Herman Cain To Endorse Newt Gingrich

You’d think that the endorsement of a man who just flamed out of the presidential race because of accusations of infidelity and, worse, sexual manipulations of his subordinates wouldn’t exactly be a blessing. But Cain’s supporters blindly loyal, and Cain’s endorsement will likely transfer a lot of that loyalty to Newt.

ATLANTA – Herman Cain might be out of the running as a Republican presidential candidate, but his voice still carries weight with his many loyal supporters. Since he bowed out of the race Saturday, there has been much speculation on who he would endorse.

Sources tell FOX 5 News that Herman Cain plans to endorse fellow Georgian Newt Gingrich on Monday. They say details of a formal announcement are still being worked out.

A spokesperson with the Gingrich campaign said there is a 2 p.m. press conference in New York, which would follow a meeting with Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, Real Clear Politics’ average of polls shows Gingrich with a 6 point lead nationally. The latest of those polls, from Rasmussen, has Gingrich up a whopping 21 points. In Iowa Gingrich is up an average of 10 points. In South Carolina, Newt’s up an average of 8.6 points.

Romney still owns New Hampshire, for the time being, but right now it’s looking like the 2012 nomination is Newt’s to lose.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Brenarlo

    Newt will fall like the rest.  I’m a big supporter of Ron Paul, but Romney is going to win.  People are going to quickly be reminded that Newt is another beltway insider, big government conservative and then will settle on Romney.

    Newt will disappoint in Iowa.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      So people are going to decided that Newt is too establishment, and then flee to the arms of…Mitt Romney?

      • HG

        Nothing says anti-establishment like Romney. /sarcasm

      • Brenarlo

        Look at the latest NBC poll…  the 2nd option for Newt supporters is Romney.  Too many conservatives have already given in to the “anyone but Obama” process.  They’ll look at Newt and Romney and see that Romney is much more electable.  Obama will beat either of them.

    • HG

      If Paul was a more reasonable candidate and believed in a strong national defense, he’d be a much better candidate.

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        The national defense thing is my sticking point too.  Though, of late, I’ve been wondering if that should be a sticking point any more.

        The way things are going domestically, having a military and using it may be a luxury we can’t afford any more.

        • HG

          I’m not to worried about our militaries ability to promote democracy around the globe.  I prefer a limited military which maintains a strong ability to defend America decidedly, swiftly, convincingly, and victoriously.  I prefer our enemies fear our response than respect it.  I’m not convinced Paul’s somewhat isolationist approach would accomplish any of what I prefer. 

          Also, Paul’s domestic ideas will not likely translate into a national election victory. 

          But I do like much of what Paul has too say on domestic issues.

          • Jamermorrow

            Another way to have power is to have economic power. While we are using force the Chinese are using trade. We used to do this prior to Wilson. The military is dependent on our economic power. Without a strong economy we will have no military power.  

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            We were only economically powerful because after WWII we were one of the few countries that could actually produce.  Russia and the US emerged stronger only because we weren’t bombed to smithereens.

            Everyone had to buy our goods and services…that only lasted until the other countries re-built and were able to give us a run for our money.

            America is facing it’s challenges for multiple reasons.  Greed, laziness and entitlement is in the American DNA and it’s killing us.

        • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

          You think.  We are headed for the biggest multi-front war in history.

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          “Principles smchinciples.  Who cares about the safety of our country or others across the globe, it’s more important we turn on our ideals to stamp our feet in unison against Obama.” – Shorter Rob Port

        • Jamermorrow

          Exactly right. You are finally realizing how bad of shape the country is in. The Soviet Union became irrelevant due to economic problems and not military problems.

      • Brenarlo

        There’s a difference between defense and offense.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Profound and enlightening.  Here’s another one:  If Paul was more electable and catered more toward the far right he’d be a much more electable candidate for the far right.

      • Jamermorrow

        If he changed his foreign policy many people would not support him. Young conservatives overwhelmingly support Ron Paul. Why? because we are the ones fighting in the wars. Note too that RP gets more donations from people in the military than all other candidates combined. That should tell you something about his foreign policy.

        • HG

          National defense is where Paul concerns me.  It’s not so much that RP has a bad foreign policy, but that he doesn’t appear to have one at all.

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    Dear fish, thanks for the barrel.

    What a joke gop has become.

    • HG

      This from the guy who support Obama.  We haven’t had a joke played on America as bad as Obama since Carter — who you would probably support and vote for today if he were running instead of Obama.

