Gingrich: I’m a lot more conservative than Romney — and more electable than anyone else

posted at 11:25 am on November 28, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Newt Gingrich continues to play to the crowd. Apparently well aware that a significant swath of the GOP electorate still seeks “a conservative alternative” to the consistent Mitt Romney and seemingly equally aware that electability is of paramount concern to the establishment, Gingrich recently touted both in an interview with Charleston, S.C., radio station WSC, according to CNN’s Political Ticker.

“There needs to be a solid conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, and I’m the one candidate that can bring together a national security conservative, and economic conservative, and social conservative, to make sure we have a conservative nominee,” said the former House Speaker.

He continued, “I wouldn’t lie to the American people, I wouldn’t switch my position for political reason. It’s perfectly reasonable to change positions if you see new things you didn’t see. Everybody does that; Ronald Reagan did that. If you go around and adopt radically different positions based on need for any one election, people will ask, ‘What will you tell me next time?’” …

“I think anybody who is honest about it says no person is ever perfect,” Gingrich said. “I don’t claim to be the perfect candidate, I just claim to be a lot more conservative than Mitt Romney and a lot more electable than anybody else.”

Again, Gingrich is clearly cognizant of the image he needs to project to retain his preeminence in the polls — and he’s smart to say what he said in this interview. But if the popular perception of the former Speaker of the House as both a genuine conservative and a genuinely electable candidate drove his recent rise, then the reality of his candidacy will determine whether he remains the peak contender for the GOP nomination.

And what is the reality? It’s hard to see that Gingrich actually is more conservative than Romney. In the not-so-distant past, he expressed approval for an individual health care mandate, posed with Nancy Pelosi to oppose global warming and said he would have reluctantly voted for TARP if he had been in office at the time. In the so-recent-as-to-almost-be-the-present past, he outlined an immigration strategy that some critics maintain amounts to a proposal for near-blanket amnesty.

It’s equally difficult to think Gingrich is more electable than Romney. Gingrich arguably fits the typical Republican establishment nominating pattern more perfectly than Romney. He is, to put it bluntly, an old white-haired white guy. That nominating pattern has worked at least as often as it hasn’t, but Tea Party devotees shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking that here at last, in Gingrich, is a new kind of candidate.

Yet, even as I write all of this, I still really like Gingrich — and think he boasts a number of advantages Mitt Romney doesn’t. In the first place, Gingrich has owned up to at least a few of the mistakes of his past, both personal and professional. As he has taken responsibility, he has demonstrated a rare humility that qualifies him for power in a way arrogance never does. Shaped strongly by his study of history (as is impossible not to notice), he approaches policy from a perspective that does — as he claims — seem to combine consideration for the international, economic and social implications of any given decision. Gingrich would make mincemeat of Obama in the debates as not even the polished Romney could — and, if any independents are unfamiliar with him from his tenure as Speaker, they’ll be impressed with his broad policy grasp, just as Republicans have been newly impressed during the primaries. He hasn’t made his career by tricking liberals into voting for him nor by telling liberals they need a guy like him in office. When he reaches across the aisle to achieve reform, it’s to achieve conservative reform. The difference between Romney and Gingrich can, perhaps, best be summarized with a single statement: Mitt Romney’s signature legislative achievement was Romneycare, while Newt Ginrich’s was welfare reform.

To me, the present two-man race between Romney and Gingrich illustrates nothing so much as it illustrates why the entire GOP electorate selects the nominee. We’ll all toss all of the information into either side of the balance — and everybody will give different weight to different bits of information. We just have to hope that the outcome of that process will be the selection of the truly best nominee.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 12:55 PM
Interesting thought process since he was from a military family.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Paraphrasing Robert Heinlein, if a lizard tells you his uncle twice-removed was a tyrannosaurus rex, it might very well be true, but the lizard is still a lizard.

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 1:01 PM

he has demonstrated a rare humility that qualifies him for power in a way arrogance never does. Shaped strongly by his study of history (as is impossible not to notice), he approaches policy from a perspective that does — as he claims — seem to combine consideration for the international, economic and social implications of any given decision. Gingrich would make mincemeat of Obama in the debates as not even the polished Romney could

Tina,
What are you smoking? You need to recall that it was REPUBLICANS that removed Gingrich from his Speakership not Dems. Gingrich has more baggage than Romney ever has…in fact what conservatives are mad about is that Romney changed his mind on a few things to the CONSERVATIVE side!!!!! How about that! I am ticked off that Romney now votes as a conservative AND has not changed since with votes on the record to prove it!

Gingrich WILL NOT poll well outside of a medium sized base core of conservatives and we will endure another 4 years of Obama. Romney will pull in a lot more of the Indies and the base.

Let’s not forget Romney also is the ONLY proven candidate for what ails this country which is what? JOBS JOBS JOBS! So all the social conservatives can whine about Romney is not the “right” religion why they remain jobless OR they can concentrate on a candidate that has proven to get people, States, Olympics, and businesses moving in the right direction. We blew last election by electing McCain instead of Romney when faced with this same dilemma and now we MAY do it again! Unbelievable!

g2825m on November 28, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Ineptocracy – A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
RedLizard64 on November 28, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Thanks. I may borrow that.

rrpjr on November 28, 2011 at 1:03 PM

When’s Esquire gonna do some in-depth reporting on Solyndra, Fast and Furious, BrightSource Energy, the Philly Black Panther voter intimidation thingy, you know, things Obooba is doing now rather than digging up decades old divorce dirt on Republicans, like Obooba has done himself in past elections to get elected?

