Posted on 04/04/2006 6:03:17 PM PDT by wagglebee
Former U.S. House Speaker and conservative movement hero Newt Gingrich Tuesday announced his support for Ohio Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell.
"Ken Blackwell is a man, cast in the mold of President Ronald Reagan, with powerful ideas that will empower individuals and spur job creation in the Buckeye State," said Gingrich. "His new ideas, new strategies and new solutions will set Ohio back on the right path."
"I am honored to have the support of a true hero in the conservative movement," said Blackwell. "The overwhelming support of conservative leaders is a testament to my adherence to the core principles that have made the Republican Party the nation's party of ideas and progress."
Blackwell has received endorsements from Ohio Right to Life, Cincinnati Right to Life, the Republican National Coalition for Life (RNC for Life), Concerned Women for America, The Eagle Forum, Family First and Moms for Ohio.
Blackwell is also endorsed by the Fulton, Hamilton, Miami and Summit county Republican parties. In January, he reported the highest GOP fundraising totals in the last campaign finance period, out-raising his opponent by more than $700,000 in the last year. He leads all candidates for governor with over 12,000 individual campaign contributors, with an average gift of $167.87.
He enjoys double-digit leads over his opponent among Republican primary voters in five polls released within the last 30 days. The primary is slated for May 2nd.
Ping!
Not terribly surprising news.
It looks better for Ken Blackwell every day.
Rockin right, RING AWAY!
Blackwell for Governor Ping!
Ping! :)
Kind of a no-brainer here.
Good stuff. The polls look good too. Not that one can trust polls, but they all have Ken up by more than 10%. It should be higher, but that's good with only a few weeks to go.
I think he'll win the primary by a nice margin.
Bumpity bump!
(Bumper sticker's going on the car tonight!)
And Mr. Delay falling onhis sword in the same news cycle???
Is Mr. Gingrich working behind the scenes???
What polls are you reading? Could you send me a link? All that I've seen have Blackwell trailing badly.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/March%202006/Ohio%20Governor%20March.htm
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/February%202006/Ohio%20Governor%20February.htm
Leading in the PRIMARY polls........against Petro.
Newt is a true conservative. I miss him! Glad Ken has picked up his endorsement. I'm so excited for this primary next month :)
The mastermind behind the Republican "Revolution". He lives!
"conservative movement hero Newt Gingrich"
Uh, NO. Newt cheated on his wife. Sorry. Not a hero, nothing to see here, move along.
What a surprise. Not really!!! More good news for JKB. In case you NE Ohioans don't know, there is a Blackwell HQ that has opened up.
Midtown Shopping Center
1920 Snow Road Parma
During the week I know there are people there after 4:00. I'm sure they're open earlier on the weekends. There are phone banks and computer access there too(I think).
Then quit surfin' the Net and get back out there!!! ;-)
Thanks for all the hard work, trying to get some more conservatives in office.
But you already knew that, didn't you Grebrook?
The Constitution is designed to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Conservatism preserves liberty, which implies the ability to do new things, and do things in new ways.It is a grievious error for liberals to fall for the platitudes of the arrogant to the effect that less liberty leads to more progress. Scratch a socialist and you will always find an arrogant second-guesser.
Go, Blackwell!
We're still looking here.
We used the Republican HQ for the Bush campaign, but obviously can't do that in a primary.
And being told by all the 'TRUE' conservatives that I'm not one.
They are SUCH a joke! Fortunately over the years, I've learned not to take a single one of them seriously.
But it doesn't take away your credentials as a political conservative.
C'mon Lib. You don't have to be contrary about EVERYTHING.
It's not good for your health.
Cheating on your wife takes away two things from Rudy that are important in a conservative President. He has no trustworthiness, for one thing. I prefer to believe the words of the person I'm voting into the Oval Office. Second, the man has zero moral authority. How can he say "don't screw around until you're married, children!" without someone pointing out that he screwed around WHILE he was married with children?
No, I don't think I'm being contrary at all. Before we even get to the issues of the day, Rudy is no conservative, and anyone inclined to vote his way in the primaries isn't either. It's not at all contrary to point that out.
We're talking about Newt Gingrich's backing Ken Blackwell.
Ken Blackwell is running for Governor of Ohio, and he hasn't cheated on his wife.
We're not talking about anyone named Rudy, and we're not talking about voting anyone into the Oval Office.
Other than your being completely confused, I agree with you. I'll never vote for Rudy for President.
Not that that matters since this is a thread about Newt Gingrich (who IS a conservative with a stellar political record) and Ken Blackwell (who is also a conservative with a solid record).
So you're not being contrary. You're just very mixed up.
No, my response wasn't on the right thread. I conflated a similar argument I'm having on another thread about Rudy Giuliani.
But the response was still dead on point. Rudy and Newt share the same flaw, a flaw that should exclude them from candidacy for President under the Republican banner, if that party is conservative. That Newt is nominally more conservative than Rudy politically does not make him more trustworthy or grant him superior moral authority. In NYC's Times Square, Rudy cleaned up one of the nation's premier bastions of scum. Newt didn't...Congress is still Congress.
Newt and Rudy may have a similar character flaw, but they don't have the same politics. BIG difference. And his endorsement means something.
NOW you're just being contrary.
You keep using that word, "contrary." I don't think it means what you think it means. It isn't contrary to have an opinion that is different than yours. But to further demonstrate that not only am I not being "contrary" for the sake of being contrary, I'm being more accurate to my original post than you are, since it's not at all about his endorsement. It's about his characterization as a "conservative hero," in a piece about that endorsement. If you scroll back, you'll see that is what my original post addressed. And Newt isn't a "conservative hero," for the same reasons he isn't a candidate for President conservatives should support, any more than Duke Cunningham is a conservative hero. Being driven from office in disgrace without any lasting accomplishment is hardly heroic.
It would have been possible to state your view that Newt is not a 'hero' without dismissing the entire article as you did.
Newt's backing of Blackwell is a good thing.
I stated (pretty clearly, I thought) that I was responding to the characterization of "conservative movement hero Newt Gingrich." If you think that somehow encompasses the entire article, well, perhaps you're tangentially right, in that the whole article seems to be about Gingrich's endorsement. But I was very specifically not addressing the issue of his endorsement's affect on Blackwell.
So as to your latest objection, that I was being 'contrary' for the sake of being contrary, congratulations on coming up with a new buzz word to use on people who disagree with you. It's like liberals (and not surprisingly, people who unswervingly back the GOP without regard to its adherence to conservative principle) calling people who disagree with them 'angry' or 'cynical' or 'disaffected,' or worse. It avoids the arguments of the other person and labels them.
However, if you'd like me to address the article, I CAN express an opinion contrary to your own--but that doesn't make me 'contrary' either. Have you seen Newt's polling numbers generally? He has the same problem Hillary has, except that Newt has the MSM to remind everyone he's an eeeeeevil guy. And my belief is that would be better for Blackwell, and the GOP in general, if Newt simply stayed in his classroom, or worked with the party out of the public eye in the future, since the public still generally views him negatively, and I doubt that will change any time soon. Since so many registered Republicans are not particularly involved with the party, I doubt that more Republican voters will back Mr. Blackwell for Governor as a result of Newt's endorsement, period, and I think an association with Newt may be a mild negative in the general election, which Blackwell is almost certainly headed for already. In fact, I think it's pretty clear that Newt endorsed Blackwell for a little free press of his own, and in the hopes that he'll get BLACKWELL'S endorsement for the Presidency later.
Simply thinking that, however, does not make me at all recalcitrant. Believe it or not, I am allowed to honestly disagree with some politicians' presence in the Republican primaries and resurgence on the national scene via MSM and RNC promotion, and Newt is among those with a presence I find disagreeable. These politicians are not some authority I am predisposed to bucking, however, until the GOP requires all its members to adhere to the party line of elected and formerly elected officials. They are people with whom I politically or personally disagree. And they are people who I genuinely think do the promotion of their nominal principles a disservice in associating themselves with the GOP, at least, if the GOP is a conservative party or that is what these people believe in. It is not at all "contrary" to want conservative principles and a submission to the Constitutional principles of our Founders reinstalled in government, and think that the GOP should be the vehicle to get us there, and believe that for it to be such a vehicle, the party cannot be blackened by association with liberal or disgraced politicians. On that, we can reasonably disagree, but not if you insist on using terms of negative connotation like "contrary" to describe your opposition.
LOL! You are a funny one, Lib! I didn't come up with a 'buzz word'.....I used the word that I thought appropriately described your comments. And I still do.............your hypersensitivity to a very mild and friendly criticism, notwithstanding.
Your third paragraph, I agree with. If I had my personal preference, Newt would step down, and step out. Too much baggage. (But it doesn't mean he isn't a real conservative).
Your last paragraph indicates that you don't have an historic sense of the Republican party at all. It is not now, nor ever has been a party of exclusively conservatives. We have always been a part of the party, but not all of it. I would like as much as you would, for Republicans to always act like conservatives, but I am knowledgeable enough to know that it's not going to happen, so I don't get bent out of shape when the party doesn't act solidly on conservative principles.
You don't have to look back very far to see that I'm right about that.
Now, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings by telling you what I honestly thought about what you posted. Might I suggest trying to grow a thicker skin? :)
You're telling me Newt's a 'real conservative.' My sense of conservatism is different than yours--I happen to think that 'real conservatives' are morally conservative, and morally conservative first. I think you may be arguing that he may be conservative when it comes to politics, and that we're discussing semantics, but I think in order to be politically conservative AND have your endorsement be influential, you have to have the moral authority I spoke of earlier, and you have to clearly admit you've compromised when you do. And Newt has exactly squat moral authority and less ability to admit he has made mistakes in governance.
"Your last paragraph indicates that you don't have an historic sense of the Republican party at all. It is not now, nor ever has been a party of exclusively conservatives. We have always been a part of the party, but not all of it. I would like as much as you would, for Republicans to always act like conservatives, but I am knowledgeable enough to know that it's not going to happen, so I don't get bent out of shape when the party doesn't act solidly on conservative principles. You don't have to look back very far to see that I'm right about that."
I think a conservative party can and will happen, and right now, the GOP is the unfortunately the most likely national means to its ascension, and that requires a lot of fight against party members hellbent on pork and power. To steal a phrase from YOUR hero, you are either with us or against us there--when people are indifferent to the GOP moving in the wrong direction, they are willing participants in that move. The historic nature of the GOP is irrelevant, as we're talking about the potential, not the past, of the GOP (though you presume that I am ignorant of the constituents of the party or its radically leftist nature in the past, when I am not at all, as an unrepentant Southerner). I merely think that in order for the party to have real meaning in the voting booth, it has to stand for something, and the only thing it stands for right now is power. It will accept any liberal, bend any law, wrong any right, in its quest for power. As Hank Rearden has noted, no one has ever told him what the GOP stands for. I don't think that a party is any more than a mob bent on power without a central organizing principle to which it adheres, and the GOP has been without a central principle since it blinked to Clinton during the government shutdown.
"Now, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings by telling you what I honestly thought about what you posted. Might I suggest trying to grow a thicker skin? :)"
You didn't hurt my feelings at all, you simply excluded yourself from the debate by insult. And with this 'apology,' you prove again that the 'debate' emanating from arguably 'moderate' members of the GOP is limited to insult. I may be hypersensitive, contrary or thin-skinned, but either way, you haven't answered my comments other than (where you address `em at all) to agree with them.
I could give you a list of things the Republican party stands for, but you wouldn't be interested.
And in spite of your defensive outcry, your feelings WERE hurt by what I said. If you call my disagreement with you an 'insult' you could use some therapy. You were being contrary. Deal with it.
Now please don't ping me back with lectures on conservatism. There is no more morally conservative person on this forum than I am. And I don't need, nor want advice from a libertarian. You guys don't come close to being conservative in the areas I value most........that is personal responsibility and morality. You may individually, but your party isn't even close. Your platform is not about liberty, it's about license, and personally, I find that repulsive.
Now go lick your wounded feelings and leave me alone, please. This is ridiculous.
Oh, but I am. Go for it! And don't hurt yourself stretching that arm over your shoulder to pat yourself on the back there, Ms. Humility! Hank, feel free to add another notch to the dodge-the-question crowd.
"And in spite of your defensive outcry, your feelings WERE hurt by what I said. If you call my disagreement with you an 'insult' you could use some therapy. You were being contrary. Deal with it."
Lessee, that makes me contrary, childish, thin-skinned, hypersensitive, defensive, and in need of therapy. Could you throw in a 'nanny-nanny-boo-boo?' I guess you never had mommy tell you not to call people names. And there's a difference between hurt feelings and sadness that you think this kind of thing passes for debate, and you're representative of much of the GOP. Small wonder the GOP has difficulty converting Rats lately.
"Now please don't ping me back with lectures on conservatism. There is no more morally conservative person on this forum than I am."
Oh, I doubt that. You're okay with the idea of a cheating man-ho like Newt as a 'conservative hero,' for example. But folks like you often congratulate themselves on being fine, upstanding sorts. I think the Bible had a particularly apt parable about a Pharisee and sinner in the temple.
"And I don't need, nor want advice from a libertarian. You guys don't come close to being conservative in the areas I value most........that is personal responsibility and morality."
Personal responsibility as opposed to governmental responsibility is one thing the LP promotes. I wish I could say the same for the party you hack for. But it's patently obvious you do want advice from a libertarian. Otherwise you would have never posted and reposted to me. Is there anything else you need advice about? I might be able to recommend a libertarian in your area for you to more regularly consult with.
"You may individually, but your party isn't even close. Your platform is not about liberty, it's about license, and personally, I find that repulsive."
The difference is obviously a matter of personal responsibility--but you wouldn't get that, being so averse to personal responsibility yourself, as exhibited by, say, your inability to follow the forum rules and refrain from making a single post without insult.
"Now go lick your wounded feelings and leave me alone, please. This is ridiculous."
Yes, it certainly is ridiculous--you post insult after insult to me, and now tell me to 'leave you alone' after posting a diatribe about the Libertarian Party rife with MORE personal insult, evidently to distract from your own inability to discuss the issue (since the issue is whether Newt deserves the 'conservative hero' status awarded him by this article, and yet, somehow, you completely avoid that subject again in this post).
You're so used to pontificating and crying 'insult' that you haven't bothered to read my words about Newt. (hint..........I've told you that I AGREE with you, that he's not any kind of 'hero'........not that the truth of the matter makes any difference to you).
Now excuse me, but I have a very rich life that doesn't include arguing with you. Once again, I apologize for hurting your feelings. It was my intent to have a discussion, not to make you cry.
And now.........for the second time...........leave me alone.
(And leave poor Hank alone too, OK? He's miserable enough all by himself with your dragging him into your useless attempts to fight about nothing with me).
I didn't miss that you agreed with me at all, as it stood out, being the only area you've actually addressed my comment. But you still claim he's a "true conservative." That is where the discussion had evolved, when you got back on the insult tack.
"Now excuse me, but I have a very rich life that doesn't include arguing with you. Once again, I apologize for hurting your feelings. It was my intent to have a discussion, not to make you cry. And now.........for the second time...........leave me alone."
You want me to 'leave you alone,' don't post insults to me. I don't get flamed and remain mute. And don't apologize for 'hurting my feelings.' Just stop insulting people who disagree with you.
"(And leave poor Hank alone too, OK? He's miserable enough all by himself with your dragging him into your useless attempts to fight about nothing with me)."
