Gingrich: Let’s face it, I’m going to be the nominee

posted at 5:32 pm on December 1, 2011 by Allahpundit

He’s at 50 percent in Florida and nationally, among likely voters, enjoys a 20-point lead on Romney. He’s not blowing smoke here. If he doesn’t stumble this month and Cain drops out, it’s absolutely possible that he’ll run the table in the early states. Unlike in other years, that itself won’t cinch the nomination — Romney’s got the cash and organization to press on, and there’ll be time before Super Tuesday for Newt to cool off — but still.

I feel like Pascow in “Pet Sematary,” pleading with Dr. Creed not to let his desperation drive him to something terrible. You don’t have to nominate Newt. You don’t have to do this, Louis.

TAPPER: “How do you respond to Republicans who say if you don’t draw distinctions with Mitt Romney and others who are attacking you, if you don’t point out their perceived vulnerabilities, Barack Obama and the Democrats sure aren’t going to share that same reluctance and you are doing Obama a favor by staying positive?”

GINGRICH: “They are not going to be the nominee. I don’t have to go around and point out the inconsistencies of people who are not going to be the nominee. They are not going to be the nominee.”

TAPPER: “You are going to be the nominee?”

GINGRICH: “I’m going to be the nominee. It’s very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I’m going to be the nominee. And by the way I don’t object if people want to attack me, that’s their right. All I’m suggesting that it’s not going to be very effective and that people are going to get sick of it very fast. And the guys who attacked each other in the debates up to now, every single one of them have lost ground by attacking. So they should do what they and their consultants want to do. I will focus on being substantive and I will focus on Barack Obama.”

Tapper’s referring to a story in RCP today about Newt telling his team not to go negative, no matter how nasty Romney et al. get. (Why would Gingrich need to attack Romney when Huntsman is doing such a good job of it?) That was Romney’s strategy until now, of course: Take an above-it-all approach when you’re being attacked to seem more presidential and train your fire on Obama to endear yourself to the base. But he can’t sit back and wait for Gingrich to implode because Iowa’s too close and Newt is too polished a candidate, so suddenly he’s scrambling to push old stuff that’s already priced into Gingrich’s stock — touting his own marriage to draw an implicit contrast with Newt’s personal life for social cons and criticizing him for being a career politician, etc. He’s even got Chris Christie playing attack dog for him on the latter point, reminding reporters that Gingrich has “never run anything.” Does the first Republican House in 40 years count as “anything”? Good lord. No wonder Romney seems so testy lately. He’s a desperate man.

If we’re really going to do this, can we at least first have a semi-competitive primary between Newt and a more conservative candidate? Perry’s still out there, you know, hangin’ around at five percent for a big hug from the base. All you have to do is wish it to make it so! Or have we already decided that Newt is a “Very Strong Conservative” because he’s the new Not Romney and that’s just the way it is? Exit question: Second look at a brokered convention?

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 3 4

I’m going to laugh my ass off when Obama wins the debates. All I can think of is Nixon vs. Kennedy.

Seriously the contrast of the first African American President debating with the fat, white, white haired Republican from the South (Georgia) – is not going to be lost on the mainstream media, or the independents.

I sometimes wonder what is wrong with the Republican voters, and why they seem completely incapable of thinking strategically.

joncoltonis on December 2, 2011 at 4:33 AM

I have a feeling Ron Paul is going to have a 3rd Party run if the GOP nominates Gingrich. Judging by that last ad, Paul doesn’t like Newt much. He’s going to siphon at least 5% of the vote.

