Results from InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research poll conducted for Newsmax of Iowa voters: Newt Gingrich (28.1 percent), Ron Paul (13.3 percent), Mitt Romney (11.5 percent), Michele Bachmann (10.1 percent), Herman Cain (9.8 percent), Rick Perry (6.6 percent), and Rick Santorum (3.3 percent).
Two more InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion research polls released today have good news for Gingrich. In the South Carolina poll, commissioned by the Augusta Chronicle, Gingrich is at 38 percent among GOP voters, followed by Romney at 15 percent and Cain at 13 percent. In New Hampshire, Romney is at 31 percent, but Gingrich is close behind, at 27 percent.
Also out is an American Research Group poll of South Carolina likely GOP voters which has Gingrich at 33 percent, Romney at 22 percent, and Cain at 10 percent. No other candidate is polling in the double digits.
One caveat: both InsiderAdvantage and American Research Group were rated as two of the three most unreliable polls by Nate Silver in 2010.
So some uninformed primary votes are supporting a discredited former Speaker who supported and supports the individual mandate, cap & trade, the RX drug benfits, bailouts, climate change & Nancy Pelosi, amnesty for illegal aliens.
The list goes on. It's actually kind of funny to watch this, if it wasn't so sad. We can hope the voters wake up, as a Gingrich nomination = four more years of Obama even if you naively think Newt is a conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI only hope that, before Gingrich inevitably falls, the amount of support from him does not damage the party of family values by providing too much evidence of hypocrisy and double standards.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse*"support for him," not "support from him," obviously.
I'm heartened by the next post down, "Iowa Social Conservatives Dubious about Gingrich." It would be a great shame for the party that abhorred what Clinton did* to nominate such a creep as Gingrich.
*both the lies and the sex, I hasten to clarify before anyone leaps forward in an attempt to distinguish the two creeps
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen did Gingrich perjure himself or obstruct justice -- you know, the things that caused Republicans and conservatives [the two are different] to abhor Clinton?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI anticipated your comment. See above. For you the Clinton deal was just "about" perjury. For others like me, you don't get to define what it was "about." The short version is that it was "about" character, and we are not going to elect another hypocritical, lying, womanizing creep if we can help it. We "abhor" the both of them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "I anticipated your comment."
Not very well, it appears, since you didn't mention breaking the law through perjury and obstructing justice; you merely mentioned "lies" which is a far different thing from law breaking. It was perjury and obstruction of justice that caused -- rightly so -- Clinton's impeachment.
Of course -- you *had* to be vaguely broad with mention of "lies" since you knew already that Gingrich wasn't accused of perjury or obstruction of justice as Clinton was.
RE: "For others like me, you don't get to define what it was "about." . . .
Why I would want to define anything for someone like you -- who by your comments doesn't share the same values or political worldview as I -- I can't imagine.
Blessedly, at the time of the impeachment trial, conservatives were quite publicly clear what the issues with Bill Clinton's behavior were -- they clearly and repeatedly pointed out that it wasn't about sex, but about the breaking of America's law overtly and deliberately by the President; so that lets us all know what Hardcastle isn't.
RE: " . . .we are not going to elect another hypocritical, lying, womanizing creep if we can help it. We "abhor" the both of them."
; > )
Feel free to attempt not to elect him, then, and to abhor him -- I'd personally count it a mild but indifferently-noticed compliment to be abhorred by the Hardcastles of this world, but I couldn't speak for a man like Gingrich. Twill be an interesting election indeed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe hypocrisy amongst is amazing to see, but the same emotive push for a Democratic Partisan enabler like Trump was a sign of the dysfunction.
It amazes to see some who are paid pundits from the sidelines entertain the same failure which resembles the Beltway Insider of McCain.
But that is the level of the bias on the once sound side, far from reasoned, rational, serious, objective, stuck on emotive imagery, even treating the Private Sector success with disdain.
Nothing conservative about it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama is already running ads against Romney. Almost anybody else against Obama is an automatic landslide re-election. They know that. Let's not waste our time and energy on Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, and the other automatic losers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, Newsmax has pushed Trump, Bachmann, Perry, and Gingrich as frontrunners. They haven't been right yet. Here's Newt's flip-flops...
