Posted on 11/08/2011 1:55:48 PM PST by libertarian neocon
At the beginning of this race, I really didn't think I would consider supporting Newt Gingrich for the nomination. He had to resign as speaker, seems to want to reach across the aisle at random moments (like the commercial with Pelosi on a couch!), has a sordid personal life (with multiple marriages and affairs) and even put down the Ryan plan as "right wing social engineering" and "too great a leap". However, two things really have changed my mind. First, his performance in debates. He has extensive knowledge on what seems to be all issues and even gives historical examples as to why he believes what he believes (wouldn't it be great to have a candidate that the media doesn't automatically paint as stupid or uneducated?). He is the type of candidate who might actually convince people to become Republicans, unlike most of his competitors, who can't really say why they believe what they believe (or in the case of Romney, don't actually believe in anything but sound bytes that get them elected). I think if he gets the nomination and faces Obama he will absolutely cream him, by pointing out the fallacies and inconsistencies in his arguments & policies. Another thing he did in the debates that I really liked was that he constantly stayed above the fray, not attacking his fellow Republicans and instead focusing, and trying to keep the other candidates focused, on Obama.
The second main reason, I'm thinking about supporting him is just the process of elimination. There are really only three candidates who can articulate their positions and not stare blankly at the camera when given a complicated question, Romney, Gingrich and Santorum. Romney is polished but I have ZERO confidence he will actually enact conservative principles. When he was Governor of Massachusetts, only 25% of his judicial appointments were even Republican. With a court at 5-4, we can't afford a single misstep there. Also, I find it hard to believe he will fight tooth and nail to repeal Obamacare. He will try to "fix" it, taking out certain provisions and adding others. Not my idea of what needs to be done. Santorum wouldn't be a bad choice, he is definitely conservative and can explain why he believes what he believes. Unfortunately, he comes across as mean and has been a bit too much on the attack in the debates which I think is holding him back in the polls.
The other candidates have become a joke. While I like Herman Cain on a personal level, he is absolutely horrible at thinking on his feet (which is something I would think a President would have to do from time to time). Heck, he even has trouble thinking about the right way to deal with things with 10 days notice (Politico gave him 10 days notice before going public with the harassment story). It just boggles the mind how his story could change 3 times in one day when he had so long to prepare for it. Also, in the debate with Newt Gingrich he passed on the question about "premium support" or "defined benefit" plans for medicare. The problem with passing is that this was a debate on entitlements and so he should know what those terms mean. Even if he didn't, you should be able to figure it out right? It's not exactly rocket science. It's a good thing Newt was so gracious or he would have pointed out that someone who wants to be President of the United States should know such things. Also, given his lack of experience in government, it really is theoretical as to how he will act when in power. When given actual choices that will effect others, will he consistently choose the conservative one? His answers on abortion and the Palestinian right of return make me nervous.
Rick Perry really is starting to remind me of W especially when he does that deer in headlights impersonation when he gets a question he doesn't know how to answer. It really doesn't inspire confidence. Nor did his attempt to disqualify Romney on the basis of his landscaper using illegals. I'm also not convinced as to how conservative he really is. He just had to be conservative in Texas to be elected, who knows what he will be like with blue staters in the mix. Bachmann, while a relatively good speaker, is very gaffe prone and has a strange propensity to make up stuff as she goes along.
So there you have it. Newt definitely has his issues, but when it boils down to it, he is a great speaker with a much more conservative record than Romney (I'll probably only be pissed off part of the time with Newt). And that might be all it takes. I wouldn't want perfection to be the enemy of the good.
“not in sickness, but in health”
Not after he shot off his mouth about Cain today
He’d be great!
We just need discount the DNC/Soros/State media telling us why he’s bad.
That the ticket, pimp the smear. Then if he HAD jumped in front of the story you could whine “Why is Cain bringing up these anonymous accusations.
Face it, your mind has always been weld shut about Cain. To pretend otherwise to those of us who have seen your postings is absurd.
Let me guess, the rest of the crew will be along shortly to agree with you.
I see....and who are you for that has opined on Herman?
I don’t see anything wrong with what Newt is saying...
Anonymous accusations that are sealed and the woman involved is not going on the record or breaking the agreement is a hard thing to address...
If he comes out sharing what she alleged in the agreement, in order to defend himself, when SHE is not talking, or even named- he looks awful..
the gal is not allowed to talk, and is not asking to talk...he gets to go public with his side...it would feel unfair to any woman involved in real cases of real harassment...
Once there is a face and an actual story to react to— time to talk. And he made it clear last night that he was going to do just that.
ABC asked Herman today about Mitt saying the accusations were serious and disturbing. Herman agreed. They are serious, and they are disturbing. Hence the presser today to deal with it...
All these other candidate want this door shut...they are drowning for attention out there, meanwhile Herman Cain’s problem with name ID is no longer an issue, he is the lead story most every hour for over a week, he is raising money like crazy, and he is NOT dropping in the polls....
