

  • MikeG

    Do they honestly believe that “family values” is going to be any sort of an issue in the general election? I’m a die-hard social conservative, and I think that’s nuts! What planet are these evangelical leaders living on? I mean, heck, pretty much the one good thing you can say about Obama is that he seems to be a good dad who loves his daughters.

    They’re playing right into the establishment’s hands. Again. Sheesh!

  • J. Leg

    … Whatever influence these people have needs to be cut off.

    They’re not true conservatives.

  • Common_Cents

    Ha, maybe its a good thing the establishment wastes their money on Santorum.

  • Michael_Corleone

    Gingrich will implode, and if Santorum isn’t around to pick up the pieces, we are stuck with Mittens.

    Santorum is really growing into a strong candidate. Although he has been a bit off-putting to some (and only to some) in debates, he is getting better and becoming more Presidential.

    His stump speech appeals to the blue collar workers that we need, but he is also very strong on free enterprise in general. He did not (and will not) attack Bain. He is stronger on healthcare than both Mittens and Newt.

    Also, despite what Erik says, Santorum is no statist. How many statists claim that Justice Thomas–the MOST libertarian justice on the Court — is their model Justice? Neither Newt or Mitt was willing to unequivocally state that Thomas–and only Thomas–was their favorite Justice.

    I also predict Rudy Guiliani will endorse Santorum in FL.

    Let’s give Rick a chance.

    P.S. Rick — if your campaign is reading this, you need to talk about (1) Healthcare and (2) your economic plan in Florida.

    Do not get drawn into long discussions on social policies — and I say this not because I think social policies should be placed on the back burner, but when you talk about social policy, those conversations become the headlines.

    The voters in Florida need to know you have the a great (superior) economic plan and you are the best candidate on Obamacare.

  • benko

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/21/harwood_romney_will_use_ethics_complaints_against_gingrich.html

    I agree with azaeroprof: social values will not win or lose this election.

  • http://UnitedConservativesofVirginia Cargosquid

    They want to run on family values?
    With a man known to have supported abortion?

    Are they really that stupid?

    They’re not worried about family values as a platform this time. Its not an issue. If the repeal of DADT didn’t bring out hordes, what makes them think having Newt with OLD news will make people object? The evangelicals seem to like him ins SC.

    I wish I could vote for Newt in the primary. Unfortunately he was too incompetent to get on the primary ballot in Virginia. So, I’m not voting in the primary.

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

    I’m hoping to get clarification on that point, but if Florida *is* WTA, then a vote for Santorum really is a vote for [whichever of Gingrich and Romney you dislike more].

  • aesthete

    Family values are not going to be an issue. Barack Obama has, from what the public and myself can tell, an immaculate family life. Abortion and gay marriage are not issues at the federal level that can be dealt with directly — and even if they were, the voting public is not going to care, not when there is a bad economy and even some foreign policy changes at play. There are chimpanzees learning ASL who could communicate an electoral strategy that makes more sense than this. Any money going towards this cause is money that might as well be flushed down the toilet: the only thing it will be used for is to pay down Santorum’s campaign debts.

    @ Kipling: this is what I’m talking about when I refer to evangelical leadership that makes absolutely stupid decisions, and why I am overjoyed at the prospect of these people losing influence (and hopefully leaving the stage open for their more savvy compatriots).

  • tonotisto

    slip Newt a buck or 2 too?

    Perry is on his team.

    Now I am too.

    Almost did a Haiku.

  • lineholder

    Okay, so I shouldn’t laugh…but upon reading this information the first thought that came into my mind was that this gave new meaning to the words “unholy alliances”.

    Yes, this is definitely going to get interesting.

  • snowshooze

    Mitt has his Daddy’s machine and the establishment. That is some pretty tough competition. Newt made it crystal clear he needed all the help he could get going into Florida.

  • Common_Cents

    People are going to get ticked and revolt if they hear about manipulation from DC. Stuff like this could really galvanize support for Gingrich and re-energize the tea parties.

  • Common_Cents

    newt.org

    I just kicked in. Looks like over 500k already.

  • barleycorn

    If they don’t think Santorum can win and they are raising money only to stop Gingrich then shouldn’t they donate to Romney?

  • dajeeps

    Why does it have to be Romney they want to shove on us? There are plenty of other moderate Republicans they could have gotten who wouldn’t have been so objectionable/controversial among conservatives, like George Pataki, for example – he certainly does not have the baggage Romney does.

    If they really want Romney so bad, then why isn’t he or aren’t they trying to unite the conservative coalition behind him? The subversion thing, winning by dividing, is really a terrible strategy and is not good for our party or the country. It shows a serious lack of leadership skills, and is something you’d expect from Demoncrats – divide and conquer instead of unite and inspire. Haven’t we had enough of that?

  • Common_Cents

    They need Santorum to siphon off Gingrich support. Santorum is just a temporary useful idiot.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    . . .

  • lquist1

    Rush to talk about this under the overall discussion of the GOP establishment meltdown at the prospect of Newt being the nominee. These establishment types (whoever they are) apparently have not learned that with the new media and the free flow of information, they can’t concoct these schemes anymore without them being uncovered. If word gets out about this (which I expect it will) this one will backfire on them big time.

  • Locked and Loaded

    maybe we should coin a new term – Conditional Republicans.

    They would rather poison Gingrich (or anyone not of their clique) than work with him.

  • RealQuiet

    Methinks the GOP Washington establishment is pushing the panic button. If Santorum gets out of the race, Romney stands a real shot at losing Florida. Also, one very key thing is now very apparent. The Tea Party is very much alive but more importantly, show that when they unite behind one candidate and it’s not the establishment’s pick, the establishment are no longer the kingmakers. There has to be some very ticked off GOP figures in Washington right now.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    but i still do not want Santorum, but Newt and Romney both seem like very flawed choices. The establishment deserves this.

  • tonotisto

    fund to Newt.

    10th Amendment Project, that’s what I’m talkin’ about!

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    everyone down with him. I’m not sure what a Newt nomination would bring, but it could be bad, it could be great. what is it worth.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    and if that is the case it will not be because of having a conservative candidate, it will be because of the baggage, or some grand Newt like mistake. Getting a conservative after that outcome would be very hard, but I guess the same could be said for all the so called conservatives. It’s just with Newt, history could tell two stories, the good Newt and the bad Newt, which one will be the nominee. Am I the only one that is concerned about that outcome on this comment board. I’ve decided to take the risk, Newt has earned this chance, but its still a gamble by conservatives.

  • snowshooze

    Headed to Newt right now.

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

    Santorum is a statist, apologist for unions, and LOSER.

    Guzzardi has documented this fact extensively @thelibertyblog, and has been releasing a 16-part series that is documenting this fact.

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

    …that irregularities that led to Santorum’s having been endorsed by the Texas Evangelicals have NOT yet been exposed.

  • snowshooze

    Once you determine the course you are taking… you can’t second guess yourself.
    If Newt goes down fighting to Obama, our goose is cooked.
    Humiliation will be the least of our worries.
    There isn’t a such a thing as a sure deal.

  • penhall99

    So how in the heck can we win with him? Look, I like Newt and think he would be a good president. But after my man Perry left the race, I decided I will support the candidate that has the BEST chance at beating Obama. And Mitt Romney consistently beats or ties Obama in every poll. So how is Newt more electable than Mitt?

    Again, I was a Perry supporter and am not that fond of Mitt. But I wanna WIN. Can Newt really beat Obama?

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

    …maintaining the debate-trend could help The Newt overwhelm Mitt, even taking into account both the early-ads and the early-voting.

  • snowshooze

    I will look forward to Monday when they attempt to rub him out.
    I do not believe they are going to waste any time getting started.

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

    …because the SCOTUS will be forever transformed if BHO is re-elected.

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

    …for, if nothing else, the movement of polling often follows the trends established via the MSM/LSM/ELM…and we Perry-supporters know the potency thereof, eh?

  • mikelindell2

    December 1 Rasmussen poll, Gingrich beats Obama 42-40. USA Today Gallup poll Dec. 13 Gingrich beating Obama in 12 key swing states. McClatchy Marist poll November 16 Gingrich does best vs Obama. Not to mention that Newt can attract tons of people to switch to him he exudes leadership and strength. When people hear about how he has actually solved all of the problems we face as a country (debt/deficits, unemployment, growth, entitlements) already as Speaker, they will want to vote for him.

  • freemanja1991

    Running on stickily family values will lose us the election. People are far more concerned about other issues.

  • mikelindell2

    There’s got to be some kind of way to raise enough awareness about this scheme and apply enough pressure to Santorum to stop this from happening. We can’t let them force feed us Romney and watch him lose pathetically. Or watch him MAYBE squeak out a win and then do nothing in office because he is far too politically calculating to ever make the tough changes that we need to save the country.

  • A_Texan

    1. I’d rather have both.

    2. Is it at all possible that a lack of constancy, fortitude in one major respect may have some effect in one’s political judgment? I think it may be.

    3. And if somebody (e.g., me) doesn’t see that one of the remaining four candidates is so obviously more likely to resolve our crisis, then one doesn’t think we face the choice you posed.

    4. Most of all, as to the general election, Newt’s decades of adultery will undermine our efforts with a big portion of swing voters.

  • A_Texan

    It’s an anti-Newt thing.

    I’m like-minded enough to speculate as to their motives.

    I believe that marriage is in grave jeopardy, and that preserving and strengthening the institution of civil marriage is vital to our national welfare.

    Newt will be incapable of using effectively the bully pulpit on this issue.

    Further, as our candidate, will be (somewhat) less likely to win, for his presence will deprive us of the marriage issue.

    Of course, if you don’t give a s–t about the institution of marriage, then you would disagree. Further, you would disagree if you think that talking about marriage does not provide net electoral benefits.

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Maybe, just maybe, this vast right wing conspiracy is actually an effort to get Santorum elected!

    You Gingrich fans are starting to sound like Paulbots…

  • cheetah2

    Almost instantly. We are talking about it here.

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Have you bothered to look at Gingrich’s unfavorables? They’re huge. Santorum’s are almost non-existent by comparison.

    Gingrich’s electability is a MYTH.

  • A_Texan

    But I probably think like they do.

    We don’t like Romney. He’s a recent convert, and we are reluctant to make him our leader.

    But he’s electable, and he at least pretends to stand with us now on traditional marriage and the protecting life.

    Newt appears less electable, and will be largely incapable of standing with us, in speech, on the question of marriage.

  • A_Texan

    1. There are some GOP voters, like me, who get out of bed for these issues, and who care very little about SOPA.

    2. There are some voters–tons among my family and friends–who usually vote Democratic but are uneasy, at least, with abortion, redefined marriage, etc. Sometimes they swing (e.g., 2004).

    These voters are a minority, but with Newt as the nominee, Newt’s adulterous past and Barack’s apparently solid family life will be (1) regularly thrown in the faces of voters in group #1, and, more importantly (2) will persuade lots of voters in group #2 to be perfectly comfortable with Barack.

    Obama knows this, which is why he’s remaining officially pro-traditional-marriage through 2012.

  • A_Texan

    Please provide a working definition of “statist” that clearly includes Santorum but clearly excludes Gingrich.

    Also, how many elections do you have to win or lose to be called a “loser.” All the candidates on the stage have lost elections.

  • A_Texan

    Why do you think he is deceitfully withholding his support for gay marriage?

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Thank you for being a voice of reason in this conspiracy theory baloney that sounds more like a Ron Paul website than a conservative one.

    It boggles my mind that so many people are chanting this chorus that Gingrich is the most electable. Gingrich?s unfavorables are huge. Santorum?s are almost non-existent by comparison.

    Gingrich?s electability is a MYTH; as is this fantasy that Obama is going to agree to any Lincoln-Douglas debates – he owns the microphone and has no reason to share it.

    So while we’re talking conspiracies, maybe this rumor is being promoted by Gingrich supporters trying to get conservatives to turn on Santorum in an effort to force him out of the race! Hmm…

  • A_Texan

    1. The eventual winner is going to have to tend more to our concerns. Same reason why sane Paul supporters want him to continue.

    2. He perhaps allows another candidate to enter, perhaps as late as a brokered convention.

    In any case, I suspect that, like me, (1) they don’t trust Romney, and (2) they kinda trust Gingrich, but fear he will lose badly or that he will, as President, be incapable of even speaking (let alone acting) in defense of marriage.

  • honor

    Santorum, will not beat Romney (yet along Obama) in a debate, Santorum cannot out fundraise the billion dollar war chest and most importantly Santorum lost by 18 points as an incumbent in his last election. Let me say that again, lost to a Democrat in a purple state, while he was an incumbent, by 18 points. You have to be joking.

    This is a farce for Romney, support Newt, Perry is behind him, Sarah is along with other prominent conservatives who know how to fundraiser and know how to beat Obama.

  • A_Texan

    Are you trying to poison Romney by opposing him in the primaries?

  • A_Texan

    we must get behind him 100%.

    Until such time–Newt is unelectable, and will prove an erratic, unreliable conservative leader.

  • A_Texan

    The polls will move some in his favor.

    But over the last six months, through Newt’s ups, downs, ups, downs, and ups again, Newt has consistently polled behind Obama. That Rasmussen poll was an outlier, even for Rasmussen.

    Romney has consistently polled the best of all the candidates in head-to-head matchups, with him frequently ahead.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

  • therightman

    Evangelicals had the chance, up until last week, to coalesce behind the only candidate – Gov. Perry – that would have satisfied fiscal, social, and national defense conservatives.

    Instead, they shunned him and backed Santorum.

    After Perry dropped out and endorsed Gingrich, fiscal and small Govt. conservatives – in particular – have coalesced behind Gingrich despite him not being perfect and contributed to his massive win in SC.

    I doubt any late attempt to boost Santorum will work. Evangelicals have been exposed as nothing but single issue conservatives who frankly could care less about fiscal issues. Infact, it would appear they prefer big Govt. candidates.

    They are welcome to waste their money on Santorum. Perhaps his poor showing in Florida will show them that we will not tolerate another ‘Huckabee’ leading to a ‘McCain’ win this year.

  • A_Texan

    You do what Bush did successfully in ’04. You make a credible argument, from time to time. You make it a subordinate issue.

    With Newt as our nominee, we’d abandon that advantage. And we’d get slaughtered among women swing voters.

    As much as it enrages us, flaky women decide elections.

  • captkirc

    Exposing this unholy alliance is critical to thwarting its goal of thrusting the nomination of Mitt Romney down our throats for two reasons:

    1. Exposing to primary voters the pattern of duplicitous actions by these particular supposedly “moral” evangelical leaders will blunt the effectiveness of the inevitable attacks Newt will face on the character issue from all of his social conservative critics.

