Huck's Army Forum :: Faith, Family & Freedom
http://www.forum.hucksarmy.com/

SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum
http://www.forum.hucksarmy.com/viewtopic.php?f=141&t=26143
Page 2 of 2

Author:  WalterCan [ Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

Indiana,

I'm not basing my vote on electability, but I am considering casting my vote based on stopping Romney. If I think Santorum has any chance to win or any chance to go on and have an impact then I'll cast my vote for him. But if it looks like he is fading and Newt has the momentum and opportunity to defeat Romney, then I have to consider that.

I also have to add that if I felt very strongly for a candidate then I'd vote for them on principle whether I felt they could win or not. At this point I can't say I feel very strongly for Santorum. I think he is the best of those who are left, but that's as far as I can go.

This is where I think we really need to be giving grace to each other. If there was a clear cut conservative alternative then they would have already consolidated the conservative vote, and we wouldn't have to have these conversations. We are where we are because of our choices. A case can be made for different candidates, and we should be understanding of that. There's no good or evil here, and there's no right or wrong. We all wished there were better choices, but we have to make do with what we have, and different people will come to different conclusions.

Author:  goalieman [ Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

I agree with where WalterCan is coming form. This is really down to whoever can beat Romney is the person to vote for. I'm fine with it being Newt or Santorum, so if I'm in a state where one of them is polling better than the other, that's who I'm going with. The key is A: denying Mittens any more momentum and B: denying him delegates.

Author:  goalieman [ Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

Southern Doc wrote:
4Huckabee wrote:
No one in our time has made the enormous accomplishments on the large scale that Newt Gingrich has.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profil ... overnment/


Please note from your own source how the budget was "balanced." "Outlays" (the blue line) continues to grow thoughout his time as Speaker. The chart is compressed and obscures the hundreds of millions in increased Federal spending over those four years represented by the line. That means balance was not created by driving down spending. Yet even this chart clearly shows that the budget is balanced and a "surplus" is achieved by the rise of "Revenues" (the green line). That means more tax money going to the feds folks. The green line out grows the growing blue line. More money into the Federal government is one way to get a surplus. Ironically that "surplus" even between 1998-2001 was an illusion as it includes a surge in payments into Social Security Medicare.

Newt's big showdown with Clinton over budgets in 1995 to actually reduce the growth curve significantly was a tactical then strategic nightmare. He lost. He misplayed the politics and got caught in a popularity contest with Clinton. Clinton's popularity rose and he was re-elected stunning the GOP faithful. Within two months of becoming Speaker Newts popularity was:

Quote:

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll this month found that 27 percent viewed him positively and 41 percent negatively.

The hawks were never as strong again. Most of the hawks (like Coburn) were furious with how Gingrich had been played. Coburn still is.

Gingrich then was the face of the party for Clinton's impeachment. That didn't exactly work out did it? The nation voted on Gingrich's abilities of bringing about change by punishing his party and not the Dems in the 1998 mid-terms (only the second time an incumbent President saw his party gain seats in a midterm).

Gingrich then left the scene and the GOP won the Whitehouse twice and control of both chambers in 2002 for the first time since 1928.

Gingrich has his strengths and his place among influential politicians in our times. But why folks think he is some sort of positive transformational figure is beyond me.


While all this may be true in an academic sense, in politics it's all about being in the right place at the right time. We all know that Clinton, for example, was/is a scoundrel, but the economy was good under his watch, so he has high ratings as a former President. In a similar way, Newt was at the front of the scene during the '94 elections and during the balanced budget/welfare reform deals, so he gets to take credit for it even if it wasn't all his doing.

Author:  Southern Doc [ Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

Quote:
While all this may be true in an academic sense, in politics it's all about being in the right place at the right time. We all know that Clinton, for example, was/is a scoundrel, but the economy was good under his watch, so he has high ratings as a former President. In a similar way, Newt was at the front of the scene during the '94 elections and during the balanced budget/welfare reform deals, so he gets to take credit for it even if it wasn't all his doing.


I agree with all that which is why I am dumbfounded that no one seems to remember how that Newt leadership played out over a very brief time.

If you get to own the good you get to own it all.