Akzed on November 28, 2011 at 12:53 PM

I have no idea when Esquire is gonna do some in-depth reporting on Obama.

You mischaracterize the article as digging up old divorce dirt, as I said, you’re attempt and others who dismiss Newt’s lack of morality where family values are concerned will not keep the left and DNC from using it against the GOP. His martial records are not about simple divorce and remarriage.

It’s a big mistake to continue to equate those who vote conservative to those who vote liberal.

Texas Gal on November 28, 2011 at 1:07 PM

g2825m on November 28, 2011 at 1:02 PM

i have no idea what this means

in fact what conservatives are mad about is that Romney changed his mind on a few things to the CONSERVATIVE side!!!!! How about that! I am ticked off that Romney now votes as a conservative AND has not changed since with votes on the record to prove it!

what “votes” are you referring to? romney hasnt been a legislator to vote conservative on anything. his last elected office he showed his lib side and has been backtracking from it since. he talks a good game but after the last debate when he attacked newt on amnesty and the next day his MTP interview from 2007 in favor of amnesty showed up he should be sunk. how can anyone support such a flip flopper?

and jobs?? when has he ever created jobs? what position has he held that he produced anything?

chasdal on November 28, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Interesting thought process since he was from a military family.
Cindy Munford on November 28, 2011 at 12:57 PM

I was about to make that point. Moreover, while I have endless admiration for those who enlist in the military, it is by no means the sole determiner of “patriotism”. I think Newt’s contributions as an historian and Speaker of the House are far more valuable than anything he may have done on the battlefield (and in any case, he does not strike me as having the physique necessary to be a good soldier). We need all sorts of citizens with varied gifts and contributions to succeed as a nation. His gifts clearly lie with his intellect and he has made undeniably worthwhile contributions as a patriotic civilian.

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 1:18 PM

what “votes” are you referring to? romney hasnt been a legislator to vote conservative on anything. his last elected office he showed his lib side and has been backtracking from it since. he talks a good game but after the last debate when he attacked newt on amnesty and the next day his MTP interview from 2007 in favor of amnesty showed up he should be sunk. how can anyone support such a flip flopper?

and jobs?? when has he ever created jobs? what position has he held that he produced anything?

chasdal on November 28, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Chas…sorry, what I meant (which I think you know I did) is he signed legislation that has been conservative on pro-life, gun rights in MA, anti-illegal immigration and tuition, was the FIRST governor in the US to authorize his police to turn over illegals to ICE, and on and on.
As far as jobs created? Are you kidding me? Do you know how many businesses he has helped start up or keep their doors open and running? Staples, Sports Authority, Domino’s to name some of the major companies and hundreds of other smaller businesses.
How about the Olympics? Which Olympics is the ONLY one to make a profit while all others miserably failed? The 2002 Romney-led Olympics DURING the time America had just suffered the attacks of 9/11 and the country was hurting. remember the stock market at that time? Romney KNOWS how to turn America around and we are chasing the new shiny object like a dog on the run!

Your comment about MTP in 2007…I have posted ad nauseum what Romney said in FULL CONTEXT and he has been consistent on that but continue to spread a false statement that fits your flip flop label like everyone else is doing.

g2825m on November 28, 2011 at 1:24 PM

and jobs?? when has he ever created jobs? what position has he held that he produced anything?
chasdal on November 28, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Damn, that’s so ignorant of the biographical facts I thought you were talking about Newt.

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Well, I don’t think a lot of people will be able to “put aside” Newt’s personal baggage. BTW, does Callista impress you as a woman who would be willing to stay in the background? Besides the obvious fact that she’s young enough to be Newt’s daughter, she is thoroughly unlikeable.

While it’s legitimate to debate whether a candidate’s family should influence voters, there’s no doubt that it does. Especially the choice of a wife, which speaks volumes about the husband’s values–or lack thereof.

And you can save that “cast the first stone” admonition–politics is all about “casting stones.”

Too many on the right are making the mistake of thinking that Obama will be easy to beat. For one thing, it’s always difficult to throw out an incumbent. Plus, in this case, we are talking about the first black POTUS, and a guy who is diligently protected and promoted by the MSM.

Nominating Gingrich means four more years of Obama. If that’s okay by you, then go ahead and support Newt. Personally, I don’t think he is worthy of anyone’s support, either as a politician or a human being.

Meredith on November 28, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Tina,
What are you smoking? You need to recall that it was REPUBLICANS that removed Gingrich from his Speakership not Dems.

g2825m on November 28, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Yeah…the WE WANT TO SPEND LIKE THE DEMOCRATS BUT NOT BE CALLED LIBERAL REPUBLICANs…those republicans…who could see that if they didn’t get gingrich out of the way they might experience a smallaer government with more oversight by their constituents…hmmm who the HELL would want that?

RedLizard64 on November 28, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Sigh. OK, I give up: Palin’s not running; Romney sucks; Gingrich sucks; Cain, Perry, Bachmann, and Ron Paul are laughingstocks; and the rest aren’t on anyone’s radar. NO ONE on our side is electable; WHOEVER is nominated will be destroyed by the media and defended by no one; and Obama will win re-election by default, which is how he’s won most of his previous elections anyway.

Happy, y’all?

Aitch748 on November 28, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Yeah…the WE WANT TO SPEND LIKE THE DEMOCRATS BUT NOT BE CALLED LIBERAL REPUBLICANs…those republicans…who could see that if they didn’t get gingrich out of the way they might experience a smallaer government with more oversight by their constituents…hmmm who the HELL would want that?

