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
Most of the time bills are presented for singature that contains dozens if not hundreds of various issues in them. The transportation bill will have education dollars; veto it and the opposition claims you are against education. The education bill will have an abortion issue in it; veto it because of that and your career is sunk as being against education.
Reagan as both Governor and President signed all kinds of bills that he had to hold his nose to sign. Every Governor and President has had to do so. Newt will be no different.
We agree. I'm no fan of Gingrich, but the alternative of a Romney presidency is unacceptable to me. When the time comes, I will cast my vote for Gingrich over Romney.
I refuse to vote for pro-aborts, not as a single issue, but because it is an indicator of a horribly flawed character. If you don't respect innocent life, then all your moral principles become suspect. If your moral principles are suspect, you can't be trusted on any issue.
In Romney's case we see many examples of his malleable positions on moral issues from abortion to the homosexual agenda to state control of life decisions through state-mandated and regulated health insurance.
On moral issues, I see no difference between Obama and Romney. Neither has a remote chance of getting my vote.
While it's nice to hear how others support a candidate, by NO way do they persuade me. If one can be persuaded by anything other than the candidates record, then they also can be persuaded by the media. And that's what they excel in because they have the means to do it and too many willing to listen to their garbage. Garbage in, garbage out.
I have not bashed or trashed, and I will not bash or trash, Newt Gingrich.
Why should you? What is to bash? His love of America is obvious. He hasn't burned the midnight oil studying socialism but Our Constitution. You don't spend your life studying on something you don't have a deep love for. That's patriotism! Contract for America, balance the budget, etc., etc, etc. and his years in Congress have, hands down, shown Newt is the man for the job.
I will give consideration, at least, to other possible Republican nominees, as long as they are campaigning as conservatives
NEWFLASH! They ALL are - so that tactic didn't work.
Comparing a candidates accomplishments FOR AMERICA, Newt wins hands down. Comparing candidates on their truthfulness, Mitt loses hands down. He's a known liar even among his own peers.
And he's lying about repealing obamacare and that would only take an ounce of wisdom to know that. Embracing romneycare and repealing obamacare doesn't even compute! But yet he is able to persuade many that he will! LOL! Con men need suckers to survive as we are living that now. Barry had soros money, the media and his liberal buddies behind him. And mitt has the money, the media and his GOP elite, Wall St behind him. It takes all that to scam Americans and they learn from each other how it's done.
And there is a difference from flip flopping and admitting you flipped - to flipping and not admitting it. And that's Mitt - denying his past exists, 'acting' like he was on the right track when he wasn't.
But I will ar least give such candidates a hearing. To give a candidate a hearing, weighing his pros and cons,
Mitt's pros and cons have been discussed here over and over again and there is a link for it here. He had his 'hearing' since 2008 - he has no new accomplishments but his known backstabbing has continued.
And that's my rant and it's not meant to persuade. Will I trash Mitt? You betcha - every chance I get. Liars repulse me. He can lie on national TV and doesn't flinch but wears that smirky smile. One doesn't need much wisdom and discernment to know what that man is full of - EVIL! Sounds like barry I'm talking about but it's mittens himself, barry's counterpart!
Keep it honest - What bandwagon ‘jumping on the bandwagon’ where you speaking of? It’s easy to follow your posts. Holding the tongue while whining and then pleading innocent is not a conservative trait.
Who did you have in mind? Who are they?
"Bandwagon" - if I support one conservative candidate over another, I will not tolerate even legitimate questions about that candidate. I cannot say anything negative about Bachman, Palin, Gingrich, Cain, Perry, Santorum or any other legitimate candidate without being attacked by those on the "bandwagon."
As I have observed the candidate threads for the last months I have seen a lot of unnecessary attacks by good freepers on "bandwagons."
If you interpreted that one word to mean I was going to be trashing Newt, you were sorely mistaken.
And as for questioning my honesty. The only thing that gets me in trouble is that I am TOO honest. Your attempt to pick a fight with me yesterday, and now your accusation that I am not "honest" prove that you are exactly the kind of freeper who does what I find un-helpful in the overall goal of getting rid of Obama.
I have repeatedly stated my honest opinions. I was leaning toward Cain until he dropped out. Now it is between Gingrich and Santorum for me, and I see positives and negatives in both candidates. As a strong pro-lifer, I love the fact that Rick has been a champion for the sanctity of life. As a fighter, I love the fact that Newt is afraid of no one and will say what we're all thinking.
I see negatives in both of them as well........which all "honest" conservatives do.
Ohio's primary is a number of weeks off, and by that time, I will have made my final decision, but until then, I would like to see honest dialogue, and not petty accusations based on absolutely no facts.
For me, accusations such as you have tried to level at me are the epitome of what is not "honest."
