If all the polls are correct and Romney wins Tuesday’s Florida primary with double digits, he still has a Newt problem.
Which reminds me of the famous statement by Japanese Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
As we all know, Newt Gingrich has not been sleeping but some believe he is a giant of ideas, and certainly a huge loss in Florida will fill him with terrible resolve.
The last part of this statement is validated today by a Newt campaign memo that says regardless of what happens in Florida, Team Newt believes, “this race is just getting started.” Of course this is terrific news for Obama and terrible news for Romney who can not go into the national convention bleeding and scratched with Newt’s fresh claw marks.
Recently, someone who knows Newt very well, gave me some insight into his personality and how Newt sees the race at this time.
First, Newt is bitterly angry with Romney. He is so incensed that he wants to politically hurt Romney and will do anything he can to prevent Romney from becoming president.
Second, Newt badly wants a brokered convention, and believes he can keep Romney from winning the number of delegates needed.
Third, Newt Gingrich believes Romney should not be president.
So, yes, a Florida loss for Gingrich will indeed fill him with terrible resolve, but there is an opportunity for Romney…. if he acts fast.
On Tuesday night after the Florida primary, Romney, along with some influential party elders who Newt respects, should request a sit down meeting with Newt. The objective of the meeting would be to bury the hatchet and ask Newt to withdraw from the race.
To accomplish this difficult objective Romney, should be prepared to offer Newt an important cabinet post, perhaps something like Secretary of Defense.
Newt needs to be told face to face that this race is not all about him. It is obvious his personal anger towards Romney is getting in the way of what is best for the nation and that is to defeat President Obama. Most GOP insiders agree that the longer this race goes on the more it helps Obama by shortening the time Romney has to make his appeal to the general electorate.
Running against an incumbent is far different than the Obama vs. Hillary battle in 2008. A run against an incumbent requires more time, more funds and more organization and Romney needs all the time he can get…starting now.
So what if Newt does not take the offer?
How about Fox News stepping in and offering him a talk show? That way he can remain an important power player.
What about Romney offering him the VP spot? Most likely, Newt in his current state of anger would not make a good team player, so that option is probably off the table.
Romney, most Republicans believe, is not the perfect candidate but he is slightly leading Obama by one point among registered voters in the latest Gallup poll of swing states. Newt Gingrich on the other hand, loses to Obama by 14 points.
However, the longer Newt’s “Rage against Romney” campaign continues, the greater the negative effect turning more independent voters against both GOP candidates. The Republican Party cannot endure over a protracted period of time the kind of ferocious battle we have seen thus far.
With Obama’s popularity on the rise, Romney needs to make a deal with Newt after Florida and turn his full attention toward convincing the American people that he is ready to be the next president.
Update: In email, longtime Gingrich ally Rick Tyler responds:
Never going to happen.
Newt is ahead. Let Mitt get out.
Tyler is currently running the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future.
Newt’s personal attacks against Romney, from the left, are hurting Republicans in general. For the first time in 2.5 years, the generic congressional ballot goes to the Democrats, 41% to 40%, according to today’s Rasmussen poll. Obama is back up to %51 approval. Maybe Newt is looking for a post in a second Obama administration so he can work with his buddy Nancy Pelosi on saving the planet from the free market.
As some famous British politician used to say, There are lies, damn lies, and polls.
From a fan of the man who was behind Gingrich by 15% when the race was based on their policies, and who since has spent 25 million dollars to smear Newt.
I’m waiting to see if one of these guys ever says a good word about Romney.
Haven’t heard one word yet.
Romney could single handed go to Afghanistan and end the war in the United States favor by killing all the heads of the terrorist organizations and it would erase about .0000000000000001% of the detest I have for the man, particularly the detest him and his supporters have built into me since December 31, 2011. I will never support that man for anything more beneficial to him than a deep pure acid bath.
really like Obama!
Good thinking Myra, because you would think we would all be singing Romney’s praises by now.
We should be crowing about his record as governor of Massachusetts. We should all be able to explains whay it’s a conservative record, not a liberal one.
