Boop the Bottle! Don't Annoy the Baby!
All Babies Love Their Bottles
Donate monthly and end FReepathons!
Sponsors will donate $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/17/2012 6:37:23 AM PST by xzins
Newt Gingrich's fluent, policy-rich performances in the early debates, laced with derision for the media's attempts to question the Republican candidates, propelled him to the front of the GOP pack in early December.
His command of the stage here in Myrtle Beach for the 16th (yep, there have been that many, and the next is in Charleston on Thursday) could just be the lifeline he needs to achieve the task he has set himself - overcoming Mitt Romney's clear lead in the South Carolina polls to win the state on Saturday.
Romney was under pressure over releasing his tax returns (he eventually said that he would "probably" do so in April), on why he had not objected as Massachusetts governor to felons on parole having the right to vote and he gave an awkward, fumbling response to a softball about whether he had been hunting since 2007, even mixing up moose and elk.
Gingrich, however, ... scored quite a few points against Romney and the former Speaker's fluency with policy and ability to dissect questions and make a big-picture conservative case against Obama made him the night's big winner.
There were two standing ovations for Gingrich in the hall, where 3,000 Republicans roared, cheered ...
Gingrich said that in the debate room "there was a strong sense that somebody finally just had the courage to tell the truth about how we've got to go about helping people".
"...it's clear if you look at the polls the only conservative who can beat Romney in South Carolina is Newt Gingrich... we have five days to win South Carolina. I think we will win South Cariolina."
A lot of conservatives are queasy about Romney and unconvinced that he could beat the President in November.
(Excerpt) Read more at harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk ...
Another reason why I don’t want Romney, No More Political Dynasties, be they Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, or Romneys.
Where in the world did you get that from?
Are you talking about Romney or Obama?
LOL!
Twins from the same momma.
Vote Gingrich or get Romney = Obama.
All this time, the Obama people have been planning for Romney and they are being thrown into panic mode over a possible Gingrich candidacy.
Ah Bullshit. Some of you peeps just don't dare to risk success.
LOL!
Yes, I think Santorum dinged him but good, and then Perry and Gingrich added to his misery, and then the booing probably put Mittens in a tailspin. At least it surely looked that way from this end. :^D
He looked like a wet cat, wondering what the heck just happened. Hahahahahaha! Man, that was good TV.
No, Nixon didn’t discuss Vietnam during the presidential debates, but that isn’t what I said. I said he was on record, that he had a position, that he shared is position, and everyone knew it.
I’ve heard Henry Kissinger say Nixon never thought Vietnam was a winnable scenario, even when he was VP. When Nixon took office in 1969, he still didn’t think it was winnable. What Nixon would have done in 1969, if he could have, would have been to just pull out, because he viewed the Vietnam war as a roadblock to his higher goal: detente with the Russians and Chinese. But, that would have been political suicide. His “peace with honor” was never really successful, but his goal was to somehow get out, not win the war (because he never thought it could be won).
Nixon would not have sent troops into Vietnam had he won the 1960 election. Of that I’m certain. If you’d do a little more digging into the Nixon of the 1950s and 1960s, you’d be certain of it also.
Qemoy and Matsu are near Taiwan. They don’t really have a place in a discussion on Vietnam.
You forgot to tag this as humor.
They broadcast their fears by attacking. They fear Gingrich, and rightfully so. He's the Pit Bull this country needs right now.
(BTW, my post wasn't directed “to” you, I was looping you in because the other poster had disagreed with you, saying that Santorum was also a viable candidate.)
I must confess, and I'm absolutely certain about this...I fail to see anger in Newt Gingrich. People talk about this anger, and I just don't see it.
Are you talking about the way he speaks with conviction? Is that what people are taking to be anger? I am truly confused on this one. Most of time I see him smiling, affable, collegial, and instructional. Then he pivots in those moments of insight and says something with great conviction. But Anger? I've not seen it.
Now, about the marriage with the woman who was his former mistress.
How many American's do you suppose have someone in their family who has been divorced among their brothers, sisters, parents, or cousins? It suggests to me that the entire institution of marriage has been sold as a "they will make you fulfilled physically and emotionally the rest of your life" kind of relationship.
Then they discover that isn't true and that the marriage they've entered should not have been.
That is why the Catholic church granted Gingrich an annulment of especially that first marriage: it shouldn't have been in the first place.
Now answer this: would you have doubts about the marriage if your 16 year old daughter was in an illegal sexual relationship with her 24 year old teacher? They hid it, hid it, and when she came of age, they married.
In your mind, would that be a relationship made in heaven, or if you found out, would you turn that teacher in to the authorities?
Spoken like a true Christian, don’t you worry your pretty little whatever, I’ll be out voting.
Spoken like a true Christian, don’t you worry your pretty little whatever, I’ll be out voting.
Romney has way too many “home states”. Michigan, Mass, NH, Utah.
I wish he would move to the state in Mexico that he his daddy was born in.
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.