RedLizard64 on November 28, 2011 at 1:30 PM

I think your recollection of that time period is a little…errrrr…WAY off and why he was removed.

I still like your definition above though…Ineptocracy haha

g2825m on November 28, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Sigh. OK, I give up: Palin’s not running; Romney sucks; Gingrich sucks; Cain, Perry, Bachmann, and Ron Paul are laughingstocks; and the rest aren’t on anyone’s radar. NO ONE on our side is electable; WHOEVER is nominated will be destroyed by the media and defended by no one; and Obama will win re-election by default, which is how he’s won most of his previous elections anyway.

Happy, y’all?

Aitch748 on November 28, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Romney was electable last time but we are allowing the Iowans and others like the McCain-Huckabee WV Two-Step take Romney out last time and I guarantee that we would not be in this situation today had Romney been elected last time for the nomination.

But we are going to again nominate someone that will NOT beat Obama in Gingrich.

As I have stated previously:
I would just think that if I am “hiring” an employee (POTUS) for my company (USA) for a specific need my company requires (fix economy) I would look at every applicants resume and see which had the MOST experience to fill my specific need (fix economy). There is not another persons resume I would need to look at after reading and interviewing Romney. He is the ONLY qualified candidate for the job I need accomplished having fulfilled my need in his PAST employments. All the other applicants are good people but they do not fill my specific need and they are just distractions to what I need fixed at my company.

This is what I believe MOST people outside of HotAir posters are looking for…

g2825m on November 28, 2011 at 1:39 PM

I think Newt’s contributions as an historian and Speaker of the House are far more valuable than anything he may have done on the battlefield (and in any case, he does not strike me as having the physique necessary to be a good soldier).

…His gifts clearly lie with his intellect and he has made undeniably worthwhile contributions as a patriotic civilian.

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Your argument about Newt’s lack of physicality don’t hold up. Medal of Honor recipient Audie Murphy very nearly wasn’t allowed to enlist because of his small stature–in your words, ‘not having the physique necessary to be a good soldier’. Simo Hayha, the Finnish super-sniper during the Russo-Finnish War known as ‘The White Death’ stood 5’2″ in his boots, yet somehow managed to kill over 500 Russian invaders: 300 or so from long range with his Mosin-Nagant rifle and 200 up close and personal with his Suomi SMG.

It isn’t about physique. It’s about heart. It’s about honor and love of country.

Again: Gingrich had an opportunity to serve his country during war-time and didn’t. Not only did he not just take his chances with the draft lottery, he actively, desperately pursued every deferrment he could. There is no known documented evidence of him taking part in anti-war activities common on every college campus in the country at the time, so it wasn’t deeply felt opposition to the war holding him back. Meanwhile, other and better men than he actually went where their country sent them. Some didn’t return.

All of this is moot, really. The point of argument is to persuade and it’s clear you Newt supporters out there genuinely don’t care that your guy is a sleazy opportunist. If Newt wins the nomination and then loses to Obama in the general, I think the Republican Party needs to spend its time in the political wilderness seriously rethinking and recreating itself, either make it better or let it go the way of the Whigs.

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 1:42 PM

g2825m on November 28, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Appreciate your keeping it light…

On January 21, 1997, the House of Representatives voted to discipline him for ethical wrongdoing. He was accused of using tax-deductible charitable donations to fund a non-charitable college course that he taught, and of giving false information about this to the House Ethics Committee. In a 395-28 vote, the House ordered Gingrich to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty as part of a settlement to avoid a full hearing.

Gingrich resigned from the House on November 5, 1998, three days after being elected to the 11th term. His resignation came on the heels of an election in which the Republican Party lost five congressional seats and after Rep. Bob Livingston (R-Louisiana) mounted a campaign to depose Gingrich as party leader.

Sort of the pot (Livingston) alling the Kettle (Gingrich) black isn’t it…

And yet this was acted upon rapidly…yet what about the Maxine Waters ethics vioation and a host of others….the Dems specifically have so fouled things up that any decent republican usually gets tainted or converted to cronyism rather quickly…only sudden and relentless reform has any hope of bringing the republic back from the precipice…again not saying NEWT is without fault or guilt even, but it seems pale in comparison to FBI cash stuffed in a freezer, etc, etc. and his ethics issue was attacked with swiftness almost unheard of in Washington…except perhaps for the passage of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

RedLizard64 on November 28, 2011 at 1:51 PM

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 1:42 PM

There is no known documented evidence of him taking part in anti-war activities common on every college campus in the country at the time, so it wasn’t deeply felt opposition to the war holding him back.

DUH! Seriously, wth are you even talking about? Do you know anything about what he has written or taught?

All of this is moot, really.

Indeed. So why bring it up?

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 1:52 PM

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Mitt and his sons served when? Bob Dole was a legitimate wartime hero but he lost the election. Carter served. Kerry served. So, did dubya and his dad. Bob Feller and Ted Williams served. Did the Gipper,..I don’t remember.

a capella on November 28, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 1:18 PM

I like that he led the House to balanced budgets and welfare reform pulling Clinton kicking and screaming all the way.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM

I like that he led the House to balanced budgets and welfare reform pulling Clinton kicking and screaming all the way.
Cindy Munford on November 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Yep. And he is a great speaker. But then again so is Herman Cain. I still think Mitt is our best chance at deposing the Obama regime.