We should have 34 of the 54 planks in his hard-hitting agenda memorized.
We should all be able to explain why forcing health-care on Massachusetts citizens is different from forcing health-care on US citizens.
We should know all of the praiseworth details of his Bain career. We should be able to list client by client how he reset strategies, cut wasteful spending, opened new markets, created new products, improved customer service, out-maneuvered competition, rejuvinated workforces.
We should know how his key proposals, like Romneycare and job creation work and how they will make the country better a better place.
We should be able to explain what he really meant when he said he was no fan or Reagan and when he claimed the mantle of progressivism for himself.
It must be us. It must be our fault that we can’t think of a single positive thing that he has done in his career other than invest in companies that created 100,000 jobs and give health care to the previously oppressed citizens of Massachusetts.
Maybe we’ve just been too busy finding out-of-context quotes about Gingrich, and finding people who hate that Gingrich put a temporary stop to their gravy trains to have time to learn about all of the good things Romney has done. He has, after all, only been running for presient for five years.prorea
And just who is going to fund this little revenge tour of Newt’s should he lose tomorrow? I can’t see the likes of Sheldon Adelson wanting to fund (so to speak) his vanity campaign if the losses pile up. And frankly, I have a hard time believing Newt is disciplined enough to focus that supposed “bitter anger” at Romney to do even minor damage on a sustained level.
Sarah Palin, frankly, has greater capacity to screw Romney, and the GOP. It’s what happens when one knows what the MSM wants.
Michelle Malkin comes out with a blistering attack on Gingrich…while endorsing Santorum.
Then there’s Newt, who has long made a career out of trashing progressive Saul Alinsky while employing his tactics at every turn. I’ve been making this point for years and have chronicled his dalliances with leftists as long as anyone in the conservative blogosphere. Many grass-roots conservatives were awakened to Newt’s double-talk and double-dealing during the NY-23 race. Inconvenient truth: Newt’s transgressions are not from decades ago. It’s not ancient history. It’s here and now. Readers of this blog know the truth: It’s not just “the GOP establishment” that’s repulsed by Gingrich’s combination of moral baggage and K Street/Beltway culture of corruption. It’s the very grass-roots that Gingrich’s cheerleaders purport to represent.
Malkin runs through a lengthy list of grievances against Gingrich, including his gratuitous slaps at Paul Ryan’s budget, and his 2009 endorsement of RINOlicious moderate Dede Scozzafava in a contested Congressional race in upstate New York. Malkin concludes her essay with a conspicuous jab at Sarah Palin, who suggested over the weekend that primary voters should “rage against” the establishment “machine” by casting their ballots for Gingrich:
Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer. It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.” For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine…Question of the day: Who is the “machine?”
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/01/30/michelle_malkin_endorses_santorum_torches_newt
With Gingrich out of the race, actually, Santorum becomes the stronger “not Romney” if he can hang around. The Newtonian Implosion would move automatically to Santorum, making him a force to be reckoned with. Advisors to Santorum know that giving Gingrich all the rope he needs and simply biding their time, the shift to Santorum out of necessity…after the Newtonian Implosion blows up his own campaign…is a tactic that is never off the table.
The “not Romney’s” may have backed the wrong horse all along for that very reason. Newt could be wise to cut a deal now…but…not with Romney.
Santorum will lose and lose big in the general election. But…he COULD win the primary. That would satisfy Newt’s sole goal of taking Romney down,even if it means taking the entire free market with him.
Santorum can take the high road, pick up all of the Newtonian Implosion Romney haters AND continue to hammer Romney the way he did in the last debate.
In the final analysis, not a chance does Gingrich do anything but attempt to feed his gargantuan ego. For me,this is great, because a brokered convention is the only way to empty out the whole clown car.
But, I am not hypnotized into believing the Stupid Party will do anything remotely wise …or even sane. Romney will be the candidate.
Not because of some mythical cabal…but because the “not Romney’s” game plan is reckless and self-defeating. And because Gingrich is making every move to ensure it. He will have no chips to bargain with at the end of this and he could cost the country a permanent lapse into small c communism. According to Malkin, at least…that’s not as far a trip for him as one might think.