I’m mentally preparing myself for a 2nd term Obama administration. Ugh.

haner on December 1, 2011 at 8:22 PM

If RP did that, he would effectively seal his son’s fate as a politician. RP would go down as the man who caused the re-election of Oclueless, and doomed the US to the 4 years of unrecoverable destruction. Rand would be painted with the taint of his father…I would hope, for my country’s sake, that Rand would talk his father out of it…

lovingmyUSA on December 2, 2011 at 5:13 AM

Seriously the contrast of the first African American President debating with the fat, white, white haired Republican from the South (Georgia) – is not going to be lost on the mainstream media, or the independents.
I sometimes wonder what is wrong with the Republican voters, and why they seem completely incapable of thinking strategically.

joncoltonis on December 2, 2011 at 4:33 AM

REALLY??? So the contrast with the KEN DOLL candidate that is Mittens would be any better? What I see is a contrast with a REAL college professor, as opposed to the imposter that was affirmative-actioned into a so-called “teaching” position…

lovingmyUSA on December 2, 2011 at 5:17 AM

Seriously the contrast of the first African American President debating with the fat, white, white haired Republican from the South (Georgia) – is not going to be lost on the mainstream media, or the independents.

I sometimes wonder what is wrong with the Republican voters, and why they seem completely incapable of thinking strategically.

joncoltonis on December 2, 2011 at 4:33 AM

Then those people need to get past race. If they focus that much on something as trivial as the color of one’s skin, then they are the ones being racist.

And we should refuse to kowtow to anybody by refusing to factor in what racists perceive to help us determine or nominee.

We should nominate the best man (or woman) for the job, period. The racists will see what they want, but we weren’t going to win their votes anyways. Anybody _that_ focused on race in this day and age won’t listen to reason.

Theophile on December 2, 2011 at 5:25 AM

Nobody cares what you think. You know nothing. Mitt Romney’s IQ is twice yours.

Basilsbest on December 2, 2011 at 12:06 AM

I would much, much, much rather have wisdom any day than intelligence. Supposedly Obama is very intelligent and yet look what he has done for the country; he is in the process of destroying it.

Do not fall into the anti-God progressive trap of worshiping intelligence. Rather, look for some God given wisdom instead.

Theophile on December 2, 2011 at 5:33 AM

A person sitting on a couch with Nancy P. pushing voodoo solutions for man made climate change is exhibiting neither intelligence nor wisdom.

ray on December 2, 2011 at 7:13 AM

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich touted the virtues of Freddie Mac’s business model in an interview published by the company in April 2007, remarks that contrast with the candidate’s recent statements that he had warned the company of impending financial disaster.

The interview was featured on Freddie Mac’s website for several months in 2007 when he was a paid consultant to the company and Freddie Mac was struggling to address mounting financial problems as the housing boom was turning to bust.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204012004577072502921422584.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

haner on December 2, 2011 at 7:20 AM

I would much, much, much rather have wisdom any day than intelligence.

Theophile on December 2, 2011 at 5:33 AM

There went that vaunted wisdom and intelligence of Newt.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich touted the virtues of Freddie Mac’s business model in an interview published by the company in April 2007, remarks that contrast with the candidate’s recent statements that he had warned the company of impending financial disaster.

The interview was featured on Freddie Mac’s website for several months in 2007 when he was a paid consultant to the company and Freddie Mac was struggling to address mounting financial problems as the housing boom was turning to bust.

haner on December 2, 2011 at 7:22 AM

Newt Gingrich in 2007 extolled the virtues of Freddie Mac (FMCC), saying he would be “very cautious” about changing the way the mortgage-finance company’s public- private business plan operated.

In an interview placed on Freddie Mac’s website, the Republican presidential candidate said the U.S. government- sponsored enterprise, or GSE, could serve as a guide for rebuilding the hurricane-ravaged Gulf of Mexico, improving health care and funding space exploration. For decades, Freddie Mac collected profits while benefiting from an implicit taxpayer guarantee of its debt,

“I’m convinced that, if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today,” Gingrich said in the April 24, 2007, web post.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-01/freddie-mac-efficiency-could-put-man-on-mars-gingrich-once-said.html

This is almost comical, if so much weren’t at stake.

haner on December 2, 2011 at 7:38 AM

haner on December 2, 2011 at 7:38 AM

Wow. Thanks for the links. Newt’s implosion should be starting in 3…2…1…

Aslans Girl on December 2, 2011 at 7:45 AM

Sorry, my dear friend, I warned you about Cain falling – you didn’t believe me.