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 2:01 PM

My only problem with Gov. Romney is he comes off as too nice. I’m tired of getting snookered.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2011 at 2:10 PM

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 1:42 PM

There is no known documented evidence of him taking part in anti-war activities common on every college campus in the country at the time, so it wasn’t deeply felt opposition to the war holding him back.
DUH! Seriously, wth are you even talking about? Do you know anything about what he has written or taught?

All of this is moot, really.
Indeed. So why bring it up?

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 1:52 PM

I bring it up because it needed to be said: Newt Gingrich does not possess the character it takes to be a capable president. He’s failed every test as an intellectual (blind faith to the AGW religion does not support intellectual prowess), as a public servant, and just as an honest, stand-up guy. He recently lied to you about his ‘history consulting’ gig for Freddie Mac, and he’ll lie to you again when it’s expedient. In that regard, he’s no better than Obama–which is strange since I thought we wanted better than Obama.

And while I know Gingrich has taught and written books on military history, I also know his more recent academic ouvre has nothing to do with his stance on the Vietnam War when he was a grad student desperately dodging the draft. If he opposed our involvement in Vietnam, there’s no evidence of it. The man is surrounded by a perpetual word cloud. Surely there’s a ‘Why I Won’t Fight’ document out there somewhere. No? Then it’s because he was yellow, willing to let other, better men fight in his place.

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Sorry Newt. You are not. AGW? Amnesty? Um is that what passes for conservative where you come from?

dogsoldier on November 28, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 1:26 PM

instead of snark tell me when he created jobs? his career in finance didnt create wealth so much as it provided capital to those who would then create wealth and jobs. perry has done much much better as a politician to foster a positive job creation environment than mittens has ever done or ever will do. he is a top down big govt rockefeller republican.

chasdal on November 28, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Sorry I meant Newt is not conservative. Saying he’s more conservative than Romney is very humorous. Both of them are just slightly less socialistic than the Emperor Zero.

dogsoldier on November 28, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM

we had a balanced budget?? what year was that?

chasdal on November 28, 2011 at 2:31 PM

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 1:42 PM
Mitt and his sons served when? Bob Dole was a legitimate wartime hero but he lost the election. Carter served. Kerry served. So, did dubya and his dad. Bob Feller and Ted Williams served. Did the Gipper,..I don’t remember.

a capella on November 28, 2011 at 1:53 PM

I can’t speak to Romney’s service or lack thereof. He is the son of the late George Romney, prominent politician, former Governor of Michigan and one-time candidate for president, so Mitt Romney may have received preferential treatment. I honestly don’t know. Romney’s sons are far younger than I am, and the draft ended when I was 12, so it’s fair to say they weren’t draft-dodgers. The reason Ronald Reagan didn’t serve on active duty during WWII was because his vision was terrible. He couldn’t make out faces from more than 4 feet away. Reagan did, however, do all he could for the War Department by making training and propaganda films and the like.

I’m not saying it is necessary for every American to serve in the military in order to prove patriotism. What I’m saying is that patriots don’t do all they can to evade the draft–if there is a draft–in wartime. That’s a fairly straightforward take on things, I think, hard for all but the slowest to understand.

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Sorry: ‘easy for all but the slowest to understand.’

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 2:34 PM

electability is of paramount concern to the establishment

No it isn’t. Keeping the rubes in their place is of paramount concern to the establishment.

ddrintn on November 28, 2011 at 2:39 PM

What I’m saying is that patriots don’t do all they can to evade the draft–if there is a draft–in wartime. That’s a fairly straightforward take on things, I think, hard for all but the slowest to understand.troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Yeah, you caught me. I understand perfectly now. One’s definition of patriotism can be fluid, depending on the occasion, phrase definitions, and agenda. Thanx.

a capella on November 28, 2011 at 2:50 PM

chasdal on November 28, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Well, like everything in Washington, it’s all on paper. Ask Bubba about his surpluses, he’ll tell you. I’m sure the dot.com bubble did all sorts of things with actual amounts.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2011 at 2:59 PM

ddrintn on November 28, 2011 at 2:39 PM

+ One trillion.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Yeah, you caught me. I understand perfectly now. One’s definition of patriotism can be fluid, depending on the occasion, phrase definitions, and agenda. Thanx.

a capella on November 28, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Agenda and shifting definitions have nothing to do with anything, sport. Dodging the draft during wartime is unpatriotic. Is there something about the previous statement you don’t quite understand? Should I use smaller words, parse them into tiny little digestible pieces?

Oh, and yeah: loved the ‘thanx’ too. It’s so cute the way people write when they’re learning the Internets and stuff.

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2011 at 2:59 PM

my point exactly. we have NEVER had a balanced budget or supluses no matter how much newt and bubba claim that we did.

chasdal on November 28, 2011 at 3:07 PM

chasdal on November 28, 2011 at 3:07 PM

But he really did welfare reform and reign in spending. By how much will always be a question mark with the Washington slight of hand. A whole city of illusionists.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2011 at 3:11 PM

So all the social conservatives can whine about Romney is not the “right” religion why they remain jobless OR they can concentrate on a candidate that has proven to get people, States, Olympics, and businesses moving in the right direction. We blew last election by electing McCain instead of Romney when faced with this same dilemma and now we MAY do it again! Unbelievable!

g2825m on November 28, 2011 at 1:02 PM

The right religion? Really? So if I don’t think Romney is the best candidate, you call me a religious bigot? Keep that up, I’m sure you’ll get lots of converts to your way of thinking using such tactics.

