Can Gingrich Win Social Conservatives?

[GOP Congress]

Can I go on record here and say that Newt will act more of a triangulator than a true conservative if he is nominated and elected?

I have always maintained that the makeup of Congress was far more important than the presidency. Even with Obama's annointment, it was the most liberal Congress since the New Deal era that ushered in the calamity we face.

My fear is not that Gingrich would inherently be non-true conservative. My fear is that his influence and leanings would effectively move the congress to the left, while a true conservative president would result in the Congress moving to the right, or at least polarizing it so its leftist extremists could be exposed. Reagan was instrumental in this regard.

But Gingrich has burned us before, so Trust but Verify becomes predominant in my view of his candidacy. While I am still an avid Herman Cain fan for the presidency and will remain one at least through the first three caucuses and primaries, i DO acknowledge that Mitt Romney may be a skilled political Republican, but he is no conservative; hence a conservative congress may be far less effective, which will ALSO make it that more vulnerable. And THAT'S my ultimate fear. Because if the Congress is not allowed to act to repel Obamacare and other elements of his policies, we are not going to see anything reversed for a very long time, if ever.

[Lacarnut]

Can I go on record here and say that Newt will act more of a triangulator than a true conservative if he is nominated and elected?

I have always maintained that the makeup of Congress was far more important than the presidency. Even with Obama's annointment, it was the most liberal Congress since the New Deal era that ushered in the calamity we face.

My fear is not that Gingrich would inherently be non-true conservative. My fear is that his influence and leanings would effectively move the congress to the left, while a true conservative president would result in the Congress moving to the right, or at least polarizing it so its leftist extremists could be exposed. Reagan was instrumental in this regard.

But Gingrich has burned us before, so Trust but Verify becomes predominant in my view of his candidacy. While I am still an avid Herman Cain fan for the presidency and will remain one at least through the first three caucuses and primaries, i DO acknowledge that Mitt Romney may be a skilled political Republican, but he is no conservative; hence a conservative congress may be far less effective, which will ALSO make it that more vulnerable. And THAT'S my ultimate fear. Because if the Congress is not allowed to act to repel Obamacare and other elements of his policies, we are not going to see anything reversed for a very long time, if ever.

If you are saying that Romney will be to the right of Newt, I don't buy that. Furthermore, I think that Newt could get more accomplished than Romney or Cain because of his record and experience. I like Cain but he is the flavor of the month just like Perry.

My fear is that Romney will trim around the edges of Obamacare rather repeal it. Since I am an old fart, socialized meds scare the living crap out of me. Romney will be the equivalent of Obama lite. I don't believe Newt would go that route. Cain and Newt are the only two candidates that could take their message to the people and win them over like Reagan did. If a Repub wins the Presidency, it is going to take a balls to the wall communicator and fighter to get rid of the many things Obama and the the Democrats have screwed up. We need drastic changes and the Democrats, the media, the Env. and other kooks will fight tooth and nail against changes to their liberal agenda even if we get a filibuster proof Senate.

     

[GOP Congress]

If you are saying that Romney will be to the right of Newt...

NO. I actually wasn't comparing Romney to Newt, per se, though it appears it could have been seen as such.

I was referring, first and foremost, to Newt's proven track record of being a bit erratic. He talks, and I feel he actually feels, as if he's a conservative. But his actions in the past, as well as much of his post-Speaker career, has not resonated with conservative ideals much of the time. Yes, he's a damn good debater, and I have no question that he's the most intellectual person, as well as communicator, of the bunch.

But I have not said that Romney is right. I basically said that Romney will automatically move Congress to the left, as a RINO in office tends to do that. The non-existent species, the conservative or even moderate Democrat (Zell Miller anyone?), would also have that same effect, by the way.

Romney claims that he had to do what he did because he was in a Blue state, and that his actions would not reflect how he would govern as President. But we ALL know that score. A Romney presidency would be a big win for Obama, because it means that his policies will be set in stone. I don't for one minute think that if I were a Democrat, right now, the MOST important job would be to get Romney as the GOP candidate, even more than worrying if Obama will be reelected (which he won't barring a catastrophic event by or to the GOP nominee).