Gingrich will also fall – and it will be by his own weight. I do hope that you will not, at that juncture, march off in anger to join the Romney train rather than throw your lot with Perry.

TheRightMan on December 1, 2011 at 11:57 PM

And I warned you about Perry falling, and you still don’t believe it. You’re still waiting for that Perry revival.

ddrintn on December 2, 2011 at 7:50 AM

Romney continues to rack up endorsements FROM THE PEOPLE he will be working with in Congress (we call that a clue) and the rest of the field REMAINS STATIC!

2012Presidential@cqrollcall.com.

Mitt Romney (48)
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
Sen. Roy Blunt (Mo.)
Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.)
Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah)
Sen. John Hoeven (N.D.)
Sen. James Risch (Idaho)
Sen. John Thune (S.D.)
Rep. Rodney Alexander (La.)
Rep. Mark Amodei (Nev.)
Rep. Charles Bass (N.H.)
Rep. Judy Biggert (Ill.)
Rep. Rob Bishop (Utah)
Rep. Mary Bono Mack (Calif.)
Rep. John Campbell (Calif.)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah)
Rep. Howard Coble (N.C.)
Rep. Ander Crenshaw (Fla.)
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.)
Rep. Robert Dold (Ill.)
Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
Rep. Virginia Foxx (N.C.)
Rep. Jim Gerlach (Pa.)
Rep. Tim Griffin (Ark.)
Rep. Michael Grimm (N.Y.)
Rep. Andy Harris (Md.)
Rep. Nan Hayworth (N.Y.)
Rep. Joe Heck (Nev.)
Rep. Wally Herger (Calif.)
Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.)
Rep. Leonard Lance (N.J.)
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.)
Rep. Connie Mack IV (Fla.)
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.)
Rep. Patrick McHenry (N.C.)
Rep. Buck McKeon (Calif.)
Rep. Jeff Miller (Fla.)
Rep. Jim Renacci (Ohio)
Rep. Hal Rogers (Ky.)
Rep. Mike Rogers (Ala.)
Rep. Todd Rokita (Ind.)
Rep. Tom Rooney (Fla.)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)
Rep. Aaron Schock (Ill.)
Rep. Mike Simpson (Idaho)
Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas)
Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.)
Rep. Ed Whitfield (Ky.)
Rick Perry (14)
Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.)
Rep. John Carter (Texas)
Rep. Mike Coffman (Colo.)
Rep. Mike Conaway (Texas)
Rep. John Culberson (Texas)
Rep. Sam Graves (Mo.)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
Rep. Sam Johnson (Texas)
Rep. Kenny Marchant (Texas)
Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas)
Rep. Candice Miller (Mich.)
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (S.C.)
Rep. Steve Scalise (La.)
Rep. Pete Sessions (Texas)
Newt Gingrich (6)
Rep. Joe Barton (Texas)
Rep. Michael Burgess (Texas)
Rep. Phil Gingrey (Ga.)
Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.)
Rep. Tom Price (Ga.)
Rep. Austin Scott (Ga.)
Ron Paul (3)
Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.)
Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.)
Rep. Walter Jones Jr. (N.C.)
Michele Bachmann (1)
Rep. Trent Franks (Ariz.)
Herman Cain (1)
Rep. Dan Benishek (Mich.)

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 9:48 AM

Newt, whom you put at 9 — let’s face it, the man attacked the base over immigration and called anyone who didn’t agree with him “inhumane”. Why is Newt a 9 and Perry a 6 on your list?
Further, Perry did NOT put illegals “ahead of other Americans”, the children of illegals (not illegals in genreral) have to live in TX for three years whereas other Americans merely have to live there for 12 months. The children of illegals ALSO have to jump through numerous other hoops to qualify for the discount that other Americans do not. The reason other Americans have to live in TX for 12 months to qualify is because they have to pay into the system. ALL states do that. ALL states require residency in order to get the tuition discount. TX’s tuition break is funded by sales tax — the very tax that illegals pay! Therefore, the children of illegals are not getting something for nothing.