They are all eating their hats....they desperately want this to stop and back to the issues...Herman wants the same thing as well...
I am looking forward to the presser...
now I am hearing that Karen gal is coming forward to identify herself....she hopes her resume will help convince folks will find her credible....I don’t care about any of that until we find out EXACTLY what she believes would warrant an accusation of sexual harassment... I think her idea will be much different than most Americans will view as legitimate claims of harassment, hence her not wanting the confidentiality lifted...
Leaning back toward the right helps perspective.
I guess you have Tokyo Rove tuned-in on the radio.
Newt is great but what happens when the mad leftists attack him merciless too? Cain/Newt 2012.
All that Newt and others have done is stress the importance of taking on these accusations head on and soon!
Having an accuser come forward personally, must be addressed forefully.
I think #4 is a fraud, but Herman must make the case!
“libertarian neocon”
I like you. I want you to come over to my house and **** my sister.
Sorry, but sitting next to Pelosi disqualifies him for anything past being head dogcatcher.
An intelligent person does not associate with ignorant s*uts who sc**wed their way into political office by boinking a rich guy.
“Not after he shot off his mouth about Cain today”
I might have missed something. Didn’t he just say that Cain needs to answer the charges? I think he is only saying that because you now have a gaggle of women making accusations. When it’s one anonymous person it is one thing, when you have a group that is clearly another. The longer Cain lets this fester the worse it will be for him and us.
........"“I think when you move from anonymity to a person standing up in that setting and saying something, so now there’s a real – there’s a person. It’s not just some anonymous tip. Clearly Herman Cain has to answer the charges . He has to explain what happened. He has to do so in a way that’s convincing, and I think that that’s unavoidable,” Gingrich said in an ABC News/Yahoo interview today. “I think he both owes her that but he also owes the American people that and I hope he can do it well. He’s a good friend, and I hope he has an answer that satisfies people he has to have an answer and it better be accurate because if it’s not accurate it won’t stand.".....
“.... But Newt Gingrich, throughout his long career, has a habit of shooting himself and others in the foot and I sometimes get the impression that Gingrich.....” Source
The “smartest man in the room”.
1989: Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) co-sponsors the ambitious Global Warming Prevention Act (H.R. 1078), which finds that “the Earth’s atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants resulting from human activities, inefficient and wasteful fossil fuel use, and the effects of rapid population growth in many regions,” that “global warming imperils human health and well-being” and calls for policies “to reduce world emissions of carbon dioxide by at least 20 percent from 1988 levels by 2000.” The legislation recognizes that global warming is a “major threat to political stability, international security, and economic prosperity.” [H.R. 1078, 2/22/1989]
1992: Gingrich calls the environmental proposals in Al Gore’s book Earth in Balance “devastatingly threatening to most American pocketbooks and jobs.” [National Journal, 9/5/92]
1996: At a speech for the Detroit Economic Club, Gingrich mocks “Al Gore’s global warming,” citing “the largest snowstorm in New York City’s history”: “We were in the middle of budget negotiations; the football games were coming up and we noticed on the weather channel that an early symptom of Al Gore’s global warming was coming to the East Coast. And it does make you wonder sometimes, doesn’t it, how theoretical statisticians in the middle of the largest snowstorm in New York City’s history could stand there and say, ‘I don’t care what it’s doing. It’s going to get very hot soon.’” [FDCH Political Transcripts, 1/16/96]
1997: As Speaker of the House, Gingrich co-sponsors H. Con. Res. 151, which notes carbon dioxide is a “major greenhouse gas” that comes from “products whose manufacture consumes fossil fuels” and calls on the United States to “manage its public domain national forests to maximize the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” [H. Con. Res. 151, 9/10/1997]
2007: Gingrich calls for a cap-and-trade system with tax incentives for clean energy. “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.” [Frontline, 2/15/07]
February 15, 2007: “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.” [Frontline, 2/15/07]
In a debate on climate policy with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Gingrich says “the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere,” and that we should “do it urgently.” [ThinkProgress, 4/10/07]
In a Washington Post chat, Gingrich rejects a cap-and-trade system, saying it “would lead to corruption, political favoritism, and would have a huge impact on the economy.” He says he supports “tax credits for dramatically reducing carbon emissions.” [Washington Post, 4/17/08]
2008: In an advertisement made for Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, Gingrich sat with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and said that “we do agree our country must take action to address climate change.” [We Campaign, 4/18/08]
“I don’t think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don’t think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.” [Newt.org, 4/22/08]
April 4, 2009: “And now, in 2009, instead of making energy cheaper—which would help create jobs and save Americans money—President Obama wants to impose a cap-and-trade regime. Such a plan would have the effect of an across-the-board energy tax on every American. That will make our artificial energy crisis even worse—and raising taxes during a deep economic recession will only accelerate American job losses.” [Newsweek, 4/4/09]
So basically Pelosi is the female version of Juan McStain?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.