Gingrich: I’ve finally got Romney one on one

posted at 9:15 pm on April 10, 2012 by Allahpundit

I can’t find the clip online but, via Fox Insider, he actually told Huckabee this afternoon, “[T]here may be a debate [...] between Romney and me.” Delusional and desperate for attention: When exactly did Newt turn into Mirlande Wilson?

It’s time for an intervention. We need the one person he respects above all others to go pat him on the back, congratulate him on his indefatigability, and tell him that it’s time for the lion in winter to retreat to his lair. How about it, Mr. Toffler?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was just on the Mike Huckabee Radio show, and commented on Santorum suspending his own presidential campaign just moments ago. On the show, Gingrich discussed finally getting to be ’1-on-1′ with Romney, how he will campaign going forward, and a possible debate in North Carolina with the current front-runner…

“I am not focused on going after Romney; I want to focus on the issues and Barack Obama. I will admit it was a slugging match in Florida; people who like me don’t want me down in the gutter. We will see what Governor Romney decides. I am going to focus on the Republican platform and why Obama is a grave threat to this country.”

“Our folks are making calls to undecideds and those for Rick [Santorum]; we have been talking to someone in North Carolina, and there may be a debate [...] between Romney and me. I would like to have an open dialogue – just the two of us, a chat.”

He told Hannity later this afternoon that Bubba Watson wasn’t leading at the start of the last day of the Masters either, but hey. Any Newt fans want to hazard a theory of why Romney would ever, ever, ever agree to another primary debate now that his chief competitor just dropped out and he’s finally free to turn his attention to Obama? Newt’s now reached the check-bouncing stage of his campaign; so desperate for cash is he that the “home” link on his campaign website redirects repeatedly to the donations page. Why embarrass himself by even suggesting that Romney might agree to it?

For your evening viewing pleasure, here’s Santorum’s spokesman on “Hardball” today dancing around the campaign’s obvious disdain for Romney. Damning-with-faint-praise exit quotation about Mitt: “He’s more conservative than Barack Obama, and that’s what we’re all going to have to come to grips with.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


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 3 4 5

jimver on April 11, 2012 at 1:23 AM

Damn straight I will! I’ll be linking to those, and much, much more.

DannoJyd on April 11, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Have you no shame? Apparently not.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:24 AM

I’m not the one supporting a liberal for POTUS. :o))

DannoJyd on April 11, 2012 at 1:25 AM

He provided cover for them in some capacity/influence peddling, to the tune of 1.6 million, it doesn’t matter if it was one year or ten years in aggregate.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:23 AM

And Mitt earned over $7 million from Bain just last year, incorporating preferential tax and incentive treatment from investments. Because, capitalism.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:27 AM

And Mitt earned over $7 million from Bain just last year, incorporating preferential tax and incentive treatment from investments. Because, capitalism.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Is it against the law? Do you have some proof that he somehow broke the law, or are you going to go all OWS on him like the Newtster?

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:32 AM

I’m not the one supporting a liberal for POTUS. :o))

DannoJyd on April 11, 2012 at 1:25 AM

We, the rest of us in the world, don’t live in your head where he’s a liberal… Just FYI.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:33 AM

Is it against the law? Do you have some proof that he somehow broke the law, or are you going to go all OWS on him like the Newtster?

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:32 AM

No, it’s perfectly legal to take public incentives in business, just like its perfectly legal to consult for a government-sponsored enterprise. Whether it is moral or proper is another matter.

The real point is anyone who has no problem with Mitt’s work at Bain but has a problem with Newt’s work at Freddie is a hypocrite.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:34 AM

I’m not the one supporting the liberal in RINO clothing. I’m not the one ignoring the polling data.

DannoJyd on April 11, 2012 at 1:24 AM

:-) yeah, like the polling data’ is definitive and immutable :-), indeed it is not heard of polling data fluctuating and changing pretty much every week, as a response to external events, or in general :-)… so yeah, I was right..you are not able to reason. period.

jimver on April 11, 2012 at 1:37 AM

I suppose I should finish my thought next time…

You’re jsut trying to distract from Newt’s obvious screw up in helping to lobby for Fannie and Freddie.

Quit trying to change the subject… I haven’t heard of Romney doing anything illegal or unethical.

The guy is Ward Cleaver for god sake. ‘course nobody’s perfect so I expect to hear some November surprise if the race is tight and Obama levies that last minute double barrel shotgun I know he’s hiding down his pant leg at him.

