Charleston, S.C. — Newt Gingrich wowed hundreds of conservative voters in this sleepy coastal town on Monday, all of whom braved the rain to attend a town-hall meeting with the latest Republican frontrunner. “We will be back, we will rebuild the country we love,” Gingrich said near the end of his hour-long presentation. “You ain’t seen nothing yet.”
Gingrich’s visit to Sottile Theatre at the College of Charleston kicked off the former House speaker’s three-day campaign swing through the Palmetto State, a key GOP battleground. It was also his first public appearance since the Manchester Union-Leader, a leading Granite State newspaper, endorsed him on Sunday.
Advertisement
Speaking before South Carolinians, Gingrich did not cite the editorial, but he took care to highlight his electability, asserting himself as a conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor. He challenged the audience to think critically about the future. “We have to come back to grips with the decision about who we are,” he said.
Polls show Gingrich poised for a strong finish in South Carolina, the third January contest of the 2012 cycle, following the New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucuses. In a recent survey of state Republicans conducted by the Polling Company, Gingrich leads Romney 31 percent to 16 percent and enjoys an “intensity” rating higher than any GOP contender. An Insider Advantage poll has him leading Romney 38 percent to 15 percent, and American Research Group puts Gingrich ahead 33 percent to 22 percent.
Hoping to seize on the momentum, senior campaign advisers tell National Review Online that the state figures prominently in Gingrich’s strategy. If Gingrich can win here, building a broad coalition of support, his team sees a path to the nomination, even though Romney has more money and an experienced, national operation. “If we do well in Iowa, do well in New Hampshire, and win South Carolina and win Florida, that’s the first opportunity for a knock-out punch of Mitt Romney,” says R. C. Hammond, Gingrich’s spokesman. “Down goes Willard,” he chuckles.
At the Charleston event, moderated by Rep. Tim Scott, the local congressman, Gingrich, a former Georgia lawmaker and college professor, noted his Southern roots, but he did not overplay his regional ties. Instead, his main appeal to state Republicans came on policy.
Gingrich focused on local issues. His pledge to “defund the National Labor Relations Board,” which has prevented Boeing from opening a state plant, drew cheers. So did his push to “modernize the Port of Charleston.” On immigration, where the state has been sued by the Justice Department for its strict enforcement, he pledged to “side with South Carolina.”
As attendees departed, it was clear that Gingrich’s approach — part-academic, part-firebrand — went over well with the crowd. “I liked everything that he said, and after today, he’s definitely in my top two,” said Kyle Taylor, a 21-year-old cadet at the Citadel. “I feel like Newt is saying all the right things, and I’m optimistic that he could be the candidate to stand up and beat Obama.”
Of course, Gingrich was not a favorite on every issue, most notably on immigration, where he said, to a few grumbles, that select illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States. Gingrich’s position, which last week stirred a media firestorm, was heard respectfully in Charleston, but generated little enthusiasm. Gingrich, however, did attempt to win over skeptics.
He did not announce the end of Romney. Did you even read the comment? He said if he did well in Iowa, New Hampshire and won South Carolina and Florida it would be the end of Romney. You anti-Newt people are amazing.
Why are you amazed that people would dislike an unusually disagreeable serial adulterer , congenital liar, paid shill for Freddie Mac? Mentioning no names, of course. Cordially, Bill
I like his flat tax and the fact that he balanced the federal budget with spending cuts, which is exactly what we need to do again. His congressional experience should make him exceptionally effective at moving spending cuts through congress, kind of like the ex speaker LBJ moved his Great Society programs of medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc... through.
I just don't understand why in the world Newt would continue to put a thumb in the eye of conservatives with this silly, "25 year illegal" rhetoric.
Could some smart person at one of these townhalls ask Newt how we can either prove or disprove that someone came here illegally more or less than 25 years ago? Wouldn't anyone 25 years old plus a day just say they have been here for 25 years? It's dumb.
I don't think he will create a policy stating "Must have been here 25 years." I think he is trying to define a profile. I am as or more conservative than anyone I know. I believe the borders should be entirely shutdown, English should be our national language, employers/apartment renters should be severely punished for catering to illegals, that states should be able to enforce immigration policy, and that anyone who has even the slightest of brush ups with the criminal justice system since their arrival should be immediately deported. That being said, we are talking about two completely different parts of the issue. The government has failed to enforce the law, in many cases creating magnets for illegals, for three decades now. On the one hand, the immediate need is for enforcement. On the other hand, we still have the problem of MILLIONS of people who have both exploited and been exploited by the current system. I am not saying these people are victims. They freely chose to come. They have also benefited from the system. However, I think there is a reasonable middle ground here. To say, "Sorry, we don't care that your parents brought you here in the mid-80's without your consent, and that you have grown up here doing it right, we're deporting you" strikes me as insane and NOT conservative. We are the party of family values. There are two conservative principles at friction here. Conservatives need to honestly deal with this friction to come up with a reasonable solution. I believe Newt's position does that.
Notice how Gingrich repeats his extreme example about illegal immigration to peddle his amnesty scheme -- which is, of course, unworkable and a huge amnesty scheme.
And note how the 21-year-old is enthralled with Gingrich's long-winded "firebrand" talking points -- knowing nothing or little about all of Gingrich's tremendous personal transgressions and liberal schemes he has peddled over the years.
IF the GOP nominates this character, then we are doomed. It's this simple. 4 more years of Obama and the liberals hold the Senate and possibly take back the House.
Newt is NOT talking about amnesty. He has a detailed plan starting with securing the border. It is after other steps have been taken that Americans need to think what will happen to those here, who have been in the USA for a couple of decades and aside from being here illegally have worked, kept a home, raised kids who are citizens by birth.
Even then, those illegals will not become American citizens but will be offered some kind of legal status. No right to vote, no citizenship. Look at the whole thing; it is not amnesty. Leave that to Obama who would hope they will vote for the democrats.
Step off the ledge dude. Most of Newt's supporters (including me) are well aware of his "baggage." We have simply weighed the baggage of all the other candidates, and found his is a lighter burden to carry. Your hyperbole is no appreciated or helpful. Newt will do just fine against President Obama should he win the nomination.
If Newt Gingrich is the Republican nominee....just shoot me now.
I wouldn't mind having Newt in the cabinet. But the only reason he's doing so well right now is because the debate format is good for him. But that has nothing to do with leadership and management skills. For that we have to go back to the 1990's, and from 2005 on....Newt Gingrich was OWNED by Bill Clinton.
So you think it was Bill Clinton and not the Gingrich-led congress who was responsible for giving us a budget surplus two years in a row?
Bill Clinton had charisma, I'll give him that, and he could speak well. But he was not a leader. Washington, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Reagan were leaders. Even spotting Clinton a few rungs up that ladder, he still fails miserably as a leader. He was a small man.
Follow