MITT IS 100% EVIL - when he wants to lead this country by his liberal mindset while soldiers have fought and died for our freedoms he is 110% EVIL.
Mitt is not 100% evil and Newt is not 100% good, but that honest discussion is frequently prevented
There is NOTHING honest about Mitt to discuss - obviously you disagree with those who have jumped on the American bandwagon. Mitt's got a commie bandwagon - just jump on it and leave Patriots alone - we have nothing to discuss with you.
He knows he must lie to get votes and he knows he doesn't have conservative values and has his own liberal ideas for our country, he knows he needed lots of money and media support to carry off his con job on America. He knows he has to LIE constantly and backstab Newt because he is in his way to accomplish his liberal goals. NEWT is PRO AMERICA, Mitt is ANTI-AMERICA as is his protector, the media, who covered for barry, also!
So don't EVER post to me that Mitt is not 100% EVIL!! And you dishonored yourself - no one needs to do it!
And I'm on the bandwagon FOR American and, obviously, you are not! Stop talking with split tongue - so you can hang on.
They voted for obama - well then you have liberals for neighbors. So what’s the big deal. This year they have two choices - barry or mitt.
Here - give them this about obama’s counterpart - the known liar.
Until then, you may continue this fight with yourself, since you obviously either can't read, or choose not to think, and this 'discussion' is of no use to either of us.
Sincerely and honestly,
(Your apology will be accepted if at any point in the future, you figure out what I really was saying).
dm: I second that entire post!
Read post 177 (which you quoted) and 182 (where what I quoted was requoted by another person). I can live with Santorum or Gingrich though I'm not a huge fan of either.
In my state I don't have a choice. Gingrich is not on the ballot for the Missouri primary. The race is likely to be over when the Missouri caucuses get held.
I think your underlying question is who I oppose. To be crystal clear, I believe the primary purpose of government is to protect its people from attack. Ron Paul's foreign policy and Mitt Romney's history of flip-flopping on abortion make them both unacceptable. Neither baby-killing nor caving in to Islamofascism are tolerable.
191 posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 11:55:41 AM by BlackElk: “dm: I second that entire post!”
And now you bring up other candidates no longer in the race? LOL!! That's call the romney double speak. Go, you are getting to be more repulsive by each post - I'm done with you. You were good for one reason - to prove my point.
WHAT? I say what I mean and mean what I say. I have NO underlying question.
YOU: not to attack our alternative conservative candidates.
ME: Who did you have in mind? Who are they?
All you had to do is give me the names - that's all I asked for! And you spin that into I have an underlying question and I want to know who you oppose! AMAZING!!!!
To be crystal clear,
And being crystal clear - you STILL didn't give me the names and that's ALL I asked for. This reminds me of Mitt debating - lots of junk and no answer to a very simple question.
Santorum and Gingrich. In that order — at least for now.
I don't see how I could be clearer than that.
If you'd asked me not too long ago, I would have added Perry to that list as another acceptable alternate candidate to Gingrich, but he's no longer an option by his own choice.
And the people who actually worked with him in the House?
Many of them have endorsed Romney...does that matter?
Let me explain something to you theologically regarding my first post, and one of your responses.
No matter how much you or I hate Mitt Romney, he is not "100% evil," and no matter how much we like Newt, he is not 100% good. Even if you do consider some people "100% evil," one assumes you're talking about the Stalins, Pol Pots, Hitlers, Maos, bin Ladens, etc.....not a political rival.
I didn't think then, nor do I think now that saying Mitt was not 100% evil was a statement with which any rational person would disagree.
We are all fallen creatures, our righteousness as 'filthy rags'.....no good at all on our own. We are also all made in God's image, therefore not 100% evil......not even Mitt.
And stating that is in no way supporting the man, but only the reality that your hyperbolic opinion is not accurate.
My only point was that for political discussions to be worth anything, we can't be jumping all over each other's backs for minor differences. We have to be able to discuss the essence of conservatism, and the details as we perceive them.....whether the social issues or the economic issues are more important to us......and do it respectfully.
As long as there are people like you who call other conservative freepers "dishonest" and "repulsive" when they are on the exact same side of the issues, and probably supporting the same candidate in the end, you are diminishing the entire process.
You can insult me until the cows come home, but if nothing you said has any basis in fact, it only makes you look bad.
And right now, you really do look bad....
Fred is also a good man in that contest but I didn't think that his heart was really ever in the race but Duncan couldn't get arrested - the Establishment already had picked their man.
Hopefully, that won't be the case this year.
Oh......and I forgot to mention how amazed and amused I was when I read this goofy comment.
You are VERY confused, no name. VERY confused.
But it did make me laugh when I read it, so I guess that's worth something, eh?