The GOP agenda was neutered by Clinton, Clinton survived and was re-elected, Clinton then survived impeachment, the Dems surged back in the mid-terms of 1998, Clinton left office with record high approval numbers (higher than Reagan) and Al Gore outperformed the GOP nominee in 2000 by 500,000 votes (Al Gore for crying out loud!) while Newt had two years earlier been driven from office by his own Party and caucus due to his failed leadership.

That is the history. If folks want that kind of "successful" "transformation" again then I just don't get it.

All I can say is that the "history" that some folks seem to remember about Newt has been very good to him -

Perhaps because he wrote it.

Author:  DFCSTech [ Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

I think that you early state voters need to remember that the delegates are being awarded in a much more proportional manner this time, instead of Winner-Takes-All. If you prefer one candidate over another, you should vote for the one that you prefer, because both of them have the benefit of taking delegates away from Romney.

Since this is going to take a long time to play out, the thing to do is get solidly behind your favorite, because doing so will allow you to get energized for them and convince others who are undecided to vote for and support them. That is energy that works against Romney. If you just sit there on the sidelines, watch everyone else, and don't get involved in the game for your favorite candidate, then YOU are helping Romney to win this nomination. He has the money, but he doesn't have your grassroots energy - unfortunately, if you don't follow your heart and get behind your favorite, Romney's opponents won't have your grassroots energy either and Romney will win.

Author:  DFCSTech [ Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

http://ht.ly/8sRxk
Quote:
Delegate Math: Don’t Anoint Romney Just Yet

Mitt Romney may have won Iowa and New Hampshire, but even if he wins in South Carolina and Florida, he will technically still have a long way to go before winning the GOP nomination.

Mathematically, no candidate can seal the nomination until late April, which leaves a lot of campaigning yet to be done.

Delegates—not voters—will decide the GOP nomination, and Iowa and New Hampshire award next to none, even as those states have bestowed on Romney a crush of media attention, a wave of momentum, and a growing impression of inevitability.

In officially allocated – or “bound” – delegates, Romney (seven) leads Ron Paul (three), and Jon Huntsman (two).

If that sounds paltry, it is. To be nominated for president, a GOP candidate will need the support of 1,144 delegates, a majority of the 2,286 who will vote at the August convention.

New Hampshire allocated just 12 delegates on Tuesday night — fewer than one percent of the national total. Iowa, though it will send 28 delegates to the GOP convention, didn’t technically award any: All of its delegates, to be selected at congressional-district conventions and the GOP state convention in June, are free to support any candidate they choose in Tampa, site of the GOP national convention.

Including projections of how Iowa’s unbound delegates will vote at the August convention, ABC News’ running delegate tally shows Romney (20) leading Rick Santorum (12), Paul (three) and Huntsman (two).

That's just an excerpt from the article from ABC News. It goes into further detail when you click on the link.

Author:  Southern Doc [ Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

DFCSTech wrote:
http://ht.ly/8sRxk
Quote:
Delegate Math: Don’t Anoint Romney Just Yet

Mitt Romney may have won Iowa and New Hampshire, but even if he wins in South Carolina and Florida, he will technically still have a long way to go before winning the GOP nomination.

Mathematically, no candidate can seal the nomination until late April, which leaves a lot of campaigning yet to be done.

Delegates—not voters—will decide the GOP nomination, and Iowa and New Hampshire award next to none, even as those states have bestowed on Romney a crush of media attention, a wave of momentum, and a growing impression of inevitability.

In officially allocated – or “bound” – delegates, Romney (seven) leads Ron Paul (three), and Jon Huntsman (two).

If that sounds paltry, it is. To be nominated for president, a GOP candidate will need the support of 1,144 delegates, a majority of the 2,286 who will vote at the August convention.

New Hampshire allocated just 12 delegates on Tuesday night — fewer than one percent of the national total. Iowa, though it will send 28 delegates to the GOP convention, didn’t technically award any: All of its delegates, to be selected at congressional-district conventions and the GOP state convention in June, are free to support any candidate they choose in Tampa, site of the GOP national convention.

Including projections of how Iowa’s unbound delegates will vote at the August convention, ABC News’ running delegate tally shows Romney (20) leading Rick Santorum (12), Paul (three) and Huntsman (two).