She may be overstating the case…but, she has a point.
So let me get this straight, Newt winning 23 of 25 delegates in South Carolina in a non winner take all state didn’t mean anything. But Romney getting 50 delagates in a Florida winner take all race means that Gingruich has no shot and should bow out… huh? Cheerlead much? To me Florida is a must win for Romney and lets him again pull even with Newt momentum wise as Newt got out to a big lead momentum wise in SC.
“Newt needs to be told face to face that this race is not all about him.”
It’s not about Newt, but it *is* about Romney?
Why isn’t it about the size and scope of the Federal government? Why isn’t it about the Constitution? Why isn’t it about the rule of law?
It’s almost as if “Romney, along with some influential party elders” care nothing for these things.
Oh… I get it. This is one of those ‘humor’ pieces, right? Satire? Very good! Ha ha ha ha!!!
What? It’s not satire? The writer is serious???
Could have fooled me….
Regardless of Florida’s result (although I’m assuming he wins Florida) he’ll win the next two contests. A quarter of Nevada’s GOP are Mormons and Romney easily won Maine in ’08.
There is also no debate (by far Newt’s strong point) until the 22nd of February, after Nevada and Maine (February 4) and Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri (February 7) so the only national view of these candidates before the three-state day on the 7th will be headlines that read “Romney Wins 3 Straight” which will obviously benefit Romney – plus he won in 2008 all three states that are voting on the 7th.
The final two February contests are Arizona and Michigan on the 28th which Romney will also win (disregarding a potential Newt Gingrich debate smackdown of Romney) because McCain is stumping for him in AZ (Mitt also finished 2nd in ’08) and Michigan is practically a second-home to him (he won Michigan in ’08 also).
In short, Romney can easily sweep the February contests + Florida. There is a catch though, and that is Santorum and how many of his voters will go over to Newt if he drops out and potentially give Gingrich the majority of the conservative base of the GOP.
I’m reminded of an event in the Civil War where General Sherman was told that Confederate General Hood, in an attempt to make General Sherman follow him, that he was going North to threaten Tennessee. Sherman was about to bear down on Georgia, when asked what he would do in response to Hood, Sherman replied “that he would give Hood rations if it would keep him going in that direction”.
Newts campaign has bolstered Romney’s numbers by about 15% overall. I say that Newt should keep on talking because it seems good for the Romney campaign for Newt to do so. The contest has made Romney sharper and a better candidate. Newt should be thanked for his service to the country.
90 minutes after Myra’s article went live, nobody has offered a single positive word about Romney’s accomplishments.
You mean besides beating Pawlenty, Cain, Bachmann, Paul, Santorum and now Gingrich?
Case in point.
They have nothing good to say about Romney, ever.
It’s all about hate for them.
This guy even delights in it.
He doesn’t even bother to say somehting perfunctory about Romney.
He just kind of shakes his fist that the snake has been able to pull his opponents into the dirt.
It says a lot about Mr Martin, doesn’t it?
It’s why I say there isn’t any difference between marxists and these people.
As a matter of fact, I do delight in it.
I was for Romney in 2008. I liked him then, I like him even more now.
My criteria for “Who to vote for” is rather straight forward. Potential possible other candidates who are not running are not considered. People I want, theoretical people people that don’t exist, don’t get counted. You’d be surprised how this draws down the field. Folks that show up, put organizations together and run for the office get first consideration over a whole host of “phantom candidates”.
Of the potential candidates pool, I prefer current or former Governors over all other candidates. I think of the Office of President as a sort of “Federal Governor”. This country is named “The United States of America”. I tend to think that The States matter in the larger scheme of Government in this country more than we are currently using them.
At the other end of the spectrum I put anyone who has never held office and Senators. Given a binary choice between someone who has never held office and someone who is (or was)a Senator, I’ll take almost anyone over almost any Senator. In my mind, the only people who should be excluded from holding the Federal Office of President should be anyone who is or was, a Senator.