    2. Alerting potential Santorum donors that their money is not going to be used for its stated purpose of electing Rick Santorum but instead will be working to elect a candidate many of them find completely unacceptable, will make it harder to raise the funds necessary to enact this plot.

    I am disgusted at the hubris of the establishment who think that Republicans need to be saved from themselves so the process needs to be rigged. I am even more disgusted that anyone can profess to care about family values yet are willing to rig an election and sell out their own followers because in their hypocritical minds the ends justify the means. I went from almost not caring on Monday who got the nomination after Governer Huntsman dropped out, to now really hoping that Newt can stick it too everyone and pull this thing off.

  • mikelindell2

    Yeah Santorum would be great we can turn the general election into a referendum on condoms instead of Obama.

  • ethos

    As much a part of the bloc as any of the others. They don’t represent the whole movent and they tend tend to support populist candadites or irrelevant ones, but we have to live with them. They are powerful in both the meta party and the Tea Party, so yes, they can and do things to piss off those that don’t agree with them. Newt is going to need more than a slick tongue to tempt them to eat his fruit.

  • avgjo

    If the GOP didn’t follow through on its election season promises, instead of a 3rd party, we might see the destruction of the GOP.

    Not only have they so failed, but they are also trying to force crap down our throats.

    They’re treading dangerously…(figuratively, big sis, keep your filthy NDAA hands off me. )

  • ethos

    Why not just refer to it as the non-Newt and save yourself the grandstanding?

  • WillWong

    How a reasonable person can think like you after a sweeping victory by Newt with exit polls showing that a majority of those who voted today felt that Newt was the most electable is simply mind boggling!

  • WillWong

    More than 2:1 against Santorum despite the endorsement of the 150 Evangelical leaders in Texas. You must not have paid attention to the exit polls. So your diatribe about Evangelicals as single issue is not based on facts and actually downright insulting. So let’s be careful with our choice of words and facts! Thanks!

  • WillWong

    A vote for Santorum is a vote for Romney period!

  • WillWong

    It is down to whether one thinks which is a stronger campaigning tool….marriage or Obamacare. I am leaning towards Obamacare. California’s prop 8 is in the Supreme Court’s docket this year. Do you see anymore one man one woman marriage bills in any state’s menu this fall?

  • therightman

    I should have used “Evangelical leaders” – specifically those that opted for Santorum and that are planning to raise money for Santorum in order to stop Gingrich – as per Erick’s post.

  • ethos

    The GOP base in each state is over 50% evangelical. This is not the case with Florida, intuitively indicating that Romney will be playing on more favorable turf. The last thing Newt needs is an evangelical split over his ex’s bomb shell, but it is inevitable for this to happen within the family values voters. Bad news for Newt who is already staring at at big hill to climb to get the nomination.

  • WillWong

    Someone asked who are the Gop establishment….Brit Hume is one of their talking heads!

    Now tell me…if Newt is truly that unelectable, how is it that a majority of SC’s voters today went with Newt as being most able to beat Obama! Brit Hume cited some Fox News polling data that shows Newt’s unfavorable versus favorable at 57% versus 27% but did not have the courtesy to tell us when the polls were taken. I bet you those were a couple of weeks old!

  • WillWong

    I am also sending all my RNC funds to Newt to tell the GOP establishment to kiss my behind!

  • WillWong

    For family values than you think! Afterall, legislation starts in the Congress.

    With Romney….we may end up with none….he is that bad!

  • bobguzzardi

    Rick “Elmer Gantry” Santorum is a phony who talks religion while robbing the taxpayers to feed the Leviathan.

  • bobguzzardi

    Yes, a vote for Santorum is a vote for Romney and the Republican Establishment. Santorum is as Establishment as Romney.

  • bobguzzardi

    It is heterosexuals who have undermined marriage and Rick Santorum won’t be able to make Americans more moral people.

    Suppose he were successful, then we would have a strong marriages and a bankrupt country.

    Rick Santorum can’t take on the media and he is Establishment himself.

  • bobguzzardi

    It will do more good than giving money to Santorum

  • bobguzzardi

    he can’t win Pennsylvania. I am from Pennsylvania and Rick Santorum lost because he personified Republican Establishment’s Big Government policies. AND he is arrogantly obnoxious.

  • bobguzzardi

    Barack Obama seems to be an excellent and most generous husband ( with taxpayer’s money) and a good dad. Barack Obama lives family values. Not what you would expect of a Democrat.

  • bobguzzardi

    the issues. America is bankrupt and Rick Santorum will talk about the family and USS America will hit the fiscal iceberg and down we go.

  • WillWong

    Santorum is just an alley kitten pretending to be a jungle cat! Appears defensive and whiny on stage….couldn’t find it within himself to show respect to the Speaker whom he served with ( called Newt a congressman while others have the decency to call Newt Mr. speaker).

    He was the the fortunate beneficiary of more than $3M of negative ads thrown at Newt in Iowa.

    He endorsed Arlen Specter (100% pro-choice) over pro-lifer Pat Toomey in 2004. What does that tell you about his pro-life stance? It takes a backseat to party loyalty if you ask me! Btw, Arlen Specter gave Obamacare its 60th vote.

    And please don’t talk about his electability….he lost his own senate seat in a swing state by 18%!

  • WillWong

    What he needs is Newt’s mind!

  • bobguzzardi

    I am listening to Newt’s victory speed and he is hitting every point.

    I contributed $50 to Newt www.newt.org

  • bobguzzardi

    Hits the points

    Barack Obama “Food Stamp President” versus Job Creator.

    Paycheck President

  • WillWong

    Romney is a sure loss proposition. He is the perfect 1% foil for Obama’s 99% platform! He cannot use our strongest weapon…repeal of Obamacare! He is The Gop’s version of John Kerry!

    With Newt, we have a fighting chance!

  • bobguzzardi

    working with Rick Perry to return power to the States.

  • wbf

    This article today at the American Thinker reflect my sentiments about Newt..

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/newts_open_marriage_with_conservatives.html

    Congratulations to all of you Newt supporters, your guy won big last night!!

    I say that sincerely. Obviously, you believe he is the best man going forward. If he wins, I hope you are right.

  • WillWong

    In SC a week ago……So what do polls tell you?

    Btw, have you ever been part of a poll? How often do you find the choice you really like? Professionals designed questions to get the answers they are looking for!

  • WillWong

    Are you supporting Newt?

  • WillWong

    Putting our money where our mouth is….that is the way to go.

    Go Newt Go!
    Obama…slayed by a Newt!

  • bk

    I agree with you. It’s easy to see how this is shaping up: If Newt is somehow the nominee, the Republican Establishment will do as little as possible to help him in the general at best or at worst try to sabotage him in any way possible. Then when Obama wins they’ll say they told us he couldn’t win but we idiots wouldn’t listen to them.

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

    You have five comments in your 8 months at RS. Three of them are in this thread.

    Erick’s point hitting close to home?

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

    The cautious, “pale pastels” types think he’s the safe pick.

  • romansdaughter

    evangelicals that decided to go with Newt over Santorum. One that even was interviewed was Dr. Tim LaHaye of the Left Behind series. I am an evangelical from a great Bible Church up in Washiington and we don’t like any of the candidates left and I personally feel disenfrachized that 3 states get to pick our choice…we need to do a better voting system. But all that said, right now to me social issues are not any more important than fiscal issues right now. So I’ll pull the lever in the General for whoever the R nominee is cause I don’t want Obama but I am rather sad and skeptical of that happening with any of these candidates that are left.

  • merryj1

    …Romney probably can’t. If Romney were the “tough” GOP contender, the Obama camp wouldn’t be doing everything they can think of to manipulate us into giving him the nod.

  • nocontest

    Well said WA_cowboy I really don’t want anyone telling me their version of christianity or their family values especially from a politician let’s keep it separate. Just do your job and let us worry about family values.

  • nocontest

    and say everyone is ganging up on him. It will not work.
    Money is not the solution thank god.

  • swamphermit

    If evangelicals can’t go for Newt, then give them another 4 years of Obama. After reading this post, I am about to put Santorum on the same not-my-vote platform as I have Romney, i.e. I’ll vote against Romney by voting for Obama, and evangelicals can push me to doing the same with Santorum.

  • red_oakster

    If Santorum and Paul win a slice of delegates along the way, it becomes less likely that either Gingrich or Romney can get a majority before the convention. Since delegates are no longer pledged after the first ballot, a decision made by the convention is a possibility. I will go one step further. If the establishment loses faith in Mitt, they will support Santorum in primaries where Santorum can win delegates that otherwise would go to Newt. The establishment will dump Romney if that’s what it takes to defeat Newt.

  • mbrat42

    With Newt, he could implode. His baggage could get in the way. But I don’t think Romney is as electable as we are told.

    I know there are a lot of Republicans and Conservatives that were angry about Newt bringing up Bain Capital. However, there are many of us who do not have a problem with capitalism but do realize how Bain can be used against Romney. He was asked about Ampad, in the Fox debate on Tuesday, and did not answer the question. He has good stories to tell and he’s telling them (like Staples) but the LBO’s that went bankrupt are going to be a problem. Ten years ago Bain may not have had an effect at all, but now it will. Romney will be Obama’s poster boy for the rich fat-cat, 1%. True or not he will be held up as one of those ceos that took big money for himself while the company failed. In my opinion, this makes Romney as much of a gamble as Newt. If both are big gambles, then at least I want our candidate to be strong and fight.

    (Since I have had no sleep, please try to ignore the fact that my comment is probably poorly written :-) )

  • radicalrighty

    Those evangelicals muct be getting paid too much if they think that. Most folks I know worry a LOT more about their next house payment than how many ex’s a candidate may have.

    It’s the economy stupid.

  • freedom555

    The Evangelicals in the pews …….will resent the Evangelicals of the pulpits……choosing their candidate.

  • circlegranch

    EE presented an excellent account of this a couple of weeks ago. It needs to be re-posted.

    FNC has already started a black-out on Newt. Last night, it was MSNBC that carried Newt’s SC victory speech live; granted it was late but it was also important breaking news. FNC put out a rerun of Rivera’s report on the cruise ship disaster.

    The Republican Party is headed for implosion as the elites are intent on Romney, the evangelical leadership is nearly as powerful and wrought with money and apparently now are focusing on pushing Santorum. As well documented here, Santorum has an anything but fiscally conservative record.

    How about these power players and media hacks just allow We, the People, be guided by our conscience and hearts and stop pushing their choices at us. Leave us alone, and we’ll get it right all by ourselves.

  • Christian_Reppie

    needs to stop pointing that finger at everybody and stop being a holier than thou and remember he lost his own state in his reelection bid by over 20 points. and get that finger out of everybodys face.

  • WA_Cowboy

    re:
    1. I’d rather have both too. But it doesn’t appear to be a choice in this election. You either get the best conservative policy among the group (Newt) or you get Family values (Santorum) or you get Mitt who really wants to win this election and will say anything to do it. And as much as it happens every time the guy who did fit the three legged stoool (Perry) is out of the race.

    2. I don’t disagree with you there either. It is one of the big concerns with newt. I’ll take him at his word that he’s changed. but I won’t be placing any bets on it.

    3. don’t know what to say if you think all four candidates are relatively equal in terms plans/platform/ability to fix this mess.

    4. Adultery isn’t as big of a deal in the general as it is in the primary. Bill Clinton could easily win another term as president, and he was (and maybe still is) a serial adulterer.

    I don’t disagree that there are things that I have to hold my nose on with Newt. but as I said above, I’d rather a competent adulterer than an incompetent family man.

  • maybenexttime

    Santorum is going nowhere. He only won Iowa (narrowly) because he spent massive amounts of time in the state. That kind of gameplan won’t work in larger, more populous states like Florida and Ohio. Also, it is logistically impossible given the upcoming primary calendar.

    Evangelicals will be wasting their money. Santorum has very little appeal to suburban moderates, which is why he lost big as an incumbent in 2006. Newt has created a buzz about his candidacy and is now something of a media phenomenon…because he routinely rips on the media. He has connected with voters in a very real way; something Santorum has not done and will likely never do.

    I understand that Evangelicals want to slow Newt down, but Santorum lacks the ability to do that. Romney is in a far better position to blunt Gingrich’s momentum down the stretch.

  • WA_Cowboy

    nt

  • WillWong

    Because he understand the times…..no one on the stage understand the times as well as Newt. The country is in the gravest danger and Newt seems like the right man for the right job!

    Sometimes, we make the mistake thinking that we must put up someone with no baggage…..it doesn’t matter whether you have any baggage or not….the MSM will dig up some for you. The Left does not play by our rules of engagement and decency. They never did!

    Not saying that Newt will beat Obama for sure or that he can turn this ship around but you know he will go down trying!

  • WillWong

    I watch the entire speeches of Romney, Ron Paul, Santorum, and Newt on Foxnews.

  • maybenexttime

    Religion hasn’t been a big driving force in this election. If it was, Romney would be way down in the polls.

    The narrative which had been driving Romney’s success (up until last week) was the electablility argument, not his faith and values stance. Gingrich has effectively punctured the electability claim by backing Romney into a corner over taxes and Bain capital. Again, those are two issues which have nothing to do about family values.

    The GOP voters want a fighter in this cycle whilst the GOP establishment wants a McCain clone to battle Obama. That’s what this internal struggle is all about. Santorum is basically irrelevant to that situation, and propping him up will not change the picture going forward.

  • circlegranch

    at least in my area. I checked several times because I was very surprised FNC sent their folks home before the biggest speech of the night. They’ve since played it as a rerun, but it wasn’t live where I live. CNN did not carry it live here either.

  • radicalrighty

    If that remark is not tongue in cheek, maybe you should do some reading up on Larry Sinclair.

  • WA_Cowboy

    is not the role of the government. It is the role of the people, of each family in fact to make and keep their own marriage strong first, and then to help others to do the same. If you think marriage needs to be protected and strengthened, find out what you can do in your neighborhood/extended family to strengthen it. That’s the only way any change will be effected.

    Marriage is important to our national welfare. Most of the social problems our country faces can be traced back to a lack of respect for marriage. However, a president is really powerless to change it. he can be a good example, but that’s about it. W was a great family man, and the family situations in america did not get better while he was president.

  • WillWong

    i had FOxnews on all day and they carried the speeches life.

  • radicalrighty

    but my wife is a branch manager of a bank, with no male employees. Every female there (including the manager) “hates” Newt. That’s 0-for-16.

