Poll: Gingrich on top in Mississippi

cnn ^ | March 9, 2012; 4 minutes ago | Gabriella Schwarz

[Red Steel]

(CNN) – Newt Gingrich is edging out his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination in Mississippi, according to a new poll.

The American Research Group survey of likely Republican primary voters released Friday showed Gingrich with 35% support, followed by Mitt Romney with 31%, Rick Santorum with 20% and Ron Paul with 7%.

Gingrich's margin over Romney increased slightly among those who said they will definitely vote in the March 13 primary, 37% to 30%. Santorum garnered 17% support and Paul received 5% among the same group.

The poll was conducted after Super Tuesday, when each of the GOP White House contenders picked up delegates. Romney won the popular vote in six states, while Santorum captured three and Gingrich nabbed one, his native Georgia.

Despite calls for him to bow out of the race, Gingrich has said he will remain in the contest until the convention and has also stressed the importance of wins in Mississippi and Alabama, which both vote on Tuesday.

[Palin_Rubio2012]

Maybe you are too young to remember but the dims made Newt the most hated man in America. They toasted him and Clinton used that as his leverage to get reelected.

They used his “letting SS wither on the vine” comment to the max. Unfairly yes but they already know how to dismantle him. Then all the personal baggage just sunk him for years.

[DoughtyOne]

I was on the way out the door when I read your extremely long critique of my reply to your remark.

Frank, while you were reading my response, did you happen to notice I addressed every issue you raised?  I posted what you had written, and responded on point.  That in an of itself is a respectful way of showing that I was taking your thoughts into consideration in a serious manner.  I expressed a thought on all of what you were saying.  Your posting style is to provide a lot of commentary in a long paragraph or two.  To respond on point I have to break that out.  This creates a much longer response.  Your words are reposted, and my thoughts are then posted behind them.

I admit this makes for a long post, but I think it's the best most respectful way to address your thoughts.  If you disagree, that's your right.

I addressed part of it before I left.

Okay, thank you.

...and most of yours was not only an attack on Newt but I also believe on me as you have seen fit to speak for me and then tell me where I’m wrong.

I complimented you on the level of your presentation.  If I disagree with the conclusions you came to, that's about all I can state that is complimentary.  That's the nature of a posting of disagreement.  I tried to make that clear up front out of respect.

Did I make disparaging remarks about you.  Did I call you names?  Did I challenge your Conservative credentials?  I did my best to disagree with your conclusions, and at times the meanings I thought were reasoned to extrapolate from your commentary.  At one point I did ask you if you thought you were being consistent, but I don't believe I made any definitive statements of fact about you, other than I thought you made a good presentation.

I said two things about Santorum, three if you count that I said I don’t think he can beat obama.

I am willing to address any instances where you think I put words in your mouth.  The ones you address here, I will do so now.  If you would like to give other examples, I will address them too.  Don't be shy about it.  If I think you've got a point, I'll agree with you and alter my comments.

I said he was Socially Conservative but that his voting record on Social issues was no better than Newt’s and possibly not as good.

Here is what I read in your post:  (I broke this thought in two, so I could address the social and fiscal issues separately.  I don't believe that is unreasonable, as it doesn't alter your views in any perceptible way that I could discern.)

Rick Santorum’s voting record on Socially Conservative issues is at best no better than Newt’s...

As I said, I addressed this portion of the statement separately.  Do you see any mention of, "...and possibly not as good." there?  I don't. 

I viewed these two comparisons to be an attempt to marginalize Rick Santorum's record.  I don't believe that perception is flawed.  You were comparing him to Newt.  I didn't see the comparisons as being presented in a positive light.  That's why I asked you why you didn't address Ricks voting record on Socially Conservative issues the same way you did Newt's later on.  You yourself admit here that his record may actually be as good as Newt's.  So why not give him accolades for it?  Here is how you addressed Newt's Socially Conservative voting record later on.  "His voting record has been consistently “Conservative” whether you are speaking in terms of “Social”...  You seem pretty proud of Newt for his Socially Conservative voting record.  I'm just wondering why you weren't proud of a man that may have voted just as Socially Conservative as Newt.  Why marginalize him this way? "...at best, no better than Newt's..."  Is that an unfair question?

This is the statement I responded with.

But later on here you praise Newt's voting record on Socially Conservative issues.  I don't see any such praise here.  You state yourself, it may even be as good as Newt's (paraphrased), so why no praise for Rick's voting record on Socially Conservative issues?  Is that consistent?