(Oh, I would probably repeal the 17th amendment and return the seating of Senators to the State Legislatures. The problem with the current system is that the States( the governments of the states) themselves have no federal representation. Therefore, we have two popular elected houses of Government. The result is what we see in action today, which is a disaster)
Congress-folk can be redeemed as candidates but only if they have been a Governor. Even as a Governor of a small state, or someone who’s appointed as a territorial Governor will do. In this campaign, that means I’ve had to choose between Pawlenty, Huntsman, Perry and Romney.
Remember, no “phantoms”.
Extra points are given if the candidate does not have a law degree and if they have ever served in uniform. Points are deducted if the candidate has been a college professor, double points deducted if they taught law. ( Yes, I have my biases, I’ve learned to live with them)
For this campaign season, for me, its broken down like this:
Cain – nice man. Liked him a lot actually. Had he become a Governor at some point in the past I would have put him right at the top of the list.
Perry – Full disclosure, I really thought Perry would be the perfect candidate. I was totally and completely excited about his candidacy. Very successful Governor, Very good pro-business record, extra points for service in the Air Force. Then he started talking and it got worse every time he talked. Great in Texas, but poorly organized and completely out of his league on the national stage. I think for anyone who thinks that there is a possibility of a late entry candidate, they only need to look at Perry and see how that goes. Running for President requires a whole lot of execution. It takes years to prepare for and you probably have to do it more than once to begin to do it right. I think it really helps to run for President more than once. Perry is a good test case for that idea.
Bachmann – Nice lady, but not a Governor. Try again. More time in the crucible and she will work out fine I think. Give her a shot as Wisconsin Governor after Scott Walker leaves and we could have a real contender here.
Huntsman – I don’t know what it was, but I just could never figure this guy out. Frankly, he gave me the the willies. I think when he kept dropping Mandarin phrases into his speeches, it just came off as snotty to me. I never could understand what his big selling point was.
Santorum. – Not a Governor, worse, a Senator which as I said, is an instant disqualification. Go to Pennsylvania and be Governor for one term, and then we can talk(maybe). Frankly, his views on birth control are fine on a personal level, but his insistence on making it public policy are a dead stop for me. Seems like a nice fellah though…
Paul – Not a Governor. Dr Paul, please go away. There is no other candidate that I loathe as much as Ron Paul. It would be so much better if he didn’t have the foreign policy of Tom Hayden then at least I could have a conversation with his supporters. If Ron Paul were the Republican candidate I don’t know what I would do, but I simply cannot vote for this man based on his own positions on so many issues.
Gingrich. – Former Congressman, not a Governor, was a college Professor. This is a long one:
Full disclosure, I know people who worked with him and know him well. Its a number larger than 10 that fit into this category. None of them are establishment anything. Most worked in government during the Reagan era or the early Clinton years. All now work in private enterprise about half are former military, two are former Democrats who converted to Republicans in 1994.
All of them, every single one of them, hate him. Not dislike, not “so-so” take-him-or-leave-him but hate, loathe, despise him. All of them have given many, many reasons for hating him.
I’ve said before but I’ll say it here again just to be consistent. The people who know him best, dislike him the most. This phenomenon is consistent across the span of his life. You just cant overlook that.
Now, I think that most everyone can point to a group of folks in our past who don’t like us. It happens. you cant make everyone happy. Its ok. Sometimes you can use that as a “badge of honor”. If the right people hate you, that’s actually pretty good! Your enemies define you in both good and bad ways. So I reserved judgement going into this election, let him make his case and see if he can convince me that these folks are wrong and he’s right.
No. Sorry. didn’t quite go that way. In fact, what I learned is that he’s exactly like the sort of person those folks described from the past. Petty, mercurial, indecisive, fleeting, not-an-executor-more-of-a-professorial type of guy who will turn on you in a heartbeat.
Gingrich’s approach to the campaign has told me everything I need to know about him as a candidate. Its been unplanned, up one day, in the ditch the next, isnt on the ballot on 10 key states, hasn’t got much of a tactical plan much less a strategic plan.