McCain couldn’t beat obama. Romney couldn’t beat McCain. Yet you’re positive he’s the only one who could beat obama. Some real deep thinking there.

runawayyyy on November 28, 2011 at 3:23 PM

He is, to put it bluntly, an old white-haired white guy. That nominating pattern has worked at least as often as it hasn’t, but Tea Party devotees shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking that here at last, in Gingrich, is a new kind of candidate.

This is a problem.

I think the bigger problem is that I don’t believe America is going to replace Obama with a former house speaker from 20 years ago, who has enriched himself being a Washington insider working on the periphery and who was a FOX news pundit commentator.

Also, Gingrich’s media barking, while entertaining, has already become fodder as shtick in commentaries. It will only get worse if he’s the nominee against Obama. Newt will definitely pick a fight with the media.

And let’s face it, he doesn’t have it in him to even mount a campaign organization let alone take on the billion dollar negative campaign Obama is going to throw at him.

Romney is definitely the strongest candidate to face Obama. Obama knows it, the DNC knows it and most Republicans deep down know it.

Obama is only attacking Mitt. Obama/DNC would love it if we nominated Newt because if we do Obama will win in a landslide in 2012.

sheryl on November 28, 2011 at 3:52 PM

It’s more a matter of Newt doing a better job of “faking it” with conservatives, like he does with his wives.

If he starts panting and saying, “Yes … yesYES!, look out because he’s screwing us.

bw222 on November 28, 2011 at 4:01 PM

He’s more electable if people can look past his history of flip-flopping, his adultery, his three marriages, and the fact that he was the first Speaker of the House ever reprimanded for ethics violations.

He has a party of skeletons in his closet, and the “liberal” media is being awfully quiet about them. Why? Because they’re hoping that he’ll get the nomination so the Democrats will have an easy win. He’s damaged goods with lots of baggage and the Democrats know it.

Oh, and many Democrats are more conservative than Romney.

popularpeoplesfront on November 28, 2011 at 4:04 PM

You know, with all that Newt is saying the last couple of days, the scripture comes to mind:

Proverbs 16:18, “Pride goes before destruction, and haughtiness before a fall”

Newt needs to watch his cockiness and attitude

ConservativePartyNow on November 28, 2011 at 4:09 PM

I wouldn’t lie to the American people

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Newt, you’re killing me man!!

JohnGalt23 on November 28, 2011 at 4:16 PM

instead of snark tell me when he created jobs? his career in finance didnt create wealth so much as it provided capital to those who would then create wealth and jobs.
chasdal on November 28, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Yes he did that. He provided capital in the free market to specific businesses he/Bain took the risk to invest in (and often acted as consultant for) which became successful and created jobs. I don’t understand how you can acknowledge this yet claim he didn’t create jobs.

As for him being a “Rockefeller Republican”….blah blah blah, another tedious talking point parroting a phrase used by Rush Limbaugh (who, unlike some of you, doesn’t look at wealth as something to be derided. He just doesn’t like liberal Republicans – which Mitt is not).

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Well, if newt wins the nomination, I’m voting for him, warts and all.
Any conservative who sits home on this election should be ostracized.

gordo on November 28, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Romney is definitely the strongest candidate to face Obama. Obama knows it, the DNC knows it and most Republicans deep down know it.
sheryl on November 28, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Make the argument. Give us examples of Romney’s potent performances against the Left. Has he faced a well-financed leftist before? How did he do? Can we expect the same? If not, why? Does it matter? Why not? What is his record of challenging false narratives and confronting the media? Share some video of great Romney debate moments against the Left and media. Or against other Republicans. If debating skills don’t matter and confronting the Left doesn’t matter, what does matter? What set of skills will be required to defeat Obama? How does Romney represent these? Examples?

rrpjr on November 28, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Vote for Newt. He makes money the old fashioned way – he steals it through influence peddling. $1,800,000.00 for a few 2 minute “history lessons”. But he can beat Obama in a debate! Always remember if we nominate this crook, we will have a crook who is a better debater than the democrat’s crook. It takes a crook to catch a crook! Vote Newt and keep crime in the family.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 28, 2011 at 4:32 PM

As for him being a “Rockefeller Republican”….blah blah blah, another tedious talking point parroting a phrase used by Rush Limbaugh (who, unlike some of you, doesn’t look at wealth as something to be derided. He just doesn’t like liberal Republicans – which Mitt is not).

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Maybe you’re considerably younger than me and don’t know the history, but Rush Limbaugh did not originate the term, ‘Rockefeller Republican’. In case you’re unaware, it isn’t a pejorative term invoking fatcat greed or anything like that. It means a moderate Republican along the lines of Nelson Rockefeller, one-time Vice President of the United States. Nowadays, Rockefeller would be considered a RINO or even a Blue Dog Democrat–although I hear Blue Dogs are a dying breed. Rockefeller Republicans are generally liberal on domestic policy and somewhat hawkish in foreign policy.

Consider yourself edified.

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 4:34 PM

I’m not saying it is necessary for every American to serve in the military in order to prove patriotism. What I’m saying is that patriots don’t do all they can to evade the draft–if there is a draft–in wartime. That’s a fairly straightforward take on things, I think, hard for all but the slowest to understand.
troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Agenda and shifting definitions have nothing to do with anything, sport. Dodging the draft during wartime is unpatriotic. Is there something about the previous statement you don’t quite understand? Should I use smaller words, parse them into tiny little digestible pieces?