    If Newt would need 50% of the female vote to win the general, my guess is that he won’t come close.

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

    He has documented them @ The Liberty Blog.

    Also, in “It Takes a Family” he proposed [with Lieberman] creation of a bank for the poor which would be a site for dollar-for-dollar matching government $ for all deposits [income redistribution].

  • libertyhawk

    Where were the “evangelical leaders” or the “establishment Republicans” when Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona was standing up to the federal government on immigration? How about Governor Walker’s heroic stand against the abuses of government union power? How about having no budget for two years, the massive federal spending, the half hearted opposition of the house, and the traitorous surrender by Senate Majority ‘Leader’ Mitch McConnell? Where were ALL of our supposed leaders when Sarah Palin was being savaged by the media?

    We don’t care what they think. We don’t want Mitt Romney buying the Republican nomination. This is Gettysburg, and we want someone who can FIGHT! We need someone who will take on the activist judges, our oppressive federal bureacracy, and help dismantle our “freeloader nation”.

    The further the nomination goes, the more focus should be on the Obama administration disasters and the destruction of the economy, the failures of our federal government, the disintegration of our communities and ALL democrats in office should be the focus – not just Obama.

    We want a fighter to take on the media, the unions, the welfare society, and so much more – only Newt has risen to the occasion. As of this date, only Ron Paul has objected to the EPA, Homeland Security & TSA, the Fed, the Justice Department and the State Department on massive, out-of-control immigration, and the ATF. These are serious issues that need to be discussed. Why? Because the mainstream media WILL NOT !

    This is Gettysburg, and a Republican victory should be followed by a “Sherman’s march to the sea” on socialistic / progressive/ marxism. We need a FIGHTER, not a squishy moderate who is nothing more than a traditional democrat, and not a single electoral issue of “family values”. To the degree that this messy nomination process gets us to a brokered convention, then perhaps a leader that we all can unite behind can be drafted. OR we can come to terms, fully supporting whomever of the current candidates wins the nomination.

    This is the battle: Communism or freedom? Oppression or libery? Economic disaster or fiscal sanity? The choice is simply Obama or NOT OBAMA – whomever that Republican may be.

  • maybenexttime

    The election is over 10 months away. That is an eternity in politics. Even two months is an eternity. McCain was leading Obama in most polls during early September 2008. Less than two months later, McCain lost in an electoral landslide.

    Polls should be taken with a grain of salt, especially right now. The presidential debates could determine who gets the White House in 2012. Based on Newt’s debate performances and the resulting boost his candidacy has received from them, you have to wonder if Obama’s camp is a little nervous about facing him the general.

    Mitt won’t fight at the same rhetorical level as Gingrich. I think that makes Mitt a weaker candidate for the GOP once the presidential debates commence. Gingrich has some personal baggage which he has been dealing with quite effectively. Meanwhile, look at how Romney stumbled around on releasing his taxes.

    Gingrich has that killer instinct Romney only wishes he had. That instinct will be invaluable for the Republicans in a dirty fight which you know the Democrats will be starting this fall.

  • maybenexttime

    The “Mitt” electability argument is losing its foundation. Romney has as many downfalls as Gingrich, they’re just less salacious in nature. Sex scandals have more headline value, but personality quirks (i.e. seeming out of touch with common folk) is more damning. Look at the 1992 election: Bill Clinton had the Gennifer Flowers moment, and GH Bush had the supermarket scanner moment. Which event ultimately proved more costly?

    Romney’s claim that he’s the only candidate who can beat Obama is a bit dubious. Not a single recent poll has shown a Romney lead outside the margin of error. Polls are not really worth much right now, but they’re worth even less when they don’t show Romney with a commanding lead.

    Romney will have to pivot from the electability argument. It’s not strongly backed by any polling data right now, and it does nothing to change the complexion of his personal likeability by voters.

  • bobguzzardi

    Newt Gingrich is a Philandering Lobbyist getting rich from Big Government (Statism) and I don’t think anyone has said anything different.

    Rick Santorum is not a philanderer. AND Rick Santorum cannot win Pennsylvania because the voters, especially, social and fiscal conservatives know him for arrogant, obnoxious phony he is.

    Rick Santorum Can?t Win the Presidency Because He Can?t Win Pennsylvania. We know him and, then, there are the 2006 voters.

    Rick Santorum is not electable in Pennsylvania so how does he win the presidency if he can?t win Pennsylvania where is known best?

    Rick Santorum received 797,000 fewer votes than in 2000 and received fewer votes in every county in Pennsylvania than he did in 2000.

    Had he received the same number of votes in 2006 as he had in 2000, he would have been re-elected for a third term.

    There is a reason that Rick Santorum lost in 2006 in Pennsylvania, his home state which he abandoned.

    See also the following articles from PaPolitics and my comments

    Keegan Gibson PoliticsPa National Journal: Santorum?s Complicated Quest To Unite Conservatives 12 January 2012
    http://www.politicspa.com/national-journal-santorums-complicated-quest-to-unite-conservatives/30690 /
    Alex Roarty in National Journal 12 January 2012: Santorum?s

    Complicated Quest to Unite Conservatives
    http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/santorum-s-complicated-quest-to-unite-conservatives-20120112?mrefid=subhplead_2

    Keegan Gibson, Managing Editor PoliticsPa Romney Oppo Team, Meet the Patriot News
    http://www.politicspa.com/romney-oppo-team-meet-the-patriot-news/30554 /

  • circlegranch

    should return to The Good Book because if they think they are qualified to sit in judgment regarding the sins of others, they missed too many Sunday School sessions. Perhaps, like Mr. Obama, they’ve simply sat in pews for years and never heard anything.

    Newt Gingrich, as president, is not going to be a ‘serial adulterer’. He renewed his Christian commitment and joined the Catholic Church. He has exposed his sin before the country on numerous occasions. What else you want him do? He has 2 daughters that have stood by him and its obvious he’s going to live the rest of his life in a way that earns their love and loyalty. He has much to make up for and he is living his life today in a way that does so. He has 2 little grandchildren that are the light of his life. They’ve already been exposed to painful information about the granddad they adore. He will not betray them. He knows full well the pain he has caused in his life. He will not subject his grandchildren to more. You folks need to MYOB and stay out of this. Unlike Herman Cain, who tried to hide and cover up issues regarding his personal life (he hid some of it from his wife, along with the rest of us), Newt has been up front. He’s confessed his sins before God and Man. That’s all that’s required by our Loving God. The sinner on the cross next to Jesus asked for forgiveness in a very simplistic way. He didn’t have time for months of apologies or to beg forgiveness from the hierarcy of the faith and the high priests in the temples. He was weak and dying. Jesus reassured him, “today, you will be with me in Paradise”.

    We have to get this election right. When we look at the destruction Obama and his policies have thrust on our nation, knowing he’d have to face that record when he runs for re-election, consider the havoc he’ll cause in a second term when he will not have to answer for his actions at the ballot box.

    Christian conservatives, our God forgives all who come to Him with a sincerely contrite heart. Worry about your own redemption and let God and Newt Gingrich worry about his.

  • clowngirl

    First, as to Newt’s “decades” of adultery– that doesn’t seem to be fact.

    Are there numerous other mistresses that haven’t come forward?

    The second wife said she got involved with Newt after he’d already filed paperwork and was in the process of getting a divorce.

    If that’s true, it doesn’t even properly sound like cheating.

    Yes, he unquestionably had an affair with his current wife. But that went on for 6 years. Not “decades”

    But it isn’t the point. Newt has repented – he is a sinner, just like everyone else. But, from his own testimony and that of others, his repentance is genuine and he has grown in his faith.

    To dismiss this and amplify his now repented sins, is uncharitable and wrong.

  • clowngirl

    I agree on every point.

  • clowngirl

    recent polls have Gingrich as a much more popular second choice among Santorum voters.

  • http://www.vote4buzz.com Buzz Brockway

    We all have to fall in line behind Mitt because it’s inevitable. Now many are saying we have to fall inline behind Newt because the tide has turned and it’s inevitable he’ll win.

    In my view both Gingrich and Romeny have serious flaws that could cause serious, perhaps fatal problems in the Gereral Election. Santorum, while not perfect, has fewer negatives in my mind.

    We’ve got a race where 3 guys have each one a State. That says to me it’s wide open and I’m free to support the person who I think best represents my values.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Or the Mormon. Or both. And, well, they can’t have that! This way they can claim they’re voting their conscience with their wallet.

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

    …don’t cross Guzzardi, or you will be annihilated!

  • bobguzzardi

    and lives family values without all the hoopla and attention getting behavior of the self-absorbed Rick Santorum.

    who can’t the presidency because he can’t win Pennsylvania

  • A_Texan

    1. “Decades” was probably inaccurate. It’s very complicated by the fact that I believe marriage is for life, so wife #2 may have been a long-time mistress. It’s his treatment of his first wife that bothers me more. Plus, I have difficulty believing that given his conduct, that he didn’t have more–especially during his separation from #2. I count that as adultery too.

    2. I believe we should give full credit to his conversion. I am Catholic and heard his very moving account on EWTN radio.

    But forgiveness is not the same as, hey, let’s make you our leader too! The latter would be imprudent.

  • bobguzzardi

    they have to. There is no reason for Republicans and, in particular, Evangelicals to do the same thing. Evangelicals lose all credibility by using these underhanded tactics.

    Rick Perry was the righteous choice of believers, Jewish or Christian.

    Rick Perry is the real deal; Rick Santorum is the Wizard of Oz without the charm

  • A_Texan

    1. Again, Christ didn’t say, “Go and sin no more…..Oh, and let’s make you queen of Israel too.” See also, Paul’s admonition not to make recent converts into bishops.

    2. As to whether it’s our “business.” Marriage is a public act, with a public vow. It’s made public for a reason. An individual presenting himself for the presidency proposes that we vest him with an important public office that begins with an oath. One who has a record of taking oaths lightly might take this one lightly too.

  • bobguzzardi

    I had not thought this. Rick Santorum is not an idiot; he is a clever opportunist gaining favor with the Republican NYCDC Establishment

  • bobguzzardi

    Mitt Romney is the perfect target for Alinsky Class Warfare campaign

  • bobguzzardi

    Newt Gingrich lights up the base with ideas. Ideas and passion are key component of any election campaign. The voters need to be engaged and Newt Gingrich does that like no other.

  • A_Texan

    Perhaps you’re right and our entire western millenia-old tradition of civil marriage is wrong.

    The registering of marriages, the conferral of civil status and privileges and duties, laws of dissolution, etc.

    Now if you had said “primary” I would agree.

    What the President can do?
    1. Simply by his example and word, as head of state, promote marriage. Clinton’s presidency was disastrous in this respect.

    2. Protect the Defense of Marriage Act.

    3. Promote strong pro-marriage policies where he and the federal government have authority, especially the military, taxation policy, etc.

    I think President Gingrich would like to do all three, but his past would make him significantly less capable of doing so. Santorum and Romney can.

  • Common_Cents

    DeMint was very complimentary of Newt this morning on CNN. DeMint says Newt is the only one fighting back against media and DC. DeMint could be huge for countering this DC establishment sneaky meddling in the race. Cmon Jim, have some cohones! I’m sure he’s getting pressure inside the beltway though.

  • tngal

    And Santorum and Romney both appear pretty strong against illegal immigration with Santorum even curbing a little of the legal immigration issues we have. While I admire that in him and approve of his social issues platform, it will be his downfall in Florida, I’m afraid.

    Gingrich has a more lenient amnesty policy and will focus on jobs and the economy more so he gets Florida. This one is called unless Romney call pull a bunny out of his butt.

    Lets just move on to the next state.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I think it makes sense. If this happened last year, that would be different than it happening 20+ years ago as is the case.

  • SoFiMil

    Ron Paul not excepted.

  • carolina

    That bank branch needs to get over its ‘mass hysteria’.

  • clowngirl

    1. if I’m understanding you correctly, you see getting divorced and remarrying as committing adultery for the duration of that second marriage (so the longer the marriage lasts the worse the charge )

    It’s fine for you to have that interpretation but you are using the term differently than what it is generally understood to mean — so using it as you did could be misleading.

    2. You may assume that he had other affairs — but shouldn’t make accusations like that without proof.

    My interpretation is different. From the limited knowledge that we have, Newt strikes me as someone who overlaps so as to avoid a period of being alone.

    They actually wrote an article on how common it is to do this (though more in dating relationships than marriages) in some cases it might be a case of simply flirting with the next prospect and making sure they are good and interested before ending the prior relationship.

    I don’t approve of doing that — but I’ve had friends who have done it who are otherwise good people.

    3. I’m glad to see you credit Newt’s conversion and agree that his account was moving and sounded very sincere. I’m sure you’re agree that that kind of repentance and second conversion is likely to leave a person deeply changed.

    4. while I have seen one article that actually argued Newt’s 3 marriages were a plus and showed he’d be a good President — I don’t think most people are suggesting that we elect Newt BECAUSE of his past adultery. Just that he should be judged by who he is now.

  • conservativeparrothead

    Evangelical voters went for Newt Gingrich overwhelmingly in an Evangelical state on Saturday night. Through 3 primaries, each has 1 state and essentially a tie in NH. Newt led the state until the Democratic Primary votes were counted, then Santorum beat him by some there and ended up beating him by 12 or something.

    But…popular vote, Newt is up well over 100,000 votes on Santorum and probably has the momentum to perhaps beat Mitt in Florida, but certainly defeat Santorum head to head.

    So…if you are an evangelical leader this morning, I would look to do the following if you are concerned about family values and having Rick Santorum with a voice in this campaign.

    Go to Santorum and Gingrich, tell Santorum that they tried to coalesce around him and make him the guy heading into SC, but it just didnt happen, right now, the best play is Newt with him as an early declared running mate.

    Santorum agrees to this, will campaign with Newt and essentially combine campaigns but Newt will include two of Santorum’s key components:
    1. Family Values
    2. Manufacturing
    Will be worked into the Gingrich plan/message.

    The Evangelicals get their donors supporters to coalesce behind Gingrich because Santorum’s voice will be heard and he will be on the ticket. And this is the important thing, if Newt implodes and self destructs or something comes out that just wasnt known and kills his campaign, then Santorum would assume the nominee role for this team and Gingrich would be placed into an advisory role (obviously a damaged Newt or really any Newt would be a viable VP choice).

  • boonerdan

    NO WAY! You mean the GOP Establishment and Washington insiders are trying to kill one of our own? Is anyone really surprised?

