He’s so confident of this, he’s willing to wag his finger at conservatives who think that the Republican Party ought to stand for something. The Hill reported October 27:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) late Monday had some choice words for Republicans supporting Conservative Party party candidate Doug Hoffman (N.Y.), accusing them of conducting a "purge" of the GOP.This is such a worn, clichéd argument. Gingrich’s ridiculous hyperbole (“we're going to purge the party of anybody who doesn't agree with us 100 percent”) is unworthy of him.
[…] "This idea that we're suddenly going to establish litmus tests and all across the country we're going to purge the party of anybody who doesn't agree with us 100 percent; that guarantees Obama's reelection, that guarantees Pelosi as Speaker-for-life," he told Fox News last night.
Gingrich is fighting a straw man. Are there any prominent conservatives saying that 100 percent agreement is a requirement for their endorsement? I’m not aware of any.
Does Gingrich think there any principles worth drawing a line in the sand and saying: I will not vote for any candidate that crosses this line?
What if there was a candidate running on the GOP line who agreed with Newt on every issue, with the teeny, tiny little exception that he supported the right of neo-Nazis to gas all Jews in America?Would Gingrich scold conservatives for backing an independent candidate against this Republican?
If not, then I have no choice but to conclude that he doesn’t consider any of Dede Scozzafava’s negatives – such as her enthusiastic support of the right to kill one’s preborn child – to be troubling enough that he would withhold his endorsement of her.
So, Mr. Gingrich: Should we support anybody that manages to snag the Republican nomination, no matter what they believe? What price should we be willing to pay to regain a GOP majority? Should we care how that majority will govern, or is gaining and maintaining power the highest value of the GOP?