Supporting Newt Gingrich Over Mitt Romney Would Be a Fatal Mistake for the GOP
Neither Is a "true" conservative, but at least Romney could win.
It's not hard to understand why so many conservatives spurn Mitt Romney. He's had to slink away from past liberal positions on one major issue after another: health care reform, abortion, gun control and climate change. Many on the right are not reassured. They want a true conservative who's been with them all along.
That's not surprising. What's surprising is that they have turned, in their hour of need, to Newt Gingrich. The onetime House Speaker is a consistent conservative like I'm a duckbill platypus. In a contest with Romney for most zigzags, Gingrich can more than hold his own.
The biggest complaint about Mitt is that he pushed a health insurance plan with an oppressive, Obama-like individual mandate. But in 1993, Gingrich announced, "I am for people, individuals—exactly like automobile insurance—individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance." He reiterated that position as recently as 2008.
In 2007, he praised a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions as "something I would strongly support." In 2008, he joined with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in calling for "action to address climate change."
Conservatives now regret President George W. Bush's successful push for Medicare coverage of prescription drugs—a huge new entitlement that the comptroller general of the United States said "is probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s."
Not only did Gingrich endorse it, but Time reported, "GOP leaders brought in Gingrich for a private session to help win over conservative congressmen opposed to the measure's high cost." At the time, of course, he was being paid by pharmaceutical companies.
His most shameless switch came this year after a rebellion erupted against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. When President Barack Obama was staying out, Gingrich urged him to use U.S. air power to establish a no-fly zone. But when Obama did so, Newt changed his mind.
He embraces and abandons positions as easily as wives. Voting for Gingrich because Romney is a flip-flopper is like moving to Alaska to escape the cold.
No doubt many Republicans feel shortchanged that conservatives like Rick Perry and Herman Cain have done so much to destroy themselves, while Rick Santorum seems incapable of generating enthusiasm. But that's no reason to fool themselves about Gingrich.
He sounds conservative—or "conservative"—mainly because of his scorching attacks on liberals and other foes. He says Obama wants to bring about "the end of America." He denounces the "gay and secular fascism in this country."
He opposed a Muslim community center near Ground Zero as part of "an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization."
Demonizing adversaries is what he does best. Some on the right don't want a conservative so much as they want a hater. Gingrich is their dream come true. Romney shows no flair for irresponsible hysteria and crude smears—and many count that as a serious flaw.
Gingrich, however, has a past that could alienate many religious conservatives. They may resist electing a known repeat adulterer to the presidency—not to mention installing his former mistress as first lady. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention has said, "His toughest audience is going to be evangelical women." Romney, of course, is about as scandalous as Disney World.
Conservatives also have to keep in mind that most voters are not conservatives. Even if Gingrich can win over most Republicans, he is bound to repel everyone else.
In a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, only 36 percent of independent voters regard Gingrich positively, with 43 percent holding a negative view. Their assessment of Romney is far sunnier—45 percent favorable and only 30 percent unfavorable.
Gingrich's high negatives come even before Democratic attack ads begin reminding people of his many shortcomings—including his confirmed ethical lapses as House Speaker and his lucrative Washington influence-peddling. They also come before Gingrich has had months to remind everyone just how volatile and unlikable he can be.
At some point, voters have to ask themselves whom they would be more inclined to trust with the nuclear button. At that moment, the Gingrich bubble is likely to burst.
Many conservatives are reluctant to support a flip-flopper like Romney merely because he looks like he can win the November election. They might weigh that against supporting a flip-flopper who could easily kick it away.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
... Repugs will win.
Funny, every day.
Wow! When you are in the manic phase you really can go 24 to 48 hours without rest. That's pretty good even for the seriously unbalanced.
[TIP][o][THE][CAP]!
"He embraces and abandons positions as easily as wives."
Ouch. Low blow.
Especially from a magazine called reason.
You new here or something?
He just likes the drinking to start early.
Let's be fair. At least Newt has the decency to marry his mistresses.
But accurate.
But it would be more fun to see Newcular Titties and Obama debate.
Especially if Obama walks over, and motorboats Newt at the podium.
It's a match made in heaven.
The Republicans are masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Most election cycles, even their own cheering squad comes off as expecting defeat. I see no reason yet to believe this will be different.