    First, Romney won Iowa. Oops, he didn’t win Iowa. Then his back-to-back wins (which was a lie) created the GOP Establishment’s illusion of “inevitability.” Next, we were bombarded with declarations that South Carolina was all important and a Romney win clinch the nomination. Now that Romney got SMOKED in South Carolina, they try to tell us that South Carolina is not important and the people there are rubes.

    Those of you criticizing Newt because of his marital issues should step up, as I have yet to meet anyone WITHOUT SIN. It would be really refreshing to meet the perfect human being out there.

    Since I am not asking Newt to sleep with me, I could care less about these issues. I want someone who will actually “fight” Obama, not bow down and be afraid to call him a Socialist or be afraid to use his middle name. How did that work out in 2008?

    Gingrich should thank Erickson for this article. It is the impetus for me sending a donation to Gingrich TODAY!

    In case you have missed it, I will NEVER vote for Romney!

  • ghostship

    What we have left in the West is the empty shell of its tradition. The nuts and bolts that made marriage an institution were gutted from it long ago.

    In order to restore marriage it’s going to have to be completely rebuilt from scratch. That would be a massive undertaking and no politician is going to propose such a radical change. Heck, just trying to get the politicians in Washington to cut real spending gives them the vapors and that’s a far less radical idea.

    Right now Newt is the only viable alternative to Mr Status Quo Romney. A vote for Santorum is a vote for Romney which in turn is a vote for Obama. Is that what social conservatives really want?

  • jakeofalltrades

    I don’t think that the adultery should matter in the political realm, though, unless that is somehow the only significant difference in the candidates (and it never will be).

  • clowngirl

    I would think that would be important to evangelicals.

    And, looking at the exit polls in SC, it sees that it is. Newt won 44% of votes from evangelicals — exactly double the percentage that voted for Romney and just over double the number who voted for Santorum.

    So Newt isn’t doing too badly with them in general.

    As to Santorum having funding. I’m inclined to think it’s mostly good.

    Santorum did a fair amount of damage to Romney in the last couple debates and he and Gingrich make for a pretty good tag team.

    He attacks Newt too — but, IMO, Newt defends better and often even gets the better of the exchange.

    So, rhetorically at least, he does more damage to Romney.

    Newt was at 45-50% in a couple of Florida polls at the height of his previous surge when it was still a 7 candidate field. If he can get back that kind of momentum Santorum’s presence isn’t going to hurt him.

  • clowngirl

    Still looking for some pretense to say Romney’s still inevitable — well, he’s got the most organization.

    it’s also a little bizarre when they compare Romney and Ron Paul to Obama in focusing in on caucus states.

    Yes, Obama won the Democratic Nomination *in part* because he focused on caucus states. but he also became the front runner overall, had tons of momentum and perhaps unprecedented excitement and support from the media. (And Obama wound losing the popular vote and needing help from superdelegates anyway)

    The idea that Ron Paul can stop competing in big primaries, become something of an afterthought nationally and suddenly clean up in every caucus state.

    Obama was in close contention for the race anyway — and had several big advantages — organizing early in caucus states gave him an edge – possibly a decisive one – but it wouldn’t have been nearly enough on its own.

    And I’m glad to hear this article inspired you to vote for Newt!

  • clowngirl

    It didn’t seem to effect his ability to lead the free world.

    3 other points where I disagree with you.

    You bring up Paul’s admonition not to make recent converts into Bishops

    1. Newt’s not really a recent convert. He’s been a Christian most of his life though he didn’t take his faith as seriously early on. I was somebody who converted in my mid twenties — but from talking to people who were always Christian – it sounds like a lot of people are like that.

    2. The Presidency is not a church office.

    3. I also disagree with your comment that Newt “took his oaths lightly” because I don’t think either of us have enough information to make that judgement.

    According to his second wife, Newt got involved with his teacher (who became his first wife) at the age of 16. A 7 year age difference is generally not a problem if say, One person is 23 and the other is 30 — but at that time of life it’s not hard to imagine how it could cause problems.

    We don’t know what difficulties he phased both in his marriage and under the pressures of high office and hostile media.

    CS Lewis writes about how we shouldn’t sit comfortably judging others when we haven’t been tested by their circumstances. If I have time later I’ll look it up.

  • txindependent

    Always screw up elections,

    Seriously, this stuff does not need to be the main issue in presidential elections.

  • txindependent

    how SC used to be the deciding factor, and now it is not important?

  • txindependent

    Everyone was told Romney is the best to beat Obama so he polled that way. Now SC is saying, Gingrich is better. It’s a chicken/egg thing.

  • jakeofalltrades

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    If Obama is able to substitute a liberal for a conservative on the Supreme Court, it’s event horizon time as there will be no check on an expanding federal government.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    I?m not so sure if we will not see the old Newt soon, but I know one thing for sure. Newt Gingrich has earned what he has gotten this election cycle, and if he would use his redemption as a story to teach others that often God uses the most flawed people to do great things, then it would only make sense that once again God does this.

    I am trying to look at what Newt has accomplished through a biblical eye, and it does make a huge difference.

  • votemout2012

    Got home after 10 last night and turned on Fox to check out results of the primary. Shocked they had the Rivera thing on. If Romney would have won they would have had SC primary coverage all night. Ended up going to CNN for primary coverage. Black out is right. Exactly what they did to Perry. Only reporting negatives and any thing to make him look a fool.You are right I thnk ppl seeing Fox bias and NOT buying it.

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

    conservatives will play the “I told you so” game. So what.

    The one real game changer in terms of future elections (that will no longer matter because of Obama’s SCOTUS) would be to nominate Santorum. He’ll about 40% of the vote in a blow out that will make Goldwater look like a win, the Dems will add to their margin in the Senate and take back the House. And the plus will hopefully be that no one will ever, ever pay attention to the fools who are claiming to be social “conservatives”.

    But the price is way to big to pay.

  • votemout2012

    Santorum is no better than Newt or Romney plus he is broke.

  • APA Guy

    Newt has personal issues (i.e. divorces, 15-year old ethics) that mean diddly squat to a country still shaken by recession, debt, lack of jobs, and $3.50/gallon gasoline. Romney has Romney/Obamacare and a record as a corporate raider.

    Obama has turned this into a nation of credit card spenders sinking in a quicksand of debt, with a private-sector hiring force sitting on a trillion in resources until he is booted out.

    Who is the country most likely to trust to solve the nation’s problems? The husbands-of-the-year (Obama, Romney) or the problem-solver (Gingrich)?

    Newt has a track record of policy success, the other two do not. In the end, that will make all the difference.

  • APA Guy

    ..and we’re running against Carter Redux in 2012. Now, tell us again how important polls are 10 months from Election Day…

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Wow, on the anniversary of Roe v wade you say THAT?!? Call that liar and hyopcorite Bob Casey Jr prolife. He is pro-life in the same way Obama is for smaller government and free markets.

    As of march, 2010, there are zero prolife Democrats.
    Casey Junior voted for Obamacare, voted for taxpayer funded abortions in Obamacare, voted for Federal funding for planned parenthood , and has stood by and supported the most pro-abortion anti-unborn-life administration ever.

    Protesters expose Casey:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaqgAJC1OuA
    “You betrayed the prolife cause”

    A real prolife candidate, Brian Kelly, has this to say:

    http://kellyforussenate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=214:is-bob-casey-jr-pro-life&catid=99&Itemid=499

  • elayman

    If Gingrich has the mind of a master strategic thinker (which I doubt), he is certainly not afraid to use government as the a problem solving tool.

    Of course if this primary cycle had ever really been about fixing the economy from an executor with a record, these would be the two candidates who as leaders and people are so erratic we never would have gotten…

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Lets start here:
    “Abortion and gay marriage are not issues at the federal level that can be dealt with directly”

    That’s a profoundly out-of-touch and ill-informed statement to make, of course.
    The President impacts abortion with Mexico City policy, federal funding of planned parenthood, the Obamacare healthcare takeover that now funds contraception (and they reclassify abortificants as ‘contraception’ and voila! taxpayer funded abortions!), and of course SCOTUS picks.

    So why has Obama not come ‘out of the closet’ for gay marriage. Duh, he doesnt have to!
    Barack has done everything he can to cater to the leftwing special interests that wanted gays in military, repeal DOMA, etc. He DOJ team has been undercutting opposition to gay marriage left and right, leaving activist judges to do the ‘heavy lifting’ on this.

    He KNOWS gay marriage has been voted down outlawed in 40+ states’ constitutions by popular demand. It’s NOT popular. But the liberal elites treat this as a matter where the dumb populace will come around after the cram-down happens. … kind of like Obamacare.

    Like any good leftwing activist, and unlike the less-strategic conservatives (we should learn from them), he will undercut it until it becomes a fait accompli.

    Obama’s deceit? Its the politics.

  • David123

    to win against Rick Santorum. Rick Santorum walks the pro-life walk as well as talking the pro-life talk.

    Rick Santorum has NEVER lost an election to an obvious pro-abortion candidate. Obama voted three times to deny medical care to newborn infants who survived abortions. Obama is not merely pro-abortion – he is disgustingly pro-abortion.

    Rick Santorum will mop the floor with Obama in Pennsylvania and nationwide on the life issue, the Keystone pipeline issue, botched foreign policy, botched economy, and botched gun-running.

  • JSobieski

    A lof of voters don’t know who Newt is, and many of them just don’t picture a person as president at the beginning of the process.

    Political campaigns are highly dynamic.

  • jatx

    we wonder what Newt will do or say next, surely Obama (who is very prepared to go against Mitt), will fret about that as much as we might do. Maybe, will work to our advantage. Hard to prepare when you don’t know what’s coming.

  • APA Guy

    …and we’re 10 months out from the election…with 8.5% unemployment and $3.50/gallon gas prices.

    Now, tell me again how Newt can’t solve the problems of the country, let alone beating Carter II.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    No matter how much you want it to be. The voters have already elected a pro-infanticide candidate. I see no reason why they wouldn’t do so again.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Nobody is running ‘strictly’ on family values.

    Nobody.

  • APA Guy

    Winners both…

  • red_oakster

    Nt

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    The establishment would be ok with Santorum or Romney, since they’d both be big spenders and perpetuate the status quo in Washington.

  • pantera

    Stick to the pro-life message. That’s the issue.
    More take home pay,jobs,escalating gang violence. These are all family values.

    Oh and Newt traded way up in wife compatibility. Wife 2 didn’t want to be the adorning helpmate of a rising star.
    In a perfect world we wouldn’t need lawyers or politicians.

  • paladin1

    regarding Gingrich.

    Obama by all accounts is a good family man and so was Carter (along with being a professed Christian, which I have no reason to doubt). They did not do us very well, did they?!

    If we stick with that line of thinking, and don’t support the man with the closest vision to what we believe, we are destined to whatever mediocrity and malaise we choose.

  • bluerose75

    Now remember people….Newt is the Insider…so lets see….Romney choice of the Establishment…..now calls from WASHINGTON DC to Evanglical leaders to prop up Santorum. Cannot make about family values with Newt….well really? You know I think it is hilarious do any of you EVER watch the Super Channel, the 700 Club or any of those other religious programs that air all day and night? Do you ever notice Jesus talking to the crowds? I keep looking but I do not see Him? Hmmm…I wonder why?

    Why? because we are Men and Women and I am sick of the pious people from the religious idiocry acting like that have a stranglehold on family values. Who do you think you are judging Newt? You are not GOD!! The most fundamental tenant of Christianity is Forgiveness and Redemption…God MUST forgive if you ask Him…yet he we go with the DC crowd of pious Evangelicals judging Newt unfit to carry the family values mantra.

    You know what we are fallible….Newt clearly with HIS FAMILY around him has admitted his mistakes and HIS FAMILY is indeed very close at his side minus the bitter Ex! Now if that is not Redemption than what is? To me the evangelicals have no place telling anyone who is fit to carry the mantra of Family Values. Who do you people think you are? That is right you are perfect! Perfect husbands, perfect wives, perfect family people, holier than God himself and like the Pharisees pass judgement as if you speak for God and YOU DO NOT!

    Newt won the evangelical vote in SC! Interesting is it not?? This is not about Family Values this is about a power grab from the DC elites that want to stop Newt. Santorum is a good man and I like him alot. But he, like Perry, cannot ignite a crowd with the fire needed to win. He is too nervous on stage, he tries to articulate his message but he falls short and he is not ready to take on Obama. Personally, the evangelicals from DC are not interested in the grassroot evangelicals…they want control and with Newt they cannot control with Santorum they feel they can!

    It will not work in Florida….I live here and it will be Economic Issues that carry the day! Newt must address job growth, taxes, legal reform, offshore drilling, reforming Social Security and foreign affairs. His message of American Exceptionalism will play well here…I know I live here. The heavy Cuban community in Miami is very patriotic and loves America. Newt must play that hard and show how is will raise America out this doldrum and misery under Obama. Evangelicals can help in the Panhandle but that will not carry this state.

    Grassroots will carry the day for Newt in Florida if he continues the themes from last night. And the DC evangelicals will not control that!

  • mong001

    must stay in as a viable choice in case Newt falters. Given Newt’s history of erratic behavior and grandiosity, we need a backup to stop Romney.

  • freemanja1991

    Won women in SC, if I remember the exit polling. And Rick Santorum would focus too much on it and lose other voters.

  • izoneguy

    And spread lies about how great Obama is doing….

    DON’T BELIEVE ONE WORD OF THE PROPAGANDA
    THAT THE DEMS AND OBAMA WILL BE SPREADING…..

    We know better……

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    that is why this choice is so important, and honestly, I think we do not have a good choice here, but Newt is seemingly the best. If he can convince the voters he is a changed man, he will be president, because he has all the other tools needed to get this done.

  • rickperryreport

    I heard that Bob Vander Plaats is now a millionaire after picking Sanotrum’s pockets in Iowa. Do you think he’ll return some of his bounty to the now-broke Sanotrum campaign?

    read the details here

  • conservnca

    about those who have tried to rig this election. I am glad too for any angst they might be experiencing.
    The one thing I can’t get behind yet though is support for the tea party.I was a huge supporter until they went totally silent on Rick Perry. I can’t trust their motives now either.Rick Perry is one of them and they abandoned him for Newt? Where were they? Perry has all the credentials they have been espousing. So what happened? Why were they MIA?Until I can understand their reasoning on this I have withdrawn my support and will encourage others to check the motivation here.
    The actions of people speak louder then their words.I was hoping this election would be about action not rallying cries. I so hope the tea party (and others) from their lack of support, hasn’t cost us the only candidate with all the qualifications needed to effect change in a way that would cause America to thrive again.