That's just an excerpt from the article from ABC News. It goes into further detail when you click on the link.


So what you are saying is that right now the "only man who can beat Romney," Newt Gingrich, has had more wives than he has delegates? :wink:

Couldn't resist.

The point that we are again being crowded to the exits by the Romney folks (which now includes McCain) is well taken.

This is only over when it's over.

Determining the winner with 1% of the delegates awarded is silly.

Author:  DFCSTech [ Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

Exactly. And remember, Hillary Clinton tried the same, "inevitable", spin tactic and it didn't work for her.

Author:  juditupp [ Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

DFCSTech wrote:
I think that you early state voters need to remember that the delegates are being awarded in a much more proportional manner this time, instead of Winner-Takes-All. If you prefer one candidate over another, you should vote for the one that you prefer, because both of them have the benefit of taking delegates away from Romney.

Since this is going to take a long time to play out, the thing to do is get solidly behind your favorite, because doing so will allow you to get energized for them and convince others who are undecided to vote for and support them. That is energy that works against Romney. If you just sit there on the sidelines, watch everyone else, and don't get involved in the game for your favorite candidate, then YOU are helping Romney to win this nomination. He has the money, but he doesn't have your grassroots energy - unfortunately, if you don't follow your heart and get behind your favorite, Romney's opponents won't have your grassroots energy either and Romney will win.

I think this is really good advice. I do think Perry needs to drop out but Santorum and Gingrich are both fairly strong candidates and deserve to keep working to convince us that they're the best alternative to Romney. If you're convinced that one or the other is the better choice then get behind him and work for his election.

Author:  goalieman [ Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

Southern Doc wrote:
Quote:
While all this may be true in an academic sense, in politics it's all about being in the right place at the right time. We all know that Clinton, for example, was/is a scoundrel, but the economy was good under his watch, so he has high ratings as a former President. In a similar way, Newt was at the front of the scene during the '94 elections and during the balanced budget/welfare reform deals, so he gets to take credit for it even if it wasn't all his doing.


I agree with all that which is why I am dumbfounded that no one seems to remember how that Newt leadership played out over a very brief time.

If you get to own the good you get to own it all.

The GOP agenda was neutered by Clinton, Clinton survived and was re-elected, Clinton then survived impeachment, the Dems surged back in the mid-terms of 1998, Clinton left office with record high approval numbers (higher than Reagan) and Al Gore outperformed the GOP nominee in 2000 by 500,000 votes (Al Gore for crying out loud!) while Newt had two years earlier been driven from office by his own Party and caucus due to his failed leadership.

That is the history. If folks want that kind of "successful" "transformation" again then I just don't get it.

All I can say is that the "history" that some folks seem to remember about Newt has been very good to him -


Perhaps because he wrote it.


It should be noted that the GOP did retain the House after the '98 election, so it's not like the dems had a 2006/2008 victory party. Clinton also had one huge advantage in the image department that Newt did not: the media. Clinton survived almost soley due to the slanted news coverage of his "indeed I did" affair. Newt was painted as the devil incarnate and as the man who would starve children and do away with seniors social security checks. Not easy to flourish under those conditions.

As someone who read Tom Coburn's book "Breach of Trust", I have my issues with Newt. But I have issues with Santorum as well (tough to get behind a guy who helped torpedo a conservative congressional candidate that I actively helped back in 1998 against a RINO incumbent). But I REALLY have issues with Willard, so whoever of Newt or Santorum can derail Mittens is fine by me. Perfection not needed at this point. 8)

Author:  goalieman [ Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

juditupp wrote:
DFCSTech wrote:
I think that you early state voters need to remember that the delegates are being awarded in a much more proportional manner this time, instead of Winner-Takes-All. If you prefer one candidate over another, you should vote for the one that you prefer, because both of them have the benefit of taking delegates away from Romney.

Since this is going to take a long time to play out, the thing to do is get solidly behind your favorite, because doing so will allow you to get energized for them and convince others who are undecided to vote for and support them. That is energy that works against Romney. If you just sit there on the sidelines, watch everyone else, and don't get involved in the game for your favorite candidate, then YOU are helping Romney to win this nomination. He has the money, but he doesn't have your grassroots energy - unfortunately, if you don't follow your heart and get behind your favorite, Romney's opponents won't have your grassroots energy either and Romney will win.

