Skip to comments.Fred Thompson endorses Newt Gingrich
Posted on 01/23/2012 6:54:16 PM PST by LonePalm
click here to read article
Having a rational, give-and-take discussion about the strong points of the one candidate and the weak points of the other—this is not allowed. Only the complete condemnation of the one and the uncritical praise of the other is allowed. I would have good things and bad things to say about each if I were to go into detail, so I won’t.
Sweet like chocolate! :)
I should add, reading a bunch of “FU”s, enraged pejoratives, capital letters, and exclamation points directed against a candidate does nothing to persuade me. In fact, it has the opposite effect. Reasoned discussion would be much more persuasive.
Don’t forget the brilliant Thomas Sowell’s endorsement of Newt.
His answering machine says something like, ‘leave me a message and it better be thorough if you want a response.’
Surely, you can come up w/something. You'll be the first though. I have asked for two months - what has Mitt done FOR our country and not for his own glory and pocket - and no one can supply an answer? Is it because he said we are in recovery and gave Barry kudos for that? Or is it his stuttering or ability to talk and not answer the question. Or do you just like the empty suit?
No one is allowed to give an answer.
I love it!
I’m a FredHead. ;o)
FDT 08 Alumni BookMark ;)
May God guide our course.
over 2 million voters in the FLA primary. Next up: Maine begins on 2/3 and NEV on 2/4.
Fewer than 10,000 will participate in ME. Not sure why there is so little interest here in actually participating. ME seems like a logical place to have an impact.
Finally I get some value of the $100 I gave FRed in 2008. Man Jerri would have made a great first lady!
I gave $100 to Cain but we don’t need his endorsement. I’ll eat that one!
I still have my Fred 08’ mug sitting proudly on my desk. The best candidate in the last 40 years not to become President. He would have been a great one. His vice was coming out of the box too slowly and believing he could build momentum. Romney and McCain simply had too many resources for that to be a successful strategy.
during the 2008 primaries.
Sorry to hear about the loss of your friend, not only for you, but also for Free Republic and our nation, which has lost far too many heroes like him. May God bless and keep him.
I hope he gives Newt the money I sent him the day before he resigned his campaign
Good. I voted for Fred on super Tuesday in 2008, after the election had already been handed to McCain.
Gingrich has some very juicy material on Romney for his commercials, particularly if he can get the video. Romney pro-mandates. Romney making permanent the Massachusetts "assault weapons ban". Lots of good stuff if Newt decides to open that can of whup-ass.
The announcement was well done too. Go Fred!
The announcement was well done too. Go Fred!
I'm painfully aware of the flaws of all the candidates this primary season, but I can't give Romney any serious consideration based on his history of flip-flopping on abortion. That's a deal-breaker for me.
At this point, Gingrich looks like our best chance of defeating Romney. I wish we had better alternatives, but the choice is between Santorum and Gingrich, and unless something happens quickly for Santorum, Gingrich will be the last alternative left to Romney.
The question for me is first, who can defeat Obama in the general election, and second, who can defeat Romney in the Republican primaries. I realize since both of us live in Missouri, it's more complicated for us (as it also is for voters in Virginia) because Gingrich didn't get on our state primary ballot — and while the Missouri nonbinding primary is coming soon, by the time the Republican caucuses get held in Missouri, the race will likely be over.
62 posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 10:55:33 PM by Charles Henrickson: “At this point I am undecided between Romney and Gingrich. There's lots that I like about Romney, and there's lots that I like about Gingrich. I cheer for both men when they say something good at a debate. I also recognize flaws in each man, I have reservations about each. I think they're pretty much on the same page on the issues. Either one would be much, much better than Obama. I'm ABO. The main question for me is which one has the better chance of defeating Obama. May the best man win.”
Yea, I thought Duncan Hunter was the best conservative then also. But the majority of American citizens, some dead and in the grave, voted for the obamanation of America's desolation and his hope and change. And so every one who voted for him has their part in bringing in the sorrows that we all suffer under the regime of the evil man. I believe that Rick Santorum is the best conservative running and would do his best to return America to a semblance of freedom and justice and family values, but DC is a barrel of rotten apples and needs to be replaced. I also believe that will not happen until God in the person of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior of those who believe Him, when He returns after the 7 year tribulation to rule and reign over the earth as the Holy King of God the trinity in Israel, His beloved. The Father will make all His enemies His footstool for 1000 years and then God will burn the whole earth and create the new heavens and the new earth He said He would at the end of tribulation as the book of Revelation foretell us who believe the Scriptures.
