Posted on 11/18/2011 3:54:43 PM PST by jageorge72
Newt Gingrich's stumble out of the campaign gate -- causing him to lose his top advisors to Rick Perry -- might well be the best thing that has ever happened to his political career. That, along with his debate performances and a handful of other circumstances, explains why the former speaker of the House is now surging in the polls and why it is likely to continue.
And yes -- those are the words of one who has written Newt off for good on more than one occasion. And for what surely seemed like good reasons.
But those reasons seem long past now, as the former speaker has proven himself a far superior advocate to anyone else running of what it is that animates us on the conservative side. And it is this ability -- combined with our craving for someone who has this ability in light of the inarticulate Bush-McCain years -- that has convinced many to take a second, third, fourth, or fifth look at a man many of us had given up on. Yes, we know that Newt has not always acted like a conservative, and yes, he tends toward being an incessant government tinkerer. Yes, some of those marital issues are troubling, as was NY-23 and the David Gregory/Paul Ryan thing and most of all...the Pelosi global warming thing. Yes, we get all that.
Yet, even so, the daydream of Gingrich debating Obama on a stage bigger than merely the presidential contest is something more and more Tea Party folks and others are publicly fessin' up to sharing. Admit it: you were giving Newt a second look long before you dared say so out loud or post it on a message board.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
And don’t forget him going on an Education Tour in 2009 with Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan to support Obama’s education policies.
And advocating the individual mandate for purchase of health insurance even after he’d entered this race — walking it back ONLY after conservatives severely punished him for it.
And . . . the list goes on.
I do not agree that the fact that Newt is a great debater should determine who our nominee is.
I guess Christie’s endorsement of your guy didn’t mean much, eh?
“I did not mean likability is the only factor, it is just more important than many others, of course. My guess is 75% of voters do not spend more than 2 to 3 hours TOTAL studying various candidates on issues before they vote. People visiting sites such as this are much more informed. But most voters are not.”
Well I can tell you this. If these uniformed voters don’t like Obama, they’re gonna love Newt in the debates.
So you don’t want readers to know whom it is you claim to support with the nasty insults you post. Figures
Gingrich has been very committed to the individual mandate in health care reform. That was one of the things (along with calling Paul Ryan's plan "right-wing social engineering") that put his candidacy in the toilet early on in the first place.
Newt Gingrich Had Lucrative Health Industry Ties , (one of many articles on this subject):
[snip]
The Center for Health Transformation, which Gingrich founded, raked in millions of dollars from heavy hitters like GE Healthcare and Wellpoint, as first reported by the Washington Post. The group says it does not lobby, but on its website, it touts its ability to build bridges between the federal government and private sector. Among its strengths, the think tank lists its unparalleled “network of allies” in the federal government, states, corporations and hospitals; “coalition building capabilities,” and “media visibility.”
[snip] He has blasted the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, saying in a video that he is “completely opposed to the Obamacare mandate on individuals,” and that he “fought it for two and half years at the Center for Health Transformation.” But the group, which Gingrich founded, actually supported imposing a mandate on those who made more than $50,000 per year.
CHT spokeswoman Susan Meyers said the group advocates such a move at the state level, not solutions that are “forced at the federal level” and that Gingrich supports “free market solutions.”
“We believe that any idea that states want to originate, that’s fine,” Meyers told ABC News. “It should be their prerogative if they choose to do that.”
Still, Gingrich hasn’t made that clear. In fact, he criticized opponent Mitt Romney for implementing such a “bureaucratic” mandate in Massachusetts.
But what in the world does that have to do with who should be the next President of the United States?
In the most important sense, this election is not about issues at all. It is about what kind of nation we will be--America as we have known it for 235 years, or some corrupt turd world backwater dictatorship. No other candidate is capable of engaging this meta-issue as it needs to be engaged to defeat the combined onslaught of the Left.
Getting caught up in meaningless trivia like the couch picture, or the perfectly legitimate consulting business, routinely lied about here by anti-private sector a-holes, will only insure that the real issue never is addressed--and this country cannot afford that dereliction of duty.
EVERYONE either knows this already or does not care.
I'm not going to choose a nominee based on whether or not he can make an infamously stupid, dangerous bumbler "look stupid."
Not only is that not relevant in my book, the task isn't even hard.
I want to know which Newt we're going to get when he wakes up in the White House. I know which Newt will get when he goes out on the debate stage.
That's true about some people everywhere.
But what's also true is that, no matter how legitimate the criticism, or how dangerous the weakness, of a candidate, "many of the types who inhabit FR" refuse to engage it and instead blithely dismiss it with "No one's perfect."
The truth is that no one is perfect.
That doesn't mean we pretend everyone is equally imperfect (politically or personally), therefore any discussion of their imperfections is not necessary or relevant.
You are right. However, I do like him; I just don’t trust him. I admire his knowledge of the constitution.; he just didn’t carry the water on the contract with america and his past is indicating he will not be the conservative we need.
My disclaimer: I will vote for any GOP nominee, even if it is Ron Paul. The debates between Obama & Newt will be a doosie. (that word comes from the terrific car of yesteryear the Dusenberg) However keep in mind, the only candidate the left hates more than Newt is Sarah. So expect them to come out of the woodwork to vote for Obama. The blacks will break 95%+ for Obama.
I've actually begun to think that the Dems may have even settled in to wanting Newt as the nominee.
Some may say then why are they going to run Newt through the wringer? Answer: They know many conservatives already feel they have no other choice, so roughing up Newt may lead to their dream scenario (a third party) and will certainly depress turn-out and GOP voter intensity.
In the meantime, Newt is the ONLY candidate who would never in a million years peel off any votes from the Democrats:
Uninformed voters don’t even watch the debates.
you make it personal with you constant slamming of a candidate I happen to prefer...on EVERY thread.
Yeh, we get that you don’t like Newt. Who cares if you don’t like him.
you’re about as annoying (you and 2-3 others) as those damn drum beating OWS’rs.
so you’ll sit out if Newt gets it?
Hey, thanks alot.
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.