Oh, and yeah: loved the ‘thanx’ too. It’s so cute the way people write when they’re learning the Internets and stuff.

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Has anyone ever told you you’re an insufferable jackass, Champ?

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 4:35 PM

Newt needs to watch his cockiness and attitude

ConservativePartyNow on November 28, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Even more he needs to watch his jowls.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 28, 2011 at 4:36 PM

I think Gingrich may have gotten in this race, like Herman Cain, to boost the sales of his book. He’s 68 years old. I’m not sure how physically fit he is. Now that he’s in the lead, he can’t resist the lure of the presidency, but I don’t think it’s good for him or for us. He’s never had a job like the Presidency. He’s a legislator, an idea man. Nobody knows how he’ll do as an administrator.

Let’s hope he hasn’t bitten off more than he can chew.

The whole campaign seems to have been driven by a desire not to repeat the 2008 mistake of nominating John McCain, but this new enthusiasm for Newt reminds me more of 2008 than 2010.

flataffect on November 28, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Jefferson, Madison and Adams were all pretty well hated in their time too. By some. I think Newt could possibly become the most conservative and effective presidents in my lifetime. I’m sorry that you guys can’t see it, wish everyone could be as upbeat as me.

mike_NC9 on November 28, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Happy, y’all?

Aitch748 on November 28, 2011 at 1:34 PM

No, I’m not happy at all. I hope that there is a good third party option that will make me happy.

FloatingRock on November 28, 2011 at 4:40 PM

And as for electability because of this supposed issue, Bill Clinton molested and sodomized a young lady in the Oval Office …
georgealbert

When did that happen?

xblade on November 28, 2011 at 4:40 PM

I’m not saying it is necessary for every American to serve in the military in order to prove patriotism. What I’m saying is that patriots don’t do all they can to evade the draft–if there is a draft–in wartime. That’s a fairly straightforward take on things, I think, hard for all but the slowest to understand.

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 2:34 PM

You must be talking about Newt. Gingrich avoided the Vietnam War through a combination of student and family deferments. He married one of his teachers at age 19 to get another deferment. No, not when the teacher was 19, when Newt was 19. Got to want to get out of the draft real bad to get married at that age and to someone a lot older. Then I think he filed for divorce when the Vietnam war was over.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 28, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Newt feels we need to rethink our Constitution and is no conservative.

Newt Gingrich: The Consummate Politician and Quintessential Figurehead of the Republican Establishment
~ Cashing In on His Political Connections ~

The same year he became Speaker of the House in 1995 Newt delivered a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Affairs in which he said, “The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution… either we are going to have to rethink our Constitution, or we are going to have to rethink our process of making decisions.” This is a direct quote from Newt Gingrich. These are his own words! Newt Gingrich is a fan of author Alvin Toffler, who believes that our American system of government, which was designed by the Founding Fathers, and which is protected by our Constitution, has become obsolete, and needs to be discarded, and re-designed. According to Toffler (and Newt), “It needs to die and be replaced.” Newt once boasted that in order to understand him, you needed to read Toffler’s two books, The Third Wave, and Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave. When Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House, he recommended reading Toffler’s books to all of his colleagues. He wrote the forward to Toffler’s last book, The Politics of the Third Wave.

http://www.lessgovisthebestgov.com/Newt-Gingrich-establishment-politician.html

It was also the same year Newt used a Lame duck session of Congress before the new Republicans could get sworn in to pass GATT turning over power to the UN. And he knew it. “We need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States..significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment… This is not just another trade agreement. This is a very big transfer of power.” -Newt Gingrich on GATT, 1994.

GATT established a giant beauracracy called the WTO, sole interpreter of 20,000 pages of trade regualtion for 120 nations. It’s not about prosperity, it’s about centralizing Power.

Here’s some background info on GATT, WTO and Newt’s role in working with Bill Clinton. http://www.stoptheftaa.org/ftaa/gatt-wto.html

And as far as lying to the American People..HA HA! Gingrich went to visit the Pope and on that very same trip, back at the hotel, he had his 2nd wife in one room while he was carrying on his affair with Callista in another. That tells me all I need to know right there. And, he had the gall to have his 2nd marriage annulled by the Catholic archdiocese because it was the wife’s 2nd marriage. Um, Newt…it was your 2nd marriage too and you cheated on her for 6 years with Callista.

He blames his shortcomings on an addiction to Power saying it makes him do terrible things. So let’s give him the most powerful position in the world. /sarc

TriciaNC on November 28, 2011 at 4:44 PM

No, I’m not happy at all. I hope that there is a good third party option that will make me happy.

FloatingRock

If there was a good third party option, that person would be running for the republican nomination right now instead of wasting time as a third party candidate.

xblade on November 28, 2011 at 4:45 PM

I think Newt could possibly become the most conservative and effective presidents in my lifetime.

mike_NC9 on November 28, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Conservative? Nothing in Gingrich’s record indicates the slightest interest in conservative issues or concerns except insofar as it involves attracting conservative voters. The guy’s ideologically all over the map. He was and probably still is a self-described Rockefeller Republican, even more of an establishment Republican in his outlook than Mitt Romney, if that’s possible.

Effective? Gingrich played high-stakes poker with Clinton and lost. Clinton stayed on for two terms and Gingrich was forced from the Speaker’s chair by his own party. Whatever that might be, it isn’t effective.