Did I put words in your mouth there?  No.  I merely addressed the implications of your comments.

...then there is the matter of “Fiscally Conservative” issues.

This is how I responded on this matter.

I'll admit that I view this as one of Santorum's weaknesses.  I will also admit to suspecting that a number of issues along these lines, have been leveled somewhat unfairly.  It's quite easy to find a number of things a guy has voted for, when they've been chained onto other legislation that he was compelled to vote for with other Conservatives.  Is Santorum as bad as we have been led to believe by the supporters of other candidates, or is he marginally worse than other people we respect?  I believe he is marginally worse, but by no means disqualified by his actions.  I will weigh this with other evaluations of the candidates.

I should think you would find this rather agreeable.

I am a Conservative and to me that includes being Fiscally Conservative and I pointed out that Santorum’s voting record on Fiscal matters was not as good as Newt’s.

Okay, but in light of what I stated on this issue, I'm not sure what disagreement we have here.  At the very worst, it would have to be a disagreement by degrees.  We both see Santorum as having problems in this area.

I have NEVER said that Santorum or another candidate should not espouse Christian values, that is what you said I said. never used the term “GOODY TWO SHOES” you did, what I said is still posted go back and read it.

Here is what you said.

The difference is being Presidential, not wanting to denigrate Rick but I’ve heard him described as an “over zealous hall monitor” and I believe that is how he will come across and be portrayed.

What aspect of Rick Santorum's nature is this supposed to address, if not his statements based on Christian ethics?  If you have some explanation other than that, I'd be glad to hear it.  You stated that you have heard him described a certain way, and that you (more or less agree, and) believe that is how he will come across and be portrayed.  And saying this, I have to conclude that it is your premise that this would cause him to be seen as non-presidential, non-viable, and therefore not qualified to represent us in a run for the presidency.

How am I supposed to interpret this other than the same as, "I have heard him described as overly focused on Religious convictions, and I believe that is how he will come across and be portrayed. And if that is true, we can't take a chance on nominating him."

Is that an unfair extrapolation?  What other meaning could your comments have?  I honestly don't see any other reasoned explanation.  That's why I responded with...

So what you're saying here is that a Christian man with strong beliefs and isn't afraid to voice them, should be immediately disqualified for the presidency?  I don't believe you think that.  People say lots of things, and it's our duty to weigh them and dismiss them if they are juvenile.

Next you started to move on into the list of accolades that Newt was deserving of being noted for.  What bothered me about his, is that you had just taken Santorum to task for being a hall monitor, being too heavily influenced by Christian ethics, but you were then prepared to go ahead and list Newt's positives.  So here is that next comment of yours, and my response.

Social Conservative issues are important to me but that is not all that’s on the table. We need an extraordinary individual for these times and I can’t think of any, anywhere better suited for the task ahead than Newt Gingrich whether they are in the race or not. Below are some of the reasons I’m for Newt.

Okay, I'll take you at your word, but you just told me you were disqualifying a good Christian man based on the idea he may be seen as a goody-goody two shoes.  There are a lot of things I respect about Rick Santorum, and when you start eliminating him for one of the most important, I'm somewhat baffled that you now think I'd be interested in hearing about some of the virtues of your guy.  Why shouldn't I simply dismiss your guy's finer points too?

One of the things I find interesting about commentaries on the forum, is that there are times when people post things that can only be taken one way, but are worded so craftily that they can deny having ever said what was undeniably implied.  You state that you never used the term 'goody-goody two shoes', and I acknowledge that is the truth.  You merely stated that you had heard Santorum called a hall monitor, and that you agreed he would be seen that way.  If you don't see that as him being the same as a "goody-goody two shoes", then you and I have different ways of interpreting reality.

 I did say that Rick Santorum comes across as an “OVER ZEALOUS HALL MONITOR” I regret using it and don’t want credit for it but it did resonate with me and helps define that NOT-PRESIDENTIAL concern that many have about him but don’t really know how to describe.

Okay look, I'm not attaching any austere intent with regard to these comments.  I do think it's clear you wanted to express a concern you had, that amounted to pretty much what I took away from it, but I don't think you stayed up nights to come up with the commentary in a clever way that would imply what you did.  Even at this point the comments still make sense to you.  I think they convey a worry that it's is a buzz-kill to have a Christian express his moral views in public.