I think this is really good advice. I do think Perry needs to drop out but Santorum and Gingrich are both fairly strong candidates and deserve to keep working to convince us that they're the best alternative to Romney. If you're convinced that one or the other is the better choice then get behind him and work for his election.


Considering that Perry doesn't like Romney, it would seem he should look at the writing on the wall (and the polls) and help to get Mittens defeated by getting out of the race. Hopefully wisdom will break thru on that front.

Just read where Michael Medved says it's just great that it's all over and now we can avoid a protracted primary and just get behind Mittens now. Isn't it interesting that so many of Romney's cheerleaders on SRN were former Democrats earlier in their lives (Medved, Prager and Bennett)? Maybe they haven't changed as much as they'd like us to believe.

Author:  atrain3067 [ Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

WalterCan wrote:
Indiana,

I'm not basing my vote on electability, but I am considering casting my vote based on stopping Romney. If I think Santorum has any chance to win or any chance to go on and have an impact then I'll cast my vote for him. But if it looks like he is fading and Newt has the momentum and opportunity to defeat Romney, then I have to consider that.

I also have to add that if I felt very strongly for a candidate then I'd vote for them on principle whether I felt they could win or not. At this point I can't say I feel very strongly for Santorum. I think he is the best of those who are left, but that's as far as I can go.

This is where I think we really need to be giving grace to each other. If there was a clear cut conservative alternative then they would have already consolidated the conservative vote, and we wouldn't have to have these conversations. We are where we are because of our choices. A case can be made for different candidates, and we should be understanding of that. There's no good or evil here, and there's no right or wrong. We all wished there were better choices, but we have to make do with what we have, and different people will come to different conclusions.


Same here. I was trying to decide between Newt and Cain early on, and to be honest the best man for the job (Mike Huckabee, duh) isn't running, so I'm kinda having to actually make a decision this year. Then, Cain dropped out, and it became kinda clear to me who my choice had now become. I would have no problem with either Newt or Santorum, but Newt is my preference now.

It isn't as clear cut as it was for me back in 2008 though. I had an allegiance to Mike Huckabee. I don't feel strongly enough about a candidate to have that same allegiance about anyone running this year. That's why I'm on HucksArmy. I was ready to go to battle for Mike in 2012. All of us, I suspect, were here for that same reason. Since we don't have that option, we are all trying to find our way through the sea of candidates out there.

What I don't want, is someone I can't trust. Someone who railroaded Huckabee at every turn in 2008. I don't want someone who's not only flip-flopped on numerous issues, but has flip-flopped back AND forth on those same issues from one side to the other, and then back again. I loathe the idea of having to vote for Romney in November. So I will do whatever I can to stop him from winning the nomination.

As it turns out, of my two preferences, Newt and Santorum, Newt is who I was leaning towards from the early stages. And he's the one, in my personal opinion, who is the best positioned to both stop Romney, and beat Obama. It's the best of both worlds as far as I'm concerned.

After Huckabee decided not to run this time, I've tried to stay away because we've all kinda gone our separate ways, and found our own candidates of choice, but one thing has been bugging me about Santorum. While Santorum is courting the Huckabee supporters now, in 2008, when he had a chance to make the right choice and back Huckabee, he decided to hop on the Romney train. To be frank, if Huckabee wasn't good enough for him in 2008, why are Huckabee supporters so valuable to him now? Not trying to be mean, but it is what it is.

Author:  QuoVadisAnima [ Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

Every non-Romney candidate has been trying to lay claim to Huck's mantle - and supporters. That's because it's pretty well known that the majority of social conservatives don't want Romney & that's a pretty large block of voters (not large enough, more's the pity).

Hate on him as much as one personally likes, but social conservatives & Santorum are a natural fit. That does not automatically make Santorum pro-Huckabee-for-president & I am a little perplexed by the assumption that somehow it should.

I know a number of social conservatives who, to this day, are not convinced that Huck would make a good president. Almost everyone likes him (there are a few who have actually said that he seems too nice to be true & that gives them a bad feeling about him so they don't like him :roll: ), but that doesn't mean they want him for president.

