Newt Gingrich to campaign in Delaware on Thursday, April 5

The Delaware primary is April 24, 2012, and although Newt Gingrich has scaled back his campaign, he is spending at least one more day in Delaware.  Gingrich will be travelling the state on Thursday, April 5, 2012 and has a busy schedule for the day.

His schedule for Thursday, April 5, 2012 is as follows:

Wild Quail Golf and CC…12:00 to 1:00

Del Elect Coop ………….. 1:30 to 2:00

Magnolia Fire Hall……… 4:30 to 5:30

Millsboro Fire Hall……….7:00 to 8:00 pm. (9-12 Delaware Patriots SC Chapter Meeting)

At the 9-12 Delaware Patriots meeting there is only room for 350 people to attend.  It is a first come, first serve event although it is recommended you register and print out your ticket using this Event Brite. The meeting starts at 7 pm and the doors open at 6 pm.  According to the Executive Director of the 9-12 Delaware Patriots, Theresa Garcia:

Normal meeting rules and protocol apply. Also, no handouts will be allowed to be passed out either in the building or outside the building without the permission of the 9-12 Delaware Patriot Board of Directors.  We look forward to seeing you at the meetings this week! As always, meetings are free and open to the public. Snacks for the snack table are always welcomed and please bring a friend!

If you are attending you may also want to bring $50 if you want a picture with Gingrich.  That is the current going rate for a picture with the presidential candidate.

This entry was posted in Election 2012 by Angel. Bookmark the permalink.

About Angel

Angel Clark is a 25 year old political science major. She and her husband live in Rehoboth Beach and are both Delaware natives. She has been active in recent conservative political movements and stands for the Constitution as the highest form of authority in the United States of America.

15 thoughts on “Newt Gingrich to campaign in Delaware on Thursday, April 5

  1. May I recommend that EVERYONE attend — even if you are supporting a different candidate and * L E A R N * political tactics and rhetoric from the master.

    You might not like Newt himself.

    But whatever candidate you prefer needs to EMPLOY the political dynamics and techniques Newt is a master of.

    Attention all Romney supporters: Go pay attention to what works and what doesn’t.

    Your man Mitt had better learn how to DEBATE and ARGUE and TALK about politics the way Newt Gingrich does.

    Don’t like Newt? Fine. DO BETTER. Go ahead. I dare you. (I dare you so the GOP will WIN, for the greater good.) Show us how you can match his skills and improve on them. Equal, then exceed, Newt’s political abilities.

    If you have a different candidate who can equal Newt’s political skills, GREAT. SIGN ME UP. I’ll be all over it.

    So take a lesson, and then transplant those political skills into the candidate of your choice.

    I have known sales experts who still attend sales training seminars. WHY? They could TEACH those seminars. So why do they attend them? To continually sharpen their skils.

    I have known expert speakers and debaters who are constantly listening to and studying other great speakers. WHY? Expert debaters or speakers who could TEACH the speaker they are listening to are STILL LEARNING and listening and studying and watching how does this person handle this, how do they deal with that, notice how they phrased that, did you see what they just did right there? WHY? Because they are constantly improving.

    Mitt Romney can beat Obama.

    Or

    Mitt Romney could be wiped all over the floor by Obama.

    It depends? On what? It depends on whether Mitt Romney shows up ready for battle and starts to talk and debate like Newt Gingrich.

    If the Romneyites learn some lessons from Newt Gingrich, WE WILL WIN in November and the GOP will have a Mitt Romney Administration in the White House.

    If Romney goes all squishy on us after the “ETCH-A-SKETCH” reset following the Tampa convention, trying to be all things to all people, refuses to say anything negative about Obama (a la John McCain) comes across like Michael Dukakis, and shows up dressed for a garden party, then plan on Obama for another 4 years, and watch the flickering flame of American freedom go out forever. (Not because Obama is that bad, but because the entire Democrat leadership is that bad, who will be enabled by Obama in the White House.)

    The race is Romney’s to lose….

    which (people forget) means ROMNEY COULD LOSE IT. He still has to go out and EARN the White House. This isn’t like playing a friendly game of Scrabble at the Country Club over a snifter glass of Sherry.

  2. Ok jon moseley, I am not in Mitt’s camp but I will take you up on your points. I happen to think that Newt is very quick on his feet. I think the way he takes on the media is something all Republican candidates could learn from.

    That being said despite Newt having 20 plus debates to display his skill, Newt is in 3rd place in delegates. During the General Election Newt will only being debating Obama 3 times.

    There are other aspects of being a candidate that consistently show that this is a key to winning elections. Romney clearly has the better organization. Gingrich displayed a level of campaign incompetence when he could not even get on the ballot of the state he lived in for 30 years, Virginia. In a race between Obama and Gingrich, I give the Obamas a clear organization advantage.