I expect Romney will plant somebody to provide disinformation to the campaign so Romney can make him (Obama) look the fool.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:37 AM

I haven’t heard of Romney doing anything illegal or unethical.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:37 AM

Of course you haven’t. The conservative commentariat closed ranks around him. Just wait, Obama will enlighten you.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:39 AM

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:34 AM

Aw come on! Newt’s no dummie! He knew exactly what he was doing was “wrong”. Technically it’s OK to lobby, but like a lawyer they have only their best interests at heart.

Is that the kind of guy you want to replace the guy who’s already like that with?

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:39 AM

Technically it’s OK to lobby, but like a lawyer they have only their best interests at heart.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:39 AM

And I-bankers are only in it it help people.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:40 AM

*it to, not it it

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:41 AM

Of course you haven’t. The conservative commentariat closed ranks around him. Just wait, Obama will enlighten you.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:39 AM

Maybe you got so excited to respond to that line that you missed this little gem I said at the end…

I expect Romney will plant somebody to provide disinformation to the campaign so Romney can make him (Obama) look the fool.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:37 AM

I expect Obama to try something dirty there towards the end. But Romney is no checkers player, checkers has it’s strategy but, he’s a chess player… He knows how to plan for contingencies.

He’s had his op research done and is likely ready for anything Obama has planned.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:42 AM

Is that the kind of guy you want to replace the guy who’s already like that with?

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:39 AM

I firmly believe no one matters more to Mitt than Mitt, actually.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:42 AM

He’s had his op research done and is likely ready for anything Obama has planned.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:42 AM

No. He is not.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:43 AM

He also gave us Souter. Fail.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 12:35 AM

You see, To most of us conservatives we dislike Bush for Souter, But we are glad that he gave us Thomas as well,

would it have been better if a democrat was running the show at that time and gave us 2 Souters?

I am not someone who calls other people names, Or implying that if you don’t support Romney you’re not a conservative, But to say that it is better to have two liberal judges instead of 1 conservative and 1 liberal seems like a stretch to me

If only I could kill off the commercials …

DannoJyd on April 11, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Yeah, that would be awesome

OrthodoxJew on April 11, 2012 at 1:44 AM

And I-bankers are only in it it help people.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:40 AM

EVERYbody is in the business of looking out for themselves. If they didn’t they’d be pretty stupid don’t you think?

But lawyers and lobbyists are especially ruthless, hence all the negative jokes about them…

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:45 AM

Would you rather a democrat was running the show at that time and gave us 2 Souters?

OrthodoxJew on April 11, 2012 at 1:44 AM

At the time, iirc, the GOP didn’t control both the house and the senate. That matters in SCOTUS calculus.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:46 AM

But lawyers and lobbyists are especially ruthless, hence all the negative jokes about them…

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:45 AM

You really don’t know any I-bankers, do you.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:46 AM

No. He is not.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:43 AM

I can’t make you believe it of course, but you don’t attain a level of wealth that he’s attained and generally be as successful as he’s been in his life without doing your due diligence.

He’s ready for everything Obama can throw at him, and his money buys excellent support personnel to help him not misstep.

He’s ready.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:48 AM

At the time, iirc, the GOP didn’t control both the house and the senate. That matters in SCOTUS calculus.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:46 AM

I am not so sure we will not lose the house if Obama wins comfortably

Which is why in order to have a a more conservative congress it requires Romney actually doing well at the top of the ticket

OrthodoxJew on April 11, 2012 at 1:48 AM

I’m not the one supporting the liberal in RINO clothing. I’m not the one ignoring the polling data.

DannoJyd on April 11, 2012 at 1:24 AM

Here, a little sample of how the polls work: ‘In June 1992, Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton)’…and we all know who won that one, don’t we :-)…

jimver on April 11, 2012 at 1:48 AM

All it would take is 1 debate and a couple of news cycles for Newt to be back on top again.

It’s a good thing he held on and didn’t drop out when all the haters wanted him to. Why on earth would he drop out NOW?

tkyang99 on April 11, 2012 at 1:49 AM

You don’t attain a level of wealth that he’s attained and generally be as successful as he’s been in his life without doing your due diligence. being born the wealthy son of a Senator and presidential candidate

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:48 AM

Sorry. His business record is not impressive to me because he started from a position of extreme privilege. Gingrich started from nothing. Palin started from nothing. Cain started from nothing. That’s what I find impressive.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:49 AM

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:46 AM

good god man! You are way too black and white. We all know that scoundrels are found across all spectrum’s of business and life.

