Gingrich: Maybe Romney should pull out if he loses Michigan

posted at 1:55 pm on February 20, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Whatever one thinks about Newt Gingrich in the context of the presidential race, every interview with the former Speaker is interesting and provocative in one way or another. Yesterday Gingrich sat down with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday to discuss politics and policy, spending almost two-thirds of the interview wearing his “analyst cap,” as Wallace requested. Wallace challenged Gingrich on why he hasn’t followed his own advice on pulling out of the race in order to strengthen the leading conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, and Gingrich replies that he now agrees with Rick Santorum on staying in the race — and points to the ups and downs Gingrich has already experienced as a reason to stay the course. Almost at the same time, Gingrich muses that a Romney loss in Michigan should have the long-time frontrunner and leading delegate gainer thus far considering retirement:


Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich hinted Sunday that if rival Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney loses the primary election in his home state of Michigan, he should drop out of the race.

“If he loses his home state, I don’t see what he says the next morning to his donors to stay in the race,” Mr. Gingrich told “Fox News Sunday.”

If Mr. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, can’t win his home state in a primary election, how can he beat President Obama in Michigan, which typically votes with the Democrats, Mr. Gingrich asked.

“For a general election, that’s not a very good sign,” he said.

Gingrich didn’t go as far as committing to withdrawal if he loses Georgia, his own native state. So far, he has a pretty substantial lead in the Peach State per the RCP average, but the last polling is from two weeks ago — and Santorum is within single digits, nine back in the Landmark/Rosetta Stone survey of almost 1500 likely voters. Santorum might give Gingrich reason to eat his words yet again on withdrawal thresholds. The notion that Romney should consider withdrawing ahead of Gingrich on the basis of one loss — while Gingrich has only won one contest in this primary process — is a bit self-serving and rather laughable. But what else is he supposed to say at this point?

Nevertheless, Gingrich does well in this interview at presenting a reasonable and intellectually sound basis for his policy stances in the final third of the interview. We’ll see if this is the Newt Gingrich we see at the next debate, the one who impressed Republicans with his message of unity against Obama and focus on fiscal conservatism, or the one who lashed out at Romney for several weeks and talked about moon bases by 2020. If it’s the former, he may have a good night indeed, especially if Santorum and Romney spend the night going after each other.


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

In other words, “I’m not a baby YOU’RE a BABY!” A lack of maturity is a big part of Newty’s problem and the same goes for the whining dupes who still support him.

cicerone on February 20, 2012 at 5:27 PM

It is pretty obvious you do not know what you are talking about…sounds like you are whining about something you know nothing about…try again to pick who I am supporting.
You are why it is best to stay out of an debate between two posters, when you have not idea what you are talking about…
Once again, proving that Mitt supporters, most of them, will attack with absolutely no knowledge.

right2bright on February 20, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Polls are polls, but actual votes show that this race is a long way from over. Go Newt!

Kaffa on February 20, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Exactly…that is why it is important to expound on how strong your candidate is, not how “weak” you try to make the opponent…that “weak” opponent just might end up beating you, just ask that weak candidate McCain, no way could he beat the Mitt machine…

right2bright on February 20, 2012 at 5:36 PM

For months on end Newt is sticking with the message that he is the candidate of “Big Solutions,” despite it being too obvious that big is no longer beautiful: big govt, big taxes, big Obamacare.
Regardless of the fact that we don’t have a clue what any of these vaunted big solutions are, by itself his proposed bigness of solutions hints at a deeply entrenched progressive nature. As Beck says.

anotherJoe on February 20, 2012 at 5:40 PM

I still think that Newt has the best vision for a stronger America in terms of economic growth and national security. I would go to newt.org, anotherJoe, to refute your claims that Newt’s “Big Solutions” mean bigger, more intrusive government. Newt is not a progressive; he has an abiding respect for and deep understanding of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers.

I actually find Newt’s so-called abrasiveness much more charming than Chris Cristie’s. Besides, Newt has a more impressive record of conservative accomplishment than Cristie.

onlineanalyst on February 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM

BTW Thanks for the info on the Sunlight Foundation, right2bright. Soros has his sticky fingers in too many areas of our politics.

onlineanalyst on February 20, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I actually find Newt’s so-called abrasiveness much more charming than Chris Cristie’s. Besides, Newt has a more impressive record of conservative accomplishment than Cristie.

onlineanalyst on February 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Agreed. Thank you.

Kaffa on February 20, 2012 at 6:10 PM

What is most annoying about Wallace’s interview is that it is he who dwells on Newt’s election strategy. Newt appears to be quite philosophical and reasonable in addressing Wallace’s loaded questions about the contest between the candidates.

onlineanalyst on February 20, 2012 at 6:25 PM

jb34461 on February 20, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Only two members? Who is the master at arms?

lol

csdeven on February 20, 2012 at 7:30 PM

I would much prefer either Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich as the Republican candidate. I think both of them not only would be better candidates than Mitt Romney, I think both of them would be more effective Presidents and would be good, relatively good, on the issues that we’re concerned about. Mitt Romney on the other hand, I think he’s a bad candidate. I think he’s not an effective candidate against Barack Hussein Obama. I think that he’s extremely vulnerable and I think he’s not good on the issues. I think he’s a phony and I think he’s not good on the issues.

apocalypse on February 20, 2012 at 2:23 PM

On what basis do you assert that either Santy or Newt would make a more effective President? They might, but I don’t see anything in either of their resumes to conclude that, at all. Neither have ever run anything before.

changer1701 on February 20, 2012 at 2:41 PM

I absolutely cannot stand Mitt Romney. Ah (shaking my head in disgust right now). I absolutely can’t stand — I can give you so many reasons why I can’t stand him whether it’s on the issue of abortion or gun control or illegal aliens or any of these other issues, he’s proven that he’s NOT a true conservative, that’s obvious. I can say much more, but on that basis I think that both Santorum or Gingrich would be more effective Presidents. Thanks.

apocalypse on February 20, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Mr. Gingrich would do better to spend more time running his own campaign instead of trying to run everybody else’s campaign.

Jeff A on February 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM

apocalypse on February 20, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Haha, you just said a whole lot of nothing. Guess you couldn’t answer the simple question.

You just proved Changer1701′s point.

The truth is that neither Santorum nor Gingrich will ever be president… because both are a couple of unelectable losers. Oh, and, FYI, neither will be nominated.

bluegill on February 21, 2012 at 7:51 AM

apocalypse on February 20, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Haha, you just said a whole lot of nothing. Guess you couldn’t answer the simple question.

bluegill on February 21, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Mitt Romney’s proven that he’s NOT a true conservative. If you can’t trust him on the issues and he’s been betraying people on the issues you can’t trust him as President. If you think that’s a lot of nothing then you deserve the America you’re getting.

The truth is that neither Santorum nor Gingrich will ever be president… because both are a couple of unelectable losers. Oh, and, FYI, neither will be nominated.

Hearing idiots like you speak is depressing… stay asleep zombie

apocalypse on February 22, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2