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 4:45 PM

He has a party of skeletons in his closet, and the “liberal” media is being awfully quiet about them. Why? Because they’re hoping that he’ll get the nomination so the Democrats will have an easy win. He’s damaged goods with lots of baggage and the Democrats know it.

popularpeoplesfront on November 28, 2011 at 4:04

You can bet that Obama, the Democrats and their friends in the media have complete dossiers on all the possible GOP candidates and I am willing to bet Newt’s is the thickest.

There’s only one Republican whose life has been totally exposed and she isn’t running.

bw222 on November 28, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Has anyone ever told you you’re an insufferable jackass, Champ?

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 4:35 PM

Rarely to my face, lightweight.

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Maybe you’re considerably younger than me and don’t know the history, but Rush Limbaugh did not originate the term, ‘Rockefeller Republican’. In case you’re unaware, it isn’t a pejorative term invoking fatcat greed or anything like that. It means a moderate Republican along the lines of Nelson Rockefeller, one-time Vice President of the United States. Nowadays, Rockefeller would be considered a RINO or even a Blue Dog Democrat–although I hear Blue Dogs are a dying breed. Rockefeller Republicans are generally liberal on domestic policy and somewhat hawkish in foreign policy.

Consider yourself edified.

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Once a jackass, always a jackass. I didn’t say he originated the term, Sport. But he uses it frequently (along with “Country Club Republicans”). Many people here parrot Rush but misunderstand Rush’s point and think he’s deriding their moneyed status (they also parrot Glenn Beck and Mark Levin – evident when they overuse the word “progressive” and “statist”). Palinistas in particular engage in class warfare tactics, deriding those who don’t have blue collar backgrounds and respond with knee-jerk reactions to names like Rockefeller and…Romney.

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 4:51 PM

I’d be happy to vote for Ron Paul if not for his foreign policy, but our country is such a mess that I think I’m going to vote for him anyway. I may not enjoy his foreign policy but I would enjoy President Paul’s help cleaning out the swamp and setting this country back on a sound course.

FloatingRock on November 28, 2011 at 4:51 PM

If there was a good third party option, that person would be running for the republican nomination right now instead of wasting time as a third party candidate.

xblade on November 28, 2011 at 4:45 PM

Maybe, maybe not.

FloatingRock on November 28, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Once a jackass, always a jackass. I didn’t say he originated the term, Sport.

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Er, yes you did, but thanks for the explanation, anyway. to your point regarding Palinistas, I haven’t seen Palin supporters attacking anyone anywhere for making lots of money. If they did, they’d have to start with Sarah and her deal with Fox.

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Conservative? Nothing in Gingrich’s record indicates the slightest interest in conservative issues or concerns except insofar as it involves attracting conservative voters.
troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 4:45 PM

Look, I’m for Romney but this is nonsense. Newt’s course Renewing American Civilization was a conservative course. His book on God in America is a conservative book. The Contract with America was a conservative document with a conservative agenda (taken from the conservative Reagan). He is not a proponent of a welfare state, redistributionist tactics, high taxes, open borders, the “right” of unwashed masses to squat on private property, decimating our military, liberal social positions, gender politics, or any of the typical items on a non-conservative’s agenda. He has vigorously worked for using our resources to drill, baby, drill.

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Ineptocracy – A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
RedLizard64 on November 28, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Did that come from Barney Franks’ presser earlier today announcing his retirement? Barney Frank – The damage’s been done so I guess I’ll be leaving :)

Dr Evil on November 28, 2011 at 5:04 PM

troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 4:45 PM

You have rattled off a handful of things Newt has done over the years that you disagree with. And that’s fine. I don’t agree with him all the time either. And I would prefer President Limbaugh to anyone, but Newt is the only one in the field I can see attacking these problems. He has a platform that he’s running on and if you can attack that, then do so. But don’t keep bringing up his past, I get that part already. I like his solutions. Have you at least read his website or listened to him speak in depth about what he would do if elected?

mike_NC9 on November 28, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Er, yes you did, but thanks for the explanation, anyway. to your point regarding Palinistas, I haven’t seen Palin supporters attacking anyone anywhere for making lots of money. If they did, they’d have to start with Sarah and her deal with Fox.
troyriser_gopftw on November 28, 2011 at 5:00 PM

No I most certainly did not say he invented the term, I said Rush uses the phrase (and people parrot it). Seriously, do you always make stuff up like this? Like your asinine claims about Newt?

And if you haven’t seen class warfare tactics used by Palinistas then you have missed many a comment made here. I never said their thinking was logical or lacked hypocrisy.

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Newt Gingrich thy name is Trojan Horse. Unfortunately the conservative Republican candidates fell in debate to the slicker Easterners. (Gingrich don’t forget is a carpetbagging Pennsylvanian living in Georgia.) Outside Newt is a conservative but inside, waiting to open the gates of Troy in the wee small hours of the morning, is an army of liberal ideals. What David Souter did to the SC, an elected Gingrich will do to the Presidency. Surprise! Surprise! Any more lobbying money for Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac? That alone should be a clarion call of warning as to Gingrich’s intentions.

MaiDee on November 28, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Gingrich is weak with indies unlike Romney and especially Ron Paul

PPP twitter link

We are repeatedly finding Ron Paul to be the strongest candidate with independents. Up 27 with them in AZ: tinyurl.com/7wsbma2

-PPPPolls

Spathi on November 28, 2011 at 5:42 PM

(Gingrich don’t forget is a carpetbagging Pennsylvanian living in Georgia.)
MaiDee on November 28, 2011 at 5:40 PM

This is getting ridiculous. He graduated from H.S. in Columbus, Georgia went to Emory and taught at U of W. Georgia and Kennesaw State. He then went on to represent Georgia in Congress.