“The knife wounds in Freds back that he got from Mittens must have healed after four years. Good.”
Did the ones he got from Dr. Dobson heal too?
I found our local station reruns the old L & O with Hill, Moriarity, Brooks, etc.. Moriiarity complained the show took the leftist slant when either Dick Wolf or Rene Balcer got involved.
I’m not sure if I agree with that because (apologies for actor names not character names) Sam Waterson is a big Lib as is Stephen Hill. Even Anthony Anderson, Benjamin Bratt and Linus Roache who portray “Conservatives” are caricatures.
Stop with your nonsense and victimhood mentality. You simply can’t - no one can.
LOL! You actually think I'm trying to persuade you? I guess I think more of you than you do of yourself - that you are a grown up and can think on your own. So I see now you're not with that comment! I think you're just an attention seeker. Bye troll.
103 posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:26:19 AM by Charles Henrickson: I should add, reading a bunch of FUs, enraged pejoratives, capital letters, and exclamation points directed against a candidate does nothing to persuade me. In fact, it has the opposite effect. Reasoned discussion would be much more persuasive.
You and I are both not only evangelical Christians but also members of confessional churches. That means truth for us is not mere sound bites but rather involves detailed examination of issues, realizing that human sin corrupts everything and very few issues are purely black-and-white — most issues are very seriously tainted with sin on all sides and nothing is good except God alone. While my adherence is to Reformed doctrinal statements and yours is to those of Lutheranism, we're both used to the idea that truth needs pages to convey correctly, not a few sentences.
So let me appeal to you as a fellow confessional conservative. I happen to find this Free Republic thread helpful by a pastor who personally knows Gingrich and has endorsed him. The author has taken the time to write a very detailed evaluation of Gingrich's spiritual condition, and while I continue to have concerns, the post is something that should at least be considered by those with continuing questions about Gingrich.
Romney may have been the best the Republican Party could offer in Massachusetts, and I understand that to win elections, we sometimes have to vote for people who we don't like very much because the alternatives are worse. But voters in the rest of America are far more conservative, and the best we can get elected in Massachusetts is a lot different from the rest of America.
Do we really have to settle for a Massachusetts moderate who told his audience in a debate when running for governor that he's been pro-choice for his entire political life and that was the position of his own mother when she ran for office decades ago in Michigan (my home state, by the way)? There are other things wrong with Romney as well, but for me, abortion is the deal-breaker. If we can't trust Romney to be a solid pro-life conservative, can we trust him to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will be more committed to pro-life positions than himself? The primary purpose of the civil magistrate is to protect the people under his rule, and protecting the lives of babies from baby-killers is a pretty minimal standard which Romney, not many years ago, was explicitly denying.
I can make a very long list of what I believe is wrong with other Republican candidates, but the fact is that Gingrich won South Carolina — a state I still can't believe he won — and he won it by a wide margin. That means he probably can win the rest of the South.
As socially conservative evangelicals, we're probably going to have to make our peace with the fact that Gingrich, flaws and all, is going to end up as the only viable alternative to Romney.
Don't ask me to be happy with that. I'm not. But if we can't win elections, we can't govern, and right now it looks like Gingrich has shown he can win an election in a place where I'm very surprised he was able to do so. That makes him, at least for now, the most viable alternative to Romney.
I'll definitely reconsider if Santorum gains traction, and in Missouri I have no choice but Santorum because Gingrich isn't on the ballot. But at least for now, we'd better as Christian conservatives figure out how we're going to deal with a President Gingrich or we're going to end up with a President Romney or (even worse) a re-elected President Obama.
Now how did Fred get John McPain’s permission to do that?
bump to the top
Rev. Henrickson is a Missouri Synod Lutheran minister with more than a decade of participation on Free Republic.
He's not a frequent poster on the political threads, but he is no troll.
A side point to everyone, me included: We as conservatives need to deal with the fact that the level of our discourse on the internet is not ... ahem ... very much like that of the Federalist Papers. People who think and write like the authors of the Federalist Papers act the ways the Founding Fathers acted.
People who don't think and write that way don't act that way, either.
That's a lesson all of us need to remember. Let's leave the trash talk and destructive discourse to the liberals. They're good at it. We shouldn't try to emulate them.
I wouldn't characterize Hannity's show as a prop mill for Romney. Hannity has been fairly critical of him, especially of late.