  • aesthete

    “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    All those things you mentioned are peripheral to the issues of abortion and gay marriage (DOMA and Mexico City policy), or only indirectly related (judges). In either case, they’re not an issue. As to why Obama hasn’t come out in support of gay marriage, I’d imagine it’s because his campaign team is smarter than the evangelicals in Erick’s post, and they realize that culture war nonsense, and even important social issues (like abortion), are not going to be important in this election, just like the last one.

  • runner12

    and an evangelical Christian myself, this makes me sick to my stomach. When will my fellow Christians/Evangelicals quit allowing the DC establishment to use them? Wake up! They could care less about what we believe or hold dear. In fact, they are the very same set that court our votes to our faces and deride us behind our backs. Sometimes the derision is even to our faces.

    I could care less what these so-called Evangelical leaders do or say. I will vote my conscience and the way God tells me to. I certainly will not allow myself to be used to keep a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats in power.

    If we do not shrink the size of government and reduce our debt, we won’t have a fighting chance to win on social issues. Does anyone recall the make up of our Founding Fathers? They were as diverse as can be, but united around the common theme of freedom from tyranny. We must do the same.

    I am undecided in the primary at this moment, but if the DC establishment continues these kinds of tactics they may just well drive straight into voting for Gingrich.

  • aesthete

    was stand back as his campaign ripped Kerry a new one for running exclusively on a war record which, upon second examination, was absolutely shameless. From a political standpoint, I wouldn’t use frmr President Bush as a successful example of anything but how to pump up deficit spending and get really lousy challengers.

  • acat

    where those who have one eye* are reviled as cheaters, rather than held up as rulers.

    This cat is currently pulling for Gingrich as the least-bad option. Not that he’s perfect – far from it – but .. given the alternatives?

    Mew

    * Anyone who thinks that, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed would rule, has no clue about human nature.

  • aesthete

    and how does electing Newt make things worse? If marriage was in decline before Newt, then it was declining under two monogamous family men (Bush and Obama). If it wasn’t, then there’s nothing to worry about.

    I, for one, look askance upon the notion that we should be looking to the cesspit in Washington to inform our morals in any way. They deal with and sanction legalized theft and violence against the non-violent every day; that is not an example to emulate in any way.

  • aesthete

    (depending on what you call “pro-marriage” policies), Obama has done a splendid job. Quite frankly, I don’t know how anyone in the running has done the second — Rick Santorum is the only candidate on stage to suggest subsidies for mothers and married couples (which I consider nothing less than theft from single persons and welfare for the married).

  • kowalski

    I really have to ask. What are the “nuts and bolts” that you propose to fix the “empty shell” of tradition that is the Institution of Marriage?

    If you can make a statement like that you have to have a few things in mind, so let’s hear them.

  • turningtables

    That’s the kind of stuff that we as Christians push on our own, not as our political agenda.

    Otherwise, we set ourselves up for failure. You know… the way we have for 20 years? Social Conservatives beat us into line voting for morals. Then they spend like sailors.

    Evangelism doesn’t happen by government action. It happens when we as Christians sit down one on one with someone God selects for us to confess our faith with.

    Social programs don’t save people. Jesus Christ does, through the work of the Holy Spirit.

    When will these people learn?

  • TexasTami

    is that it speaks clearly to the fact that the Republican Establishment does not accept the people’s voice. No, we don’t need anyone propped up to stop anyone! Let our voice be heard, for heaven’s sake, and let the process go forward! I certainly don’t trust the Republican Establishment to speak for me anymore than I expect a liberal, socialist, SaulAlinsky-loving, elitist, America-hating, American-apologist, tax-loving, Constitutional-hating democrat like Obama to speak for me. Let me have my own voice, and I’ll speak loud and clear about my choice!

    See what I mean? …:)

  • aesthete

    Is that one of Newt’s mistresses? :)

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    Just so long as we don’t have that EVIL, capitalist Mitt Romney as our candidate.

    Let’s win by losing!!! Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Fact: The big spending crowd in washington has CONSISTENTLY been the least ‘social conservatives’.
    - the Democrats
    - northeast moderate RINO Republicans
    - moderate/liberal Republicans who run away from any fight, both social issues and fiscal issues

    The best fiscal conservatives have in COngress been across-the-board conservatives.

    Really now … “Social Conservatives beat us into line voting for morals.” Mccain was a social conservative. Hastert? The gang of 14? Spectre?

    “Then they spend like sailors.” Pelosi? Obama? Reid?

  • aj_0000

    What evidence do you have that there is any chance of that happening? The “establishment” is history. At this point, the voters are wide awake, and the “assault” on Newt that they’re threatening is ONLY GOING TO PROVE HIM RIGHT, since he called them out publicly the other night. Their attacks on him will strengthen him with voters, not weaken him.

  • Tbone

    the People believe that THEY have already lost Congress.

    Therein lies the problem and, as such, therein lies the opportunity.

    I think Newt can articulate that better than anyone.

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

    attacks. He demands specifics from Romney on that “Bain thing” and then sidesteps into RomneyCare when he realizes he can’t provide any specific charges of his own. He needs to go after Mitt on RomneyCare and quit with the Bain attacks.

  • acat

    I think she’d get along with Newt as well as with anyone.

    After all, nobody else listens to her, why should his self-focus be surprising?

    Mew

  • acat

    McCain, after all, spent most of the run-up to the 2000 campaign spitting at Jerry Falwell. Same goes for Hastert – if you’d check, you’d find Coach Denny is of the Illinois school, and not a noted religious figure.

    On the other paw, Sen. Santorum’s record, as he’s the topic of the diary, is quite thick with religious-right ideology…. and yet, he voted for increases in government (and taxes) right down the line.

    Mew

  • WillWong

    Endorsing Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004 is not walking the walk. Endorsements have consequences. Arlen gave Obamacare the 60th vote before bolting the Republican party because he can’t bear to face Toomey in the primary. Interesting, despite Obama’s endorsement, Arlen was successfully primaried in the Dem primary.

  • WillWong

    You can be sure that the Evangelical leaders and their followers have not been told that the objective is to shore up Santorum in order to keep Newt from winning. Evangelicals have always been seen as loyal but ignorant foot soldiers….just feed them some red meat like one man-one woman marriage, life begins at conception, etc and they are expected to come out in droves, plant yard signs, hold house meetings, donate time and money, etc.

    Sorry if I sound so skeptical but I am! All things considered, I am more inclined to believe that God is well able to use a man like Newt with the immense gifts He had endowed him with in the first place than I am to believe that God will suddenly endow Santorum with similar gifts and let him learn on the job!

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

    Fiscal conservatives of all faiths have been the most betrayed by Republicans. At least we social conservatives have been given better votes of late on judges.

  • cheetah2

    I am glad he gets the chance. I agree with Sarah Palin that this should not be over too quick. A stiff competition between the candidates will let them hone their skills and really show us who is the most worthy foe for Obama. I hope it is Newt myself! I am praying for him. I prayed for Perry- he was worthy of it, but now I see that these other more flawed candidates need prayer even more! Newt just needs to prove he can stay focussed. If he does his magnificent brain will push him over the top I think.

    One thing, about all this, the non-Romney vote was split between Newt, Santorum, and (I guess) RP and yet Newt still won in a landslide in S. Carolina. I suppose he would have won even if Perry had not dropped out, just with a smaller landslide. It give me hope that the evil plans of those who are trying to “split the conservative vote” may not work after all. Even if Santorum has money to spend it doesn’t mean he will win. No one has more money to spend than Mr. Romney, yet he has lost 2 out of 3 so far.

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

    New data, new ideas…smile

  • cheetah2

    I have that in my profile for my Twitter account.

  • aesthete

    that social conservative leadership (and some of the grassroots) are either unwilling or unable to see. It would be greatly productive and useful for the purposes of unity if social conservatives would endeavor to understand this difference, appreciate it, and vote accordingly.

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

    leadership has taken on the mantle of big-government. The church has long ago walked away from their charge to care for the poor and to care for one another.

    100 years ago, the church was the center of social reform, building hospitals, caring for orphans and the poor. They can’t be bothered with such foolishness anymore, they’re too busy socializing and they’ve found the perfect foil to dump their responsibility on, the federal government.

  • acat

    The church turned all its’ responsibilities over to the government-apprentice, and is just now starting to realize just how out of control it’s gotten.

    The view from outside is sometimes clearer, I think.

    Mew

  • ethos

    But it is an accurate description of those states characteristics. 50% or more of an Evangelical base pretty much equates to a road game for Romney. You can substitute conservative for Evagelical and pretty much not miss a beat, but you do, in the end, leave a good portion of conservatives from the convo. Romney has an Evagelical problem specifically and critically, a conservative problem broadly and loosely. That isn’t the narrative because of the PC approach to Romney’s Mormonism.

  • http://www.solidprinciples.com solidprinciples

    Hey Erick Erickson,

    How has that “Anyone But Mitt” concept worked out? It’s given you Gingrich problem,, what’s your next stunning trick?

    Cheers
    Craig Edwards

    PS: Please feel free to delete my comment and this RS account, I never thought you would reduce your site along the likes of Free Republic, but you have achieved that goal.

  • jakeofalltrades

    :(

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    We just all point and laugh at you.

  • Bill S

    And don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

  • http://www.solidprinciples.com solidprinciples

    In the aftermath of NC, national Republicans may be left with taking the path of defending Newt?s other baggage. So if personal fidelity is no longer an issue for a GOP political candidate, then all prior high-moral gains by Republicans over the behavior of Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, and John Edwards need to be reexamined, and apologies offered to all including the bathroom antics of fellow Republican Sen. Larry Craig. Needless to say, it might be a little difficult for Newt to charm the party into taking on the nature of their political opposites.

    Several prominent Republicans criticized Gingrich for his attack on Romney?s record at Bain Capital, even Romney?s foes like Giuliani ripped the Gingrich tactic as being ?Alinsky? not Republican. Gingrich?s numbers rose after the attacks, including his debate performances, ripping moderators and brushing aside his prior infidelity as irrelevant. Most Democratic campaigners include messages of anti-capitalism, personal charisma and side-stepping personal morality, so can it become the new face Republicanism?

    Gingrich played SC like Ted Kennedy driving off Chappaquiddick Pier, and the public ate it up along with his line of being a conservative. The Republican party cannot keep up this ruse, nor can they allow groups sabotage GOP candidates. If this was 1980, you would all be attacking Reagan for being a former Democrat, and calling him a RINO.

  • greyeagle

    YOU ARE BACK! Yay!

  • greyeagle

    The Evangelicals are worried now. They would not endorse Perry , who really could do it all. Instead they endorsed Santorum, who carries the water for Romney and is a weak candidate. Frankly, I am disgusted and don’t give a hoot about what they think. I feel the same for the GOP establishment shoving Mitt down our throats. Early voting started in Florida Saturday and I voted for Newt warts and all. I could not vote for the other three.

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

    What gains are you talking about? Electing Bush? In fact one of the main reasons Bush beat Gore (aside from the Green Party, all Gore voters) was the fact that Gore shunned Clinton’s help.

    And just who is new rep replacing Weiner? And Edwards? WTF.

    You’re an idiot. Bye.

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

    prior to the stupidity of this particular post, you have posted exactly once, back in April of 2010.

    Since we didn’t know you were here, you certainly won’t be missed.

  • Xasteius

    And someone ought to tell him that the last preacher who ran for president (William Jennings Bryan) lost his election.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    without the executive experience.

  • greyeagle

    because they can be twisted anyway the pollsters want. Most of these polls are conducted by liberals. They actually fear Newt, and would love Romney. Perry could have beat Obama with his record alone. If conservatives swing behind Newt, he will win.

  • greyeagle

    Nah, this so called Church Leader behaved in an immoral way. Disgusting. Santorum paid for endorsement, guess this lead to his SURGE! What a joke.

  • Xasteius

    no text

  • bonnman

    ALL of them have a better vision for the US than Obama but Obama ran on a vision and that just don’t cut it when deciding on a leader. NONE of them have a solid reliable record that convinces us and that we can base our decisions on, so we fall back on character traits. So Newt being an adulterer is a BIG deal for some people.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Did he win over independent women and Obama-voter women?
    Did he win voters outside SC?

    Dont know, but we’ll need to see some polls.
    I doubt he’s made headway.

    The SC result tells us that some primary voters will give him a pass on it. It doesnt tell us whether it will kill us in the general election.

    It doesnt help us that we’ve had 4 years of liberal MSM pap like People magazine treating us to how great a Mom Michelle eat-your-peas Obama is, etc.

    There will be a ‘likeability gap’ among the less-informed women voters to overcome.

  • bonnman

    nt

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    McCain is *NOT* a social conservative.

    McCain *IS* part of the RINO problem that we’ve had.

    My point: The GOP big spenders have ceom from the RINO side, not the socon side.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    It’s divisive, and a waste of time. Pursuing it wins elections for Democrats.

  • bonnman

    Candidates and their campaigns along with the media have a way of shaping the issues so they have the best advantage. Newt was able to make wealth and capitalism an issue by attacking Romney on Bain. If family values isn’t an issue now, it will be if Newt is the nominee, the ads write themselves…$500k line of credit at Tiffany’s, mistresses, broken marriages, its not pretty.

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

    They are a complete waste of time and resources, see the “ERA” for an excellent example.

    An Amendment requires 2/3 of both the House and Senate and 2/3 of the State Legislatures to ratify.

    You will never get one Democratic vote on either if one vote is required to defeat the Amendments. There is also no probability that 34 state legislatures would ratify.

    In case you hadn’t noticed, this country is on a near-irreversible course to bankruptcy. The fiscal health of the nation requires focused leadership and all the political resources available to stem the tide. We can’t be wasting those precious resources on utter foolishness that has no chance of passing.

  • bonnman

    its for WA_Cowbot

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Get over it.

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

    Presidents have been publicly monogamous throughout our history. It wasn’t until Clinton literally got caught with his pants down that there’s really been a public outing of a Presidential tryst (with the exception of one President 150 years ago who fathered a child out of wedlock and fessed up to it. There were rumors, but never a public outing.

    It’s pretty obvious that Presidential morality in their marriage – at least public morality – hasn’t been a good reference point for strong marriages.

    Your fundamental point is exactly right.

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

    How do you propose to pass it? You need 2/3 of the House, Senate and State Legislatures to ratify. You won’t get any of those.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    First, Since Jim Demint isnt running, it’s hard to understand how/why you conclude some lack of perception of any difference based on Santorum support, or even whether any differences with Demint would be relevant.

