Green Room

Newt: Let’s face it, I probably would have done better than Romney against Obama

posted at 1:17 pm on December 20, 2012 by

I am, to put it mildly, skeptical, but read all of this interview, as he’s a trenchant critic of the current Republican difficulties. This part in particular is newsy coming from the guy who helped push DOMA through:

On gay marriage, meanwhile, Gingrich argued that Republicans could no longer close their eyes to the course of public opinion. While he continued to profess a belief that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, he suggested that the party (and he himself) could accept a distinction between a “marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state” — the latter being acceptable.

“I think that this will be much more difficult than immigration for conservatism to come to grips with,” he said, noting that the debate’s dynamics had changed after state referenda began resulting in the legalization of same-sex marriage. “It is in every family. It is in every community. The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to … accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states — and it will be more after 2014 — gay relationships will be legal, period.”

Recently in the Green Room:

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

Let’s face it, you are full of crap.

Oil Can on December 20, 2012 at 1:22 PM

And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states — and it will be more after 2014 — gay relationships will be legal, period.”

Not argueable.

Irritable Pundit on December 20, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Newt, I’m soo sick of your ego.

ChunkyLover on December 20, 2012 at 1:24 PM

While he continued to profess a belief that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman

Or between an man and a woman and the other woman, right, Newt?

rbj on December 20, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Good God does Newt have an ego… Umm, sorry you wouldn’t.

Illinidiva on December 20, 2012 at 1:28 PM

I’d rather have had an egocentric fighter as our candidate than the useless impotent RINO dishrag we got.

rrpjr on December 20, 2012 at 1:31 PM

IF you had done better, you still wouldn’t have beaten 0bama, because you can’t beat Santa Claus.

CurtZHP on December 20, 2012 at 1:35 PM

“I’m going to be the nominee,” Gingrich told ABC News. “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.”
.
.
.
Newt Gingrich, December 1, 2011.

JPeterman on December 20, 2012 at 1:36 PM

he suggested that the party (and he himself) could accept a distinction between a “marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state” — the latter being acceptable.

While he is right – he is totally wrong. Rational human beings know the difference. Problem is, Progs will use the state sanctioning of gay marriage to force churches to perform gay ceremonies – or be painted as “hate groups” and “terrorists”.

Just invite the camel into the tent already, Newt.

CycloneCDB on December 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM

“I think that this will be much more difficult than immigration for conservatism to come to grips with,” he said, noting that the debate’s dynamics had changed after state referenda began resulting in the legalization of same-sex marriage.

I wouldn’t be so sure about that one. I’m against SSM but if I was forced to choose which to fight against, SSM or amnesty, it would be amnesty every time.

TxAnn56 on December 20, 2012 at 1:45 PM

MI was a Newt supporter for a time. However he had no organization and I don’t know how he would have done better than Mitt with nor organization.

terryannonline on December 20, 2012 at 1:46 PM

So the man who couldn’t beat Mitt Romney in a Republican primary election cycle believes that he could have beaten Barack Obama, who defeated Mitt Romney, in a general election? I’m not certain, but I’m pretty sure there’s one of those “if A=B and B=C” mathematical properties that says it’s unlikely.

Also, must absolutely everything be defined in political terms? Some things are absolute, regardless of which way societal opinion moves. Abortion is wrong, period, regardless of what the nine wise men in Washington say and regardless of where public opinion swings. Gay marriage is a non sequitor, as marriage is, by natural law, the union of one man and one woman. Again, regardless of what any legislature, court, or the general public says.

Do I want conservatives to win elections? Yes. But not by abandoning core conservative principles. All this talk about how we need to stop talking about abortion or gay marriage or gun control or anything else because it’s not currently popular with the electorate is crap. It’s simply saying “be more like the Democrats, and you can get elected.” But if we’re more like the Democrats, what is the point?

Shump on December 20, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Let’s face it, Newt.

You’re an idiot and a loser. Obama would have stomped you Mondale-style.