IMO, we need more, not fewer men expressing good morals in public.  Good morals should be seen as an indicator of a good man.  The fact that addressing good morals in public is now seen as something of a negative, makes it clear how important it is, that we begin to see more people pushing high morals, not less.

I'm not looking for a guy who is out to damn others.  I do think it's good for an acknowledged sinner to state that there are some standards we as a people should seek to try to live by.

You yourself said Santorum’s voting record on Fiscal matters was one of his weaknesses, that is a MAJOR weakness.

It is a weakness to be taken into consideration and evaluated in relation to other candidate's weaknesses.  It has never been my premise that Santorum was without blemish.  It has been that Santorum has a set of problems, and other candidates have theirs.  It just seems to me that I'm supposed to acknowledge Santorum's weaknesses, but the supporters of other candidates only want us to talk about their candidates positives.  It doesn't work that way.

After the full court press of trashing and burning Rick Santorum in these parts, I now get the message that we shouldn't talk bad about candidates anymore.

Are you aware that I wouldn't even be defending Santorum here, if he wasn't under constant viscous attack.  I can't even get folks to stop posting proven lies about him.

If Newt's folks and Santorum's folks were just pumping their guys up here, I wouldn't be posting anything about Santorum.  I wouldn't be posting anything about Newt either.  Frankly, neither of them are my cup of tea, but I don't like seeing one guy's supporters go vicious with long lists and such, and the other guy's supporters pretty much refrain from it.

I could go on and on...

Yes I'm certain you could, but I can't go on and on without folks almost passing out in these parts.  Good grief folks, buck up.

...but I really try to promote Newt instead of denigrating others but I must admit I have failed miserably when it comes to Romney and Paul.

To be honest, I think it would be a whole lot more healthy if we focused on the details when it comes to Romney and Paul.  I'm guilty of taking Romney to task quite often, and yet I don't address the specifics.  I think we need to do that, and I'm one of the offenders here.  I think it's best to quantify exactly what Romney and Paul's views are, so people seeing us talk negatively about them, can understand why.

Of course you do recall what prompted me respond to your original post. Earmarks and spending both dropped when Newt became Speaker, they parallel each other on graphs they drop when he came in and remained at a stable level until he left office and then the spending under Speaker Hastert and the Republicans went through the roof.

I addressed these matters in detail in my response to you.  I took the time to look things up, provided links, verified some of what you implied and set the record straight about other parts of it.

The spending did go down under Newt, but it didn't go back up until about four years after he resigned.  That was the time when the big spending focused on the War on Terrorism really began to rise.  You gave Newt too much credit, but I did give him accolades for what he did accomplish.  I believe I was rather even handed about it.

Please don't make me have to go over the same ground time after time.

If you were to look at the tenets and the platform of the modern day Tea Party you will see that it appears to be about the same as the 1994 Contract with America, I didn’t say NEWT founded the Tea Party again that is what you said I said.

This is what you said.

His original “Contract with America” led to CONSERVATIVE Republicans taking the US House of Representatives and appears to be the basis for the modern day Tea Party.

Don't you think it is fair to say that it is your opinion that the Tea Party wouldn't be what it is without Newt's Contract?  Why mention it if you didn't want to give Newt Gingrich some credit for the form the Tea Party was developed in.  You do want to give him accolades, you don't want to give him credit.  Which is it?

This is what I responded with.

His Contract did lead to the Republicans regaining control of the House.  I have given him credit for that for a long time.  I have even argued against folks whose premise was that the development of the contract was actually a group effort.  Either way, he played a highly visible positive role, and deserves credit for that.

Again for you to deny that Newt was involved in the writing of the Contract with America and the leader of the group and it is most likely that it would not have been written and equally as possible that the Republican victory of 1994 would not have occurred.

With all due respect, what possible connection to reality does this comment of yours have?  Read what I had written to you in my earlier response just above, and tell me this makes sense at all.

Here's another comment from that prior response to you.  It touches on the issue of Newt and the Tea Party.

Sorry, I'm not going to join you in giving Newt credit for the Tea Party.  If we're going to give Newt the credit for that, then we need to delve into where Newt came up with his idea for a contract, and give others credit too.  Newt gets credit for the Contract.  Tea Party members get credit for the Tea Party.

It may be seen as a flawed premise, but I happen to think the Tea Party would have still been formed without Newt's Contract.

Here, since this is so important to you, lets look at the contract and the Tea Party tenets.