So I do prefer Gingrich many times more than Romney. Hell, I prefer Ron PAUL over Romney. But the game is not just winning the presidency. The REAL game is to maintain a strong, conservative focus on the legislative branch (Congress), and the makeup of the president can dictate how the 535 legislative positions will be determined, and whether Obama's / 111th Congress' policies can be reversed. I do NOT trust Romney, and Gingrich is in a Trust but Verify mode with me right now.

[Lacarnut]

Romney claims that he had to do what he did because he was in a Blue state, and that his actions would not reflect how he would govern as President. But we ALL know that score. A Romney presidency would be a big win for Obama, because it means that his policies will be set in stone.

I agree with that. What would even be worse is that the GOP would be DOA in 2016 because you would have a Tea Party candidate running against Romney as an independent. Someone like Palin would run and grab a big chunk of GOP voters. Conservatives would not stand for another 4 years of a Yankee liberal posing as a Repub. That might assure a Democratic victory. On the other hand, it might wind up in Congress.

Every election the pundits state that this is the most important election in our lifetime. I concur but 5 years from now we will see a drastically different country. If the economy/jobs do not improve greatly, we could be in for a taste of what is happening in Europe. 

[Ptarmigan]

I've never been a fan of Newt but he's brilliant and we're voting for him in the primary if he's still in the race.

Same here.

NO. I actually wasn't comparing Romney to Newt, per se, though it appears it could have been seen as such.

I was referring, first and foremost, to Newt's proven track record of being a bit erratic. He talks, and I feel he actually feels, as if he's a conservative. But his actions in the past, as well as much of his post-Speaker career, has not resonated with conservative ideals much of the time. Yes, he's a damn good debater, and I have no question that he's the most intellectual person, as well as communicator, of the bunch.

But I have not said that Romney is right. I basically said that Romney will automatically move Congress to the left, as a RINO in office tends to do that. The non-existent species, the conservative or even moderate Democrat (Zell Miller anyone?), would also have that same effect, by the way.

Romney claims that he had to do what he did because he was in a Blue state, and that his actions would not reflect how he would govern as President. But we ALL know that score. A Romney presidency would be a big win for Obama, because it means that his policies will be set in stone. I don't for one minute think that if I were a Democrat, right now, the MOST important job would be to get Romney as the GOP candidate, even more than worrying if Obama will be reelected (which he won't barring a catastrophic event by or to the GOP nominee).

So I do prefer Gingrich many times more than Romney. Hell, I prefer Ron PAUL over Romney. But the game is not just winning the presidency. The REAL game is to maintain a strong, conservative focus on the legislative branch (Congress), and the makeup of the president can dictate how the 535 legislative positions will be determined, and whether Obama's / 111th Congress' policies can be reversed. I do NOT trust Romney, and Gingrich is in a Trust but Verify mode with me right now.

Gingrich is more conservative than Romney for sure. Romney flip flops all the time. I agree that Congress is a big factor as well. If Obama had a second term, but Congress controlled by Republicans, he may as well be a lame duck. Frankly, I would be surprised if Obama is a two termer. I think we are in heading into a era of one term Presidents and that is not unprecedented. The last time we had string of one term President was 1960 to 1980.

Kennedy-Assassinated in 1963
Johnson-Serve the remaining term of Kennedy and won in 1964. Did not run in 1968.
Nixon-Won in 1968 and 1972, but resigned in 1974 from Watergate.
Ford-Served remaining of Nixon's term, but lost in 1976.
Carter-Lost in 1980

None I consider were two full term Presidents.

[JohnnyReb]

You know, right at the moment I feel stupid. I can't remember if the republican primary in S.C. is done on the computer screens as are the general election or if it is done on the paper ballots of old.

I wonder if it's to late to get Jim DeMint on it as a write in? Can't write his name on the computer screen.

[Chris_]

I wonder if it's to late to get Jim DeMint on it as a write in? Can't write his name on the computer screen.

Those automated voting machines still give you the option of a write-in candidate. 

I'm always tempted to do it because 90% of the local politicians and judges here are Democrats.