Who's dragging him in? I just thought he'd be entertained by one more feeble evasion of the simple question he posed. It's noteworthy that you have again evaded listing those 'GOP stands' that you are evidently privy to, and none of the rest of us are aware of. Of course, to you, insult and distraction will make a much better case for the GOP than actually explaining rationally why the GOP is a principled party worth voting for. That is the only explanation I can think of which might elucidate as to why you not only insult ME in this post, you insult HR too--you're just making sure you have a full 'discussion' per your 'debate' manual.
And for the THIRD time..........leave me alone.
If you want me to "leave you alone," stop posting insults to me.
And again, feel free to enumerate those GOP principles. I'm sure you were so quick to post an insult you forgot to.
GO BLACKWELL!!
Pro-LIFE, Tax-cutting, Pro-business, Pro-2nd Amendment, Personal Responsibility, Limited Government, Pro-FAMILY CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN!!!
JUST LIKE ME!! :)
Bye, Lib!
"Bye, Lib!"
Back atcha. Stop insulting people who disagree with you.
Wipe those tears away, son. It will be OK. :)
If I'm crying, it's from laughing so hard at your 'discussion' posts.
Feel free to enumerate those GOP stands any time now--and stop insulting people in your posts.
I reserve my discussions for the grown ups who don't whine when they are disagreed with.
Get it yet? I've been on three or four other threads talking with grown ups. That's what I like about FR. There are adults here, with whom one can have adult conversations.
You just don't happen to be among them, so I treat you accordingly.
GO BLACKWELL!
I'm surprised to see you finally admit you're "not discussing anything" with me. it's just too bad you don't understand that's because insults aren't discussion.
On the other hand, I expected very little from you to begin with. For instance, I don't expect you'll ever answer the question "What does the GOP absolutely stand for?" That would be a discussion. But you're right, you aren't discussing anything. Just tossing more insults my way. I think we're up to seven or eight now. Maybe I can start a collection.
Your shameless attempt to hijack it by trying (and failing) to trap me into a defense of the GOP, is as transparent as you are. And your calling in Hank to try to gang up on the 'mean lady who keeps insulting me' in order to attack the Republican party was preposterous.
I will not now, nor have I ever blindly followed the GOP. I believe that their platform conforms more closely to my views, because I am very, very conservative, and the Republican party is more conservative than any other.
The Rat platform, and the Libertarian platform are FAR to my left (especially morally), and it would take a highly unusual candidate to get me to vote for EITHER party. You call yourself a libertarian, so if you follow their platform, YOU are far to my left.
Now, this thread is about Ken Blackwell. Not the GOP...........or YOU. So give up on your attempts to make it so.
I will not fall for it, and be sucked into your hijacking of this thread. If you ever want to discuss the issue with me, without your cute little games, feel free. As I said, I will discuss any issue with one who is honest and straightforward. I will be happy to engage in an honest discussion about the problems with the Republican party for a conservative, if you should ever seek to engage in one on an appropriate thread in an appropriate manner.
I have listed the basics of Ken Blackwell's very conservative positions, and that is the point here. He is conservative, as am I, and Newt's politics have been as well.
Don't reply unless you come clean.
IN THE ARTICLE the THREAD IS ABOUT, Newt is named as a 'conservative hero,' and I noted he's neither, which set you off to spewing insults at me. It's not 'hijacking' to discuss that portion of the article, which is not simply 'about Blackwell' but OBVIOUSLY about 'Newt Gingrich's endorsement of Blackwell'--YOU feel free to read the headline AND the article. But spending your time on this thread insulting someone who disagrees with you that conservatives should screw around and promote unConstitutional spending, by calling them contrary, childish, thin-skinned, hypersensitive, defensive, and in need of therapy, that certainly is hijacking a thread for your own little flame war.
Again, I'll look forward to you enumerating those inviolable GOP principles. And again, I'll look forward to a post from you that does not include a single insult. No time like the present for you to complete two simple tasks! I'll be busy buying up cut-rate Florida igloo futures now, on the off chance hell freezes over and you actually do.
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.