I marked the items in red that seemed close enough to count them as being the same idea 
    (I more or less gave you one, since one was limited to Congress, and the other addressed all levels of government)

Contract with America LINK

01. require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
02. select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
03. cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
04. limit the terms of all committee chairs;
05. ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
06. require committee meetings to be open to the public;
07. require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
08. guarantee an honest accounting of the Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Tea Party Contract From America LINK

01. Identify constitutionality of every new law
02. Reject emissions trading
03. Demand a balanced federal budget
04. Simplify the tax system
05. Audit federal government agencies for waste and constitutionality
06. Limit annual growth in federal spending
07. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010
08. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy
09. Reduce Earmarks
10. Reduce Taxes

While we're at it, take a look at who came up with the Contract With America. LINK

The Contract with America was a document released by the United States Republican Party during the 1994 Congressional election campaign. Written by Larry Hunter, who was aided by Newt Gingrich, Robert Walker, Richard Armey, Bill Paxon, Tom DeLay, John Boehner and Jim Nussle, and in part using text from former President Ronald Reagan's 1985 State of the Union Address, the Contract detailed the actions the Republicans promised to take if they became the majority party in the United States House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Many of the Contract's policy ideas originated at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

By the way, do you still maintain that the tenets of the Contract With America were the Basis for the modern day Tea Party?

Fact of the matter is, I was much more willing to give Gingrich credit for the Contract than I should have been.  Once I looked it up, I was somewhat surprised myself.  I appreciate you causing me to look the Contract up.

You appear to go out of your way to diminish Newt’s accomplishments,...

After watching Newt's supporters go after Santorum tooth and nail, I found myself compelled to wish to see Newt's accomplishments to be recognized for being no more or no less than what they actually were.  When talking about his and the Congress' efforts to cut spending, I tried to be as even handed as possible.  I gave him credit, but tried to do it in a more even handed way, cutting his actual positive impact from $5 trillion to $1.5 trillion, but still addressing the savings as something he and Congress deserved accolades for.  I know that didn't match your glowing descriptions, but it wasn't my attempt at all, to deny him just recognition.

...and to put words in my mouth.

Okay.  Let me ask you this.  Do you still think this statement is reasoned?

His original “Contract with America” led to CONSERVATIVE Republicans taking the US House of Representatives and appears to be the basis for the modern day Tea Party.

It wasn't really HIS Contract with America was it.  It was a group effort, that led to the Conservatives retaking the House.  I still maintain that he deserves credit for utilizing that Contract in a skillful manner.  Now, was it his efforts that the modern Tea Party copied?  First of all, I don't think they copied anything, and second of all it wasn't really his intellectual property in the first place.

No you didn't outright state that the Tea Party was founded by Newt Gingrich.  What you sought to do was make it seem that the Tea Party would not have been formed if he hadn't developed an intellectual property in 1994.  Heck you didn't say that either directly.  That seems to be a pattern.  You don't say stuff directly.  You just hope folks will put that together in their own minds for you.

Because of this I don’t take your remarks as respectful but as condescending,...

Okay, but I guess you'll have to accept that I don't find it very respectful when folks try to pass stuff off to imply things they can deny having ever said.

...having read some of your comments on this thread I doubt this is the first time someone has intimated that you may be condescending.

I encourage folks to come to their own conclusions about me.  I am who I am, and some folks won't find me to be their cup of tea.  Others will.  I'm not going to ruminate over it, and I don't wish anyone ill who doesn't particularly care for me.

My screen name, duffee, is the name of my ten year old, not very bright scottish terrier,

That's nice.

I sometimes wonder about the screen names some choose, not being critical but if someone really wants to be reffered to as excellant why not just call themself the excellant one?

When you run into someone whose last name is Excellent, I suggest you run that by them.
#336666

[duffee]

You should go back and read your original comment I responded to and then read my one paragraph. You “credit” me for writing much more than than I wrote and you stated things I never said, which is very much like lying if not an out right lie. You leave an impression with others I’ve made derogorotory comments that I’ve never made. I made one comment that though I regret I stand by, the “OVER ZEALOUS HALL MONITOR” comment. I believe that comment to be an accurate, descriptive comment in the context I used it. I don’t believe any rational person would take that comment in the context I used it and conclude it was an attack on Santorum’s character or religeon or religeous beliefs.