Of COURSE there are some ruthless bankers!

Geesh! Lighten up will you Mr Literal.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:50 AM

I am not so sure we will not lose the house if Obama wins comfortably

OrthodoxJew on April 11, 2012 at 1:48 AM

And that is why I think it important that we employ a firebreak strategy in order to preserve the House and take the Senate even without the White House. It’s more important to have Congress than the White House.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:51 AM

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:50 AM

You just said lawyers must be ruthless because there are lots of jokes about them. And you caution me against broad strokes?

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:52 AM

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:49 AM

So because he lived a life of privilege he’s what, a lesser person?

Everything he made he made himself. He didn’t take a job with his dad as a chief executive, he struck out on his own and made his own life working his way up the ladder of success.

Are you an OWS type who frowns upon people of privilege JUST because they’re people of privilege?

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:56 AM

And that is why I think it important that we employ a firebreak strategy in order to preserve the House and take the Senate even without the White House. It’s more important to have Congress than the White House.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:51 AM

The better way in my opinion is to make sure that Romney wins against Obama,

There is simply no way that Romney wins and we somehow lose the house or Senate,

Besides, There is a LOT of thinks that a president can do without a congress, and i am much more comfortable with a Romney at the presidency then Obama,

At least Romney will have his first term, Obama in his second term is going to be a freaking disaster

OrthodoxJew on April 11, 2012 at 1:57 AM

To continue… do you know what his fathers inheritance to him was? 1 million dollars, which Romney donated entirely to BYU.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:58 AM

The better way in my opinion is to make sure that Romney wins against Obama,

OrthodoxJew on April 11, 2012 at 1:57 AM

And in my opinion it is impossible to do so, and we should concentrate our resources on other races.

As I said in another thread, it’s just as well Obama has to shoulder the burden of a terrible economy for the next four years. Plus the hearings on Fast and Furious and campaign finance misbehavior will be fascinating. Obama will have a second term like Bill Clinton’s: full of scandal and headache, leaving him no time to advance his agenda (which will be stymied by massive budget cuts to his czars and other assorted extra-constitutional bodies).

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:59 AM

Finally! I’ve got Romney right where I want him!!

You have to love Newt….

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 11, 2012 at 2:00 AM

To continue… do you know what his fathers inheritance to him was? 1 million dollars, which Romney donated entirely to BYU.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:58 AM

Growing up rich, privileged, at the best schools and in contact with influential people to ease his way in the business world is far more useful than an inheritance.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:00 AM

You just said lawyers must be ruthless because there are lots of jokes about them.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:52 AM

WHAT?! Really? As if you don’t know that there are millions of jokes about lawyers ruthlessness, and that lawyer jokes dwarf the next job occupations joke count by leaps and bounds?

Lawyers ARE lobbyists…

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:01 AM

Are you an OWS type who frowns upon people of privilege JUST because they’re people of privilege?

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:56 AM

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:01 AM

And that is why I think it important that we employ a firebreak strategy in order to preserve the House and take the Senate even without the White House. It’s more important to have Congress than the White House.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 1:51 AM

ok, how about ‘you’ (as in the collective ‘you’) and the crowds that you command and mentor (and of which I know nothing :) employ that winning strategy of yours and preserve the House and take the Senate (it won’t happen anyways, btw…how do I know, the same way you know that Romney is not going to win :-) – and the rest of us, mortals will employ our ABO strategy and work hard to elect Mitt…fair enough…

jimver on April 11, 2012 at 2:01 AM

So because he lived a life of privilege he’s what, a lesser person?

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:56 AM

No, it’s just not as impressive. I expect privileged kids to have stellar careers. If they don’t it’s a shock and they become tabloid fodder. No tabloid cares about a poor kid getting into drugs and ruining his life, that happens all the time. It’s news when a privileged kid does it because it’s unusual.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:02 AM

Lawyers ARE lobbyists…

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:01 AM

Actually I am a lawyer, and not a lobbyist. Most lawyers are not lobbyists, and not unethical, either.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:03 AM

Growing up rich, privileged, at the best schools and in contact with influential people to ease his way in the business world is far more useful than an inheritance.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:00 AM

There are success stories galore of people growing up in abject poverty who’ve come to this country and attained great standards of living.