An old, ugly white guy who behaved like a cad with his wives already tried to debate Obama. It didn't work out that well from what I remember. As bad as Romney is, it will be ridiculous to ask socons to vote for Newt over Mr. Family Man.
Hillary?
Unfortunately, they often do.
You forgot fat, pasty, and big-headed. and
Karl Rove was bitching this morning about De Donald's ?minence grise game.
That could only mean Trump is with Newt too
Did Donald Trump become a senior Republican official when I wasn't looking?
Guys like him are the reason so many people think businessmen are useless parasites who owe their wealth entirely to shady practices instead of having successful ideas.
It doesn't matter what you or I think, he has caught the eye of conservatives, ergo his forthcoming election debate, and the past parade of 2012 wannabees who have kissed his ring
they'll find that ring covered in shit before its all said and done.
Romney may be ObamaLite but he could beat Obama in November. Gingrich is so far off the deep end that I think people will vote for Obama out of fear of Gingrich's unpredictability. Hopefully GOP primary voters will see common sense and vote for my man Ron Paul.
Rick Perry had a great campaign ad a while ago -- and Paul's campaign should really keep it up/up their game even more with that sort of shit. You wouldn't believe the number of people that are coming to like him because of soundbites and his last ad. Let's home Romney's campaign keeps sucking on that front.
He told Trump to fuck off. It's a start to get some 15
Electing Romney would not be any differant than re-electing Obama. Both are flaming liberals. Romney is a Mormon, Obama is a Muslim. Both are extreme gutter religions.
As to Ron Paul, he is a fruitcake and will never be nominated and could not win if he was.
Let the hate flow through you
JohnD, we fixed the bugs on the Acer server. Come back soon.
+1 @Lost_In...
"Romney is a Mormon, Obama is a Muslim. Both are extreme gutter religions."
All Religions are Superfluous.
the whole topic is superfluous. The job at hand is commander in chief, not moralist in chief, theologian in chief, or anything else. Have to admit, though, I have never seen anyone put a dotted line between Islam and Mormonism before.
Oh JohnD. It must be so sad to read about what a lousy candidate your man Newt Gingrich is.
I won't vote for either, but a Gingrich nomination would be a great Christmas present to the democrats. No wonder the news outlets are so excited about a Newt nomination.
I don't agree with you about Ron Paul, but decide what you will. About Gingrich, people don't realize that he doesn't deal all so well with personal smears. He had numerous outbursts while Speaker of the House. People need to mention more about Gingrich than past adultery, they need to mention bounced checks. A guy who can't keep track of his own bank account balances while serving as speaker shouldn't be in the presidency. If people aren't bringing up the fact that Newt has a bad financial record, Obama will trample him in any debate. I can just imagine Obama's debates. I don't totally agree with Ron Paul, but I at least will read and hear out his exact ideas though.
The guys who run the GOP won't let anyone who wants so much as $1 cut from the budget get the nomination.
This election cycle has proven to me that conservatives are basically a stupid lot. Their temporary fascinations with these deeply and obviously flawed candidates is mystifying until you've figured out what Mr. Chapman has - that the "core" of the Republican Party wants an eloquent anti-Obama, ideology be damned. They prize the affectation of hatred toward the Democratic occupant of the White House (Gingrich) and they prize ignorance (Cain). Think about that . . . they thrive on hatred and ignorance. So any candidate that panders to these puerile instincts catapults to the top. God I hate conservatives, almost as much as I hate progressives.
Well after the beating McCain took, you can sort of understand how they don't want to pick someone who won't call Obama on his bad record. They fail to realize that a Democrat was going to win in 2008 no matter what Republicans did.
If they really thrived on ignorance, they would encourage you to run. Moron.
I could understand Bachmann, Perry and Cain, but Gingrich is like deciding you don't like all the new foods you've tried, but shit always tastes the same, so might as well pick it up and chew it some more.
Conservatives love thumpers.
If Republican thrived on hatred and ignorance they'd be supporting Obama. No political leader of the past century has been more corrupt or divisive.
^^this. Add to that how no political leader has more purposely worked against his own country's prosperity and you have the complete Obama. All this whining about the Repub field when the incumbent is someone whose record even the Dems will not run on.