    Despite being a former House Speaker and lobbyist, Newt trails the fundrasing battle by a huge amount. He would also be swamped by Obama in this area.

    So Moseley pins his hopes for Newt in the General to 3 debates. It seems Romney has the advantages and disadvantages of George W. Bush. Now who won the elections of 2000 and 2004?

  3. TW, I am not pinning my hopes on Newt, and certainly not on Romney.

    I am pinning my hopes on Republicans studying every chance they get HOW to WIN elections, regardless of who the nominee is. If winning the elections is the goal, we should devour every tactic, technique, and method we can to become expert at winning elections.

    So one would prefer to have Newt’s rhetorical abilities inside Romney’s body (or campaign).

    There is no automatic result: Romney may defeat Obama. Romney may be crushed by Obama.

    It is up to Romney to decide if he wants to follow the example of strong conservatives like Newt (as Romney DID do to come from behind after Iowa with some much-improved debate perfomances) or if he wants to follow the advice of “NO LABELS” mish-mash trumpted by Mike Castle.

    The point is that if Romney can learn to include in his campaign the rhetorical strength and political persuasiveness that Newt Gingrich has, then Romney can win.

    If you are going to buy a car and ask “How is this car better than the other brand across the street,” you don’t want to hear from the salesman “Oh I just want to say nice things about everyone.” You will think “That’s nice, but I have to decide between Car A and Car B and if you can’t tell me why I should buy your car, I will go across the street and buy Car B.”

    You compare George W. Bush to Romney. However, the Republican Party vastly outspent the Democrats in 2000 and 2004.

    The Democrats realized that and have gotten tired of it. Obama spent 3/4′s of a billion dollars in 2008, and plans to spend a BILLION dollars this year — only from his “hard money” campaign account alone. (Now it looks like his fund-raising goal is collapsing.)

    There was no incumbent in 2000. Bush was the incumbent in 2004.

    All of the liberal establishment is invested in promoting Obama for various strategic reasons.

    Republicans managed to make Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 look like bozos, including through the Swift Boat effort. WERE THEY? Doesn’t matter. Perception is reality. Could they have been strong Democrat nominees if the GOP had not been effective? Perhaps. But they are perceived as weak, because the GOP made them look bad.

    The Democrat nominee is a weak candidate if the GOP does its job. That same nominee is a strong candidate if the GOP drops the ball.

    Now, I’m not saying one shouldn’t try to be as nice as possible. I have a lot of improving to do there, and God’s doing some major renovation to show me why I do what I do.

    But those (like some advising John McCain in 2008) who think that way somehow IMPLEMENT their impulse by simply being entirely incompetent at political campaigning. It isn’t a question of being nice. The “don’t be mean” crowd simply HIDE BEHIND a false front of being nice while simply being ineffective in elections.

    Yes, one can be reasonably nice and also win elections. But those who urge you to do it have no idea HOW to do it.

  4. Unfortunately, the Blue Bloods seem to be desperately clinging — despite all evidence to the contrary — to the conviction that the American people will just automatically vote for a man whom they might meet at the Country Club and think “Damn fine fellow. Good breeding. Good posture. Right family connecions. Splendid chap.”

    There is a wing of the GOP that just refuses to believe, in contradiction to all historical evidence, that it is either necessary or “polite” to tell the American people WHY their candidate would do a better job than the other canddiate.

    Perhaps that is because THEY don’t believe that doing a good job in office for the people is really of any interest. The Country Club set believes in supporting a splendid chap just because he is a good sort from a fine family who plays a good game of polo.

    So the voters are trying to decide whom to vote for. They ask “Tell me WHY your candidate will do a better job for me and my family if elected.” But the Blue Blood faction of the GOP is baffled by the question. What do you mean? He’s from a fine family? He looks good in his $1000 suit. He’s a damn good sport if he ever loses at cards. Always rises from his chair when a lady approaches. What else could you possibly ask for?

  5. I think it matters when a candidate’s supporters and most of their campaign organization doesn’t have to get paid to work for the candidate, but will and often does pay out of their own pocket to support their candidate. It also matters when a candidate’s supporters say they’d rather jump off a bridge than vote for one of the other candidates. The ability to inspire that kind of loyalty in supporters goes beyond debate performances and paid staffers if they exist in any kind of numbers.

    It also matters if your campaign organization can actually get you on the primary ballot in all 50 states and your positions are distinct enough from your general election opponents’ as to make you distinguishable from one another.

    Gingrich falls short on all counts. Nominating him would make for great television, but terrible politics.

  6. You know what doesn’t matter, Will? Ron Paul. Ron Paul doesn’t matter.

  7. Ok Jon Moseley, as usual you cannot answer a question. Instead you insult Mitt Romney for having good manners.

    So how is Newt going to compete with Obama in the dollars race. By your own admission you say that GW Bush won in 2000 with a fund raising advantage. It is a proven fact that Romney is better at this than Gingrich. Gingrich and Santorum have consistently testified that Romney is capable of raising more money than themselves.