Where a person comes from socially/economically has no bearing on who they are and whether they’ll be successful or not.

Plenty of privileged kids go on to nothingness and poverty.

It’s what’s in your brain that matters. Knowledge is power.

He knows how to use his brain. He’s ready.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:04 AM

ok, how about ‘you’ (as in the collective ‘you’) and the crowds that you command and mentor (and of which I know nothing :) employ that winning strategy of yours and preserve the House and take the Senate

jimver on April 11, 2012 at 2:01 AM

That’s what we’re working on. Thanks for the vote of confidence. But I’m pretty sure my state is going to replace a Dem Senator with a Repub and hold all of our GOP House seats, so we’re doing our part.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:05 AM

Growing up rich, privileged, at the best schools and in contact with influential people to ease his way in the business world is far more useful than an inheritance.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:00 AM

Oh, excuse him for having a rich father who started from nothing btw, we all know he’s greatly responsible for choosing his parents :-)…oh, and while we’re at it, also excuse him for not reneging on them while he could :-)…

jimver on April 11, 2012 at 2:05 AM

Where a person comes from socially/economically has no bearing on who they are and whether they’ll be successful or not.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:04 AM

That is so wrong it’s laughable. America makes social mobility more possible than other places, true. But where you end up is very often a function of where you start, and that’s just fact.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:06 AM

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:03 AM

You are a lawyer representing someone, if that isn’t the definition of a lobbyist I don’t know what is.

You’re lobbying for your clients rights. You’re lobbying for someone’s rights or interests.

Don’t play word games.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:06 AM

jimver on April 11, 2012 at 2:05 AM

i don’t blame him, I’m just not impressed with him. He’s an upstanding family man and didn’t fritter away his advantages like he could have. That’s great. Do I stand in awe at the accomplishments of one born to great accomplishments? No.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:07 AM

i don’t blame him, I’m just not impressed with him. He’s an upstanding family man and didn’t fritter away his advantages like he could have. That’s great. Do I stand in awe at the accomplishments of one born to great accomplishments? No.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:07 AM

So any kid of a rich man is never a man themselves? They’re actions aren’t their own but an extension of their fathers greatness/wealth?

Oh! I feel so stupid!

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:09 AM

So any kid of a rich man is never a man themselves? They’re actions aren’t their own but an extension of their fathers greatness/wealth?

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:09 AM

you’ve perfectly encapsulated why the guys I went to college with were such head cases.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:12 AM

Lobby” has a specific meaning beyond general advocacy.

“Lobby: 1. To try to influence public officials on behalf of or against (proposed legislation, for example): lobbied the bill through Congress; lobbied the bill to a negative vote.
2. To try to influence (an official) to take a desired action.”

Try again.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:11 AM

semantics… argued like a true lawyer.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:12 AM

You’re right. Vote for Obama/

ghostwriter on April 11, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Of course, because going with the status quo and maintaining our one-party system is the only way to go.
You can go ahead and sit in your little corner, I’ll be waiting for a real choice.

Dunedainn on April 11, 2012 at 2:13 AM

semantics… argued like a true lawyer.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:12 AM

thank you.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:13 AM

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:12 AM

????????????????

ahhhh! the stupid! it hertz

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:14 AM

semantics… argued like a true lawyer.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:12 AM

thank you.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:13 AM

Are you a Constitutional law professor by chance or something?

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:15 AM

ahhhh! the stupid! it hertz

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:14 AM

I know its hard. Take a couple advil and a correspondence course, you’ll feel better.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:15 AM

I know its hard. Take a couple advil and a correspondence course, you’ll feel better.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:15 AM

Density.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:15 AM

i don’t blame him, I’m just not impressed with him.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:07 AM

that’s just subjective.a lot of people are impressed with him indeed. so, this discussion doesn’t make much sense.

jimver on April 11, 2012 at 2:15 AM

Are you a Constitutional law professor by chance or something?

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:15 AM

Not yet, but con law was my best class in law school and a part of my practice now. It’s on the horizon.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:16 AM

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:16 AM

You must admit that lawyers are lobbyists… The definition you provide is a pretty narrow definition don’t you think, and more contextual than anything else?

Surely you see that lawyers lobby for things… Come on! Don’t let me down! My faith in the intellectual honesty of lawyers rides on your answer. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:21 AM

You must admit that lawyers are lobbyists… The definition you provide is a pretty narrow definition

the definition is what it is. Lobbyist connotes legislation. Lawyer does not.

Surely you see that lawyers lobby for things… Come on! Don’t let me down! My faith in the intellectual honesty of lawyers rides on your answer. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:21 AM

Lawyers exploit narrow definitions for a living. Sorry.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:23 AM

Not yet, but con law was my best class in law school and a part of my practice now. It’s on the horizon.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:16 AM

So in other words, you know more than the troll.

Dunedainn on April 11, 2012 at 2:25 AM

So in other words, you know more than the troll.

Dunedainn on April 11, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Meh. We’re having fun. At least he isn’t accusing me of being a Democrat, closet or otherwise.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:28 AM

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:23 AM

STOp being a lawyer for a second and speak from your heart… You know that when you represent someone, which is part of the definition of the term lawyer, that you are lobbying for their rights

Lobby, v.
1. Detain in conversation by or as if by holding on to the outer garments of; as for political or economic favours.

Heck, most lobbyists are either lawyers, or used to be lawyers who went into politics and then cashed in on their political life to then lobby for specific interest groups, for money, JUST like lawyers.

Lawyers detain people in conversation in court, for political or economic favors do they not?

;-)

Come on firedup! Seriously, don’t let me down. We’re not in a court here, it’s a blog site for politics.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:29 AM

No, lawyers do not look for favors. They argue on record for the law to be applied properly to a given set of facts. At least that’s how I practice. I’m sure there are scummy lawyers out there, like there are scummy journalists, politicians and yes, lobbyists. But the vast majority of lawyers aren’t like that.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:32 AM

So in other words, you know more than the troll.

Dunedainn on April 11, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Calling me a troll! While I’ll…

He may be a lawyer and know more about law but I’m a network engineer with a masters degree in computers, and 24 years of network/server maintenance and computer programming experience, so there!

;-)

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:33 AM

But the vast majority of lawyers aren’t like that.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:32 AM

agreed, and I’m not saying you are… but serial… lawyers are lobbyists. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:34 AM

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:33 AM

:-)

You and my husband (yes, I’m a chick) are two birds of a feather, then.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:34 AM

:-)

You and my husband (yes, I’m a chick) are two birds of a feather, then.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:34 AM

you write like a dude! ;-) kidding.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:36 AM

It really doesn’t matter. Newt won’t get any delegates to amount to anything. It’s over. This is Newt’s political swan song and he knows it so he is going to make the best of it.

crosspatch on April 11, 2012 at 2:37 AM

Peace! i’m off to bed.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:37 AM

It really doesn’t matter. Newt won’t get any delegates to amount to anything. It’s over. This is Newt’s political swan song and he knows it so he is going to make the best of it.

crosspatch on April 11, 2012 at 2:37 AM

Agreed, g’night.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:38 AM

…Why I’ll… FIFM. Now it’s goodnight.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:38 AM

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:38 AM

Go to bed! :) It’s been fun.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 2:39 AM

We, the rest of us in the world, don’t live in your head the REAL World where he’s been a liberal all of his life… Just FYI.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:33 AM

FIFY

DannoJyd on April 11, 2012 at 3:12 AM

jimver on April 11, 2012 at 1:37 AM

FINE! Feel free to IGNORE ALL of the current data, but if Sketchy is so wonderful where are all of the articles discussing his momentus achievements? Where are all of the reasons to vote for him? Why would anyone support the architect of 0bamacare?

I have yet to read a singe good reason to support the RINO. All MittBots have is, He isn’t 0bama. Well, neither is Newt.

DannoJyd on April 11, 2012 at 3:18 AM

jimver on April 11, 2012 at 1:48 AM

That was then. This is now, so please DO supply a link to ANY story selling Romney for POTUS. Let’s see where ANY group supports him, and why that is.

DannoJyd on April 11, 2012 at 3:20 AM

All aboard the Newt Caboose!

TarheelBen on April 11, 2012 at 3:25 AM

Ron Paul is the only candidate that served in the military and was honorably discharged. He is supported by more of our military than all of the other candidates combined, still, whereas you are just a lying smear merchant.

FloatingRock on April 10, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Bededict Arnold was a revolutionary war hero before he tried to cash out by selling West Point to the British.

Nothing Ron Paul ever has done in the past could make up for his association with enemies of the republic like Alex Jones and Don Black.