It does not make sense that someone not wanting Huck to be president somehow becomes disqualifyingly defective as a potential president on that basis.

Author:  goalieman [ Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

I don't think the previous poster was "hating" on Santorum, just stating why he liked Newt better. As he (and I and others) have said, whoever shows they have the best chance to beat Mittens is who they'll vote for. Right now it's not clear if that's Newt or Santo, though in SC it looks like Newt has the momentum right now.

Author:  GAVoter4Huck [ Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

goalieman wrote:
I don't think the previous poster was "hating" on Santorum, just stating why he liked Newt better. As he (and I and others) have said, whoever shows they have the best chance to beat Mittens is who they'll vote for. Right now it's not clear if that's Newt or Santo, though in SC it looks like Newt has the momentum right now.


You know one thing I don't like about the Santorum supporters is them trying to chip away at Newt's supporting base (no offense as I respect Santorum too). They should be trying to chip away at Romney's base to bring his numbers down. Going after Newt is still going to end up with Mitt winning the end, so in the end all of us lose.

As goalieman and WalterCan pointed out correctly, it's whoever has the best chance to beat Romney at this point is where the vote is worth placing. At this stage Newt has the better chance. If Mitt runs away with SC, then it will not matter what principles, positions, or all else our candidates have or how hard we choose to defend them because he will be difficult to stop.

One thing about Newt that I think might be worth noting is that his previous role as Speaker is in fact the third person who would assume the role of POTUS should both the president and vice-president become incapacitated. This should also demonstrate that he does have leadership skills in that capacity since it's one of the prerequisites for that job.

Author:  atrain3067 [ Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

Yeah. Not hating on Santorum, just puzzled. He and Huckabee do share a lot of the same views, especially on social issues. That's why I can't understand his reasoning back in '08. At the point he made his endorsement of Romney, it was basically down to 3 people: McCain, Huckabee, and Romney.

How do you not pick, at that point in time, the only clear conservative, and by far and away, the champion of preserving the sanctity of human life, the sanctity of marriage, and of values voters? I just don't get it. I'll stop now, because I'm not trying to somehow attack Santorum, and don't mean for it to come across that way. I think he's a very honorable and genuine man, but just not my top choice.

Author:  FirstCoastTerp [ Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

GAVoter4Huck wrote:
You know one thing I don't like about the Santorum supporters is them trying to chip away at Newt's supporting base (no offense as I respect Santorum too). They should be trying to chip away at Romney's base to bring his numbers down.
The reason is that Romney's base has been pretty solid so the opportunity hasn't been there but to emerge as the clear alternative. Obviously, that hasn't happened yet but it needs to and soon.

Author:  QuoVadisAnima [ Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

goalieman wrote:
I don't think the previous poster was "hating" on Santorum, just stating why he liked Newt better. As he (and I and others) have said, whoever shows they have the best chance to beat Mittens is who they'll vote for. Right now it's not clear if that's Newt or Santo, though in SC it looks like Newt has the momentum right now.
I didn't really take it as "hate", and I'm sorry for not making it clear that I was generalizing, I just don't really get why it would be described by some as some kind of a deal breaker.

It does make me question someone's judgment to choose Romney over Huck - as I did with Cain - but I can't see why it would be a disqualifier. There are other issues about Santorum's judgment that make him less than ideal for me, as well, but the same holds true for Gingrich. I like them both okay, and have concerns about them both, but I trust Santorum more (relatively speaking) & believe that he is more acceptable to more voters than Gingrich.

GAVoter4Huck wrote:
You know one thing I don't like about the Santorum supporters is them trying to chip away at Newt's supporting base (no offense as I respect Santorum too). They should be trying to chip away at Romney's base to bring his numbers down. Going after Newt is still going to end up with Mitt winning the end, so in the end all of us lose.
Because most of the voters backing Romney are sheep - the voters backing Gingrich and Santorum are more intelligent and can be reasoned with! :wink:

Honestly, I believe it's because Romney's small base of support is pretty firm, while those of us who are supporting Gingrich & Santorum are of the same general mindset, we just can't agree on which of the two to unify behind. :(

If they could unite on a ticket, that would probably work, but then we end up with which goes on the top of the ticket? And then we're virtually right back where we started, aren't we?

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/