The biggest irony is that the voters are the biggest hypocrites, and bigots too, sometimes. They want to be for family values, yet they choose candidates who couldn't keep their pants zipped, first McCain, now Gingrich, to represent them. At least if they want to talk family values, they can choose a man who is at least faithful to his wife for a time period over which Gingrich has dumped two wives to the curb and taken a third. Romney, try as he might, can never win to plenty of them, because to them, a Mormon can never be good, for some wierd idea that they will take over the world, which is junk, but it's funny how plenty of Christians are superstitious enough to believe the garbage of that sort.
If we had instant run-off voting, we would have a whole lot of people voting for 3rd party candidates and using Romnich as their better-than-Obama backup.
Without IRV, they'll just shrug, vote for Romnich, then take a long shower to wash off the shame.
Excellent point.
Cain is expected to endorse Gingrich today. He's also expected to say that the two have a lot in common, slowly turn his head, smile and wink.
A good reason that I could never embrace Cain. Any man that could think Newt would be good at anything other than bloviating is not fit for presidential duty.
I have yet to meet a christian for whom adultery would be a big deal and mormonism would not.
Manly heterosexual evangelical leaders commit adultery, it can't be so bad.
I read a survey that supports the adultery premise. Romney just has to announce he like baby Jesus
Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, so he presumably does like baby Jesus.
Missed the joke 🙁
As an ex-fundamentalist, evangelical Christian, I can weigh in on this . . . evangelicals will vote for who pastor or Mr. Elder Christian at church tells them to vote for. They've admittedly surrendered independent thought - thus, in these circles, Mormonism is a cult - plain and simple. Asking them to vote for a Mormon (in the primaries) is like asking them to vote for Jim Jones. As far as cults are concerned, they are all equal in their error and apostasy.
Newt is more of a central planner than Mitt. If Mitt wasn't a Mormon, he would have had the nomination locked up a long time ago. Evangelicals consider Mormonism to be a cult.
Magic underwear!
Consider? Just ask Mitt if he's going to go to the moon or sun after he dies.
I'm not buying that. If you go over the conservative websites, no one is mentioning the fact that he's a Mormon. What they mention is that he pushed Romneycare and the fact that he's rhetorically put himself at the left of the Republican party.
I live in hardshell Baptist country, and while I don't spend a lot of time chatting with Religious Leaders (stupid restraining order), I have yet to hear anyone mention his Mormonosity as a reason to oppose ROMNIAC.
wtf?
Long story short: Don't engage in a "frank exchange of views" with a Baptist minister without first checking to see if his brother-in-law is a judge.
lol
I just added another 3 years......
Don't mind that Elephant in the room.
http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=AjoI.....323178685/**http://news.yahoo.com/us-agents-laundered-drug-money-report-180012421.html
Let's try that again --
http://news.yahoo.com/us-agent.....12421.html
I know I cannot possibly be the first to suggest this, but just imagine Mitt as candidate being asked "boxers, briefs or magic underwear"?
Great article. Romney will make a great President.
Man oh man, I spent the weekend reading bullcrap like this. "Gingrich first, Romney third." Nice to know that "at least Romney could win", as if it makes a difference. Yawn.
They're not Magic Underwear, they're Jesus Jammies.
OK, let's just hope for split government, it's the best we're going to get.
Absolutely. If Newt is the nominee, guys like Rand Paul and Mike Lee will be out in the wilderness. Big government will prevail.
The only upside I see to Romney winning, is that he will never fully earn the trust of GOP voters, and they will more likely turn on Romney whenever he lurches to the left. Not so much with Newt.
Obama is the best thing that has happened for the "limited government" movement. Another Obama term in office might be enough to tilt the tables away from central planning. We need to hit rock bottom before things get better.
Another Obama term in office might be enough to tilt the tables away from central planning.
------------------------------
If anything, the opposite is true - another term of Obama and we may be so deep into central planning that it will require decades to come out. As it is, Team Obama is being upfront about courting the leeches and looters in society, effectively discarding the working class. Paul has figured it out, as in the Paul who understands that what is taken from Peter goes to Paul.
A Romney Presidency simply means a continuation of the same pro-big bank expansionary monetary policies and expansion of the national security state that Obama has been following, but with less fear of Congress putting up a fight. Romney will be warmed over Obama, just like Obama is warmed over Bush.