    Second, DeMint and Santorum are not that far apart. They agreed on: opposing McCain-Feingold, opening up ANWR, opposing TARP, stimulus and Obamacare, supporting judicial conservatives, supporting the balanced budget amendment, supporting ‘cut, cap and balance’, cutting tax rates, educational choice …
    the list goes on … demint and Santorum are 95% in agreement.

    Demint/Santorum versus the RINOs is the fault line, and conservatives like Demint/Santorum are NOT in that much agreement with them. The RINOs didnt stand up for cut, cap and balance and wanted to cut a watered down deal.

    Third, the real question is whether the socon endorsement of Santorum is the endorsement of an all-around conservative, or at least the best all-around conservative of the remaining 4. It is relevent that Santorum is more fiscally conservative than Romney in both his record and agenda, and has a more consistent record also than Newt. Santorum may have faults wrt spending and Medicare Part D, but Newt and Romney supported that – and more. Newt supported earmarks in his day (as did Santorum). Santorum consistently has opposed global warming nonsense; Newt sat on the couch, while Romney waffled. Newt and Romney supported TARP, when Santorum opposed it. Santorum’s healthcare proposals are the most free market of the three. Since Newt praised Romney care in 2006, supported mandates on healthcare in the past, stood with Hillary and Al Sharpton at various times to push other dubious bipartisan causes, and endorse RINO Dede Schuzzofava in NY-23 when Santorum endorsed (along with Sarah Palin) conservative Doug Hoffman, its hardly legitimate to argue that Newt is more consistently conservative than Santorum.

    And I say this as a Newt supporter: Santorum and Newt both had deviations and neither are perfect conservatives, but Newt’s had more deviation and been more willing to take establishment positions (viz TARP, Dede, etc.).

    Last, lets be honest: Whether you are willing to overlook Newt’s personal history, for pastors and Religious Right leaders, it might be a bridge too far for them. I can understand it. So they reached for an acceptable conservative. If other conservatives are taking positions you don’t understand, perhaps its not their ignorance, but that they are considering factors you havent.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister
  • bonnman

    seems to be political and not based on policy, is that correct? Amending the Constitution is of course a difficult task, it should not be done easily but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. We should always try and do whats right, instead of what is popular.

    Social conservatives have watched republicans fold on DADT and DOMA and don’t want to stand by idly and cede more ground.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Not interested in that, thanks.

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

    And, if you’ll bother to read the paper, you’ll note that the states are taking the lead on this issue and gay marriage is winning hands down everywhere it’s contested.

    The ground is gone, get over it. And, NT is absolutely right, making a Constitutional Amendment fight over this will elect dozens of Democrats and give them the perfect foil to distract the country from the fiscal mess we HAVE to solve.

    Spend the next seven years doing mental masturbation trying to pass Constitutional Amendments and we’ll spend the next generation fighting over food scraps in dumpsters.

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

    memory :-) .

  • acat

    See, the reality is more complex.

    Some social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives. DeMint being the model for the poster, they are first social conservatives, but they are also ficons.

    Some fiscal conservatives are also social conservatives. I’d call Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie* examples of this group, they are primarily financial guys, but also socially conservative.

    Cross-overs of the first type are more common, but .. that’s in part because there are far more social conservatives than fiscal conservatives. Not a slam, just demographic facts.

    That said, Santorum is not a cross-over, or does not appear to be one. He went beyond just voting for the growth of government (and the tax and debt increases that went along with it) .. he was one of the cheerleaders!

    The term RINO is utterly useless here, by the way, as McCain is a decent example of a defense-conservative, even though he’s an idiot on fiscal issues, weak on immigration, and “merely” adequate on social issues. All of that makes him less than a three legged stool of conservatism, but not less than a Republican.

    Or .. are you arguing that to be a Republican, one must first be a Conservative? There’d be a lot of surprised folks in various collar counties, if that’s the case.

    Mew

  • bonnman

    which means he pledged to support a federal marriage amendment and defend DOMA but I’m concerned he won’t be able to lead the effort successfully particularly with republicans that share your perspective who won’t support him on these issues.

    This is an incredibly important issue to voters and I would imagine important to Newt, since he signed the pledge.

  • acat

    Santorum’s record is of raising taxes and increasing government overreach. (not to mention taking union dollars)

    DeMint’s record on fiscal issues is significantly different.

    As I pointed out to you above, DeMint is a social conservative who is also solid on fiscal issues. Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels are fiscal conservatives who are also solid on social issues.

    Rick Santorum is a social conservative. Raise taxes? He voted aye. Push the Federal nose further into the tent? He voted aye.

    Do not try to play Santorum up as being “like DeMint”, it’s simply – and provably – false.

    Mew

  • Xasteius

    Although some of us on the inside of glass bowl get the point.

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

    Religious Right leaders into the desert. Forty years sounds about right.

    And, if the exit polls in South Carolina are any indication, religious folk and tea party folk really don’t give a damn about what their “leaders” think. Gingrich overwhelmingly carried both groups. He also carried women. All by large margins.

  • acat

    This is an incredibly important issue to voters and I would imagine important to Newt, since he signed the pledge.

    First, no this is not an “incredibly important issue”. It is a social issue, one that the Federal government shouldn’t be involved in. Further its’ main use is to rile up both the anti-religious/anti-discrimination type liberals and the anti-gay SIVV conservatives and get them to go vote .. knowing that while they’re at the polls, they’ll vote on other issues… in a predictable way.

    As for Newt of the open marriage, I just don’t see where this is “important” to him .. in a “something he will work hard to do” way .. although it is quite “important” in not pissing off the SIVV types before he’s got the nomination nailed down.

    In short, you’re getting taken for a ride. Hope you like the scenery.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    Newt’s baseless attacks on Bain are simply unwarranted from a conservative perspective.

  • aesthete

    In addition, Jim DeMint has a record of both 1) being a consistent supporter of small, Constitutional government, 2) supporting bills and measures that further this goal, and 3) electing Republicans who share these views.

    On #1 and #2, Santorum is just a mess. When he was in office, he went along with party leadership on pretty much everything but immigration and some pointless social issues. When called out on it, he always made sure to have some fig leaf pretext, like the “free market reforms” in Medicare Pt D (largest entitlement expansion since Great Society), or rhetorical support by Bush for school choice in NCLB (which did not materialize in the bill itself). His statements on Constitutional jurisprudence come from the same place that leftist jurisprudence does, and his concept of liberty is not in the Goldwater-Reagan vein of individual liberty. While there is evidence that he’s willing to go along with Republican leadership on entitlements, there was little initiative on his part to change the system, and in some cases he preferred expansion (some statements about expanding Medicaid; aforementioned support of Medicare Pt D). Jim DeMint voted for much less of these abominations, and was willing to stick a thumb in the eye of party leadership to prevent some of the really terrible stuff that went down the pike. (This is besides the bills which both men have sponsored rhetorically and sponsored/wrote in the Senate, where the difference is even more stark.)

    On #3, I have one word for you: Specter. Support of Hoffman isn’t worth much, since we have no idea how he’d do in office as he wasn’t elected — especially considering that last I checked, he’s running third party against an actual conservative in the same district.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    Constitutional amendments need a national consensus by design – and clearly there is no national consensus on gay marriage. As usual, social conservatives have been unable to counter the “equality” argument of liberals with a competitive moral principle.

    But the seeds for gay marriage go well back, even before the Stonewall riots. I don’t discern any social movement emerging to change the trend lines.

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

    I’m fine with sending some DoJ flunky off to defend DOMA, but a CA is just beyond stupidity. Look at the numbers and tell me how you get 2/3 of the House and Senate to sign off and then get 38 states to approve it.

    Thirteen states say “hell no” and you’ve got zip but wasted time. Count ‘em up. CA, OR, WA, NV, ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD. And that’s just the coasts, didn’t even count places like MN, WI, MI, MO. Plus probably eight or ten more.

    Won’t happen. And in the process of chasing the stupidity, we lose political capital and legislative time to actually focus on what IS the real problem that we are facing, fiscal bankruptcy. There is nothing else that is important. Nothing.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    …taking care of Jethro’s sheep cleared Moses’ mind and gained him maturity.

    Or were you referring to the Exodus? But that was the fault of the followers. What we have here is a failure of those who fancy themselves leaders.

  • WA_Cowboy

    A. a federal marriage amendment has little chance of becoming law. 2/3s of congress hard enough, let alone 3/4 of the states.

    B. Even if it could be passed, I have my doubts whether such a law — at a federal level — will actually change and improve people’s attitudes toward marriage. Passing a constitutional amendment defending traditional marriage isn’t going to stop people from committing acts of homosexuality. If anything striving to pass such a law — while it might defend the civil definition of marriage as 1 man + 1 woman — could very well end up hardening the hearts and attitudes of those who oppose it. I love marriage. It is the foundation of a stable society. But it can’t be forced.

    C. Passing a law, i feel, is a symptom of the “let someone else handle it” mantra that infects our society. We’re all for the good things – helping the poor, protecting the widow, improving roads and highways, etc, until it means that my taxes go up. It’s okay if someone else’s does though. If we pass a defense of marriage amendment, many will think that they did something great for marriage, while their own continue to crumble. we want to strenghten marriage, but we don’t really want to strengthen our own marriages. Passing a law might make us feel better, but what is it going to change? That’s why each individual must seek to make a difference first in his own family, then among his friends and community. That’s the only way these attitudes are going to change.

  • Xasteius

    And considering the Christian divorce rate is similar to the secular rate, Christians have zero room to talk.

  • aesthete

    though I’d add JFK as another one with a much discussed sex life during his term.

    It’s also worth noting that abortion was legalized under the tenure of an Evangelical President by SC Justices picked by Presidents who were all publicly-professing Christians with great “family values”.

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

    I picked forty just because I like the idea of Pantaloons and the Texas two hundred wandering around in the desert with no access to TV reporters or newspaper folk for forty. Going one on one with gila monsters for dinner. Ohhh. I feel a tingle running down my leg…

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

    sadly, nt

  • acat

    For social conservative issues to win in Illinois means uniting the farmers (downstate) with the suburbanites (suburbia) against the urban-liberals (Chicago)… and being blunt, social issues just don’t do it.

    Start talking dollars, on the other paw, and it works just fine. Farmers and suburbanites can all agree on pocketbook issues…

    Something to keep in mind about those Tea Parties. While the attendees may have held predominantly social-conservative views, they didn’t get “off the couch” for social-conservative “issues” before the Tea Parties ….

    The big question of 2012, to this cat, is if (not when) someone – anyone – will manage to reach out and get them back off the couch.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    You expressed both the Burkean and voluntaryist arguments against a Constitutional Amendment for this issue perfectly.

    BTW, the quote in your sig is from Milton Friedman. Just thought you might want to know.

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

    In addition, the biggest flouters of “marriage” are people who “live in a relationship”. Lots more heterosexual couples shacked up than those of the homosexual variety.

    Again, I’ll get back to my tonite’s bloggyhorse, the cause of the problem with marriage is not the rise of the “gay rights” movement, it’s the abdication of it’s responsibilities to it’s members by the church. All denominations. Starting in 50s, and I picked the 50s because that’s as far back as I can remember, “church” began it’s transition from the teacher and arbiter of morality to a social institution that “ministered” to people. The cat’s long out of the bag.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    …the seduction of respectability coupled with Marxism in drag (c.f. Sojourners, Jim Wallis).

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

    Episcopalians, Presbyterians, the Catholic Bishops. And then there’s the evangelical movement who, for the sake of independence, decline to be formally affiliated with anybody. The church has turned away from building hospitals and feeding the hungry to lobbying the government and building social programs that attract lonely people who they are afraid to chase off with a real presentation of the Gospel.

    [stepping off soap box]

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth
  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    And not all Episcopalians, etc. However, the denominational structures are rife with secular crap that I suspect Jesus would be a tad upset over.

  • bonnman

    and you don’t seem to support that and thats fine. But 29 states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman while an additional 12 states have laws defining marriage as one man and one woman.

    http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/marriage_prohibitions_2009%281%29.pdf

    Just Constitutional Amendments over time
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marriage_amendment_animation.gif

    You can do the math. CA didn’t say “hell no” CA did the exact opposite and actually had a voter passed amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, proposition 8, its currently being challenged in the courts with activists judges trying to overturn the clear will of the voters. NV and OR also have amendments. So I don’t know where you get your information from but its completely wrong.

    The clear majority of the country and the states agree on a one man and one woman definition of marriage because they understand the obvious importance to our society. The problem is republican support, too many capitulate to the left and their activist judges by dismissing it as politically sensitive.

  • JSobieski

    State amendments are voted on directly by the people through ballot initiatives.

    US amendments will go through DC.

    Big difference.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    He’s trying to argue that 41 states would approve DOMA if it got to them. Greate example of fallacious extrapolation

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

    turkey gets introduced in the Congress. You’re living in a dream world. And you’re also not bright enough to understand that this “issue” is so far down on the priority list it wouldn’t get introduced if there was a chance it could pass.

    You obviously lead a very blissful life.

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

    legislatures who vote on Amendments, it’s not a direct vote.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    1) Before you try to round up 38 states, you first need to get DOMA approved by 67 Senators, and 290 Representatives.

    2) The President has no role in passing or ratifying Constitutional amendments.

    2) Failure to change existing law does not translate to support for a new law. Inertia is a major political fact of life.

    But it doesn’t really matter, if the culture makes a 180-degree turn such that you get your 2/3rds in Congress, then the states will be a snap. Until then, make your case for DOMA, but don’t expect candidates to make it a campaign issue. Especially, as mbecker and others in this thread have noted, since much of the undermining of marriage has arisen within the church and the heterosexual majority.

    But don’t be afraid to stand up for marriage as being between a man and a woman – I’m not arguing against that position. Just trying to indicate why DOMA not going to be an issue in the 2012 Presidential campaign.

  • davesinsanantonio

    Romney will NOT be stopped. It is Newt or naught!!!

  • napensnake

    Romney and Santorum are nice guys. Unfortunately, they will be going up against a street fighter in the election. It will be “Full Chicago” and I have seen nothing from Mitt and Rick that would indicate that they have the stomach for the fight. Newt will give better than he gets. He is a street fighter who has more cranial capacity than the Community Organizer of the United States (COOTUS). During the Civil War, people complained about U.S. Grant’s drinking problem claiming it to be a moral failing. Lincoln’s response, “I can’t spare this man, he fights.” If the Republican wins the general election, the next four years will be a liberal full-court press from the left portion of both houses of Congress, the media, and all of the lefty special interests like unions, environmentalists, etc. A Republican president who lacks stones will be crushed.