    Gingrich is a proven liability in putting together an organization. Karl Rove showed how to put together an organization that put Bush over the top in 2004 (especially in Ohio.) Organization counts. Debating skills in an election that will only have 3 debates are of limited value when running against a guy who condemned Clinton for sexual pecadillos when he was cheating on his wife with a staffer. Obama will have the funds to paint Gingrich as a hypocrite.

    Gingrich polls poorly with women. It cost him the Florida Primary. Would I like a candidate with Gingrich’s debating skills. Of course I would. But, To pretend that debating skills are the only way to judge a candidate’s viability is one of the dumbest things one can assume. I knew a very successful political candidate in Bill Roth who had very limited debating skills and yet he won election after election.

  8. Mosley, you are 100% correct. If Romney fails to attack Omaba vociferously, relentlessly and effectively- as Gingrich would surely do- he’ll lose. The McCain ‘kid glove’ methodology will fail, as it always does. GOP ‘moderates’ (see ’76, ”92, ’96, ’08) always lose presidential elections.

    People want a clear choice, not appeasement.

  9. Will McVay said “I think it matters when a candidate’s supporters and most of their campaign organization doesn’t have to get paid to work for the candidate, but will and often does pay out of their own pocket to support their candidate.”

    You just described the Gingrich campaign to a tee. Trust me on this.

  10. “People want a clear choice…”

    Ok, I’ll buy that statement. Since I like my analysis with data, let’s look at the delagat count.

    Gingrich 128
    Paul 45
    Romney 559
    Santorum 243

    So what’s that supposed to tell me about people (Republicans) wanting a clear choice? If that’s true, why are the majority voting for Romney? Is perceived electability more important than clear choice in their minds? I know you want a clear choice Rick, but you don’t seem to be in the majority of other Republicans. In this particular case, let’s even agree that there is virtually no difference between Romney and Obama. So if the majority cannot stand the current President, why would they (the Republicans) select someone just like Obama?

    People want a clear choice – vote for Romney! As a campaign slogan that makes no sense! Yet, there you have it, they are voting for Romney. Why?

  11. TW: You are not listening. I am not saying that Newt will be or would be a better candidate, as things stand right now, than Romney.

    I am saying that if Romney campaigns like Newt, then Romney will win. Newt might not be able to put together all the resources he would need at this stage. (Although this is self-fulfilling prophesy often. If all the money flows to candidate A, then by definition candidate B does not have as much money as candidate A. By definition, canddiate A looks more viable because all the money went to him. SO it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.)

    The point is that Romney cannot win, either, if he doesn’t come correct, ready for a fight.

    Dave, you are mixing metaphors between the general election and the primary election.

    However, when Romney was playing nicey-nice HE WAS LOSING. He lost Iowa and was unimpressive in NH compared to what he should have had.

    It wasn’t until Romney showed up at the next debate and came out swinging that he salvaged his nomination campaign. It was slipping away until ROmney stepped up his game.

    If Romney returns to form, he will lose in November. If he remembers that lesson and keeps his debating skills sharp and effective, he will beat a President with a bad economy.

  12. Still one of those die hard volunteers for Gingrich!!! And there are tens of thousands of us!! The Speaker is a bulldog and that IS what it takes to go to DC and clean house and they were SCARED to death he would get this nomination! Which is why they spent MILLIONS and MILLIONS to keep that from happening! any other candidate would have been invisible by now…NOT NEWT! he is a force to be reckoned with and he backs up every word he says! Watching Romney and Santorum copying everything Newt says has been rediculous! And out of all of them Newt is the only one that had Obama on the defense, as well as 11 dems voting for the pipeline bill! And the list goes on! After Newts win in SC they had an all out attack! Nearly every single media outlet had dozens of people attacking the Speaker’s record, and his character…he HAD to lose Florida!! And it worked, he was out spent 56 to 1….they were not just scared they were scared to death that he was on his way…The republican base had people begging Adelson to stop all donations to Newts Super Pac…and what Adelson did was just withhold the money long enough that he lost Florida! Then of course there was the senators that went to each and every speech that the Speaker gave, heckling the audiences, talking trash about him to the media, and doing everything they could to disrupt his demeanor during his speeches! It has been pathetic!! But in the end…all I can say is WE are the losers! People on here have said basically they need to learn from Newt! It is a shame that we have to settle for the lesser candidate just because they were bought and paid for by the GOP! This only means that we will end up with Obama for another four..Romney on his best day is NOT Newt Gingrich..he does not have the knowledge, the experience, or the guts to do what Newt does on a daily basis…

Comments are closed.