TexasCHLforum.com

There seems to be a lot of talk lately in the talking head world about Gingrich bowing out of the race due to his non-existent chances of securing the nomination. Another factor with Gingrich staying in is that it basically ensures a Romney victory for the nomination. The theory is that Gingrich is splitting the conservative vote with Santorum and stealing crucial delegates that could help put Santorum over the top. If Santorum went 1-on-1 with Romney in a dog fight, Santorum would have a much better chance to take the nomination. As it is right now, Gingrich will continue to take just enough delegates from Santorum to put Romney over the top. Thoughts?

I agree.

Yep. He needs to step aside NOW for the good of the Republican party.

This all just speaks to the character of Gingrich, to his selfish narcissistic approach to politics. He had been a recently hired college instructor in Georgia when the college's presidential slot came open. He applied for it and fully expected to get the job, saying he was just as qualified as the other applicants who had been performing their craft for decades. He later played the same card when the history department's chair went vacant and couldn't understand why a senior war vet would get the job over him, all while being absent much of time while running for public office. He may be a very intelligent man, but that's the extent of it. He is not a team player in any sense. He lost his speaker's job for much the same behavior. He thought he could do anything, get away with anything, and run the House as he pleased, because he could. Gingrich nearly destroyed the Republican party, single handedly, in the 90's. He's about to do it again. And still, people will vote for him because he says he can defeat Obama, as if anyone should believe anything he might say. Gingrich is a perfect example of someone who you should vote against, because if he is ever again elected to any job, he will surely endeavor to destroy that organization.

There's not a single candidate running that I'd vote "for". Again.

...it's important that our votes are AGAINST obummer...thereby being FOR our country...

speedsix wrote:...it's important that our votes are AGAINST obummer...thereby being FOR our country...

The black one AND the white one!

I believe that we have much larger issues/challenges in/with this country than pornography. Newt, bless his born again heart, knows what they are. Maybe Romney will pick Newt as his running mate?

Oldgringo wrote:I believe that we have much larger issues/challenges in/with this country than pornography. Newt, bless his born again heart, knows what they are. Maybe Romney will pick Newt as his running mate?

It seems that Newt is so fundamentally hated in the halls of Congress he would be a legislative liability.

I've got Huckabee on my short list.

Romney/ Huckabee.... Their slogan? "Money with a conscience."

We should start a pool.

Well, I don't think pornography is all that Santorum talks about. Yea sure, he may go a little heavy on the social issues, but he's got ideas about the economy and foreign affairs as well. My real problem is with Romney. Yes, everybody should vote for him if he's the nominee; nobody wants Obama re-elected. But, all you would be doing is substituting a huge evil with a marginally smaller evil. Obama-lite is right when it comes to Romney. Let's remember back to 2010 and what one of the huge issues was that allowed Republicans to win a landslide: Obamacare. That issue is off the table with Romney as the nominee. Of course there are other issues, but that's like taking a huge sledgehammer out of the game that you could otherwise use to pound Obama into the ground with. Romney has never disavowed Romneycare, he's just side-stepped the issue by saying it was on a state level. Sure, it's Obamacare on the state level - does that make it any less bad? You signed it into law, so you must have thought it was a good idea. Romney was also staunchly pro-choice before he was pro-life and even attended Planned Parenthood fundraisers. There's a tape of him online in a private meeting explaining to some MA business leaders how he's a "big believer in getting money where the money is." He goes on: "And the money is in Washington." He's actually bragging about getting Washington money so he can spend it. And this is the guy that the Republican party of 2012 is going to nominate? What happened to the Tea Party? What happened to conservatism?

matriculated wrote:Well, I don't think pornography is all that Santorum talks about. Yea sure, he may go a little heavy on the social issues, but he's got ideas about the economy and foreign affairs as well. My real problem is with Romney. Yes, everybody should vote for him if he's the nominee; nobody wants Obama re-elected. But, all you would be doing is substituting a huge evil with a marginally smaller evil. Obama-lite is right when it comes to Romney. Let's remember back to 2010 and what one of the huge issues was that allowed Republicans to win a landslide: Obamacare. That issue is off the table with Romney as the nominee. Of course there are other issues, but that's like taking a huge sledgehammer out of the game that you could otherwise use to pound Obama into the ground with. Romney has never disavowed Romneycare, he's just side-stepped the issue by saying it was on a state level. Sure, it's Obamacare on the state level - does that make it any less bad? You signed it into law, so you must have thought it was a good idea. Romney was also staunchly pro-choice before he was pro-life and even attended Planned Parenthood fundraisers. There's a tape of him online in a private meeting explaining to some MA business leaders how he's a "big believer in getting money where the money is." He goes on: "And the money is in Washington." He's actually bragging about getting Washington money so he can spend it. And this is the guy that the Republican party of 2012 is going to nominate? What happened to the Tea Party? What happened to conservatism?

When do we get to vote FOR someone rather than AGAINST another?

...I think the answer to that is something like when there's someone worth voting for enough that we can trust him to represent us instead of his own interests...till then, we're either going to be picking off the worst of the bad ones with our vote...or throwing it away on an emotional expression which hasn't a chance to make a difference...thereby strengthening the incumbent's cause...to fight a war, we have to recognize the enemy...then UNITE to defeat him...if it be Romney who wins the nomination...and we can help him beat the incumbent, that's the best use of our vote...if we vote for who we want, knowing they don't have a chance...it seems sure to be a wasted vote...call it voting our principles or conscience...this time it's about stopping the evil that's got America by the throat...

Oldgringo wrote:When do we get to vote FOR someone rather than AGAINST another?

In the primaries. That's why I find it so hard to fathom that Romney is about to win the nomination. The primaries are the one place where Republicans actually have a chance to select a solid conservative to put forward, and they're opting for Romney? That's why I think it's so important for Gingrich to get out of the way and let this fight play itself out 1-on-1. Santorum's no perfect candidate, but he's head and shoulders over Romney. Just look at the geography of where Romney is winning in this primary. He's winning in big cities and urban centers, that is to say places that Democrats win in general elections and he's bound to lose. If you look where Santorum is winning, he's winning in the more rural areas that Republicans generally win. What does that tell you about the difference between the candidates? Hmm...

Gingrich should end it even though I'm not wild about Santorum. Romney...ugh.
I'm voting ABO. Anybody but Obama.
The house and senate are the big ones. We can keep Obama or Romney in check with a Republican house and senate.