I understand what Charles is saying, and know that he speaks for a lot of good, solid conservative freepers who don't do much posting.
Thoughtful discourse is a very difficult thing to manage on this board, and sometimes is best avoided if you're not a group thinker.
Fred looks better now than he did four years ago. Or else my eyes are worse and there’s too much glare on the screen. :)
Also it seems like Hannity is coming around to the love of Newt.
Newt/Fred would make an acceptable ticket.
“Amen to your thoughtful post, darrell. I understand what Charles is saying, and know that he speaks for a lot of good, solid conservative freepers who don't do much posting. Thoughtful discourse is a very difficult thing to manage on this board, and sometimes is best avoided if you're not a group thinker.”
Thanks for your thanks, ohioWfan, but more importantly, thank you for the service of your Bronze Star recipient. None of us would be able to talk the way we do on Free Republic if it were not for the freedoms for which our soldiers fight.
As for the internet and groupthink — Yes, I realize the problem, and I definitely do **NOT** blame this forum. It's a problem all over the internet and Free Republic is much better than most places.
As the son of a Republican politician who has spent virtually all of my entire adult life working in the news media, I think it's not impossible to use “mass media” forums to educate people and try to bring up the standard of discourse beyond sound bites.
Some people will tune that out. Lots of people tuned out the Founding Fathers, too. But they managed to create a country based on the work of those who **WERE** listening.
Today's internet is much like the “penny press” from a century and a half ago — virtually anyone can say virtually anything and get an audience, subject only to the truth that the owners of the press decide what gets printed. Furthermore, the people who yell the loudest often get the most readers, as men like Hearst and Pulitzer found out. That's not a bad thing if we believe the Founders were right about the First Amendment and about the right to private property.
Let's look on the good side of that. We conservatives aren't confined to sitting back and writing stuffy articles in conservative political journals that get read by almost nobody outside academia and the upper levels of the political parties and news media. We can reach hundreds of thousands of people who actually vote, and who actually know neighbors who vote and go door-to-door to get them to vote.
That's a Republic in action, and it's a really good thing.
Nothing’s perfect, and I'd rather deal with the problems of internet discourse than deal with the problems of the liberal control of a largely monopolized news media that we had not very many years ago.
Good for Fred (my 2008 candidate); good for Newt.
Thanks for your posts, Darrell. I’ll come back to them later. Gotta run now.
“Only the complete condemnation of the one and the uncritical praise of the other is allowed. “:
FR will not be used to promote Romney or bash Newt. If you don’t like it you are free to post somewhere else.
Absolutely! The internet, with all its shortcomings - in particular the nastiness that comes with anonymity, and something we all need to check in ourselves - allows the conservative message to be discussed, sometimes rationally, sometimes not, but at least put forth.
We are in a far better place now than we were when leftists controlled nearly everything broadcast or in print, and that, in the end, is very good for America, and at this point in history, I think, imperative for its survival.
Ah, the liberal ' don't you know who I am '! LOL! I'd say that's a real desperate attempt. I don't know one minster who cowers from speaking Truth or blaming others because they can't. Although I do know they exist.
This is a conservative 'WeThePeople' site - not a religious site. We don't bow to or support known lying candidates and never support them. They are repulsive as are their con man tactics designed to deceive. But ministers do embrace them - just ask Rev Jerry Wright! It takes all kinds for evil to survive.
And that's what this site is all about. Now tell us what is conservative about Mitt.
“Never underestimate the stupidity of the ignorant chattering class.”
I am talking about just people in your life.
In local elections or elections for offices people know little about, endorsement can be of real value....but in a Presidential race?
If I may offer another opinion here, which Charles may feel free to correct, I believe what he is saying is that Mitt is not 100% evil and Newt is not 100% good, but that honest discussion is frequently prevented by those who have jumped on bandwagons, and who seek to dishonor all who disagree.
Sort of like you're doing right now.....
Otherwise you might call me a troll, all the facts notwithstanding.
I think you’re missing my point, probably not putting it well.
Do you think Fred’s endorsement is going to really change anyone’s vote?
I would as the same thing about Bob McDonnell’s endorsement of Romney.
This was just a small question that occurred to me the other day.
GOD! Do I need a life! :-)
After last night, I would like a different candidate to enter. There are a handful of good people but for the sake of avoiding a foodfight and derailing my main point below,, let’s say “Rubio” since most everyone here approves of him.