    NOTE: Ron Paul has stones but, if Gingrich were to be compared to U.S. Grant, Paul would have to be Sherman. Mentally ill purveyor of slash and burn warfare. We still need a country when the election ends.

  • davesinsanantonio

    voters outside SC in an SC poll!!! So what. And, do you expect ANY GOP candidate to win Obummer-voter women??? Really????!!!!

  • davesinsanantonio

    bedroom issues, probably more.

    If fact, calling them “flaky women” will probably cause them to vote against whatever you are supporting just for spite!

  • davesinsanantonio

    play wiffle ball with Obama. They don’t want anyone to “battle” Obama. That is why they don’t “battle” him now. They would rather golf with him than battle him, and more shame on them because of it!!!

  • snappy101

    “I can confirm tonight from multiple sources that phone calls are in fact occurring between Republicans in Washington and among evangelical leaders to raise money for Rick Santorum rapidly.”

    The non-evangelical DC unholy part of this partnership is still just trying to get Romney elected by making sure Santorum stays in the race to split the vote with Gingrich.

    This is how I see it. We have a choice between the big flip flopper with no convictions, the inside the beltway big talker with no character or executive experience, the big government guy also with no executive experience and the big isolationist drug legalizer also with no executive experience. Just great!

  • davesinsanantonio

    Romney or Santorum then you are a traitorous fool!!! Obummer’s goal is to destroy the U. S. as we know it, and substitute a socialist dictatorship. So, if you vote for him you deserve what you get!!!

  • davesinsanantonio

    has actually voted!!! Stop with the “my prediction must come to pass so lets all vote my way” nonsense!!! Sheesh!!!

  • gouchrcouch

    I agree with that, I don’t care about his lovelife! I would call him a SPORTSMAN!!

  • WillWong

    This is how I see it. We have a choice between the big flip flopper with no convictions, the inside the beltway big talker with no character or executive experience, the big government guy also with no executive experience and the big isolationist drug legalizer also with no executive experience. Just great!

    Back in his heyday….people also said this about Reagan…..just a Hollywood B grade actor!

    Point is if all you see are the negatives, there is really no hope in your eyes no matter who. How about noting Newt’s ability to think on his feet rather than being a big talker? How about his ability to balance budgets four years in a row? How about his record of helping create millions of jobs rather than having no executive experience?

    If the objective is to replace O, thatbis what we must do and to do it energetically!

  • davesinsanantonio

    saw his as a man with eight years of executive experience, and a pretty good record during those years. So, stop with the silly comparisons, they just don’t fly.

  • repugnicant

    What were you expecting… complexly mind boggling? We need real ideas not Newt’s red meat flame throwing which is nothing more than a distraction from his record of being a nasty misanthrope who slept with other women while he was married. In addition, he started the dysfunctional partisanship of our current congress when he assembled the pitchfork toting twits who brought down Jim Wright. Vote for Willard It is our only chance to beat the Big O.

  • bsoderling1

    If Evangelicals had backed Perry in Iowa and before South Carolina, he would have surged. Santorum was in low single digits before they endorsed him. Gov. Perry was the only candidate with a plan and a record to back it up. Too bad!!

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

    And Thar she Blows!

  • fightinmad

    I am always interested in the comments that come when folks are trying to equate morality as a necessity for leadership. Oft-times when we study history we find that leaders do not always carry the medals of great morality ( in reference to marriage). Sometimes the best leaders come from a life that has been hard and unrewarding and full of mistakes. After all, today most of us have learned from the school of hard knocks. We want to not consider religion when it comes to Mitt because many do not accept Mormonism as anything other than a cult. So we ignore Mitt’s religion. Then on the other hand we talk about Newt’s morality as a dis-qualifier because of our Christian principles. Let’s review Biblical history. David was Israel’s best King and he is a prerequisite of the coming King of Kings, who by the way will be the only perfect, pure, moral and absolute King. Yet David was a miserable failure when it came to marriage and righteousness. He still is considered by most to have been a great leader.

    Solomon too is consider to be a brilliant and great leader of Israel in his kingdom. But alas, he had 300 wives and 700 concubines! Not a great record but still a great leader.

    Now we come to our choices in this election. My choice will be anyone but who the Republican insiders try to cram down our throats. I watched Christie and Pam Coulter on Fox and saw what the plan is. Destroy Newt and force us to pick Mitt. Whether it be McCain, Dole, or Mitt, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Since I have to choose, and since Rick Santorum doesn’t have the fire that is seen, I must go with Newt.

    Probably if I were thinking real clear I would pull the pin for Obama and hurry up the rapture, but I cannot even imagine doing some that wicked just to speed up my own exit from this miserable world.

  • fightinmad

    Now let us not commit a greater sin by judging others and forgetting what the battle is. It is for us to get America back to what she is suppose to be, One Nation Under God! Contrary to what Pam said Sunday, we need a fighter, a bulldog as an earlier replier stated.

    I have a Boston Terry who looks like a bull dog in a tuxedo. When she clamps down she shakes her head and neck until she throws the stuffin’s out of the object she attacks. That is exactly what we need today. Someone who we bite down and throw all the obvious faults of Obama out clearly so the entire country sees it and rises up against it. What is it? Communism! We have fought battles for years against communism and beliive you me Americans are not ready now, nor shall we ever be ready to become slaves to that crowd. What did Patric say? Give me liberty or give me death!

  • eldstenorge

    Say what you may, but if Gingrich is according to your principles, you are not a Republican, nor are you conservative. He is a progressive, stands with Nancy Pelosi, criticizes Paul Ryan and a plan which was good but not good enough yet, calls it “right wing social engineering,” disses free enterprise to gain some votes, destroying the foundations of the Republican Party, criticizes Romney for weeks about his taxes, while he himself did not release his until an hour before the last debate in South Carolina, Gingrich also wanting Romney to release years of taxes, while he releases just one year, and, no matter what anyone says, if a person is untrustworthy in the most basic relationship in life, that of the family, they are not trustworthy in anything else, and like the evagelicals are saying, which Erick seems to want to attack now as well, even though he is one of them,, we cannot use the basic Republican issue of family and morality if Gingrich is the candidate. And, all of you can talk about forgiveness all you want, but when we look at the candidates left in the race, we have one candidate who has been unsteady on basic issues of family and God. We have 4 candidates who have been steady on those issues, including Barack Obama. John Adams gave us the basic foundations of our Constitutional Republic when he said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” This means, my friends, that our Constitution will not work if we are not a moral and religious people, and we are not, and not only that, but by supporting someone like Gingrich, we are throwing it right in the foundations of America and of our Savior. We can forgive him, and we all should do that, but why on earth would anyone support someone who is not conservative and who has been unsteady over any of the others in this race, including Obama? I would never vote for Obama, but we have to give him the basic, that he has a good family. And, we are told, over and over by the analysts of the 2008 election that Obama won not so much for who he is or what he stands for, but because people did not like Bush and many Republicans did not support McCain. It will be the same way this time. I have voted Republican all of my 63 years, but I will even change my party registration if Gingrich in nominated, as I do not want to be associated with him or what he stands for. He stands for destroying success, those who work for a living in the private sector, something he knows nothing about. He criticizes our conservatives as “right wing social engineers, etc., etc. And, there is a commandment which says: “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” That is exactly what he has done with the tax issue and his criticism of Romney, in that he wanted them release and had not even done so himself, and now wants numerous years released while he only wants to release one year. Can you say “HYPOCRITE.” I still do ,and will continue to support Rick Santorum, but in attacking Romney it must be done honestly, and Gingrich has not been honest in it. Stand up with good people like James Dobson and Michael W. Smith, support Rick Santorum.

  • WillWong

    Some see Newt as a big talker….others see him as a budget balancer!
    Some see him as without executive experience….others see him as the architect of the first takeover of the House in 40 years!

    Point is we can only play the hand we are dealt with…..Do we just whine over it or do we do the best with the hand we got? Take your pick!

  • Lesstressrx

    You are right. They had a chance to support the only Constitutional Fiscal Social Conservative, Rick Perry. They chose to put their votes behind a social conservative and put jobs on the back burner. I wouldn’t help them now for anything. Personally I think they are a joke.
    I would be very happy if Newt would come out and support Perry for V P

  • Lesstressrx

    I have been hearing that the establishment wants to keep Sanatorum in to hurt Newt. Therefore, seeing that he has some money. They will not give up on having Mittens as our candidate. Has anyone else heard this?

  • Bill S

    This one was dumb enough to use a username that just screamed “I’M HERE TO BE A %&@# DISTURBER!”

  • darthvader

    I agree with some of the comments in this post. Exactly , where were the evangelicals on Immigration , Union strong arms tactics , or for that matter the 15 trillion debt, the unsustainable growth of Medicare, the growth of Medicaid , and finally the possible dismantling of our military.

    The Evangelicals all seem to coalesce around abortion. This election is about the Economy stupid. This election is about removing a left wing , redistributionist, Entitlement state advocate from office. It has absolutely nothing to do with the right of a woman to choose. That is why I would stay home if Santorum received the GOP nomination. I am sick and tired of abortion becoming center stage when this country is on the verge of becoming a 3rd world nation.

    Besides, I live in PA , and Santorum was beaten badly by Bob Casey , who Incidentally is also Pro-life. Santorum would probably not carry
    Pa in a general election , even with Corbett as governor.

    So for me, it is either Mitt of Newt.

  • bonnman

    I’m stating that 41 states have already shown that they want to define marriage as between one man and one woman and are willing to codify it into law. This was a response to mbecker908′s inaccurate claim about several states’ positions and the lack of a clear national consensus.

  • Lesstressrx

    Santorum is talking about social issues because he is big government. Not a fiscal conservative. Voted to raise the debt ceiling time and time again. Do some research. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69_jTexx2Kk&feature=youtu.be&utm_source=The+Perry+Almanac&utm_campaign=d4c91b9b9c-Email_19_15_2011&utm_medium=email

  • Lesstressrx

    You are right Rush is talking about this today.

  • Lesstressrx

    What a delicious way to explain Santorum. Love it.

  • carolynr

    We’ve got a mess. I received this in an e-mail. This is what the insiders have done to our country. Oh…if Perry were …well, that’s over. Of course they want Santorum…he gives them goodies. Romney will do the same thing. Let’s PRAY Gingrich gives us the solution.

    Debt Summary:
    The Best Summary Ever
    Why the U.S.was downgraded:
    ? U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
    ? Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
    ? New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
    ? National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
    ? Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000
    Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:
    ? Annual family income: $21,700
    ? Money the family spent: $38,200
    ? New debt on the credit card: $16,500
    ? Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
    ? Total budget cuts: $385
    Got it?

    OK now Lesson # 2:
    Here’s another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:
    Let’s say, You come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood….and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.
    What do you think you should do?
    1. Raise the Ceilings, or
    2. Pump out the sewage

  • carolynr

    nt

  • carolynr

    I know you and your stance from Politico. Of course you want Romney…Our Marxist in Chief can beat him in a debate. If Governor Perry (whom you have called a dufus) can get Romney rattled…what about a thug from Chicago.

  • carolynr

    I have Direct TV…and tonight’s debate still shows Fear Factor and some other thing. I called them and asked…how come you are not up to date. They couldn’t explain it…but because there have been some really under handed things going on in this campaign and maybe I just want to start a conspiracy theory…here goes:

    Who Does Obama Want To Run Against? Romney. Romney does not know how to handle thuggery. It would be in the best interests of Obama if NBC did not release it’s new schedule BECAUSE..people would not see Romney humiliated again. Some of those early voters in FL voted for Romney because of the supposed two wins in NH and Iowa and before the SC debate. After Gingrich pulverized CNN and ABC…they changed their minds. Finally someone with fire in their belly…finally someone talked back to these people…that “we the people” have NO CONTROL OVER. So..the less people that watch the debate…better it is for Romney. Gingrich will continue on and NBC will not be as bold as ABC/CNN on the national stage because of their corporate ego getting damaged by Gingrich’s retorts to them.
    or
    This could be WILLARD’S way of trying to stop the bleeding by pulling this stunt that he did not know whether he was going to debate or not…leaving the networks wondering what was happening and therefore could not get the info out on time.

    Either way….if it is not publicized…lot’s of people won’t watch and that benefits Romney…and if my first argument is correct…Obama.

  • Nevile

    The real issue is control. The Republican establishment is quite comfortable with our Manchurian President being re-elected, as long as they can achieve control of both houses.

    To this end they will fund Santorum, who has demonstrated that he is too dumb (or too narcissistic) to realize when he is being manipulated and set up as a stalking horse who will conveniently be discarded once their goal of stopping Gingrich is achieved. If they can then somehow elect Romney, well and good, but if they cant, they wont lose any sleep over it as long as they can achieve control of the senate.

    Gingrich is an old veteran of this war against the Republican establishment. He lost his previous engagement against them and they ran him out of town. They are not about to let him back in without a fight if they can help it. They fear a Gingrich presidency even more than they fear Obama’s re-election because they would then become accountable for their actions.

    It is no accident that balanced budgets ceased to be a reality with Gingrich’s departure from office. If the Republican grass roots are ever to wrest control from these RINOs, we need to unite behind Gingrich.

  • JSobieski

    And then you think the California legislature would vote in favor of the amendment?

    LOL

    Your “logic” is based on the assumption that elected D officials would vote in a manner consistent with a referendom.

    There is NO evidence in support of your logic, and there is an abundance of evidence to the contrary.

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

    I noted that would likely support such an amendment. Original list:

    CA, OR, WA, NV, ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD. And that?s just the coasts, didn?t even count places like MN, WI, MI, MO.

    And, to this list you can add IL.

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

    Democratic Members of the House and Democratic Senators who would support the Amendment. Or “might” support it.

  • jatx

    not easy since Perry left the race.

  • ethos

    The GOP establishment wants another four years of Obama so they can play golf with him?

  • krish

    That will be funny since many of them think Mormon faith is a cult! If Santorum splits the vote & Romney wins..of course, Obama will beat him handily …we know who we should thank for Obama’s relection..may be Evangelicals can have a eulogy for the country after the election!

  • bobbie227

    I have some real concerns about Conservatives backing Romney or Newt, or Paul for that matter. We “screwed” ourselves in 2008 and have a chance to make it right this year. Yet, we are either talking about a Moderate (at best) in Romney, a very long-time Washington Newt, who likes FDR- the New Deal, Big Govt. Pres.) and then Ron Paul, who would have us all killed by Iran, with his foreign policy!