Aslans Girl on December 2, 2011 at 2:11 AM

No, he said it was the humane thing to do. He did not say, if you disagree with me you are inhumane. Big difference.

astonerii on December 2, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Gingrich/Hillary 2012! The booming 90′s are back! They can host town halls and sit on couches together all over the country! Whoo Hooo!

Delta Tango on December 2, 2011 at 11:08 AM

No, he said it was the humane thing to do. He did not say, if you disagree with me you are inhumane. Big difference.

astonerii on December 2, 2011 at 10:40 AM

I agree with your distinction. This last week has shown lots of dissembling by Hot Air commenters.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 2, 2011 at 11:46 AM

I can’t understand anybody thinking that Mitt Romney is going to be able to beat Barack Obama. Romney is not only easily categorized as the very thing most Americans distrust these days — a finance geek from Wall Street — but also will not be able to attract his own base. Evangelicals will not turn out in large numbers to support a Mormon, and conservatives will not turn out to vote for the author of Mass Health. Romney will fare no better in the general election than did John McCain.

Gingrich will fare better because he sounds like he has real substance. Independents will hear his proposals and respond positively. Conservatives will be more likely to support him because his track record includes genuine progress for the conservative agenda, where Romney’s includes a model for collaboration with the left. Both will respond positively because he will contrast very well with the ineffectual empty suit who is now occupying the White House.

The numbers in current polls will change once the candidates obtain more national exposure. Romney is a sure loser; Gingrich, a very likely winner.

philwynk on December 2, 2011 at 1:08 PM

I agree with Newt that it is the Humane thing to do to allow long time illegal residents in the United States of America to stay here without any of the citizen rights. While it is the humane thing to do, the question then becomes, is it the right thing to do. To determine that, you have to look at the fuller picture of what it would mean to allow these people this special privledge. When looked at in the big picture, allowing the long time illegal aliens to remain in the country with our permission it will create a larger draw for more and more illegals to enter the country, and who does the country belong to, illegal aliens, or to the American citizens? Who does the government represent, American citizens or illegal aliens? Does the large influx of illegals cause damage to American citizens in this country. Many a rape victim, many an out of work youngster and other disadvantaged citizens would argue that the illegal alien population has harmed them directly or indirectly by making them worth less than they otherwise would be valued if the supply/demand ratio of workers to jobs was not skewed by the illegals. So, I for one am going to side with American citizens and every single time on that. Never should an illegal alien be promoted above or even equal to a citizen by our government.

astonerii on December 2, 2011 at 1:10 PM

By the way, the reason Newt gets a pass and Perry does not is because Perry is intransigent on this subject. He gives me the feeling that he thinks his cinstituant group is hispanic illegal aliens and not American citizen voters. I do not think the party can prevent him from pushing hard to enact pro illegal alien legislation. Newt Gingrich on the other hand has not yet shown that level of disdain for his true constituants, and while I disagree with him, I think that with enough disagreement with the base, he will not act out on his proposal. This is a judgement call on my part, and as always, judgements can fail to be acurate. But that is where I am.

astonerii on December 2, 2011 at 1:17 PM

As Allah said in his other post:

Isn’t Newt the guy who was a big Donald Berwick fan before being a Donald Berwick fan was decidedly uncool? Wasn’t he way ahead of the curve in pushing health-care ideas like the mandate that conservatives are now ready to destroy Romney for? Didn’t he spend a chunk of the last decade lobbying, in consummate “insider” fashion, and then lamely trying to pretend that it wasn’t, you know, lobbying-lobbying? Hasn’t he been the tea party’s public enemy number one more than once, having endorsed Dede Scozzafava in that special election in New York and then dumping on Paul Ryan’s budget this summer? What about this cavalcade of Newt’s bright ideas that Jim Geraghty spent the morning compiling?