Without a change to Repub Pres, ObamneyCare stands
I'd like to support Newt over Mitt -- and then drop him.
Newt's got as much chance of going over as a turd in a punch bowl.
I find Newt to be the weightier candidate.
"Neither Is a "true" conservative, but at least Romney could win."
Neither is a true Libertarian either.
Ron Paul or nothing.
If RP isn't the nominee, I plan on writing his name in on my ballot. I'm not a fan of moral victories, but a significant number of votes going to either RP, or the LP nominee at least sends a message. At least, that's what I tell myself.
Then again, Reason isn't particularly libertarian, either.
Might as well. This election summons up memories of Goldwater in '64, when the Republican establishment found "their" party taken over by a constitutionalist insurrection completely at odds with the grafting mercantilist corruption for which the GOP was established and has been run since they were calling themselves "Whigs" and "Federalists."
I'm willing to give it a try again, this time with the Internet to overcome the MSM propaganda grinder that got us into Johnson's pocket and then into a land war on the Asian continent.
Ron Paul in 2012. Let's fix this friggin' mess.
Dude is like totally rocking, I mean like seriously.
http://www.surf-anon.tk
Jackass!
The biggest problem with nominating Newt is that he would energize the Left and make it tougher for the Republiphants to get/keep control of the House and Senate. 2/3 in both and even if B-HO wins he's a lame duck from day one.
You need to put down the crack pipe if you think the Republicans can win 2/3 of the seats in either house in 2012. They might get a slight majority in the Senate, but they're going to be fighting to keep the House.
Sorry, but I'm not buying this entire "at least Romney is electable" line. Romney polls well because he's got a lot of name recognition and, unlike Gingrich, he's yet to have been in the Democratic crosshairs. Wait till he gets the nomination (and I suspect he will). We'll start hearing in depth about the fact that he was a Corporate Raider who downsized widows, orphans and cute little puppies out of their factory jobs. We'll hear about how his Mormon faith meant he didn't think black people could go to heaven until the mid-70s. We'll hear about how he tortured his dog on vacation for shits and giggles. And people will curse the very name of Willard Romney.
Maybe. I don't hold out hope for him, though I'm not sure if he would be worse than Obama (not willing to take that chance). A Gingrich presidency would be a nightmare. The only hope would be that house republicans would refuse to work with him and we could have a one party divided government.
Honestly, I fail to see where Gingrich would be a nightmare in any way that either Romney or Obama wouldn't.
I don't get that either. I understand that Newt has a statist streak, but I don't see the destructiveness that comes with Obama. And Romney was in a blue state with a heavy-Dem legislature. Someone please explain why either would be a step down from the current POTUS.
Because more wars without drones would be initiated. PATRIOT Act would be expanded far more than it already is. Drug laws would go from extreme to HOLY F EVERYONE IS IN JAIL FOR LIFE. Lobbyists would get more for their money. Women's rights would be in chaos. Taxes would not go down. Spending would not go down. Government would more than likely expand more due to terrists.
You forgot to mention the more salient fact - Romney is kind of an uptight douchebag that no one really likes.
Supporting Newt Gingrich OR Mitt Romney Would Be a Fatal Mistake for the GOP
Fixed.
I think Romney's electability is overstated. Just because he has obvious contempt for the right-wing extremists the GOP candidates must pander to doesn't make him a likable candidate in the general. There's a reason he rarely does interviews (the recent one with FOX News illustrates that reason quite well).
Even if he manages to win despite conservatives hating him, there's only so much you can do to get over the image of a prickly blue blood with a major consistency problem.
They say a generic republican candidate can beat Obama.
Hello, my name is Mr. Generic.
If corporations can be people, why can't Turing Machines be political candidates?
Corporations aren't people, but the people who own corporations are people. Got it, moron?
Do you like being corporations are people?
"Supporting Newt Gingrich Over Mitt Romney Would Be a Fatal Mistake for the GOP"
I fail to see the significant difference.
My mother is a foaming at the mouth socialist-liberal. When I think she needs her blood pressure increased I can just say George, I don't even have to throw Bush in there, and she's climbing the walls spitting out venom. She say's she's not voting for Obama again, but she does say she could vote for Romney if he's nominated (which would be the first time in her 75 years of life she votes republican). I suspect she will probably hold her nose and vote Obama if the R's nominate Perry or Gingrich.
