Up for Debate: Gingrich's last stand?

Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at 12:25am

With another strong showing from Rick Santorum, is it time for Newt Gingrich to bow out of the primary battle? If so, will he?

85 Comments on this post:

By: dargent7 on 3/14/12 at 4:09

No. He came in 2nd in AL yesterday. He's ties with Sanitarium for 2nd in total delegates.
These two give Romney a heart attack.
Romney's, "It's all about the math" is falling apart the more states Gingrich and Sant. win.
They're talking about a run- off at the Convention. It should be fun to watch.

By: Loner on 3/14/12 at 4:40

Good morning, Nashville!

As long as Gingrich has casino-tycoon Sheldon Adlelson, as his personal sugar-daddy, the glib fat man with the silver hair-helmet will continue to fly first class around the nation, stay at 5-star hotels and eat at fancy restaurants etc. Clean sheets every night...tailored suits, designer shoes, shirts & ties.....It sure beats working for a living.

If Newt drops out now, he will sink back into obscurity...his ego is simply too large for that...he'll stay in the race as long as his sugar-daddy picks up the tab.

Hopefully, Newt will stay in it up to the bitter end....if for no other reason than to make Rick Santorum whine about it. I see this thing going all the way to a brokered convention; they all have out-sized egos and nobody is about to concede....let the bloodletting continue!

By: Ummm... on 3/14/12 at 4:43

Some poll I read about yesterday said that about 30% of the Republican voters in Mississippi and Alabama think interracial marriage should be ILLEGAL! These are the folks voting for Gingrich and Santorum. It is truly sad to see how low the GOP has sunk. I remember people like Nelson Rockefeller, Everett Dirksen, William Scranton- they wouldn't be allowed in this version of the Republican party. The "big tent" these guys talk about is approximately the size of an umbrella.

By: Loner on 3/14/12 at 4:57

Amen, Ummm....Nelson Rockefeller would be ejected from the "big tent"...."Rocky" was a union-supporting secular Republican...an extinct species.

Dirksen was a true statesman, IMO...the man had gravitas.

Nixon's outreach to the Southern-fried bigots helped the GOP to win elections...for a while...but the uncompromising, arrogant, born-agains drove many secular Republicans from the tent....as the Republicans retreat further into an 18th century, Christ-centered, narrow worldview, they will continue to shed the tolerant and the educated members of their party and become increasingly irrelevant to the political process.

Unless Obama screws up royally...or unless Bibi Netanyahu goes rogues and strikes Iran soon....President Obama should easily win re-election.

By: gdiafante on 3/14/12 at 5:06

I think I've illustrated my disappointment with Obama, and briefly entertained the idea of voting for Romney, but good lord, after this primary, no way would I vote for any of these jokers.

How any traditional Republican can witness this process without cringing is beyond me.

By: Loner on 3/14/12 at 5:24

Obama has been a disappointment, Gd, but I agree with you, these GOP jokers are not presidential material....Ron Paul has the best and freshest ideas, but one can see where innovation rates in the Grand Old Party....they just don't believe in innovation.....they don't believe in evolution...they don't believe in integration.....but they do believe in campaign donations....oh yeah, I God they trust....when that's written on folding money.

By: Loner on 3/14/12 at 5:29

s-h-b: "In God they trust...." Sorry 'bout dat.

By: gdiafante on 3/14/12 at 5:36

They don't believe in moving forward. And I don't believe that traditional Republicans, while always Conservative, were ever this extreme.

I don't see how it can be good policy to alienate entire generations of younger people who do not share the same, archaic values (gay marriage, sex, women's rights, anti-progress).

The U.S. is an aging country, but there will be a point, once the baby boomers go into that good sleep, when these alienated young people will be the larger demographic. Then what? Damage control? How can you reverse so many years of such narrow-mindedness?

By: govskeptic on 3/14/12 at 5:44

Why are you asking about Gingrich when the President has decided
to run against Gov. Palin, again as his TV commercial indicates? And
what are we going to do with Uncle Omar, who has got his 2nd DUI in
less than 6 months?

By: Loner on 3/14/12 at 5:48

Gd, the extremism is coming from the Cornholio wing of the GOP...the TP.....Rick Santorum needs TP for his bunghole....Newt is threatening Cornholio? The streets will run red with the blood of the non-believers!

Just keep pumping those double expresso cappuccinos into Richard the Zion-hearted....he's effin' WIRED!! He's gone Cornholio.

By: Loner on 3/14/12 at 5:59

Santorum is campaigning in Louisiana right now...the born-again papist is doing well in the Bible-Belt...he's the kind of Catholic they like...the militant, anti-science, capitalist kind of Catholic....the Catholic that talks like an Evangelical Southern fundamentalist...without the regional accent.