EXACTLY!!!

yet all of you Gingrich fans can overlook ALL of this? Romney, who had the backing of many on our side in 2008 and has NOT changed any of his positions, is the one viewed as a flip-flopper?

Looking at Gingrich’s stances above, Romney should be a shoe-in with his economic background better than anyone’s in the race which makes me wonder WHAT REALLY is the reason because as Allah points out Gingrich IS NO CONSERVATIVE and many of you are on notice as flip-floppers with your principles. Not to mention, the arrogance that drips out of this guy that even his former House campaign manager Rich Galen said he is Steve Jobs but without the I-Pod at the other end of his ideas.

Reminds me of a great Styx song: “Fooling Yourself” on Gingrich

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Romney is a sure loser; Gingrich, a very likely winner.

philwynk on December 2, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Philwynk,
Romney will bring in the majority of the base in the General and many disaffected Dems and Indies. However, Gingrich will bring in the majority of the base BUT the disaffected Dems and Indies will recall Gingrich’s days as the “ultimate politico” and was the cause (so they’ll say) of the Congress shutting down, they’ll recall Gingrich as combative with the Dems and not wanting to work with them, and his style that many in the Republican Congress found difficult to work with…this is why Gingrich is NOT a good pick for us as the 20% in the middle WILL NOT vote for Gingrich. They will stay home or vote Obama regrettably.

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 1:41 PM

FoxNews poll conducted November 13-15, 2011

(REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS ONLY) 18. Which Republican candidate do you think has the best chance of beating Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election? (DO NOT READ LIST UNLESS REQUESTED) (Mitt Romney) 37% (Newt Gingrich) 18 (Herman Cain) 17 (Rick Perry) 5 (Michele Bachmann) 2 (Ron Paul) 2 (Jon Huntsman) 1 (Someone else) – (None) 3 (Don’t know) 13

Of all the various questions the poll asked this is all we need to know!

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 1:55 PM

astonerii on December 2, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Yeah? Well, Perry never said people were “heartless” either, but that didn’t stop people from claiming that that is what he said. The implication was there and that’s enough.

Aslans Girl on December 2, 2011 at 5:30 PM

astonerii on December 2, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Perry is on the record as saying, “I strongly oppose amnesty”. He has NEVER proposed it. The ONLY “nice” thing he ever did for illegals was allow their children to get the discounted states’ rate for tutition. THAT’S IT. Otherwise, he has been the toughest TX gov. in YEARS down there and has spent $400 Million Texas tax $$ on the border, something a gov. isn’t supposed to do b/c the Feds are supposed to.

Aslans Girl on December 2, 2011 at 5:33 PM

On his WORST day Newt could outperform lil 0 in a debate, and in the end this is what the Democrats know and are afraid of.

If Sarah Palin had run we would have a true conservative to support, but with SO MANY falling for the JournOlist LIES she didn’t have a chance.

Like him or not, Newt has EARNED our vote, so suck it up.

DannoJyd on December 2, 2011 at 11:35 PM

FoxNews poll conducted November 13-15, 2011

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 1:55 PM

That was then. This is NOW!

Do try to keep up. ;o)

DannoJyd on December 2, 2011 at 11:37 PM

After seeing the latest polls. Romney is changing his Magic tighty whities from kinda snug sized, to defcon 2 sized.

Gedge on December 3, 2011 at 9:49 PM

If Newt wins the nomination you can bet he’ll come under attack as “too extreme” or is supported by “right wing extremists”. Evidently too many people fall for this tactic.

New research shows how support for a generally liked policy can be significantly lowered, simply by associating it with a group seen as “radical” or “extreme.”

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-defeat-policy-extreme.html

Chessplayer on December 4, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4