Health-Insurance Mandate:
Flip: “Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.” — June 2007
Flop: “I am against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone because it is fundamentally wrong and I believe unconstitutional.” — May 16, 2011
Cap-and-Trade:
Flip: “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.” — February 2, 2007
Flop: “A carbon cap and trade system … would lead to corruption, political favoritism, and would have a huge impact on the economy.” — April 21, 2008
Climate Change:
Flip: “I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere.” — April 10, 2007
Flop: “I actually don’t know whether global warming is occurring.” — November 8, 2011
Paul Ryan’s Budget Plan:
Flip: “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering… [Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal] is too big a jump.” — May 15, 2011
Flop: “I made a mistake…” — May 17, 2011
Libya:
Flip: “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening … Provide help to the rebels to replace [Qaddafi] … All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes.” — March 7, 2011
Flop: “I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi … I would not have used American and European forces.” — March 23, 2011
Criminal Court Trials for Suspected Terrorists:
Flip: “Well, I think if [members of the Bush administration] believe they have enough evidence to convict [Jose Padilla], going through the process of convicting him and holding him, I suspect, may be for the rest of his life without parole would not be — would hardly be seen as a loss. I think this administration is still wrestling with what are the real ground rules for dealing with people who are clearly outside of normal warfare? They’re not wearing a uniform. They’re not part of an army. They are openly threatening to kill thousands or even millions of people.” — November 22, 2005
Flop: “Why would you take a Nigerian national who just tried to blow up a plane over Detroit … Why would you take that person, put them in the American criminal justice system, give them an attorney, read them their Miranda rights?” — January 4, 2010
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe know that the October Surprise is always part of the Dem/LSM playbook - Iran/Contra redux '92, ancient arrest '00, unsecured weapons '04, etc. Sometimes they stick and sometimes voters see through them.
Gingrich would seem to be more vulnerable than Romney to an attention-grabbing one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis cake is baked. Might not be your favorite flavor (was not mine), but since the party starts in about five minutes (weeks), it is too late for any change in the menu. Cain's support shifts to Gingrich for the most part, Gingrich is leading in three of the first four states (and is within striking distance in NH) and the trend line shows Romney fading. During the last thirty days before voting begins in earnest, the Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman supporters (and even some Paulista's) will decide that going down with the ship makes little sense, and the support for Gingrich will solidify somewhere North of 50% nationally. After winning three or possibly all four of the January contests, Romney's run will effectively be over. Just a matter of when he and his 21% team admit the fact. Wishful thinking aside, this is the script that is playing out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt Gingrich's Skeleton Closet
External Link
Foreign Policy Experts Agree With Ron Paul
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHonestly, I'm don't think anyone who's been married three times can legitimately call himself a conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is TERRIFYING. If Gingrich wins the GOP nomination, it means we either get a half-baked liberal/Washington sider for president, or Obama. Wait, I guess it all sort of evens out ... meaning that the country is in deep, deep trouble if the conservative press doesn't finally start scrutinizing the non-conservative Gingrich, something that is long past due.
Gingrich is not conservative. Gingrich is not electable. Gingrich remains a comical, petulant figure in the public's mind -- by no means a president. In his very public moral shortcomings, Gingrich has the baggage of a Skid Row junkie.
We have got be kidding ourselves if we think we really need to keep getting distracted by non-starter candidates like Perry or Gingrich. These people aren't electable, and they aren't conservative. Romney is both of those things, and passing him over for Gingrich is gouging your eyes to spite your face.
If it comes down to Gingrich or Obama, I'd rather vote Obama. At least Obama and his desire for amnesty will be opposed by a GOP Congress. Gingrich, I have no doubt, will push for a "Nixon in China" moment in which we "welcome" as citizens 10, 20 or 30 million new welfare, Medicaid, food stamp and Section 8 recipients. And that will put our fiscal situation beyond all hope.
Two good articles on Gingrich's long history of liberal positions on the key issues -- any conservative should read and spread these:
External Link
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCheck out Politifacts take on Newt Gingrich’s claim to have balanced the budget.It was rated FALSE.He is still a big fat liar and that is all he will ever be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse