Posted on 12/27/2011 3:36:01 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The Iowa caucuses are upon us, and with it the official start of the 2012 presidential election campaign. Therefore, it’s time to evaluate the Republican field. When you get to it, this race is really about one person: Newt Gingrich.
This really is Newt, Part 2. For all of us who remember 1994, and the Republican Revolution, which is already 18 long years ago, we conservatives are playing jilted wife to that political lothario, Newt Gingrich. Should we take him back and give him another chance? Or is it a case of fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me? A brief disclosure, I was still a conservative Democrat in 1994 and not fully vested in the conservative cause and its home in the Republican Party.
Almost miraculously, Newt has resurrected his political career, since being faced down by Bill Clinton over shutting down the federal government in 1995, and by ethics investigations and censures from which in the long run Newt was mostly absolved. Since those times, Newt has also divorced and remarried. He also has been a highly-paid lobbyist for Washington bad guys, the now government agencies of Fannie and Freddie. He is and has been a bomb-thrower with the English language, controversial, and self-referential, to a fault. Nevertheless, for true-believers like me, we are enthralled with his star.
For example, Gingrich said what everybody who knows any history knows to be true: that the Palestinians are a made up people. Equally outrageous to some is Newt’s comment that the judiciary should be ignored when they render unconstitutional judgments. He is flat out correct about that....
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Sir Isaac of the original Newtonian revolution was as big a putz in his own way as sometimes our present day Newton is.
Sometimes you need a putz!
Lots.
How's them apples?
/johnny
Few people do, but you just never know in times such as these. There's a huge push on to get her to reconsider her decision, given the state of our field, and what's at stake in 2012.
Eisenhower refused all appeals for him to run for president, until he finally gave in at the 52(?) convention. I'm not saying the same thing will happen with Palin, but it could. It's still too early for me to cross off any possibility.
So.. he's somewhat leftist.
Thanks. No.
/johnny
The author's American -- a fact easily found out if you can just bother to click on the link and look.
I don't know what your beef with the writer is. Canada Free Press is simply a website that posts conservative commentary and news.
Who cares if their physical address is across the northern border? So is Free Dominion's, FR's sister site.
/johnny
I don't much care for what a reporter from Ft. Worth thinks either.
/johnny
Now that's the sort of f***ed up attitude that gives us Texans a bad name. Next time I see some Freeper turning their nose up at Texas, I'll think of you.
I should care? Why? If you want to influence Texans, hold coffees here, with meet'n greets. Or write for the local liberal rag.
And I double dog dare you to tell me that the Startlegram and the Morning Snooze aren't liberal bastions. I know too many of those folks.
/johnny
Okay, so he’s not going to hire me for public relations but at least he’s usually to the right of McCain.
Canada Free Press isn't a newspaper. It's a news and opinion website.
Lots of conservative writers can't get published by newspapers, or even get their work posted by the more popular conservative news sites. If they want their work to get exposure, they have to go where they can get published.
That might just wind up being a friendly conservative news site that's just across our northern border.
And it's obvious the writer was (may still be) a lib.
I don't buy it. Sorry if it offends you, but I've had so many people pee on my boots and tell me it was raining that my trust is gone.
It's going to take something better than someone who was against Newt the first time, on a Canadian web-site, supported by a 'Texan' that wasn't born here to convince me.
Don't hate me. I was born this way.
Problem you have, is, so were millions more.
Sleep well.
/johnny
You aren't helping much.
That is for true.
/johnny
I don’t know what your problem is fella, but curling your lip and spitting at your fellow conservatives isn’t hip or cool. It ain’t Texan, and it sure as hell isn’t American, no matter how smug it makes you feel.
I’ve got nothing vested in the guy who wrote the article. I’ve merely been attempting to explain why the guy’s work is on a website out of Canada. From what I’ve seen of your posts on this thread, you dismissed the guy out of hand without even reading the article, simply because he was posting on a Canadian website.
Sounds to me like some writer pissed in your Cheerios a long time ago, and you’ve never gotten over it. Guess what? Nobody gives a rat’s patootie about your personal grudges and gripes.
Want to talk about the meat of the article? Someone here might actually be interested in that.
When was the last time we elected a back-bencher from the House or a rejected senator to the White House?
I'm not comfy with that.
And I really don't care if I'm hip or cool. But I am old and grumpy enough to say "Cow:Cabbage".
But I do take umbrage with supposed Americans and Texans telling folks like me how I'm supposed to vote. Especially when it comes from Canada.
And it's ok if you don't understand.
You will. In November.
The GOP hasn't been so obnoxious about driving off potential voters as long as I can remember.
/johnny
Andy Jackson?
/johnny
Fair enough. That's your opinion, and I'll respect it. I haven't been all that comfy with Newt, either. I'm sure that you recall that not all that long ago, this website was jam packed with posts condemning Newt for his many transgressions against conservative ideals.
When folks here first started talking him up, my first reaction was, "you have GOT to be kidding me. Newt?"
I haven't forgotten all the times he pissed me off, and still have a somewhat sour taste in my mouth about him. But -- weighing our options at this time, I can't escape the reasoning and logic that's compelling so many conservatives to get behind him.
I wish like hell we had a better choice who also had a snowball's chance of winning the nomination, but I just don't see that we do. If I've got to choose between Newt and Mitt, it's Newt all day long, and twice on Sunday.
That's been pretty obvious.
Either the GOP nominates a conservative. A REAL conservative, or they go home.
We don't have to win every game. I'm not sanguine about it, because I know that there will be pain... but until the GOP gets a clue... or we replace them... there is no good option.
And sometimes, in life, there IS no good option. You just have to live through it.
But I will be damned if some Canadian blogsite is going to change my opinion. Shake my hand, we might talk. Broadcast from a foreign country? Fergetit.
/johnny
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.