A brilliant strategy, you gotta admit that. Southern bigots can point to Santorum and say, "We support Santorum, now call us anti-Catholic." Tokenism....once again.

By: Kosh III on 3/14/12 at 6:09


Don't forget our own Republicans: Sen. Howard Baker and Sen. Nancy Landon Kassenbaum Baker.

By: dargent7 on 3/14/12 at 6:12

I agree. I was "thinking" about Romney, but everytime he talks he says something stupid. NASCAR owners, grits, two Cadillacs....
His pandering to the south was embarrassing."Hi, ya'all". Geez.
Obama might be the lesser of these three evils.
330 million Americans, and this is what are choices are?

By: Kosh III on 3/14/12 at 6:12

Harold Stassen for President!!!!

By: dargent7 on 3/14/12 at 6:14

Actually, they are in Puerto Rico and American Samoa, on their way to the US Virgin Islands.
I didn't know that our territories/ possessions could vote!
(and I even went to a pretty good college).

By: treehugger7 on 3/14/12 at 6:29

On the upside, the republican comedy troupe is better than most of the sitcoms on TV. Who could make this stuff up?!

By: gdiafante on 3/14/12 at 6:34

330 million Americans, and this is what our choices are?

Post of the year

By: Loner on 3/14/12 at 6:38

Yes, this is all quite entertaining....I gotta run...later!

By: dargent7 on 3/14/12 at 7:14

gD: You're probably in the top 3 of the smartest people on this board. (Loner and girlie-girl the other 2). Did you know American Samoa votes in the National Election?
Puerto Rico? Virgin Islands?

By: Rasputin72 on 3/14/12 at 7:21

LONER.......At 5.40 AM summed the remaining days of the Republican nomination process exactly as it will be executed.

After that process is completed and Romney wins the nomination Obama will of course win handily., There are just too many people in this country dependent upon government jobs and assistance for anyone using "the chicken in every pot" election theme to be beaten.

Those of us who provide the capital will have to raise prices another notch in order to keep our standard of living at acceptable.

It seems wrong for Lawyers to charge a man making 15.00 and hour $400.00 an hour for his work but that is the way this country has been built. It seems wrong for people to be making $15.00 an hour in a $50.00 per hour world but that is what has been created by both Republicans and Democrats. I just play the game.

By: BenDover on 3/14/12 at 7:39

The only reason Romney is ahead is because the other candidates have split the conservative vote. If it goes to a brokered convention I don't think Romney will be the candidate.

By: yogiman on 3/14/12 at 8:11


If Obama is allowed to "win" the next election with all the evidence known that he usurped the office in 2008, then, as I have 'said' before, the Americans can kiss the USA goodbye. That will give Obama the positive knowledge he's got them by their ears and the nation has been "given" to him.

And that's pretty obvious on this site, that so many argue he's their president when they don't even know his name.

By: BenDover on 3/14/12 at 8:12

As for the nomination battle, I think it's healthy. We rolled over in '08 and went with McCain and that turned into a disaster.

The only problem with any of the candidates is the media's 'emphasize the negative, eliminate the positive' campaign of everything conservative. It's like people with value systems that hover around that of Ronald Reagan are now the 2nd coming of the Spanish Inquisition.

I was trying to think back to when the 'War on Women' media campaign started and I remember making note of how big of a story it became when the Susan G. Komen charity pulled it's funding of Planned Parenthood. I remember wondering how a private charity pulling its funding for an abortion organization became a week-long news event. This was the tip of the spear for the media's "war on women" distraction campaign that's supposed to scare women enough to forget what a miserable failure Obama has been.

By: bfra on 3/14/12 at 8:25

Even the ones that think Obama is a failure, can't help but see, he doesn't come close to the failures of Bush/Chaney. Their failures are still pulling this Country down & Obama has had to deal with that from day 1.

By: BenDover on 3/14/12 at 8:28

Yeah, right bfra. His deficits are 4 times Bush's even netting out the half trillion dollars in TARP repayments he blew.

By: gdiafante on 3/14/12 at 8:40

...pulling its funding for an abortion organization...

Oh Ben...and you criticize the media for being inaccurate...only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services are abortions, of which zero funding is Federal money, by law.

Hardly an abortion organization. lol

And if you wonder why it was a news event, because people complained. Enough so to change Komen's decision. Kudos to those people who raised concerns. Democracy in action...

By: Ummm... on 3/14/12 at 8:40

Bush started with a budget surplus, then blew a trillion dollars on an unjustified war of aggression which put us behind the 'TARP" eight ball in the first place, Ben. If you really would prefer that type of governance to Obama's, your judgment is questionable to say the least.

By: yogiman on 3/14/12 at 8:40


It's pretty obvious the news media are pro-Obama fans and feel they have the obligation to "show" people who to vote for. And sadly, too many follow the "advice" of the news media instead of gaining knowledge on their own.

