He makes a good case for Newt:
For the reasons set forth below, I believe that the primaries will come down to Mitt Romney versus Newt Gingrich. As such, the choice is not between Newt Gingrich and some hypothetical more perfect conservative candidate, as Newt’s most vocal critics would have us believe.
I’m supporting Newt Gingrich as the most conservative Republican who is electable and most qualified for the position of President.
Read the whole thing for his reasons.
I'm leaning that way myself.
And, as predicted, the liberal left wing media (and even some conservatives) are coming after Newt because he's now leading in the polls. Number One, I'd say, is that conservatives need to quit eating their own. Enough. It's time to come together behind a candidate and as far as I'm concerned, foibles and all, Newt might be it. I'm not completely on board yet, but I'm leaning. Failing a shocking surge by Perry, Newt might be it.
I still have a hankering for Perry.
I'll save time and just say that I support all of Jacobson's reasons. He's spot on.
Newt isn't a perfect candidate by far, but he's the best we've got. Obama would wither Perry in a debate unless Perry gains some magical skills real fast. I know one thing: Romney isn't it and the proof is evident in the way everyone rushes to the "Not Romney" candidate of the week.
Via the good Professor, Ed Morrissey and Don Surber are on board.
It's a start.
Added: Pundette isn't convinced by Professor Jacobson.
3 comments:
One good thing is if the left shoots out everything on Newt right now they will be a bit more challenged come the fall. And again a debate between him and B Hussein would be something to pay good money for.
Yeah, Newt's a know it all and rubs people the wrong way.
But we need someone who'll go into the debates with Obama and hand him his ass. Gingrich can certainly do that.
I am waiting for Newt (and others) to take responsibility for some of the "unintended consequences" of the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 , which was directly responsible for the national real estate bubble that will, eventually, prove to be one prong of the 3-pronged trident that has bankrupted our country. This act had that effect by creating a
gold rush of tax-free investment through the gimmick of requiring the "residence" be "lived in" for "2 out of 5" years prior to sale.
Seldom seen numbers show that as many as a third of foreclosures during the past 4 years were not on poor people who bought a house to live in, but on people
who owned multiple "residences", all of which were defaulted when they discovered they couldn't "flip" them.
No one in Washington seems to want to admit to this one, but I hope that Newt will be asked to address it.
Post a Comment