Moesart on December 20, 2012 at 1:55 PM

No, Newt. You wouldn’t have. You would’ve been slaughtered amongst women voters. And unlike Romney, you would not have won independents. The whole reason Mittens lost was because Obama successfully portrayed him as someone 51% of the electorate found to be out of touch and uncaring. And that took hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads. His campaign wouldn’t have had to lift a finger to make you out to be the same given how unpopular you were when you left office in the late 90′s.

Doughboy on December 20, 2012 at 1:59 PM

facepalm

ConservativeLA on December 20, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Yes, that moon colony idea would’ve taken the country by storm. /

changer1701 on December 20, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Right, Newt. You would have won less states than Romney did. We’re talking Michael Dukakis territory.

thebrokenrattle on December 20, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Newt’s politics pwns you suckers…

equanimous on December 20, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Couldn’t have done worse.

besser tot als rot on December 20, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Newt might have lost too, but he wouldn’t have left any arrows unused in the quiver as the Mittster did.

Another Drew on December 20, 2012 at 2:12 PM

However he had no organization and I don’t know how he would have done better than Mitt with nor organization.

terryannonline on December 20, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Romney’s vaunted organization turned out to be, at best, only marginally better than no organization.

besser tot als rot on December 20, 2012 at 2:12 PM

I’m not certain, but I’m pretty sure there’s one of those “if A=B and B=C” mathematical properties that says it’s unlikely.

Shump on December 20, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Math should sue you for libel.

besser tot als rot on December 20, 2012 at 2:14 PM

It would be unwise to dismiss everything he says out-of-hand here, but suffice it to say he wouldn’t have beaten Obama. Of those who ran in the primaries, the only one who might have had a chance would’ve been Herman Cain, who also had some real liabilities.

It was a bad field of GOP contenders. It was an even worse electorate.

SAMinVA on December 20, 2012 at 2:15 PM

I agree, Newt would have done far better against Obama.

astonerii on December 20, 2012 at 2:18 PM

I don’t understand what so many conservatives have against Newt. In spite of many comments here, Gingrich is a brilliant man and he has great ideas. Maybe some are too young to remember the last time D.C. actually functioned as a competent government and that Newt was the leader of the House. It was also that last time the federal budget balanced. Notwithstanding his personal indiscretions, there was no one more qualified to lead a recovery of the Federal Government in my opinion.

Republicans keep nominating RINOs and Republicans keep getting trounced. Am I the only one who sees a pattern? Romney is a good man, but was ill-equipped to take on a merciless politician like Obama, his machine and MSM at the same time. If the people of this country weren’t so disengaged and downright stupid, politicians wouldn’t even have to campaign for two years. Watching three debates, and observing what’s going on around us, is more than enough information anyone would need to pick a candidate.

cajunpatriot on December 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

What nonsense – identity politics and merciless pandering is a game no republican can win.

Moreover, jumping on the homosexual “marriage” bandwagon is a surefire way to get the socons to revolt – and without them the GOP couldn’t get a dogcatcher elected.

Rebar on December 20, 2012 at 2:21 PM

suffice it to say he wouldn’t have beaten Obama.

SAMinVA on December 20, 2012 at 2:15 PM

I don’t agree. He could have. Obama probably would have won, but what we do know is that he couldn’t have done worse than Romney. Romney lost. And not only did he lose, but with him at the top of the ticket, the GOP got clobbered in the Senate elections (they lost ND!!!). And lost more than pretty much anyone was predicting in the House.

besser tot als rot on December 20, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Mr too, I totally would have kicked Obama’s butt in that election.

forest on December 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Newt, please pack your ego and your 3rd way ideas up and move somewhere far away.

cajunpatriot on December 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

He has loads of ideas. Except most of them are in no way conservative ideas. The man doesn’t have any problem with statist solutions – as long as they’re some big idea that he thinks might work. (And, the idea of a ‘competent’ government any time in the recent past is very arguable.)

GWB on December 20, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Newt has been ahead of the curve on policy, politics, and strategy at every turn.

The RINO’s never forgave him for forcing the Party to be conservative in the 1990′s.

portlandon on December 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Look, Mitt made it close against the Obama and Media machine precisely because he had no skeletons in his closet for them to talk about exclusively. They had to at least sometimes talk about the issues because as much as they tried, the dog on the roof issue just didn’t resonate with people.

With Newt or anyone else, the adultery and other moral issues would have been the ONLY topic of conversation. Same with Herman, who if he had not had that women issue would have been an ideal candidate. But the media destroyed him, on a personal level. Romney was squeaky clean, and thus we had at least some discussion of the issues.

Vanceone on December 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Your statement on proves that it takes huge ego to run for the Presidency of the United States. Personally, I think anyone who wants the office is insane.

SC.Charlie on December 20, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Same with Herman, who if he had not had that women issue would have been an ideal candidate. But the media destroyed him, on a personal level.

Vanceone on December 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM

“that women issue” saved Cain the embarrassment of being exposed as a moron…

equanimous on December 20, 2012 at 2:36 PM

The man doesn’t have any problem with statist solutions – as long as they’re some big idea that he thinks might work. (And, the idea of a ‘competent’ government any time in the recent past is very arguable.)

GWB on December 20, 2012 at 2:26 PM

As opposed to Romney.

/

besser tot als rot on December 20, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Look, Mitt made it close against the Obama and Media machine precisely because he had no skeletons in his closet for them to talk about exclusively.

Vanceone on December 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM

You must have been hibernating during the early summer.

besser tot als rot on December 20, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Newt would have lost pretty much every single demographic.

GOPRanknFile on December 20, 2012 at 2:46 PM

cajunpatriot on December 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Gingrich sometimes makes good arguments and always forcefully, but he does have some glaring faults. Problem is, some of those positions he defends forcefully are so goofy as to make one wonder about his mental stability. He also likes to make bold political moves (like sitting on the couch with Pelosi on global warming), only to later say he didn’t really mean it.

Also, he’s promiscuous. Not that many politicians aren’t, but for me and many other social conservatives it’s a huge negative.

Fenris on December 20, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Sorry Newt you should have run in ’96 your ship has sailed and the Conservative’s are deeply split up no one want anyone, but their little nitch candidate. Until we wnat to defeat the Libs/Dems/Progressive/statists more than we want to beat down our candidate who won a G-D D – MN primary we will lose. Party unity exscapes use completly.

ChunkyLover on December 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

As opposed to Romney.

/

besser tot als rot on December 20, 2012 at 2:42 PM

OH YEAH Romney a statist, so lets let a evern bigger statist get keep the office that makes alot of sence.

ChunkyLover on December 20, 2012 at 2:54 PM

besser tot als rot on December 20, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Not sure that Romney has quite the ego concerning his own ideas that Newt does, but… yeah.

GWB on December 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM

One theory of the election was that Obama was so weighed down with economic baggage, that Dems were going to stay home, Independents were poised to bolt, and that all a candidate had to do was gently offer themselves up as an unobjectionable alternative.

A second theory of the election was that this is such a fundamentally bitterly divided country, the president was so prepared to spend the largest blizzard of cash on his reelection of any prior incumbent, that he was so unique a figure that his loyalists would sacrifice all to protect him, and that the media was so post-objectivity that it was going to empty its entire belt of .50 cal bullets trying to stop cold his opponent — that the only way for a republican to win was to mobilize as many fellow partisans as possible and to move them en masse with all the knives and grenades necessary into politics’ dark alley to win a bloody and dogged street fight.

Romney was the gentle alternative candidate. Newt was the street fight candidate.

I’m not convinced that he would have won, but Newt’s not completely wrong that a Newt-like candidate might have been best for this election.

Robert_Paulson on December 20, 2012 at 3:01 PM

The sad thing is we couldn’t do better than either of them and I actually like Gingrich and grew to respect Romney as a person (although both are RINOs at best).

kim roy on December 20, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Since our kids refuse to wed, I’d be fine with the male relative who has been “livin’ in sin” with his boyfriend for three decades getting hitched. Hell, they’ve married off all three of their (hetero) kids!

**sigh**

As Debbie Reynolds snaps in the film In and Out, “I need a wedding! It’s like heroin.”

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 20, 2012 at 3:06 PM

that the only way for a republican to win was to mobilize as many fellow partisans as possible and to move them en masse with all the knives and grenades necessary into politics’ dark alley to win a bloody and dogged street fight.

