Posted on 11/16/2011 7:20:50 PM PST by TBBT
I have been agnostic on the Republican primary so far, but the time for choosing has arrived.
For the reasons set forth below, I believe that the primaries will come down to Mitt Romney versus Newt Gingrich. As such, the choice is not between Newt Gingrich and some hypothetical more perfect conservative candidate, as Newt’s most vocal critics would have us believe.
I’m supporting Newt Gingrich as the most conservative Republican who is electable and most qualified for the position of President.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
I told you a while back that Cain needed to study up on foriegn policy.
Doesnt look like he did that great a job when asked about Libya. The safest answer would been to say “Let’s see how things go before we judge Libya”. Republicans were all over the map on Libya, do more, do less, do more....
I'll use HotAir as my source... Newt's response Lisa asks Newt (politely, it seems) what he was thinking when he endorsed Scozzafava.:
“ Gingrich:...... “Lets just start with, she is the nominee of the local party, my bias is to be for the nominee of the local party, and I don’t second guess the local party, she has signed a no tax increase pledge, she is endorsed by the National Rifle Association, she has come out against Cap and Trade, [crosstalk] she is opposed to the Obama Health Care plan, she will vote for John Boehner instead of Nancy Pelosi.
All of those things together make her it seems to me, a legitimate, authentic, Republican nominee. In addition, the last poll that came out yesterday, she is well ahead of, and she is much more likely to beat the Democrat than Hoffman because Hoffman doesn’t live in the district, he’s never won an election in the district, she represents the biggest county in the district, she actually knows the local issues, and Hoffman has says publicly he doesn’t know the local issues..
So I just think it is a mistake for the Conservative movement, to think splitting in the special elections is a smart idea, if we give that seat to the Democrats, shame on us…
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/25/video-gingrich-answers-hoffman-supporter-at-book-signing/
first one I found.
I’ll just give you another one, since this is such a fun activity.
http://www.angrywhiteguy.com/?p=4266
Yes Newt Gingrich does 180 and now supports Hoffman… yep Dede Scozzafava drops out of the race and then Newt spins his support for Hoffman… so tell me this Newt if Scozzafava was such a great choice to begin with as a anti-Pelosi, anti-tax, anti- big government canidate… then why did she turn around and endorse the pro-Pelosi, pro-tax, pro big government DEMOCRAT canidate? Explain that!
I'm undecided if or not I want to engage with you about candidates...I prefer straight up discussion not name calling and bashing nor use of old material which has no bearing on the current status of our country and those who are running.
On second thought...no thank you...you are out for character assassination and I won't play that game with you.
Ask Newt...
Oh, I’m sure I’ll see you defending Newt on other threads. You’ll have plenty of chances to read about all of Newt’s adulterys and divorcing of sick wives and you can dive on in there and defend him.
Gingrich is a real conservative who has proven it when in office. Newt has 2 balanced budgets to his credit, 2 near balanced, and 2 after he left office that really are a result of his work.
He stood up for life WHILE in office, he stood for American exceptionalism, for our military, and for the right of self-defense. All of this was WHILE he was in office.
After office, he pursued a number of things, and as with most very active minds, he talks aloud about the things going through his mind, the various thoughts he is weighing.
These are what has gotten him grief. NONE of them, however, were ever implemented or attempted to be implemented WHILE in office.
The global warming thing (both ANWR and Pelosi ad) was thoughts he had PRIOR TO the exposure of fraud in the global warming data.
The “mandate” thing is Newt saying people without insurance should have to pay their own way instead of the rest of us having to pay for them, so they should post a bond or have insurance. He had no additional “program” to go with that thought. I actually believe what he’s said. They should have to pay their own way. That is a very conservative thought.
Nor has he suggested a global government. He’s basically suggested a group of cooperating world true “parliamentary” democracies. (parliamentary = legislature)
In ALL of these, he is saying that American conservatives should look at policy ideas from a “conservative” perspective.
Biblical experts encourage folks to “think biblically about past,present, and future” and we all understand what they mean.
Gingrich appears to be encouraging folks to “think conservatively about past, present, future.” What is a CONSERVATIVE solution, for example, for 4% of America’s children being truly underfed?