Buy Danish on November 28, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Given Newt’s multiple marriages, how long before the women start coming forward alla Herman Cain?

joncoltonis on November 28, 2011 at 6:35 PM

I cannot believe it has come to this…

purgatory on November 28, 2011 at 6:53 PM

In a parellell universe where Newt did not endorse Cap and Trade, say that there were great things in Obamacare, call Ryan’s plan “right-wing social engineering”, endorse amnesty for illegals with laughable “red cards” and “local community boards”, etc., then yes, Newt is “more conservative than Romney”. LOL.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on November 28, 2011 at 7:12 PM

You can bet that Obama, the Democrats and their friends in the media have complete dossiers on all the possible GOP candidates and I am willing to bet Newt’s is the thickest.

bw222 on November 28, 2011 at 4:47 PM

I agree. We need to give Cain another pass since the Democrats will do this to any and all Republicans.

/Tardisil

Punchenko on November 28, 2011 at 7:16 PM

It’s hard to see that Gingrich actually is more conservative than Romney.

0bama/RomneyScare.

No it isn’t. ;o)

DannoJyd on November 28, 2011 at 8:30 PM

Gingrich: I’m a lot more conservative than Romney — and more electable than anyone else

Stop looking in the mirror, Newt

Worth Repeating:

In a parellell universe where Newt did not endorse Cap and Trade, say that there were great things in Obamacare, call Ryan’s plan “right-wing social engineering”, endorse amnesty for illegals with laughable “red cards” and “local community boards”, etc., then yes, Newt is “more conservative than Romney”. LOL.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on November 28, 2011 at 7:12 PM

entagor on November 28, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Chris Christie on the Super Committee: What the hell are we paying Obama for?

He’d make a great Muppet.

I mean a sock puppet could do what Obama’s done, with the right voice-overs looking at the pre-written speeches I could do Obama’s job with a sock puppet. I just wouldn’t look as good doing it.

Lawrence on November 28, 2011 at 11:01 PM

oops, wrong thread.

Lawrence on November 28, 2011 at 11:01 PM

One advantage Newt has is that he grew up and admits it. He takes responsibility for his mistakes and appears to work to learn from his mistakes.

Besides, Coulter seems to hate him. So that’s another endorsement for him that I’m glad to see. (She thinks with her emotions and not any discernible form of logic. She’s a religious conservative whereas I am closer to libertarian than not. Alas, she has not figured out that small government gives her better religious freedom than big government ever will. Maybe someday she’ll also figure out perfect is the mortal enemy of the best choice. Waiting for Mr. Perfect is far less productive than making the best choice available.)

{^_^}

herself on November 29, 2011 at 1:57 AM

(Gingrich don’t forget is a carpetbagging Pennsylvanian living in Georgia.)
MaiDee on November 28, 2011 at 5:40 PM

What is this, 1865?

RINO in Name Only on November 29, 2011 at 2:19 AM

I utterly refused to support a serial adulterer like Newt for president.

There is no way I will be part of electing another Bill Clinton!

scotash on November 29, 2011 at 2:33 AM

One advantage Newt has is that he grew up and admits it. He takes responsibility for his mistakes and appears to work to learn from his mistakes.

{^_^}

herself on November 29, 2011 at 1:57 AM

He has NOT learned from his mistaken belief on man-made global warming:

Gingrich Agnostic On Man-Made Global Warming: “I Don’t Think We Know”

We most certainly DO know! And we here have known, even before “hide the decline/hockey stick graph” even came out, that man-made global warming was a hoax designed solely to destroy the US economy. Today, Climategate 2.0 is breaking news and it’s even more a smoking gun than 1.0, and yet, Newtie says he “doesn’t know” and that he’s “agnostic”. He has NOT learned from his mistakes.

AGW is far too important an issue to elect someone who fell for the lie of it. Bachmann’s been really strong fighting it in the House and Perry is so good on this issue that Inhofe endorsed him We cannot afford a RINO on this issue like Mitt or Newt.

Aslans Girl on November 29, 2011 at 7:04 AM

For being so “smart”, Newt is ignorant here — he’s ignoring the FACTS. “Smart” people don’t fall for hoaxes.

Aslans Girl on November 29, 2011 at 7:06 AM

Newt is going to be a disaster for the country. This is from his website on immigration:

If citizens of other nations want to invest and create jobs in America, then we should be making it easier for them to invest, work and potentially gain citizenship through an expanded EB-5 program. The EB-5 program grants permanent residency to overseas investors who create and maintain at least ten American jobs.

The existing EB-5 program, which sets as high as a $1 million minimum investment to be considered for legal residency, is too restrictive and selective. We must expand this program to allow for foreign entrepreneurs who may not have the capital yet, but have the ability to come to the United States and raise enough American capital to form a business.

http://www.newt.org/solutions/immigration

This is essentially citizenship for sale, and will cause our housing prices to skyrocket just like Canada’s due to massive numbers of wealthy Chinese who want to launder their questionably attained money in American real estate.

haner on November 29, 2011 at 3:25 PM

Boy, if Herman is dropping out cuz of some alleged sex stuff, what does that say about Newt’s verifiable sex stuff.

I think conservatives should put up a clean, moral guy (or gal). The president is the example to the whole world. Romney qualifies certainly, as does most of the others running. We don’t want this kind of stuff as our president.

enerwaste on November 29, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2