That’s all good, because that’s what is supposed to happen in a campaign, its a test drive. You have to live with this man every day for the next 4 years, its good to find this sort of stuff out now before it can actually be dangerous. Unfortunately for Gingrich, he’s shown me that he’s precisely the sort of man I don’t want anywhere near the Office of the President. Doesn’t seem to suffer his own allies any better than his enemies and its hard at any particular time to figure out who is who in those two groups, Not Churchillian as much as he is like Charles Degaulle.
Good Debater? Maybe. Given that the Presidential Debate will be exactly one, with all the questions spoon fed, that’s not a very big hook to hang your hat on. Dont care about “Debate” really because I want an “executive”.
And now we come to Romney.
Romney – Governor, former business man. Governor of a pretty tough state to be a Republican Governor in. Governor of a state that can best be thought of as the very core of “enemy territory”. Did pretty well there as a Governor of the entire state, not just the people who agreed with him. Repeatedly battled the Democratically held legislature to keep an maintain an even keel. Same Sex marriage? did pretty well holding that off – not easy to do, given two of the other branches of government were against his position. A lesser man would have simply gone along with the flow. He didn’t do that, he did the other thing.
Romneycare? Not real happy with it myself as I’m against any sort of goverment involvement with Health Care, but I agree with him that what a State does and what the Feds do are two different things. I will say that unlike the Federal approach which is disliked by both the left and the right, Romneycare was and is quite popular in the State where it was created. The process to create it in that State was certainly far better than that used by President Obama to create his plan.
His campaign? I see someone who learned from the last time. I see someone who when he lost last time turned to his former competitor and asked what he could do to help. That takes character, it also shows persistence and it shows planning. Knowing full well that one day he would be able to turn to McCain and not just get his endorsement( which is nice, in the same way that a lace doily is nice, but not particularly useful) but get his key campaign folks and the local organizers and the access to cash and people-who-known-people.
Romney has also shown that he can tack into the wind. He has had a number of attacks thrown at him, and to his credit he’s shown that he can take those attacks and form an effective regional and national response. Why do I like this? Well after you’re all done winning the Primary, you have to turn on a dime and take that same organization out against the Democrats. If you’re someone who campaigns like Gingrich, you might end up with the nomination, but you will likely have burned every bridge you crossed in the Primary just for kindling. The result is that you end up in July with no room to maneuver through the summer. So its not just important that you win the primary, but you have to show that you are building your organization. Frankly, you have to have an organization to be organized. In this campaign, Romney is showing that he and he alone is the only one who can actually execute a plan that works.
Romney is almost unique in his demonstrated ability to do that and it really matters. Like, dislike, doesn’t matter if after the Primary is over your candidate cannot get out of his own way. What has impressed me most about Romney is how he has dealt with Gingrich coming out of South Carolina. He changed his tactics, he deployed different forces, he practiced his game, got sharp and its paid off. That’s smart. I like that. I want that in a President.
I think for me it all comes down to this. President Obama and the Republican-Player-to-be-named-later are both running to be the head of our 401k program. Both have track records of investment planning that I can evaluate to decide where Im going to put my money to invest in my future and my kids future.
Only one of the folks running today has a track record of turning around broken companies and actually making money doing it. Its not a bad skill to have in these times, dont you think? Its not something all that common in Washington either. I like a man who know the value of a dollar. Romney has a proven record of being exactly that man.
I dont want big time wrestling, I don’t want to be lectured, I dont want “Mr. Personality” in my face for 4 years. I just want an executive in the basic sense of the word. I dont want a messiah or the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. I just want someone who wont burn the damn place to the ground to support his sense of vanity.
There you go.
@ Frank Martin
Only one of the folks running today has a track record of turning around broken companies and actually making money doing it. Its not a bad skill to have in these times, dont you think?
And why was that supposed skill not manifested in four years as governor of MA?
Why is private sector experience two decades ago more relevant than his record as governor six years ago?
After forcing myself to the 17th paragraph, Mr Maring finally says something good about Romney:
“Romney has also shown that he can tack into the wind”
well, then.
Now I feel comfortable Romney is the right guy to take on the marxist machine.