Alberta_Patriot on April 11, 2012 at 3:38 AM

I really don’t want to upset anybody here, but it really is time for Newt and Santy to close ranks and get behind Romney. Yes I know the nomination isn’t technically over, but lets be honest, Ron Paul almost has a better chance at this point than Newt.

Romney is the nominee, and we should try our absolute best to help him win against Obama. Even if you don’t think he can win we should still try, because the better Romney does the more likely the Republican ticket will do well in the House and Senate.

Besides, he CAN win. He’s a reasonably good candidate and Obama has a lot of weaknesses.

WolvenOne on April 11, 2012 at 4:25 AM

FINE! Feel free to IGNORE ALL of the current data, but if Sketchy is so wonderful where are all of the articles discussing his momentus achievements? Where are all of the reasons to vote for him? Why would anyone support the architect of 0bamacare?

I have yet to read a singe good reason to support the RINO. All MittBots have is, He isn’t 0bama. Well, neither is Newt.

DannoJyd on April 11, 2012 at 3:18 AM

Newt lost.

ghostwriter on April 11, 2012 at 6:26 AM

Why is Newt assuming Santorums voters are going to him? I’m not seeing that at all. I also dont think he will automatically win all of the southern states. I wish it were soneone elae but its Mitt time for acceptance and a battle plan

ldbgcoleman on April 11, 2012 at 7:31 AM

We need the one person he respects above all others…

Does Newt talk to his mirror?

rhombus on April 11, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Obama is still leading Romney 44% to 38% among independents . . . keep it up Newt and you’ll drop Romney another 5 percentage points. The purpose of this event has been totally lost. Instead of beating Obama it has become a spit fight among contemporaries attempting to screw up their fellow Republicans. Obama doesn’t have to beat the Republicans, they’re beating themselves.

Disgusting.

rplat on April 11, 2012 at 7:56 AM

I have yet to read a singe good reason to support the RINO. All MittBots have is, He isn’t 0bama. Well, neither is Newt.
DannoJyd on April 11, 2012 at 3:18 AM

.
EgoNewt has to get passed crazy Grampa Ron first.

And Mitt never chased after Nancy Pelosi like boy toy Leroy Newton did. That is so disgusting, way worse than resigning his speakership.

Clark Kent Romney is your guy.
Bank on it buddy!

FlaMurph on April 11, 2012 at 8:04 AM

“Our folks are making calls to undecideds and those for Rick [Santorum]; we have been talking to someone in North Carolina, and there may be a debate [...] between Romney and me.

Gee, now that he doesn’t have Santorum to kick around any more, that pesky former Senator who got triple his votes, NOW he can have a debate with Romney! By the way, what was Newt doing on TV 20 times with Romney in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida? Were those debates, or just warm-ups?

What does Gingrich think those 300-plus delegates Santorum won will do at the convention? Will they listen to Gingrich, or to Santorum?

Hey, Newt, there are lots of windmills in North Carolina. Put on your armor, get on your high horse, and charge!!!

Steve Z on April 11, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Gingrich will win the conservative states left.

Texas will be one example

social-justice on April 10, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Exactly the kind of irrationality I’d expect from someone named “social-justice”.

eyedoc on April 11, 2012 at 9:20 AM

He also gave us Souter. Fail.

alwaysfiredup on April 11, 2012 at 12:35 AM

Souter was John Sununu’s fault. Not that it matters much now anyway. Sometimes you just get screwed, Earl Warren being the perfect example. Or John Paul Stevens.

eyedoc on April 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Show me the money!

claudius on April 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I had forgotten about Newt.

magicbeans on April 11, 2012 at 10:16 AM

When exactly did Newt turn into Mirlande Wilson?

More like Norma Desmond. Delusions of grandeur and relevance.

Happy Nomad on April 11, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Has anyone done the math on what it looks like should Santorum get behind Gingrich?

Bmore on April 11, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Obama is still leading Romney 44% to 38% among independents . . . keep it up Newt and you’ll drop Romney another 5 percentage points. The purpose of this event has been totally lost. Instead of beating Obama it has become a spit fight among contemporaries attempting to screw up their fellow Republicans. Obama doesn’t have to beat the Republicans, they’re beating themselves.