Your assertions again about that I attacked his position Socially Conservative issues are absolutly false and no rational person woud come to that conclusion from MY words, I can see how they would from the words you used when you were incorrectly READING MY MIND. It’s as if you were pretending someone made these comments and you were responding to them. Other than the “overzealous” comment the only criticism I had for Santorum is that his “FISCAL” voting record, and you agreed to that. I will add now that I question his “National Right to Work”. His answer that he was from Pa. a union state is not good enough, he should elaborate from a national prospective and on his relationship with BIG Unions.

The information piece I included with my original post was one I had recently written to go to my e-mail list with an invition to Newt event in Southaven Mississippi, I stand by that information as I stand with Newt. I included that to show you can support a candidate without the personal attacks and snide remarks, the overzealous comment will haunt me, such as yours against fellow Conservatives who do not support Santorum.

I take your attack as personal because you attacked me for saying things I never said. You accuse me of doing what you did in the comment I responded to. You have no credibility as far as I’m concerned. I have not challenged your Conservative credentials, I am challenging other things, I don’t really want to say veracity, I’m not sure that quite applies to you stating what I must be thinking and then reply to it. If some of this sounds convoluted that comes from your convoluted thought process.

I regret this Republican primary has deginerated into what it has become. I blame the Romney and Paul campaigns to great degree for this. I was very content to just post positive comments for Newt and save hostility and negatism for obama and the democrats.

I’ve spent far more time on this than it was worth. Our primary is Tuesday and I am trying to replace my Congressman, Alan Nunnelee (R) who truly is agood Christian man with family values and a very Socially Conservative voting record but he signed a pledge he would not increase spendig and then he voted for the debt ceiling and the F35 jet engine. I am working to replace him with a good Christian with greay family and family values and a FISCAL Conservative, Henry Ross, Republican, I am also doing some work for Newt. How do you find the time for such a lengthy exchange not only to what someone says but to what they may be thinking.

[Kit cat]

Haven’t seen you in a while, nice to see you here again!!!! Santorum
is doing very well standing on strict conservative values, you are right
many here should be thankful. I just think most worry if he has the pit
bull street fighting attitude it will take to go against Obama!!!

[deport]

With you being on the ground and working the arena I have a couple of questions if you care to speculate.

How do you think the breakout amongst the candidates will settle out with regards to CDs and statewide. If less than a 50% winner how do you see them sharing the delegates?

To me if polling data is somewhat accurate then we may see a three way split in at least the statewide delegates. Thanks for any info you can share.

[duffee]

I really wish I knew and could make a prediction, I believe Newt will carry the state and probably all four CD’s. Romney does have some big name endorsements in the state but I don’t really know if this helps or hurts anyone. Newt is and always has been well thought of in Mississippi. Now I’m just trying to get out the vote for Newt and Henry Ross for Congress in CD 1. I really don’t know how the delegates will be proprotioned, I doubt Newt will get 50% but he will be in a much better position if he carries all 4 CDs

[DoughtyOne]

Rather than bury you with massive posts, which hasn't been my intent, I'm going to break your posts down into paragraphs and respond to them in multiple posts.  That will allow you to respond much easier.  I appologize for the size of the first two posts.  I want to fully flesh out my thoughts, but I don't want to post those masive sized posts.

You should go back and read your original comment I responded to and then read my one paragraph.

Not only did I go back and re-read my comments, I actually copied them and posted them after your complaints, so that I could address them right there where the complaints were made.  You may disagree with my responses, but I have tried to be as forthright as was humanly possible.

You “credit” me for writing much more than than I wrote and you stated things I never said, which is very much like lying if not an out right lie.

This is how I see it.  You say something like, my favorite color is blue mixed with yellow.  I respond with the idea that you have stated you like green, and you get upset because you never said that.  No, you never actually said that you liked green.  You just stated it in such a manor that you could deny that you said you like green.  Okay, you never said you like green.  You just like blue mixed with yellow.  Please forgive me.  Sheesh!

You leave an impression with others I’ve made derogorotory comments that I’ve never made.

Do you have any idea why I brought your original comments and my original responses over, then responed to your complaints?  It was so people could read them right by your complaint, read my response, and come to their own conclusion.  I didn't leave anyone with an impression.  Any impressions they took away from their reading of the information, was based on your original comments, my original reponse, your complaint, and my reaction to it.  You tell me if there is any way whatsoever to offer up a more reasoned transparent process.  You think I have been extremely unfair to you.  I think I have gone way out of my way to be extremely fair to you.  If your complaints are valid, folks will come away thinking I'm not being fair.  If your complaints aren't valid, folks will come away thinking you're unreasoned.

