Newt Gingrich Will Never Be President

theCL  2012-01-26  Activism, Election Campaign, Politics, Republicans

Newt Gingrich will never be elected president. Why self-styled conservatives are jumping on the "Kim Kardashian of the GOP" bandwagon, remains beyond my understanding.

America hates Newt Gingrich!

William Jefferson Gingrich

Newt Gingrich is conservatism's Bill Clinton, but without the charm.

Newt and Bill are 1960s generation narcissists, and they share the same problems: waywardness and deviancy. Newt, like Bill, has a proclivity for girl hopping ... His public record is already besmeared with tawdry divorces, and there are private encounters with the fair sex that doubtless will come out.

If I have heard of some, you can be sure the Democrats have heard of more.

It sounds like Nancy Pelosi has the dirt (and is itching to spread it) too.

Newt and Bill, as 1960s generation self-promoters, share the same duplicity, ostentatious braininess, a propensity for endless scrapes with propriety and the law. They are tireless hustlers. Now Newt is hustling my fellow conservatives in this election.

After Newt's and Bill's disastrous experiences in government both went on to create empires, Bill in philanthropy and cheap thought, Newt in public policy and cheap thought ... I do not know how much Newt has amassed, but he got between $1.6 million to $1.8 million from Freddie Mac, and he lobbied for Medicare Part B while receiving, according to the Washington Examiner's Tim Carney, "Big Bucks Pushing Corporate Welfare." Now after a lifetime in Washington he is promoting himself as an outsider.

[Back in 1992] I said candidate Clinton had more skeletons in his closet than a body snatcher ... I can apply the same line today to Newt, though he has skeletons both inside and outside his closet.

Conservatives should not be surprised by the scandals that lie ahead, if they stick with him ... Character matters. Paul, Santorum, and Romney have it. Newt has Clinton's character.

Do you really want to find yourself doing (impossible) mental gymnastics to make excuses for a huckster like Newt?

Dwight Schrute or Newt Gingrich?

Newt Gingrich or Dwight Schrute? Hmmm ...

Gingrich can't even come up with enough delegates to win anyway.

It's Still a Two-Man Race Between Paul and Romney

Newt Gingrich can't be President. Not because of his $1.6 million Freddie Mac scandal, or his fake charity scandal, or his $300,000 ethics fine while Speaker, the arms dealer scandal, or any of his other personal and financial scandals. Newt Gingrich (or Rick Santorum) can't be President because to be nominated, you need delegates. Those are real people that take time from their lives to go to conventions and represent you. Newt has lots of media coverage, but in the physical world where campaigns actually occur he can't get 1141 delegates.

No candidates besides Paul and Romney filed in all the states:

VA - no Gingrich or Santorum - 49 delegates

MO - no Gingrich - 52 delegates, non-binding primary

D.C. - no Santorum - 19 delegates

So that's 101 lost for Gingrich, and 68 lost for Santorum.

Then, even when your campaign stops its Aegean cruise long enough to file, you still have to get people to sign up as delegates. Santorum and Gingrich only have partial slates of delegates in IL, OH, and TN, which together represent 193 delegates. They are missing different numbers of delegates, but these losses push Gingrich down to levels where he would have to have landslides in all the remaining states. Even with campaign contributors like Ashley Madison, it's unlikely that all Republican voters will unite behind the guy who polls show can’t beat Obama.

So if they know they can't win, why are Newt and Rick running? Book sales? Speaking fees? Political appointments to get them to drop out? Pure ego? All of the above? I certainly don't know. But I do know that people looking for a candidate who can stop "Goldman Sachs" Romney before the convention only have one choice: Ron Paul.

More on "Rockefeller Republican" Newt Gingrich:

« Previous Post

Next Post »

  • http://wyblog.us/blog Chris Wysocki

    Newt isn't Conservative? When he led the most successful revolt against Washington in a century? He's a darn sight better than Barry, foibles and all.

    Every candidate has dirt in their closet (cough, Stormfront, cough). Axelrod et al will try to eviscerate whoever the GOP nominates.

    • http://therepublicanmother.blogspot.com republican mother

      Are you kidding? The government is bigger than it was before they started. Revolt my behind. He had GATT passed under the radar, which offshored all our jobs to communist China.

      Who cares if Goldman Sachs Romney runs against Goldman Sachs Obama --- they take us to the same place. I wish people wouldn't be so naive to think that a puppet president has any power whatsover.

  • http://www.adventurenotes.blogspot.com Dave Miller

    Nicely done. Whenever I see a post reasonably talking about a path to victory, as you have done, the inevitable always happens.

    The comments focus on other issues, as Chris has so quickly demonstrated.

    This has been an issue for the Paulistas. They too have no path to victory and cannot demonstrate how he will amass the delegates needed.

  • http://soapboxgod.blogspot.com Chris Hiatt

    Paul's grassroots following will do best in the caucus states than in any other environment. If you understand how a caucus system works then you'd have a difficult making the case otherwise since it is in these caucus states (of which the state of MN in which I live is one) that RP supporters have been working day and night all summer long (working county fairs, parades, farmer's markets, sporting events, pub crawls, etc.) to locate other supporters and get them plugged into the network at the precinct level.

    This level of organization which has transpired not just over months but since the 2008 election cannot be replicated in the few weeks in which Gingrich and Santorum have been the flavors.

    Paul may not have enough delegates to win the nomination outright. But then neither might Romney or the others. After the first round of voting at the RNC it's a whole different ballgame.

    I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever which camp's supporters have the staying power beyond that first vote.

  • David Miller

    Chris Hiatt... Paul's supporters notwithstanding, if we see a brokered convention, which is possible, he will not have the support of the party regulars.

    Paul, has no real shot at the nomination, so the question remains, why is he still in the race?

    He lost in Iowa, a caucus state and he will be losing soon my state, Nevada, another caucus state, to Romney, who has a strong Mormon base.

    The race, at this point, with no late entries, is between Romney and Gingrich, in spite of the dedication of the Paul camp.

    At least as I see it.

  • http://www.countrythinker.com Country Thinker

    The claim that Gingrich is conservative is laughable. He calls Medicare reform :right-wing social engineering." So he's a "conservative who isn't on the right? How does that work?

  • csh

    David, "as you see it" is wrong. Ron Paul has the best chance of securing the nomination, and the only real candidate that can take on Obama. He has the moral character, the stamina, the support, the difference to offer an option to Big Government control. People who want "their" constitutional government back, will have the opportunity to vote for it by voting for Ron Paul. He has the proven track record of voting 100% constitutionally, 100% of the time. That is where we will get the respect back for this country and for the people.

  • David Miller

    CSH, you've yet to provide a path to the nomination for Paul... how does he get the delegate count? His qualifications are worthless of he can't get to the magic number... ask Hillary about that...

  • Pingback: Sunday Morning Links: The Fictitious Beverage Edition | motorcitytimes.com

  • Pingback: Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKs (The Berg Reply Edition) | SENTRY JOURNAL