Disgusting.

rplat on April 11, 2012 at 7:56 AM

Mitt needs to extend the olive branch to conservatives…the fact that he continues (and more importantly his supporters who are much more out int he open) continue to bash conservatives who want policies to move to the right, turn off most everyone.
What you want is total capitulation of conservative policy, so Mitt can do whatever he wants, and what he did in Mass.
That cost is too great…no “middle of the road/left” Republican has won an election. And this is why, if a choice is given between a left leaning Republican, and a left leaning dem, the dem wins because their is not a concise difference.
You guys shilling for Mitt makes it impossible to support him, because you are for him 100% not matter what his stance is…and we want him to move to the right, honestly move to the right, not just words.

right2bright on April 11, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Are you an OWS type who frowns upon people of privilege JUST because they’re people of privilege?

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:56 AM

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 2:01 AM

Yes! Because basically these kind of people don’t understand the plight of the average Americans who are fighting everyday to earn an honest living for his own family.

So I’m against these kind of Politicians to “solve the problems they don’t simply understand” because they have never experienced them!

So what’s your problem?

TheAlamos on April 11, 2012 at 10:32 AM

And Mitt never chased after Nancy Pelosi like boy toy Leroy Newton did. That is so disgusting, way worse than resigning his speakership.

Clark Kent Romney is your guy.
Bank on it buddy!

FlaMurph on April 11, 2012 at 8:04 AM

No, Mitt just ran from being a conservative, and ran away from Reagan…and ran towards the liberals side of politics.
You know that…Mitt will be chosen, but no sense in putting him up as being “perfect”…his flaws have to be fleshed out and he has to move to the right or he will not win.
Bank on it buddy!!

He has only one one election, despite his decades of campaigning and that was to move way to the left…

right2bright on April 11, 2012 at 10:34 AM

You guys shilling for Mitt makes it impossible to support him, because you are for him 100% not matter what his stance is…and we want him to move to the right, honestly move to the right, not just words.

What exactly do you want to move him to the right on?

He’s pro-life
He’s a fiscal hawk
He’s the strongest candidate of all on amnesty
No one has talked about repealing Obamacare more than he has.
He’s bashed Obama as much as any one(unless he gets attacked for bashing him too much and not defending himself like in SC)

Is climate change the issue for you? He has stated he doesn’t see government as the solution to that but is that your stumbling block or am I missing something?

….and anyone should be 100% for Mitt now that he is the nominee. Taking down Obama is paramount.

Zybalto on April 11, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Newt, listen. Americans want a Socialist for president, whether it be Obama or Romney. You’re just not that guy, so you can sit this one out.

Crusty on April 11, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Gingrich: I’ve finally got Romney one on one
It’s time for an intervention. We need the one person he respects above all others to go pat him on the back, congratulate him on his indefatigability, and tell him that it’s time for the lion in winter to retreat to his lair. – Allahpundit

The very first thought that entered my mind when I read that was what Chuck Wepner was thinking as Muhammed Ali slowly bled him to death. In fact, there is a slight resemblance betwixt Newt and “The Bayonne Brawler”.

The same can be said for Randall ‘Tex’ Cobb v. Larry Holmes
I admire a man with grit:

“You aint knocked me down, and you shore aint killed me, so let’s dance some more”.

I like a man who’s got grit.

Gingrich / Perry 2012
§§§§§§§§§§ ~(Ä)~ §§§§§§§§§
GOP Attack Squad Since 1972

Karl Magnus on April 11, 2012 at 10:39 AM

All it would take is 1 debate and a couple of news cycles for Newt to be back on top again.

It’s a good thing he held on and didn’t drop out when all the haters wanted him to. Why on earth would he drop out NOW?

tkyang99 on April 11, 2012 at 1:49 AM

I like your thinking. Conservatives are not happy with Romney, and he’s not happy with them. Romney and the republican establishment are constantly dissing the tea party and conservative voters.

Conservatives going over to Newt now that Santy has suspended his campaign is a very feasible scenario.

Go Newt; hold up that conservative banner and wave it in Romney’s face.

IndeCon on April 11, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Gingrich: I’ve finally got Romney one on one

Me: Ummm, Newt, BOHICA.

EconomicNeocon on April 11, 2012 at 10:43 AM

IDIOT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690

Shaughnessy on April 11, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Perhaps he should get out of the race and we can start discussing real issues like the federal reserve, sound money, cutting the debt, lowering taxes etc. instead of talking about moon colonies. This dude’s a joke!!!

steve123 on April 11, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5