|This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.|
|Locked on 12/21/2011 12:49:44 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:|
Skip to comments.Newt Gingrich tells gay Iowa man Scott Arnold: "You’re better off voting for Obama"
Posted on 12/21/2011 11:51:51 AM PST by presidio9
Newt Gingrich isn't exactly chasing the gay vote.
The Republican presidential candidate told a homosexual Iowa man at a campaign event on Tuesday to vote for President Obama.
Scott Arnold, a Democrat and associate professor of writing at William Penn University, approached the ex-House speaker in Oskaloosa wanting to know how Gingrich would represent him as President, according to the Des Moines Register.
"I asked him if hes elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama," Arnold told the newspaper.
The Gingrich campaign did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The White House hopeful who had surged ahead as a top-tier candidate but has sunk in polls over the last week is known for his opposition to same-sex marriage.
Earlier this month, he told the conservative Christian Family Leader organization that, if elected, he would oppose any judicial, bureaucratic or legislative effort to define marriage in any manner other than as between one man and one woman."
His lesbian half-sister, Candace Gingrich-Jones, made national headlines earlier this month when she said she's was going to vote for Obama because of her sibling's rejection of same-sex marriage.
Arnold said he was disheartened by Gingrich's latest comments.
"When you ask somebody a question and you expect them to support all Americans and have everyone's general interest," Arnold said. "It's a little bit frustrating and disheartening when you're told to support the other side, that he doesn't need your support."
I am NOT against gays (i firmly believe it is somethign in the genese)
I am just against giving any group special treatment
“When you ask somebody a question and you expect them to support all Americans and have everyone’s general interest,” Arnold said.
Liar. “Supporting all Americans” isn’t even remotely what you’re looking for.
I’d like to here Newt’s version of the conversation.
He does have everyone’s general interest, only you were asking him to be specific about supporting homosexuals. How very disingenuous!
here = hear
Good for Newt!
He was a dumbocrat looking to cause trouble. He wouldn’t change his mind about voting for the dumber dumbocrat again no matter what Newt said.
Why waste time on the proven dumbocrats.
Very dumb. Plays into the gays’ “specialness”. Just tell the guy that he needs a job like everybody else and pays taxes like everybody else. He’s better off living in a safe and strong country, like everybody else. What’s good for everybody will benefit him, too.
Sounds like Gingirch has the vinegar and vim to counter Obama and his pandering moves.
I won;t say anything about “gay” rights. But I WILL say, that homosexuality is an abnormal abberration and that homosexuals have no right to demand societal endorsement of their abberration.
What disgusting things they choose to do to each other in the privacy of their own home is their own business, but they have no right flaunting it in the face of the majority of normal people.
Also note that the Daily News does not print a direct quote from Gingrich, but rather just the interpretation of whatever Gingrich said by a gay activist who was trying to troll Gingrich in the first place.
It was a setup, and Newt didn’t take the bait... LOL Go Newt!
This is refreshing. If Macy’s doesn’t have what they want and Gimbel’s does, don’t BS them, send them to Gimbel’s. Obama can have all the lefties, gays, feminists, etc., and Newt takes the rest. Every nutcase gets referred to the Dems. Sounds like a strategy. (I mean it.) The rest of us are fed up.
How about this for an answer: "We are going to accept homosexuals in any shape, form or fashion. And since homosexuals are at greater risk of transmitting diseases, we will make them pay more for health insurance. We will call it spreading the health around."
Why should any presidential candidate be concerned about what consenting adults do in their bedrooms?
Good for you Newt..
More red meat.
Uhhhhhhhh, what's left to comment on?
“When you ask somebody a question and you expect them to support all Americans and have everyone’s general interest,”
He DOES have your general interest...just not your GAY interest.
He could have told the guy to go see a psyc in an effort to give him the help he was looking for...but Gingrich probably rightly considered that this guy was not really looking for that type of “help” in overcoming his abnormality or in a President Gingrich’s representation of him
BTW, presidential representation does not mean embracing your sexual or other views. It means conducting his duties as President to protect the nation, its borders, and uphold its laws for all people.
But many homosexuals believe they are normal and must be treated as such, or DEMAND to be recognized and treated as such, changing laws, societal moreys, and tradition to accomodate them.
IMHO, common sense indicates the fallacy of this. If it were normal, then the majority of people could be that way. If they were, the species could lose enough birth rate to be in danger of going extinct...and that is just not normal.
I’m liking Newt more every day.
I often thought it was something wrong with their genese. Their beeber could have been stuned, also.
. BEWARE: Deceptive Headline! This is he-said, he-said anecdotalism. No confirmation from Noot in the story!
What? No pandering to the homosexual lobby? Better go talk to Mitt Rino.
I think Newt missed a good chance to turn things back to Obama. He should have brought up Obama’s eagerness to treat this or that group of Americans as the enemy (big oil, wall street, bible toting gun clingers, ...).
And for the record, I am quite unhappy that our current president does not support; Americans, American ideals, American business, American Taxpayers, American Citizens, The Constitution...
Do I get a pity party now?
Sounds like a paraphrase. Perhaps Newt said, "I'm not going to represent gay Americans as if they were different from any other Americans. If you want a president who will follow the Constitution and reduce the size of government so that the private sector can create jobs, then I'm your man, but if you want someone who divides the country into special interest groups with special rights for each group, then you should probably support Obama." In that case, Newt's answer was what I want my president to think, and I personally don't have a problem with him saying it. The real question: what was the rest of Newt's answer?
FINALLY! Well said, Mr. Gingrich. I think he’s figured out that you can’t pander to the pillow-biters and expect to keep the conservative vote.
Lessee here, a Muslim writer bashing Newt for supposed anti-gay speech?
Muslims behead gays.
I guess the old saying holds: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
I wasn't there but I can say categorically that this statement is a lie. The man likely tried to get Newt to state if he would off push for special rights for rights for gays and then Newt said he would be better off supporting Obama.
“When you ask somebody a question and you expect them to support all Americans and have everyone’s general interest,” Arnold said. “It’s a little bit frustrating and disheartening when you’re told to support the other side, that he doesn’t need your support.”
kind of like when obama told white working class males to go pound sand.
Now there’s a reason to support Gingrich! if only he were electable in the general election.
If gays want to be able to claim that any man who declines on their advances is homophobic, then, DumBO is their man.
Has the New York Daily News recently hired ex-NYT lefty “journalists” or is this simply the product of the inclusive progressive RINOs who think true conservatives should welcome gays and such with open arms? =.=