During Newt Gingrich’s victory speech in South Carolina last night, he stated:
I want to go into every neighborhood of every ethnic background in every part of the country and say to people very simply, if you want your children to have a life of dependency and food stamps, then you have a candidate as Barack Obama. If you want your children to have a life of independency and pay checks, you have a candidate that’s Newt Gingrich.
This right here is the essence of the difference between conservative and liberal values. Conservatives are against big government entitlements, not because we do not care about the poor and the needy (as so many liberals contend), but because these types of programs destroy individual initiative and responsibility, and leave people worse off.
Even liberal Bob Beckel agrees, as he said on The Five a few days ago:
We liberals made a terrible mistake going back 30 years ago. We made a dependent society because we thought we were doing the right thing. We had things like public housing, and we had welfare payments. And all that bred dependency. And it was our responsibility, and we did it for the right reasons, and we need to change that.
If Newt takes this message to the American people like only he can, he can win the Presidency.
2 things helped Newt: Sarah Palin supported him because she wants to see more debate among the contenders, which will result in the best nominee.
and Newt’s really IMPORTANT remark: by cancelling the Keystone, Obama has managed to orchestrate a Canadian-Chinese alliance on your American border.
Beckel said that? OMG they’re going to yank his card. Who does he think he is, Daniel Patrick Moynihan?
No, he can’t. I have no beef with Gingrich but with a 60% disapproval rating in the country, it doesn’t matter what Gingrich’s message is at all. This is anecdotal evidence but for what it’s worth: I know people who are independents or left-learning, who agree that Obama is terrible, and who have told me that they will never vote for Gingrich. I can’t understand how this is happening.
Newt will win every red state without having to visit a single one.
The 60% disapproval is an engineered number by pravda. Everything many people know about Gingrich comes through the pravda filter. Once he is the nominiee, they can’t keep him off the tube and the disapproval rating will plunge when they start hearing from a super-smart grandpa who loves his country and wants to restore it to glory.
I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or not.
But it doesn’t matter if he wins the red states – Obama will win the blue and all the swing states. No one under 30 will vote for Newt.
You’re dead wrong about that, but even if it was true, it won’t matter. Young peole won’t vote in nearly the numbers this time.
hopenchange is a bust.
Newt will get more black voters than McLame did as well. His message of independency, not dependency will win over many black voters who fear what will happen if their children are totally dependent on gubamit.
Please, can we stop with the Can Win / Can’t Win based on Polling? Huh?
Lets see….
October 1979, Ronald Reagan
=Favorable 38 %
Unfavorable 39%
January 10, 1980 Gallup Poll
Carter 63%
Reagan 32%
There you have it, Ronald Reagan is Unelectable, we need to nominate the candidate that can beat Carter, that would be George H.W. Bush.
Enough of the Electable / Unelectable garbage already!
There’s no comparison between Gingrich and Reagan. Reagan didn’t have the truckload of baggage that Gingrich has.
Yeah. Reagan was just a dumb actor who had huge negatives too.
But then Gingrich actually did a great deal of good the last time he was around. Maybe with an R House and Senate and a lot of Tea, he can do more for longer term.
That’s right, I forgot Reagan was Never Divorced and America won’t vote for someone who has been Divorced.
And Reagan wasn’t a Doddering Old Fool, too stupid to be voted for by the American People.
And, of course, there was no way to associate Ronald Reagan with that Extreme Right Wing group the John Birch Society, that would definatly make him Unelectable.
And Ronald Reagan would never get “Confrontational” with the Soviet Union and start a Nuclear War.
Of course Reagan was clearly anti Gay because he NEVER opposed any law in California preventing Homosexuals from working in the Public Schools system because, “Homosexuality is not a Contageous Disease like the Measles,” no no no no.
The simple truth is that All of Newt’s baggage involves his personal life and stuff the Establishment brought up against him to move him out of the speakership. (The sensure he suffered on 1 out of several hundred accusations was followed up by Acquital in court.)
jd,
Nice job. To paraphrase the old Samuel Johnson quote, “Election polls are the last refuge of a scoundrel”.
The results of a recent New Hampshire poll involving several hundred thousand voters showed twice as many voters preferred Mitt Romney (97,600) over Barack Obama (48,970) for president.
McRomney is George H W Bush. The perfect vessel for the establishment’s goals of continued power and wealth.
I completely agree.
Anyone arguing about Newt’s favorabilities at this point in the campaign have absolutely no sense of history and the fluidity of people’s feelings towards others. All it takes to go from favorable to disfavorable is to open one’s mouth and say, “If you do not believe in educating little illegal children, then you have no heart.” All it takes to go from unfavorable to favorable is to ask for forgiveness and then tell people what you will do for them and the country and make them believe it.
By the way, if the race is about favorabilities, then we might as well give up right now, Obama will have far higher base line favorability than any of our candidates, it is the nature of being someone who gives things away.
Gee, that’s funny, I thought he beat Romney by attacking him for being a capitalist and constantly harping on him for not releasing his taxes. Because you know, rich people are evil! Evil!
Why republicans are falling for verbal chicanery of a “progressive” like Newt is beyond me. One would think the lobbying or the cuddling with Nancy Pelosi over global warming would have been enough. But nope. There’s not a single shred of conservative that Newt is against, and yet the base just laps him up because he attacks the rich and the media.
And that’s why it’s called the stupid party. Principles or values don’t matter one whit.
That idea ignores the fact that was the cause of his most recent dip in the polls. He attacks Romney as a crony-capitalist, one of the guys who’s a part of the problem, and he’ll do better.
JeremyR’s party of one is the stupid party.