Isn't it odd the news media hasn't made one negative comment about Obama from day one even when his eligibility has been questioned from day one? And whn I say news media I mean television and new papers.

Shouldn't that make one wonder? And as I have 'said' before; why has congress allowed this to happen without question?

By: bfra on 3/14/12 at 8:42

Ben - If you ever get over your "tarp repayments mania", you might see what is really going on. Bush/Cheney's war spending didn't just stop the day they left office. Thus, Obama inherited all of their debt, based on lies.

By: BenDover on 3/14/12 at 8:45

His record on unemployment is dismal. Here's a chart comparing the US unemployment to other industrialized nations. Note: where they have largely recovered their loses we've continued to wane.


If you consider all the taxpayer funded public sector jobs created under this administration, the legacy of which my grandchildren will suffer, it is ridiculous for US to have unemployment worse than these weaker economies.

He has totally maintained uncertainty in the for the employers about what a new employee will cost, what the tax burden will be, what health care costs will be, what regulation will be used to shake them down, who his NLSB will target next, how much more power the union will have, etc.

He has blocked fossil energy at every opportunity while trying to take the credit for gains we have seen in spite of his two pronged green energy strategy of investing in non-viable firms that will give him campaign kickbacks... and hindering production through regulation of fossil energy to try to artificially make the un-viable more viable.

By: BenDover on 3/14/12 at 8:46

The media created the outrage, gd... not the other way around.

By: gdiafante on 3/14/12 at 8:52

Open those beady little eyes of yours, Ben. Companies are finally starting to hire after sitting on a significant amount of cash for years. The current decrease in the unemployment rate is completely due to the private sector as government jobs has been decreasing consistently for months, probably at the state level mostly.

If there's any uncertainty, it regards whether the USSC will confirm the health law or not. I'll give you that, but it's hardly the defining reason why hiring completely fell off the map. I understand it's so much easier to blame one person, but please...

He's advocated more drilling, Ben. And if I remember correctly, using your Democrats voted to go to war rhetoric when defending the "Bush Lies" crap, Republicans voted to invest in green energy too...

In other words...yawn.

By: gdiafante on 3/14/12 at 8:55

The media reported, the people reacted. That's how things work. Your anti-media rants are getting stale and predictable. I understand your need to be spoon-fed news that's compatible with your political beliefs, so just watch Fox and don't worry about what other news outlets say. It's really simple.

By: dargent7 on 3/14/12 at 8:56

Obama's "record" may be abysmal, but does anyone really want to see Gingrich in the W.H., lecturing us, "you, people"?...and that girth and his wife's hair....
Or, Sanitarium saying, "abortion is now a Federal crime, punishable by 20 years in prison"?
Or, Romney, pandering to anybody and everbody, the "Flip-flopper" -in- Chief?
Obama may be a screw-up, but he looks damn good doing it.

By: BenDover on 3/14/12 at 8:56

Given the information at the time it would have been irresponsible not to take out Saddam. Large bi-partisan majorities agreed including the Democratic leadership of both houses of congress.

The question after that is, 'do we pull out and leave it to certain chaos and civil war... or do we finish the job'. Bush is on the right side of history for not pulling out in '07 as the critics (including Obama) demanded.

Now Obama has adopted almost all of the Bush administration's policies on the war on terror. Was Obama wrong in his criticisms of Bush or simply a political opportunist?

By: gdiafante on 3/14/12 at 9:05

Now Obama has adopted almost all of the Bush administration's policies on the war on terror. Was Obama wrong in his criticisms of Bush or simply a political opportunist?

As I said before, there's a difference from being opposed to a war and then being able to end it. He's finding that out in Afghanistan. And yes, this is one of the points where I go against the grain and disagree with Obama, but I understand that you can't just snap your fingers and it's over.

I wonder if maybe you don't.

By: BenDover on 3/14/12 at 9:08

Getting back to the dollars though... I think you guys are just bad at math. Bush's deficits amounted basically to the war supplementals and ran between $300B and $400B a year. These represented a one time cost for the ouster of Saddam and should go away almost completely since we have turned security back over to the newly liberated Republic in Iraq and as we wind down operations in Afghanistan.

You can add the TARP spending to the Bush deficit in 2008 but since that has been almost entirely repaid with interest it brings Bush's total to around $2 trillion in deficit largely based on the one time cost of Iraq and Afghanistan... this during a period where the economy was depressed by small things like 9/11, the Enron World Com debacles, the dot.com bubble burst, several unprecedented natural disasters including Katrina, and the sub-prime housing collapse.

Your friend Obama goes through $2 trillion in deficit spending every 16 months. At this pace we're looking at him adding $12 trillion to the national debt all by himself... and, of note, Obama's spending is being institutionalized as bigger bureaucracy and expanded entitlements so it's not a one time cost. There's no end in sight.