Does Romney have any supporters who are for him, rather than haters of Newt Gingrich?
I’m waiting for somebody to say something good about him other than “he’s a businessman”.
Where are the supporters of his record as governor? I’d like to know how to explain his record as a governor of a state that ranked 47th in job creation. I guess it was his predecessor’s fault. What about the wildly increasing costs for Romneycare. I guess it his successor’s fault. But I’d like to have the talking points anyway.
Where are the defenders of his claim to be no Reagan fan, or the people who can explain what he meant when he called himself the progressive governor of Massachusetts. Luckily, there isn’t much he says that isn’t a lie, so those statements can’t mean much.
Where are the defenders of his business career, other than those who tout him as “a capitalis” or as the man who invested in companies that “created 100,000 jobs”. I just can’t understand why we haven’t heard the stories from all the poeple whose lives he changed and all the businessmen who sweat that he saved them from bankruptcy. But then again, he’s only been running for president for 5 years, so maybe he hasn’t had time to organize all those testimonials.
I need the explanations for why he has changed every political position he has ever held. It’s nice that he hasn’t held office since he changed them all, because he has never had to make a tough vote after he became a die-hard conservative. I just want to know for my own satisfaction, because nobody care about that stuff for a man backed by all the right people like Ann Coulter.
Where are the ardent defenders of Romneycare, because he still proudly proclaims it was the right thing to do for Massachusetts. I need those details, because other pople are telling me that medical costs have spun out of control, and there are waiting lines to get a doctor, and that doctors are leaving the state, so I need to know the facts from the people who love Romneycare so I can recite them too.
I get in discussions with people about Romney, but at the end of the day, the only thing they talk about is how horrid Gingrich is.
I know Romney is really a great guy, beause Karl Rove and Bob Dole say so. I just need to know at least one reason why they say so.
Because he’s the most electable.
He’ll lead the republican apparatchiks back to the promised land of work free “jobs”, no bid contracts, competition crushing “reform”, influence peddling and bailouts.
And really, what else matters to an insider.
Gee, tomorrow will be the fourth primary out of fifty states—and the first of the four that did not allow crossover voting.
We were told, leading up to the South Carolina primary, that it was a truly oracular event—that nobody had won the Republican nomination since 1980 unless they won South Carolina. And Newt won it.
So this means that if Romney wins Florida, Newt should drop out? After fewer than 10% of the states have been heard from and Newt won the primary all the media and pundits were declaring the Oracular Sure Lock?
Uh, what?
I don’t care who would raise my taxes Obama or Romney.
I don’t care how government medical program would be called Obamacare or Romneycare.
I don’t care who would show lack of understanding the world and establish a weak foreign policy Obama or Romney.
if you want restore American Republic, you better vote for Newt Gingrich.
Look, we’ve tried the frickin clue-phone to tell you about Romney. We’ve tried the clue-bat. You aren’t listening. Romney isn’t it! You aren’t listening. Need we pull the Holy Hand-Grenade?
Mittens isn’t it! It’s really simple. Now put down the $6000000000000 glass of claret and WAKE the $$$$ UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Again: It ain’t Romney. Never was, never will be. Sorry, country club eastern elites.
Choke on it, maybe. Whatever it takes to shut you up.
“Winning Our future” What a load of BS. Goebbels would be proud.
The only future Mitt Romney the white Obama brings to the table is the one where the United States goes bankrupt and collapses into a failed state 1 week later than under Obama.
I’m voting third party, anything else is a vote for Obama if Romney is the candidate.
you aren’t buying into outpouring of love for Romney?
Another Romney shill with nothing good to say about Romney. And counting his delegates before the election is held, as usual. IIRC, the well known Progressive Moderate, Milquetoast Mittens, was going to win SC as too.
So far, Newt has more votes, 243K vs Romney’s 167K, and half of Romney’s votes came from Democrats running Operation Chaos in reverse.
Romney = Obama Lite Another Elite who will continue milking the cow to death while feathering his own nest. We need radical change or we are toast. I want someone crazy enough to make actual changes. I want someone crazy enough to have new ideas.