    Then, we have Rick Santorum. Some say he is only a Social Conservative, but I don’t believe that. I have really listened to him in the debates. He has had some very good things to say about foreign policy, the economy, the deficit and Obamacare. He was AGAINST the bailouts, AGAINST Obamacare and he has a thorough PLAN to fix the economy. Does this sound like “just a Social Conservative” to you? Rush Limbaugh said just yesterday that Santorum is the “REAL DEAL”. He said he liked him a lot!! I agree with Rush. Santorum is the ONLY TRUE CONSERVATIVE of the four in the field! Why is he NOT getting the attention of all the folks that say they are Truly Conservative? Do folks think he can’t beat Obama in a debate? Of course he could! Obama has NOTHING to brag about.

    We took care of the House in 2010 by placing True Conservatives and winning the House for Republicans. We truly NEED to WIN the Senate in 2012. We are making a BIG mistake if we do NOT stick to our principles by electing a True Conservative. We KNOW Romney is at best a Moderate – we do not need that at this time! We DO NOT KNOW when Newt will IMPLODE again and we CANNOT afford for him to do that in the White House. I don’t even need to mention Paul here. Santorum, so far, has acted with respect, humility and decency AND COMMON SENSE!

    I just don’t buy the “electibility” issue. Anyone is “electible” IF WE BAN TOGETHER and ELECT THEM!! Take a look at 2010. We were angry then and we need to be angrier NOW! We are DOOMED with another four years of Obama, although I do not think that is possible. We cannot afford to mess this one up.

    So, let’s get back to good old Common Sense and truly LISTEN to the nominees in the field. PLEASE Re-think Santorum.

    I welcome anyone’s comments.

  • lineholder

    I’m a So-Con (although I tend to look more at broad spectrum issues rather than single issues) and even I have to admit that if Santorum were to win the election, the left would turn this into a battle royal about his desire to implement stringent socially Conservative policies. It would fire up the base on the left and quite possibly many Independents as well in opposition to Santorum’s policy positions.

    And in the past, Santorum has displayed a tendency to go overboard in usage of federal/state funding as a mechanism to support the socially Conservative positions he favors. Justifiable or not, we can’t afford it right now. With that in mind, he’s going to have a hard time appealing to those who are fiscally Conservative.

  • bobbie227

    Please take a look at Santorum’s facebook page and see what he says. He won the debate the other night. He’s not just socially conservative. I just can’t believe that any Conservative would let the MSM, Rino’s and Establishment Republicans dictate to We the People whom the nominee is going to be. Romney, Gingrich and Paul are downright dangerous!! After this last 3+ years, we are going to settle??? Just look at what we did in ’10!! Still need help here on this subject.

  • Common_Cents

    The ‘anti Romney’ references has disappeared from media. They do not want consolidation to Newt.

    That is precisely what needs to happen now. romney winning FL will make it nearly impossible for anyone to challenge him.

    Santorum needs to get out now and support Gingrich.

    Perry saw the big picture and did it graciously. It’s Ricks turn.

  • texastaxpayer

    Didn’t we try a senator with zero executive experience already last time? Haven’t had enough of on the job training yet?

  • Tbone

    The guy is an Empty Suit.

  • texastaxpayer

    Hate it than I do that…. Thumb typing still sucks.

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

    can “run” an economy. We are for free markets and what we need the President to do with Congress is get government out of being in charge of the economy. Santorum could do that. A monkey could do that if he were a conservative.

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

    dry with chamois

  • izoneguy

    Like Obama has

  • David123

    We nominate Santorum, and Obama tries to make this election about social conservatism, Obama is TOAST!

    First, Rick Santorum hammers Obama on Obamacare AND how it was passed, and charges Obama with trying to change the subject to social conservatism to just ignore Obamacare and all his other failures. Obama has no winning vision for America, just scare tactics and failures. The way to reduce unemployment for most Americans is to unemploy Barrack Obama.

    Second, Rick Santorum defends marriage, passionately, – most Americans know that marriage is one man + one woman. Then Santorum points out that Obama is also on record as supporting traditional marriage – so what’s Obama’s problem with Rick defending it as well. Santorum finishes Obama off by pointing out Obama’s sloppy defense of the “Defense of Marriage Act” – Obama is talking out both sides of his mouth on marriage, and Obama’s ACTIONS will likely result in some unelected radical activist judge being able to redefine marriage in all 50 states against the wishes of the voters.

    Third, Rick Santorum defends innocent life, and he points out Obama’s extreme pro-abortion record, including repeatedly voting against laws to provide medical care to infants born in the process of abortions.

    Rick Santorum has repeatedly won elections in the key swing state of Pennsylvania. The one election he lost was to a Democrat who at least portrayed himself as being pro-life, largely taking the life issue off the table. Rick Santorum has NEVER lost an election to a pro-abortion opponent. And Barrack Obama has NEVER won an election against a solid candidate who campaigned energetically against him.

  • texastaxpayer

    But the facts don’t quite match the rhetoric do they? A president sets the agenda for budgeting, tax policies, entitlement and aid spending. Their appointees run every alphabet soup agency there is and literally regulate every aspect of our economy right down to the amount of air a delivery truck must have in its tires. Further when government decides which companies succeed and fail (GM). The size of the companies that will be able to compete (dodd frank). Which competing technologies will succeed
    (Solar and wind versus coal). When tax payers must cover a privileged entities losses (AIG) only a complete fool would call that a free market. Keeping in mind that santorum is anti-right to work and has expressed support for subsidies already as well as industry favoring tax policies. So before you give your patented “this is why you need to get rid of Obama spill” Santorum has already demonstrated the desire for a hands on strategy to our economy. So save the capitalists manifesto routine for someone who buys it.

  • romansdaughter

  • texastaxpayer

    Obamas is going to loose this election on performance period. The social platform isn’t going to get the middle to vote.

  • izoneguy

    N/T

  • rogershru2

    nt

  • acat

    You’ll understand if I decline to hold my breath.

    Mew

  • acat

    Still not holding my breath.

    Social issues matter in the GOP primary. They don’t matter in the general.

    Mew

  • texastaxpayer

    :(

  • David123

    As I said in my first paragraph, Rick Santorum should hammer Obama continuously on Obamacare and the rest of his failed policies and accuse Obama of bringing up social issues just to run from his miserable record. Then he should hammer Obama on the social issues as well – especially for voting to deny medical care to infants.

    In the debate Thursday, Rick Santorum stated that Obamacare is a key issue that we have to use in the general election. He has been hitting Romney on Romneycare and he’ll hit Obama on Obamacare.

    Social issues did matter in the 2004 general election; there was an Ohio ballot issue on preserving traditional marriage. This increased SOCON turnout in Ohio, and helped Bush carry the state which was important for his re-election.

    The left can attack any of our candidates on being against a “woman’s right to choose.” That’s about all they can attack Santorum with. With Romney, they’ll probably primarily attack him for being a so-called “vulture capitalist 1-percenter.” With Gingrich, they’ll probably attack him for affairs, which would be nervy considering how the left defended Clinton’s affairs – but I wouldn’t bet my life on leftists not being hypocrites. However, if the left wants to, they can attack Gingrich and Romney for being “against a woman’s right to choose” as well.

  • acat

    The left can attack any of our candidates on being against a ?woman?s right to choose.? That?s about all they can attack Santorum with.

    Seriously?

    What about using Santorum’s yes votes for every big-government program to point out that he’s really Obama-lite?

    What about using Santorum’s union backing to, again, point out that he’s Obama-lite?

    C’mon, David123. Get serious.

    Mew

    p.s. in 2004, Bush had Ohio in the bag without the marriage thing.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    The gay marriage activists saw this years ago:
    Their plan was to get gay marriage in one state, then sue in other states using full faith and creit to create nationwide gay marriage. Gay marriage is NOT popular, contrary to the pollaganda otherwise, unpopular enough that 40+ states now forbid it in their constitutions.

    You would surely agree with me that, whether or not we like Federal Marriage Amendment, its chance of becoming part of the constitution is close to nil.

    DOMA is the one law that, in accordance with the 10th amendment, preserves the states’ ability to define and defend traditional marriage.
    DOMA is the only things stopping it. So if DOMA falls, nationwide gay marriage happens.

    “As to why Obama hasn?t come out in support of gay marriage, I?d imagine it?s because his campaign team is smarter than the evangelicals in Erick?s post, and they realize that culture war nonsense”
    - smart yes, but the culture war is being waged AS WE SPEAK by the Obama/Holder dept of Justice, by undermining DOMA and attacking religious institutions and other institutions that hold out on traditional values wrt abortion, marriage , etc.

    If you don’t understand this leftwing Alinskyite practice of pushing an agenda covertly without admitting your real position, I’ll put you in the ‘just dont get it’ category, this has been how gay marriage and other leftwing agenda items has been pushed for years. you are the kind of opponents the left just loves to have.

    And PS, these are ‘issues’ if people vote based on them, and people do, about 20-25% of voters are ‘values voters’.
    It has an election impact.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Certanly after last debate, where Santorum took Romney to the woodshed effectively on Romneycare, we should lay to rest any hint of him carrying water. Santorum beat Romney in Iowa and wants to beat him elsewhere.

    The evangelical pastors endorsed after Iowa, when it was clear that Perry, who came in 3rd in the ‘conservative’ playoffs to Gingrich and Santorum, was not going anywhere. Santorum ran strongest and has a strong conservative and social conservative background. Given Newt’s ‘baggage’ and personal history, they were left with one remaining real prolife conservative; the Santorum endorsement is a natural one.

    But I think it’s had limited impact and influence.

    Although you have a lot of powers-that-be trying to have influence, nobody is shoving anyone “down your throat”. You have full command of what you swallow, and you should just figure who you think would make the best president and work from there.

    “I voted for Newt warts and all.”
    See? You DID make your own decision. Good luck.

  • David123

    YOU can criticize Santorum for not being as strong as you’d like on Right-to-Work. There is no way that Obama can criticize Santorum for being insufficiently pro-right-to-work.

    YOU can criticize Santorum for voting for more government spending than you’d like. NO WAY Obama can criticize Santorum for spending too much. Compared to Obama, Santorum and Bush are both outstanding fiscons.

    http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/who-spent-more-average-bush-vs-average-obama-spending-per-day-proves-obama-most-reckless-and-irresponsible-ever/

  • acat

    I’m not sure why the religious right have chosen to follow the 1960s radical left model, but it’s to their peril.

    Fighting social battles by “making a federal case out of it” is choosing the worst possible ground, a narrow and well-defended place, for a broad, grass-roots movement to try to achieve victory.

    Santorum has no chance in the general, his loss in Pennsylvania should instruct you here – it’s a very socially conservative State outside the cities – and the percentage voting for Santorum in the rural districts dropped significantly.

    Mew

  • acat

    Maybe they can get a refund or file a lemon law claim …

    Mew

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Ronald Reagan endorsed pro-choice Millicent Fenwick when he was president. And many others. So Reagan was not a conservative then?

    What Santorum got out of endorsing Spectre was a promise to shepherd Bush’s SCOTUS picks through the senate and Arlen did that. Arlen of course bolted the GOP when it became clear he would lose to Toomey in 2010.

    Santorum endorsed Toomey in 2010.

  • acat

    those you opposed?

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    Romney’s ads in Iowa weren’t exactly touting his Mass. record or proposed plans for entitlement reform.

    Romney is simply shocked that anyone would respond in kind.

    Without a monetary advantage, it is questionable whether Romney could beat anyone.

  • acat

    You have yet to successfully defend your position.

    Mew

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Yes – the best won battle is the one never fought!

    That’s my point. the Obama/Alinsky ‘politics as a form of war’ are fighting a battle in secret without revealing themselves.

    The left long ago ralized that they cannot win battles by popular vote, so they use the courts to win. The rest of us respect courts too much to fight this, but conservatives have woken up at least to the importance of WHO becomes judges.

    “I?m not sure why the religious right have chosen to follow the 1960s radical left model …” but they havent.
    They have merely woken up to the left’s tactics and are fighting back by making judicial appointments an issue.
    NOTE: Where gay marriage advanced it has almost always required courts to push it, but in the 40+ states it was outlawed it was popular votes that did it.

    “Fighting social battles by ?making a federal case out of it? is…”

    IS WHAT THE LEFT IS DOING. If we have to fight back in kind, so be it.

    “Santorum has no chance in the general, his loss in Pennsylvania should instruct you here” … It’s instructive that Santorum *led* the vote compared with the Gubernatorial candidate and other candidates, despite running against the most popular name in PA in the worst year possible for Rebublicans.

    Santorum lost in 2006 over Iraq, over unpopularity of Bush, and over other issues. not social issues. Another good potnetial president, goerge allen, also lost in 2006. wrt social issues.. frankly, you cant have it both ways “its not an issue in general election’ and “it costs you votes” that’s moderate/RINO irrational wimpyism, not logic. go that route and you end up with a vapid no-content candidate … a Romney if you will. I can cite chapter and verse of where articulate real conservatives like Rick Santorum are more electable than RINO weathervanes like Romney.

  • acat

    He’s a pro-life nanny-statist.

    Santorum hasn’t got a fiscal conservative bone between his ears. He took no action while in office that lends credence to his current fiscal-conservative pontificating. He may have learned to sing the chorus, but he doesn’t seem to grasp the meaning.

    He’s very strong on religious-right issues, no argument, but – and let me be crystal {copulating} clear – social issues are a part of conservatism, but are not the entire. Never were. Never will be.

    Your insistence on trying to sell me a pro-life nanny-statist when what I wanted was an actual conservative (Pawlenty, Barbour, Perry, I was willing to be flexible…) is unacceptable.

    Mew

  • Dave_A

    Or as some commentators have put it, a ‘crunchy’ or ‘crusty’ conservative…

    Eg, a member of the ‘school of thought’ that believes the US was stronger & better in the 50s, and that would like to use the power of government to bring back that entire culture – from religiosity to the composition of our workforce.

    The problem isn’t his views on abortion – I’d say those aren’t a problem. The problem is the rest of the ‘package’ he will invariably end up trying to sell – the use of government to do things such as bring back manual-labor manufacturing, discourage the use of personal credit, penalize outsourcing, and so on… There’s a difference between baseline-legislated morality (the current status-quo on drugs & crime) and using a govt sledgehammer to force Americans into a nostalgic mold….

    Now, I’m no libertarian, and I tent to cringe when I hear conservatives use the term ‘statist’ (reminds me of the paulites & their ‘freedom-movement’ allies) – but I’m no more fond of populists either (which is why I criticized Perry for his Fed-bashing, even while I supported him)….

    Santorum is not the man for the job… Then again neither is Gingrich…

    So we’re stuck with Mitt.