What I’d like the pro Newt group to outline for me is how Newt plans on winning some of the following states. Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Penn, Colorado.
We have to win probably three of those states minimum to beat Obama in the electoral college. I live in Wisconsin. People in the Midwest do not like Newt. His favorability numbers are worse than Palin’s in many ways.
I have neighbors and relatives who voted Bush in 2000 and 2004 and Obama in 2008. In the past 48 hours I’ve had some of those people going crazy with comments about how they hate Newt. These are the people we need to get to win the election.
We can scream all we want about how Newt is superior, but at the end of the day, Newt has to explain to us how he’s going to win these critical swing states. I am very skeptical he can do it.
Yep, owners have the right to do what they want with their private property and I respect that.
I know your post was to Rev. Henrickson, but I want to respond as well.
I oppose Romney. Free Republic woke me up to how seriously wrong Romney's past positions were on abortion. I truly did not know that, and I think a lot of other Christian conservatives still don't realize just how bad Romney's prior views are, and how he gave every appearance of changing them based on political polling. Polls said he couldn't win Massachusetts as a pro-lifer so he became publicly pro-choice after a visit to Utah to explain to Mormon leaders what he was going to do. Then he became publicly pro-life when he decided to run for president as a Republican. No way do I want that kind of man picking Supreme Court judges who, after their Senate confirmation hearings, will never have to face voters again in their lifetime term of office!
Lots of us in the Christian conservative movement know Mormons personally. We know their emphasis on socially conservative family values, and we know the strict discipline they mete out to "wayward ones." We don't agree on theology, but many of us just can't conceive of how the Mormon Church could put up with Mitt Romney's pro-abortion politics, so we might be inclined to cut him some slack — until we remember Harry Reid, or get shown the actual videos of just how bad the stuff Romney said really was. Well, at least Reid had the integrity to be a Democrat. Once we realize what Romney's views really were — and had been been all the way back to his mother who lost a campaign based on being pro-choice — many of us Christian conservative start to get seriously upset.
For me, that's an absolute deal-breaker because of the Supreme Court issue. Too many Republican-nominated Supreme Court justices have gone on to become serious problems in their lifetime terms of office.
Again, Free Republic woke me up with regard to Romney. If it weren't for Free Republic I might still be on the fence. Thank you to FR — and let's see if we can get that message out to people who don't read FR but might watch a YouTube video of Romney talking if it's sent from our email accounts.
As for Gingrich, I'm not yet convinced. I can't vote for him anyway in Missouri because he didn't make the Republican primary ballot, and by the time the Missouri Republican caucuses come around, the nomination will probably be settled.
But barring something new showing up, I can almost certainly vote for Gingrich if the choice comes down to Gingrich versus Romney, or Gingrich versus Obama.
Hope that's clear enough for some Freepers who felt I've been attacking Gingrich. I remain seriously concerned, but elections count, and South Carolina proved that Gingrich can win Christian conservative votes by double-digit margins. I'm not sure what that says for the future of our country, but it does show Gingrich can win the South.
I think the best thing we as Christian conservatives can hope for now is that Gingrich means what he says about involving us in his culture war on liberalism and his international war on Islam. I was impressed, and frankly shocked (in a positive way), by what the pastor whose comments I linked to earlier posted about Gingrich's animosity toward Islam and belief that the Roman Catholic Church has the intestinal fortitude necessary to fight Islam. That's not politically correct at all, and that side of Gingrich I can really appreciate.
Like lots of other Freepers, I'm old enough to remember when Newt Gingrich did what many of us thought was beyond impossible, namely, taking control of the House of Representatives and becoming Speaker of the House.
He said and did things then I didn't like, and he's saying and doing things now I don't like.
But it's hard to argue against success. He won South Carolina. I didn't think he could do that. He won the Speaker of the House post; I didn't think he could do that, either.
And speaking as someone who sometimes gets accused of being too intellectual, I don't have any problem with the accusations that Gingrich thinks he's the smartest person in the room. I think in a lot of cases he may well be the smartest person in the room — he's definitely smarter than me, and he definitely won elections by using his smarts to figure out ways to do what most of us thought was impossible.
Now if Gingrich can figure out a way to convince evangelical Christians outside South Carolina not just to vote for him but also to work for him and donate money and serious campaign time, maybe he can just win this thing.
Right now, unless Santorum catches fire, I can't see we have any other choices left in the Republican race.
"smarter than I " ;*)
(Good post, darrell).