It doesn't matter to me, I don't see an R or D who could get the nomination that I would vote for, I'll be voting for whoever the L's nominate (Donald Duck, John Huntsman, doesn't matter). I've decided I'm never voting for either an R or a D unless they're more interested in running the government under constitutional rules rather than as a their own centralized social/economic expansion of government power. But it seems to me they only have three hopes, extremely low D turnout, nominating Romney or something extremely bad happening and Obama making it even worse (and I mean even worse than he's done so far).
I don't believe the R's will hold their noses and go for Romney, even at the risk of putting Obama back in, so dedicated are they to the concepts of religion and social/economic manipulation by a serious R.
LOL, a libertarian that is not a Paulbot?
I wish someone would explain to me why hardcore libertarians (those close to anarcho-libertarianism) have their heart in the right place but when it comes to maintaining a Civil Society, they punt the ball? That "no consequences" approach to life is where they become more like progressives.
Just as a point to consider, no consequences to life administered by the state at the point of a gun =/= no consequences in life.
We MUST support the more conservative candidate between the two; and that is Newt by far. We may not be crazy about him but a RINO will certainly assure tha we continue on our path to self destruction.
And what makes you think that Newtron is a Conservative Republicum?
just relatively speaking!
You guys may not like Newt or Romney, but at least they are good solid people who do not get into conspiracy theories...they strongly support the central banks, torture, carbon taxes, drug wars and the other wars so what more could libertarians really hope for?
Paul and Romney are the only ones who have a chance of beating obama according to polling. I am quietly hopeful of a Gingrich explosion before Iowa and a 2 horse race of Romney Paul through January.
Paul and Romney are the only ones who have a chance of beating obama according to polling. I am quietly hopeful of a Gingrich explosion before Iowa and a 2 horse race of Romney Paul through January.
Well nominating someone less likely to win but who is more conservative may make sense to some republicans. Good luck with that one.
Frankly, it's the very thing that conservatives have turned into, only slightly smaller government liberals, that turned me away from the R's to begin with. It's very liberal to centralize power and wealth in government. The best that can be said about conservatives is that they'll do all the same things liberals do but from a different perspective.
Where a liberal might want the government to push an anti-religion agenda, a republican would push a pro-Christian agenda.
Where a liberal will make taxpayers pay for sheets of canvas covered with feces as art, the conservative would make it illegal to sell or buy.
Where a liberal will use billions to push a solar agenda (enriching their friends) and deny oil the same subsidies, a conservative will use billions to push an oil agenda (enriching their friends) and deny solar the same subsidies.
Neither will turn off the government tap to their preferred economic and social agendas. Neither will allow the market, which is actually the citizens, to determine energy or art direction. That's the job of the R's and D's.
Sorry, waiting for a job order and had too much time to waste.
If the Republicum party deigns to exhibit a modicum of intellegence; a ticket composed of Romney at the head and Gary Johnson, Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman in the #2 slot may be a viable option. Huntsman has managed to impress me with foreign policy experience; a much needed commodity in the White House these days.
They might even get my vote as well as my mothers like that, but I don't see it happening.
Haha! Can you just imagine a double Mormon Romney/Hunstman ticket? Many of the evangelical leaders in this country would need to be committed at the thought.
I would actually prefer Obama to stay in over Romney or Ginrich winning. At least with Obama in, the repbuclians act like they have a back bone.
True. Always vote for gridlock when possible.
Greasy dipshit A or greasy dipshit B? Take yer pick.
Personally I'm not worried about Newt. Anyone who watched him in the 90's knows his penchant for self-destruction and I'm sure he's only gotten better.
Surely someone's noticed that the Anointed Frontrunner has only been a frontrunner when someone else crashed and burned and people were waiting for the debris to settle? Mitt's 20% wants Mitt. The same people who wanted him before.
And what does 'generic republican' mean? Before this election cycle it seems to mean 'body with an R after it's name'--but now it seems to have morphed into 'republican most indistinguishable from democrat'. Weird, huh?
But there is some good news. If you pay close attemtion, Reason is shifting towards what it's writers percieve as the 'left' side of libertarianism--the part that gets along with liberals. That means the writers are instinctively aligning with the opposition--to insure that libertarianism remains a fruitless pursuit. Which also means that they feel that a republican'll be in the White House after the election.*
*it's like flowers turning towards a light source--they don't really know they're doing it(no brains), but it's an indicator that's pretty reliable.