“The most notorious incident in Gingrich’s marriage ... was when he cornered Jackie in her hospital room where she was recovering from uterine cancer surgery and insisted on discussing the terms of the divorce he was seeking. Shortly after that infamous encounter, Gingrich refused to pay his alimony and child-support payments. The First Baptist Church in his hometown had to take up a collection to support the family Gingrich had deserted. Six months after divorcing Jackie, Gingrich married a younger woman, Marianne, with whom he had been having an affair.”
http://www1.salon.com/news/1998/08/28news.html
Wow, I gotta tell ya, there’s a lot out there.
Are you sure you don’t want Newt dropping out?
Remember when he was “toast”? Now he’s like freshly embararrased, about to be toast. He is famous though, and a lot of really senile, really old people will remember his name.
The “sick wife” lie has long since been dispelled. You also spread countless lies and half truths about Perry. Like it or not, you have set your own reputation as to how other people see you.
Try something unusual and show support for your candidate for a change, without running somebody down in such a hateful way.
I think I know who you support, perhaps Run Paul. which in itself, explains your nasty predisposition.
For one thing, Gingrich pioneered a denial of adultery that some observers would later christen “the Newt Defense”: Oral sex doesn’t count. In a revealing psychological portrait of the “inner” Gingrich that appeared in Vanity Fair (September 1995), Gail Sheehy uncovered a woman, Anne Manning, who had an affair in Washington in 1977 with a married Gingrich.
“We had oral sex,” Manning revealed. “He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, ‘I never slept with her.’” She added that Gingrich threatened her: “If you ever tell anybody about this, I’ll say you’re lying.”
http://www1.salon.com/news/1998/08/28news.html
Wow, Cain is being accused of trying something like this. They say it’s a major scandal or something
People who support guilty candidates often try to change the subject.
This thread is about Newt Gingrich.
So, because recent polls have indicated that people wouldn’t vote for a candidate with Newt’s background, and Newt’s now toward the top of the polls.
You mentioned Perry. I really really don’t like Perry. Under no circumstances would I vote for Perry.
I’d vote for Newt. But when people start using the “no one left” argument, I have to argue that Newt will be a bloody pulp by Jan 3. These segments from news stories will be what the media would be talking about.
When someone says Newt can win, I say, are you crazy? Look at this stuff.
But I’d vote for Newt. And I’d probably vote for former 4 term US Rep and 1 term Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer, who switched from Democrat to Republican around the same time that Rick Perry did. Roemer also graduated from Harvard Undergrad, and got a Harvard MBA. He also founded a bank.
Why do we have to hear from Gingrich supporters that he’s the last one left, when Buddy Roemer hasn’t even been in one debate, and Buddy Roemer has the education, and the Legislative and Executive and Private Sector experience to belong on the debate stage. Not saying he should win. But until we hear from Buddy Roemer, Newt is not the last one.
Doubt many here will find it convincing.”
True. But guess what? The Jindal/DeMint ticket isn’t going to happen.
So......
His comment on Ryan’s budget, while boneheaded, wasn’t quite what it appeared to be.
Basically, he was speaking of two things that Ryan’s budget failed to do:
1. Offer real choice to the individual
2. Be politically sellable (the GOP is always weak in this department)
I give Newt a pass on this.
The Medicare thing was an analogy, an example.
I care a lot more about what Newt did in Congress (balanced the budget, reformed welfare, etc) than what he did when he was not an elected official.
I swear, that graphic needs to be FR’s new logo.
Key words in your reply: NEWT SAYS. What he says is disputed by others. And what he says makes no catergorical sense at all, You don't pay $1.6 million over 8 years to someone just to tell you you ar wrong. And the guy he had the arrangement with was the CHIEF LOBBYIST for Freddie Mac.
Wow! That is a great speech! He takes aim at both Democrats and Republicans and even calls out George W. Bush. He tells it like it is regarding the war on terror. Worth the time to watch all three parts of this speech. Thanks for posting it!
Like all the other Newt fluff this is long on emotion based rhetoric while being almost complete vacant of any sort of rational fact based argument for Newt.
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.