Robert_Paulson on December 20, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Which is never going to happen. “Republicans” (note I don’t use “conservative” here) don’t have the stones to fight for what they believe in. They want to be liked by the media and the opposition and will continue to cave in some form or another.

Until the GOP finds a strong conservative who has principles and will not back away from them then they will continue to lose.

We could learn something from the liberals. They may b&tch and moan, but when it’s important they all get on the same page.

kim roy on December 20, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Newt is prone to grandiosity on a scale that few other than Obama have reached. Other than Obama, how many politicians have you ever seen compare themselves to Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Dwight David Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Henry Clay, Charles de Gaulle, Abraham Lincoln, the Duke of Wellington, Marion Barry, Ho Chi Minh, William Wallace, Moses, Pericles, a Viking (and not the Minnesota kind either), Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, Vince Lombardi, Sam Walton, Ray Kroc, and those are just a few of names of people that join Newt in his Lamed Vav Hall of Fame, which aren’t just 36 special people in the world at one time, but the top special people in the history of world civilisation.

Mark Steyn once wrote of Newt that he is “A lead zeppelin with more baggage than the Hindenburg.” He should have added “and a bigger ego than the entire Panzergruppe 4.”

BTW, Newty, why don’t you tell us where your feet are planted today on gun control?

In 1990, you voted for the Gun Free School Zones Act, which would not have kept guns out of the hands of the Columbine, University of Texas, Virginia Tech mass murderers or even the anti-war demonstrator, who fired a gun during a campus protest that set off the Kent State riot. Among others, the Act would have prohibited law-abiding citizens living and establishments doing business within a school zone from possessing guns. It would have criminalised — at a Federal level — the carrying of an EMPTY gun in a briefcase by a person using the sidewalk in front of school on his or her way to a legal appointment. You voted for the Domestic Violence Offenders Act a/k/a “The Lautenberg Amendment, which would strip an individual convicted of domestic violence of his Second Amendment rights … for even a misdemeanor … forever … even if he later became a model citizen.

You also supported “an instant background check, based on thumb prints, to determine whether the buyer was a convicted felon or someone with dangerous mental behavior, rather than a background check process instituted by the Brady law.” Aside from the fact that nobody has to submit fingerprints to exercise any other Constitutional rights, there’s a problem: This measure would require the Federal government to keep a record of every buyer’s thumbprint, creating a national registry of gun owners. This would violate the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA)- a law signed by Ronald Reagan to prohibit the federal government from maintaining exactly such a database (current NICS records have to be destroyed after 90 days to comply with FOPA).

So, where are you today?

Resist We Much on December 20, 2012 at 3:09 PM

OH YEAH Romney a statist, so lets let a evern bigger statist get keep the office that makes alot of sence.

ChunkyLover on December 20, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Romney is a statist. True. But who “let” an even bigger statist keep the office of the Presidency? Romney. That’s who. By running a piss poor campaign, and failing to convince and give reason to enough people to vote for him. Not me. I voted for the clown, even though he didn’t give me much of a reason to do so other than by not being Obama (which over 300 million people in this country can accomplish by simply breathing).

besser tot als rot on December 20, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Why, Newt? Could you have cheated better than he did?

The Rogue Tomato on December 20, 2012 at 3:13 PM

(“he” meaning Obama)

The Rogue Tomato on December 20, 2012 at 3:13 PM

So, where are you today?

Resist We Much on December 20, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Yeah. Gingrich has major flaws – still couldn’t have done worse than Romney.

besser tot als rot on December 20, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Romney is a statist. True. But who “let” an even bigger statist keep the office of the Presidency? Romney. That’s who. By running a piss poor campaign, and failing to convince and give reason to enough people to vote for him. Not me. I voted for the clown, even though he didn’t give me much of a reason to do so other than by not being Obama (which over 300 million people in this country can accomplish by simply breathing).

besser tot als rot on December 20, 2012 at 3:12 PM

every Republican who stayed home lost it instead of voteing for Mitt.

ChunkyLover on December 20, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2