Reason has had some left-libertarian leanings since the Bush administration.
On the other hand, you have a target-rich environment when you oppose statist idiocy.
The republicans nominating Gingrich means we may actually have a home-wrecker as first lady!
Most conservatives don't care as much about issues as they think they do. What turns them on is listening to someone bash their enemies -- hippies, Muslims, minority teenagers, uppity women, etc., etc. If you don't believe this, take a look at http://www.humanevents.com for a few days.
Newt is nothing if not good at bashing.
Both parties have turned into that, really. Just mirror images of each other. It's why I don't take either of them very seriously. It's really "lifestyle politics."
Meet Silvie - a crazy, lanky, fun girl from Prague who lives life to the maximum.
Silvie is the ultimate free-spirit and not one to follow the rules! For example, you may have noticed Silvie prefers a more natural look. She tells us that she loves her bush, and says it makes her feel like a lioness; raw and animalistic. Silvie's lifestyle reflects her unconventional personality, not only is she bisexual she is also a naturist.
She has a typical fashion models body: long skinny arms, long legs and a petite structure but she still has a full bust and curves - which is very rare, a rare gem you could say. All blessings from her mother apparently!
Nothing is taboo when it comes to Silvie!
Mitt? I'd rather see the GOP die on the vine as a former wing of the Big Government party rather than vote for a neocon.
When a candidate's morals & character don't matter to you - pick any of the below:
Newt Gingrich's Skeleton Closet
http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/.....loset.html
Romney's Advisors Are Leftist Elites
http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/.....lites.html
When a candidate's morals & character don't matter to you - pick any of the below:
Newt Gingrich's Skeleton Closet
http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/.....loset.html
Romney's Advisors Are Leftist Elites
http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/.....lites.html
These Hos can't win.
The turn to Gingrich appears simply to be yet another manifestation among "the base" on the Red Faction side to get somebody into the top slot - ANYBODY into the top slot - instead of that Massachusetts Medical Marxist, Mitt Romney.
That Republican "base" - both the fiscal conservatives and the religious/social whackjobs - hate Romney's guts, and would as soon burn him at the stake as support him in a presidential campaign.
And then there's the independents (who will make or break the effort to throw our Kenyan Keynesian out of power), who consider Romney a weak reed, insipid and uninspiring at best.
The guy they like is - surprise! - Ron Paul.
Whom you Reason folks will do anything to avoid discussing in a remotely favorable light.
Tsk.
"Romney shows no flair for irresponsible hysteria and crude smears..."
the same cannot be said for those crafting his campaign ads.
"if we keep talking about the economy, we'll lose" Barack Ob-- no wait, that was John McCain.
Wonder why you didn't mention Ron Paul in your article? He is a true conservative with a long and impressive track record. He is really the only alternative in this race...tax and spend for war Republicans or tax and spend for welfare Democrats. He is the only one who even mentions real viable solutions for our nations problems. He did quite well in last showing, so why didn't you mention him? I'm no longer voting for the lesser of two evils. Ron Paul will get my vote.
Regardless of which candidate we wind up choosing from two we will have another war in Iran this time. Keeping Obama will likely get us there as well. There is only one man talking to us about ending these wars. Ron Paul will bring our troops home. That is where they belong don't you think?
Sounds like you are afraid of Newt. That is all I need to know. Steve.
I'm not sure that I'd go along with the main thesis here. My impression of Gingrich is that he actually changes his mind a lot on matters of policy (and will take risks expressing opinions unpopular among his base), whereas Romney's shifts seem to be calculated based on who's likely to be voting for him. It's unlikely that the same Republican could ever be elected Massachusetts governor AND nominated for President any other way. I find Gingrich's candidacy much more substance-oriented...with Romney it's more of "I'm a really great guy, and I'd love to be your leader."
Having said that, Newt's personal baggage and temperament are potential timebombs, making his resurgence in the race surprising to me.
As a registered Republican, I am sad to see the presidential candidates that are representing my party. However, I do think of Romney as the lesser of two evils (so to speak). Also, isn't is sad that we live in a time where "irresponsible hysteria and crude smears" are what we have come to expect from our candidates?!