Name one major change Mittens will make.
Name one new idea he is offering other than to manage the mess more effectively.
We don’t need a better alligator trainer, we need to drain the swamp.
Hack much?
“Update: In email, longtime Gingrich ally Rick Tyler responds:
Never going to happen.
Newt is ahead. Let Mitt get out.
Tyler is currently running the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future.”
Wow, I sure do wish Rick Tyler would respond openly here. When the film “When Mitt Romney Came to Town” hit the outlets I looked into Rick Tyler. I found out he had worked for Newt’s campaign initially, left it when he didn’t see Newt doing much as a campaigner but somehow got his “perspective” back. Tyler rejoined Newt and took $5,000,000 (or at least used portions from that pile on money) donated by casino mogul Sheldon Adelson to buy the Romney movie which showed Romney at Bain buying up companies, taking all the profits from those companies and letting those companies fail. Tyler’s words in one ineterview which I watched portions of on Breitbart called Romney’s activites as “predatory” capitalism.
I looked into Tyler’s background and found him closely connected to “The Response” which is an admirable prayer gropu who pray for America’s well being and recovery. Former presidntial candidate Rick Perry made headlines for praying with that group. Rick Tyler is a person who holds a biblical view of economics.
I would very much like Rick to post his comments here. My first question to him would be who does Tyler think hurt more people, Bain Capital or casinos? And are casino economic activities biblically supported?
“Second, Newt badly wants a brokered convention, and believes he can keep Romney from winning the number of delegates needed.”
Have wondered about this in the last few days–the sudden influx of endorsements led me to think that some kind of assurance had been given to those who had been hanging back. I also been wondering about the lunar colony statement and the Pelosi statements of what she knows.
As a thought experiment–the anger against Romney may not be of the kind that is forgivable. Acts committed by one that were absolutely unnecessary to start with or with too great a disparity in power between assailant and assailed are often like that. I personally do not feel that way about Romney, but I do not know what Newt knows or believes to be true. I have long had my concerns about the 2008 crowd around Romney, but have not heard any real horror stories this time around.
I believe Romney can win if he becomes more of a razor. I believe a Gingrinch-forced brokered convention offers historic possibilities if handled correctly. So there we have it. Both are acceptable, both have risks. As with most things in life, the proof will be in the tasting.
So, there are a lot of people who don’t like Gingrich, after they get to know him really well.
But there are a whole lot more who can’t stand Romney NOW and have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in getting to know Romney any more than we do, because we don’t want that vomit taste in the back of our throats to become a full-fledged barf-fest, with broken capillaries in our faces.
Got it?
We don’t get perfect –so all I’m doing is picking the one who can reasonably be projected to be the most pro-growth, the least BigGov. That is clearly Newt over Mitt. On social issues, Mitt’s history of helping pregnant children get abortions over parents objections, homo rights, etc. And his strong gun control measures Mitt cannot be trusted to defend 2nd amendment rights. There is plenty bad stuff in Newt’s background, too, and I can’t stand watching Calista standing there with her metallic hair and stupid grin. I wouldn’t invite him to my home for dinner. But, on balance, we have a much better shot at freedom and prosperity with Newt. He reasonably explained his moon idea at the dinner on Saturday–it is here: on C-Span http://www.c-span.org/Campaign2012/Newt-Gingrich-Delivers-Keynote-at-Palm-Beach-Florida-GOP-Party-Event/10737427725-2/ Newt’s definite plans for exec orders and bills to kill Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, the flat tax, etc, offsets Romney’s 59-pt plan which has more complications for the tax code with timid reductions. Former Sen. Coleman a Romney advisor says he won’t be able to kill Obamacare only maybe some of it. Going in with that attitude doesn’t bode well from the “moderate” from Mass. Bottom line, I have to admit that our system does not produce the best candidates. It is very difficult to get good men to run with the vicious media helping Dem pols in tearing apart the candidate and his family; plus the entrenched incumbents with all of their advantages –it simply isn’t worth the effort. Term limits on congress would help a lot and would bring in good potential future presidents.