This is who you people defend.

By: BenDover on 3/14/12 at 9:14

"Obama may be a screw-up, but he looks damn good doing it." that's awesome d'arge... reminds me of this classic from Dave Burge


By: gdiafante on 3/14/12 at 9:15

You're the math major and apparently can add either, Ben. Your basing your entire premise on current revenues. As employment picks up, so does revenue, hence a lower deficit. This has been the issue all along...you can't manage the country on such short revenues. This is why a rational plan would have been to implement a combination of tax increases and spending decreases.

But, can't have that...taxes is a dirty word...taxes is a dirty word...(nod to Marty Feldman)

And let's be honest here, and you can consult your friend "W" on this if you want, but there were some extraordinary circumstances regarding spending since 2008. I know you might think this was planned all along (which would have required Bush's complicity, you know), but back in reality, this was a perfect economic storm and I will assert that if a Republican was sitting in the Oval Office right now, we'd still be discussing the same numbers.

By: BenDover on 3/14/12 at 9:26

I respectfully disagree, gd.

I do sincerely appreciate your civility and your thoughtful consideration of my points though.

I think when the tax cuts expire in '09 it'll be another gut punch to the economy, upon which government revenues depend, as your comment rightly indicates.

By: bfra on 3/14/12 at 9:27

Given the information at the time it would have been irresponsible not to take out Saddam. Large bi-partisan majorities agreed including the Democratic leadership of both houses of congress.

Ben - The information given them by Bush/Cheney was lies! Don't give me that old "they had the same info as the President", that is not so. The President is privey to a lot of highly guarded info, not available to all that make decisions.

By: gdiafante on 3/14/12 at 9:33

No problem Ben. Yes, that will be a punch.

What we need are leaders that don't consider compromise as a curse word, and then both sides to come together to make serious governmental reforms regarding our spending and tax code. I know it will never happen but that's what needs to.

We cannot keep throwing away money on entitlements (be it tax cuts for the wealthy or Social Security, medicare, etc.) that are inefficient.

Reform isn't a dirty word either.

As for the tax code...good god, they've needed to do that for years.

Honestly, what we need are rational leaders to sequester themselves in isolation and solve these problems, ala the Miracle in Philadelphia in 1787. Of course, then, we had the brightest the Enlightenment had to offer. As Darge said, now we have...well...no one of that caliber, for sure.

By: BenDover on 3/14/12 at 9:37

bfra... you are simply wrong. There were no lies... only accusations of lies and malfeasance. But evidently the accusations are as effective as having the proof.

By: gdiafante on 3/14/12 at 9:44

I suppose the only way to solve this issue is to ask Ben what he thinks the definition of "lies" is.

Did the Bush Administration exaggerate? Yes.

Did the Bush Administration misrepresent evidence? Yes

Does this constitute "lying"? This is the question.

What we know now simply isn't compatible with what the administration presented. And, in my mind, it gives a great example to why, before we put one foot on the ground, we better damn sure know what we're doing and why we're there. Neither can be said of Iraq.

By: bfra on 3/14/12 at 9:44

Dream on Ben in your blatant denial of truth!

By: BenDover on 3/14/12 at 9:52

Bush admin made the case for going to war. Exaggeration? Misrepresentation? I don't think so. We do know that some of the intel. was wrong.

The burden to show evidence of the destruction of his wmd stock-piles was on Saddam though. Instead of full cooperation with the inspectors he played this cat and mouse game... denying access until we spent a couple of billion dollars ramping up forces to the middle east then cooperating again until we backed off. A few cycles of this was quite enough, I'd say, and combined with his numerous violations of the '91 cease-fire agreement and his out-right defiance of UN Security Counsel resolutions made a case for invasion by itself.

Bush's mistake was asking in the first place rather than pulling a Clinton/Obama and just pulling the trigger on the guy.

By: gdiafante on 3/14/12 at 9:53

And Ben, I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that Democrats are complicit in the march to war. They are. The dissenting party should have dissented. I understand there are, again, extraordinary circumstances here too, like the retribution factor after 9/11, but someone should have fought against it.

Oh yeah, someone did...

By: BenDover on 3/14/12 at 10:01

I think your dove of '03 is in the hawk class of '12.

If that's a decision factor for you then I'd say the expiration date on that particular tub of yogurt has passed, friend.

By: BenDover on 3/14/12 at 10:06

On Iran though, I have to be critical of Obama again. When they get enough fissionable material they will strike Israel; and Armageddon won't be just a bible study anymore.

By: BenDover on 3/14/12 at 10:15

So Finnegan's going to St Louis for $50M... Fisher will be one to watch next year. I predict a wild-card spot in the playoffs.