  • sbark

    I’m trying to remember, who did John Edwards endorse after he withdrew?    I imagine it just went to another Dem’cat candidate that wasnt fully vetted.

    …….that centrist Obama, or the moderate Hillary

    • Game

      Edwards did not endorse anybody until after Obama had wrapped it up. I would suggest the book Game Change to you on this topic. It talks about how Edwards tried to play king maker for both Clinton and Obama, and neither of them wanted anything to do with him.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I don’t think Edwards, who at that point was already coming under fire for his extra-marital love child, was much of a factor.

  • HG

    Newt has a descent conservative record to show for his service in Gov’t.  Romney does not.  We remember Newt for his “Contract with America”, we remember Romney ro Romneycare (ie., Obamacare-light). 

    On the other hand, Newt has verbalized some questionable and moderate positions at times since his conservative days in gov’t.  Romney, on the other hand, has trended conservative in his rhetoric since his days of moderate governing.

    I prefer the candidate who governs conservatively but talks like a moderate on occasion, to the one that talks conservatively but governs like a moderate.

    Newt is the better choice of the two in my opinion.

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      Newt has a descent conservative record to show for his service in Gov’t.

      A descending conservative record in the eyes of the right wing extremists who rallied around the Tea Party who didn’t poop in public or commit their act of child rape on government property.

      • HG

        I gotta get me an account so I can edit my typos like you H.

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          Who needs an edit button when you have your very own Poofy, the spell checker?  Hey, at least I didn’t beat you over the head with it like Poofy does.  That would imply it somehow reflects your lack of intelligence.  I simply made a play with words.  

  • Game

    Newt and Cain should run on the same ticket, they could call it the “Fidelity First Party”

    • Gamer

      And Bill Clinton could be chief of staff, and Barney Frank could bring up the rear.

  • SigFan

    Republicans seem to be unable to keep from stepping on their own cranks anymore.  They keep trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good.  Gingrich, Cain, Romney and the rest of the field are not perfect, but then who is?  Who among us has not said or done things at one time or another that were less than correct, or even reprehensible in hindsight?  Gingrich and Romney both have the ability to completely destroy Obama in a debate, and either of them would be light-years better as president and leading than the bungler currently in the WH.  Do we have to approve of these people in every aspect of their life in order to vote for them and by extension vote to try to turn this country back to the correct path?  If so, then you might as well resign yourself right now to Obama for four more years, and a lame-duck maniac with nothing to lose anymore.  You think he has been destructive to the country so far?  You haven’t seen anything yet.  Yes it would be great if we had a Reagan clone, or better yet Christ incarnate running for the office, but we don’t.  Just remember this – OMG! (Obama Must Go!)

  • mikemc1970

    Newt and Cain never seemed very far apart economically, at least in the debates. A lot of the TEA Partiers are still looking for their Not Mitt candidate.

  • Neiman

    A recent poll showed that while Republicans thought Gingrich had superior conservative credentials and the superior ability/intellect to communicate solutions, they also see Romney as far better able to beat Obama. Liberals have not attacked Romney, seeing him as fairly liberal, even comrade Alec Baldwin actually supports Romney.

    So, is it more important to be right on the issues or to win and kick Barry out on his tail? I am not taking a position on the matter yet, just posing some questions.

    • HG

      Not sure that one choice excludes the other, at least in the case of Newt.  I can’t imagine Obama winning a debate against Newt, but against Romney, it’s possible. 

      • Neiman

        There is not much question IMO that Romney will appeal to moderates and Independents, while Newt will easily be painted as an extremist conservative and turn off those same voters, even if he out-debates Obama.  Also, let us not play Barry for the fool, he will NOT submit to Lincoln-Douglas type debates, he will establish rules more friendly to his debate style. While Mitt may not have to win any debates, just stand up fairly well and be seen as a business oriented manager that can solve our financial crisis.

        It is fascinating that this election will so convoluted, with twists and turns that make any predictions all but impossible.

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    Uh-oh…this just in:

    Cain’s chief of staff Mark Block told ABC News: “I have no knowledge
    that Cain is endorsing anyone anytime soon.” And Cain’s deputy chief of
    staff Linda Hansen e-mailed: “Not true. I am not sure where they heard
    that. Seems the media, in general, has a problem discerning fact from
    gossip.” A source in Gingrich’s campaign also said a Cain endorsement
    was not expected today.

    http://reddogreport.com/2011/12/despite-reports-cain-not-ready-to-endorse/

Top