Posted on 11/30/2011 1:15:25 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Republicans who don't want to vote for Mitt Romney had rallied behind the Atlanta businessman, but his campaign has been rocked by accusations of an affair. And the former House speaker has a marital track record of his own.
...Gingrich has vaulted into the top tier on the basis of his performance in televised debates, which have largely driven Republican voter preferences this year...
But an indication of discomfort in some quarters over Gingrich's rise came Tuesday when a new attack on the former House speaker surfaced online from a group calling itself Iowans for Christian Leaders in Government.
...."Newt is famous for being all over the board," Cary Gordon, an influential pastor from Sioux City, Iowa, told the Des Moines Register. "He is admirable in many ways, but I won't back him. I don't trust him."
Cain, for his part, told senior staff members in a Tuesday conference call that he was assessing whether the affair allegations "create too much of a cloud" for his campaign to continue.
.....Grubbs seemed bothered by a statement released Monday by Cain's attorney, Lin Wood, who said a candidate's "private sexual life" is not the business of the public or the media.
The tone of Wood's remarks also dismayed Richard Land, an evangelical leader who is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
"What I read into it was, he wasn't denying the allegation, but it didn't involve sexual harassment so it didn't rise to the level of being discussable," Land said. "Mr. Cain is running as the family values candidate, and when you're the family values candidate, you better understand you are asking to be judged by a different standard."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I know, but he is a sleaze.
FWIW, I don't think Newt did anything wrong lobbying for clients after he left office. It's the system we have and it's legal. If he's the nominee I think it will get lots of play because it will feed right into the "insider" image that obama will want to define him as and will hurt him with the public. The same thing with the Tiffany's account. He didn't do anything wrong, but because envy is so acceptable now he will be made out to be a "bad rich guy" because he made money and bought expensive things for his wife.
It would be nice to see Pubs seriously consider the pros and cons of the candidates and how the cons will be used against them. Perry has been hurt by poor debate performances, but that's it! Perry is solid in his personal life. Perry has a solid conservative record. Perry has been Gov of a State with the 13th largest economy in the world and while other states declined TX grew. Yet right now he is not considered our best candidate. Go figure.
Bingo!
I see 2 candidates that have accomplished conservative goals when they were in office, Perry and Gingrich.
Gingrich is the better debater, but has baggage and with him you always have to wonder when he will have his "Nixon goes to China" moment.
Perry doesn't debate as well, but is more than solid in all other areas and has a 10 yr track record to look at.
I'm with Perry. I've given money to him and will do so again. If Newt gets the nomination I will vote for him, but I think we will have lost an opportunity to turn our country back into a republic.
I agree with you about the Tiffany's account. That was none of anybody's business. Pure and simple. But the fact that his former chief of staff could go to work for Fannie Mae and then hire Ginrich's company to 'consult', and that's perfectly legal is a big part of the problem. It's wrong. The legality doesn't matter because the very people who benefit from the revolving door between Congress and K Street are the ones who write the laws. At a very bare minimum it is an abuse of power and that in and of itself is corrupt.
see 2 candidates that have accomplished conservative goals when they were in office, Perry and Gingrich.
Gingrich is the better debater, but has baggage and with him you always have to wonder when he will have his “Nixon goes to China” moment.
Perry doesn’t debate as well, but is more than solid in all other areas and has a 10 yr track record to look at.
I’m with Perry. I’ve given money to him and will do so again. If Newt gets the nomination I will vote for him, but I think we will have lost an opportunity to turn our country back into a republic.
*******************************************************
With you 100% on every point!
Your posting history speaks for itself. A look at your heart would be like gazing on a Gorgon.
Which posts would those be in CW’s posting history? I’m curious, as I’ve seen CW the subject of various personal attacks by Cain supporters, but I don’t recall CW going onto a Cain thread to bash Cain’s supporters. Should be easy to do, right, since you’ve looked at her posting history?
Whichever candidate supports a robust national defense; small, non-interventionary federal government; and aggressively pushes states’ rights.... ought to be our candidate.
Nothing else really matters.
Romney, Newt, Cain... none of these believe in that.
I’ve been long saying that the American electorate is ripe for a demogogue. And I was right, just look at Obama.
That said, I didn’t really think that conservatives would fall for the same trap... yet look at the mass of supposed conservatives, flitting from candidate to candidate, looking for their ‘savior’.
First Palin, then Trump, then Perry, then Cain, and now Newt.
Whatever happened to looking at yourself, figuring out what *YOU* believe in, and then looking for the candidate that meets as many of those ideals as possible?
I know that I’ll be voting in the primary for the candidate that supports my beliefs. Which are: strong national defense, small federal government, states’ rights, and creating a favorable environment for economic growth (and jobs).
Gingrich is the better debater, but has baggage and with him you always have to wonder when he will have his “Nixon goes to China” moment.
Perry doesn’t debate as well, but is more than solid in all other areas and has a 10 yr track record to look at.
I’m with Perry. I’ve given money to him and will do so again. If Newt gets the nomination I will vote for him, but I think we will have lost an opportunity to turn our country back into a republic.
*******************************************************
With you 100% on every point!
Exactly my thoughts also.
I’m sticking with Cain as well.
Cain supports robust national defense, small government and state’s rights... your statement is wrong.
i am glad to hear that...
tell others and tell them why.
the media has distorted his nuclear comment on china... they can see what was said by cain and then reported...
they exaggerated the number of accusers, it was only 2, when they said 4, and only one made it public... until ginger, who shows phone records and book signings as proof to an illicit affair...
HERMAN can do this
CAIN is able
obummer is worried.
pray for Cain’s safety.
t
thanks
Really? How is expanding the Federal government’s ability to tax us considered a ‘small-government, states’ rights’ position?
And I’ve yet to hear how he’ll repeal *ANY* of Obama’s executive orders.
Or eliminate any Federal departments. Or return any sort of federal control back to the states.
Cain only supports one of the three... and even then, it’s weak, with him simply saying that he’ll support whatever decision his advisors want him to regarding national defense.
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.