Folks will make their own determinations, and that is exactly how it should be.  How can you possibly object to this? 

I made one comment that though I regret I stand by, the “OVER ZEALOUS HALL MONITOR” comment. I believe that comment to be an accurate, descriptive comment in the context I used it. I don’t believe any rational person would take that comment in the context I used it and conclude it was an attack on Santorum’s character or religeon or religeous beliefs.

I did not make the case that you had made an attack on Santorum's character, religion, or religious beliefs.  I did make some reasoned comments about you buying into the idea that his public comments based on his moral views made him an "over zealous hall monitor".  I then equated that with you and others determining he was not a viable candidate based on that alone.

I likened it to assessing him to be a "goody-goody two shoes".  Once again, it's my take that you stated you like green.  We'll have to agree to disagree here.

[sargon]

Newt Gingrich. The closest thing we have to [Sarah Palin]

That pretty much sums it up for me too, at this point...

[DoughtyOne]

Your assertions again about that I attacked his position Socially Conservative issues are absolutly false and no rational person woud come to that conclusion from MY words, I can see how they would from the words you used when you were incorrectly READING MY MIND.

You made a determination that you wanted to address the aspects of Santorum's Socially and Fiscally Conservative actions, and down play his positives, or marginalize him.  I never stated you attacked his Socially Conservative positions, so who is it that is actually saying something about the other guy that isn't true?  I merely observed that you praised Newt's Socially Conservative positions, then downplayed Santorum's, even though you described Santorum as maybe being as strong on Socially Conservative issues as Newt was.

You described Santorm in this manner, with regard to Socially Conservative issues.  "Rick Santorum’s voting record on Socially Conservative issues is at best no better than Newt’s..."  This downplays his solid stand on Socially Conservative issues.  It would have been far more reasoned to state that Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are both good on Socially Conservative issues.  You chose to present his credentials in this area in a minimalist negative marginalistic manner and I called you on it.  Nothing more..., nothing less.

It’s as if you were pretending someone made these comments and you were responding to them.

I posted your words and my responses, then your complaints, and my responses.  I provided each of our orignal comments so folks could judge for themselves.

Other than the “overzealous” comment the only criticism I had for Santorum is that his “FISCAL” voting record, and you agreed to that.

Yes I did, and then I followed up by saying the other candidates have their problems too, and so I'll have to weigh Santorum's negatives against the negatives of the others.

You know, for a guy that said this, "I could go on and on but I really try to promote Newt instead of denigrating others...", LINK it doesn't look like you're trying all that hard.

I will add now that I question his “National Right to Work”. His answer that he was from Pa. a union state is not good enough, he should elaborate from a national prospective and on his relationship with BIG Unions.

You know, I think I'm beginning to see why Gingrich supporters think their own guy is treated so unfairly.  When they unload on others, it's important.  No big deal.  Forget about it.  When others reveal truths about Newt, they are attack by a flock of pooping Gingrich seaguls.  "Why we're not supposed to be attacking Newt or Santorum.  Romney is the enemy!"

I've seen very little evidence that you are able to address Newt's positives in an accurate realistic manner.  That could be the reason why you dwell on attacking Santorum against your better judgment.

[duffee]

Blue and Yellow do equal Green. That I like Santorum because he is a Social Conservate and that I like Newt better because he has voted Socially Conservative and Fiscally Conservative and that I don’t think Santorum is Presidential DOES NOT equal the comments you said I must have THOUGHT about SANTORUM. It means I’d rather have Newt. PEROID, I”M NOT AGAINST SANTORUM, I’M FOR NEWT.

You mentioned my “populist tactic”, what kind of tactic is all this blue green crap? You take a simple statement and turn iy into what you want me to have said so you can in your condescending way attack my “OUTRAGEOUS” statement. If you hadn’t been blindly attacking Conservatives that don’t agree with you, this whole exchange wouldn’t have happened. I don’t care how you say it you are attributing things to me that I have not said or even thought.I don’t care that you’ve divided up my statements I’ve read enough of this. I believe any RATIONAL person who read your original post, my response, and your response would agree that your reaction is irrational. I nreally don’t have time for this kind of blather.

[DoughtyOne]

The information piece I included with my original post was one I had recently written to go to my e-mail list with an invition to Newt event in Southaven Mississippi, I stand by that information as I stand with Newt.

I would encourage you to modify that blurb.  Newt does have positive aspects, and I think they should be addressed favorably.  I support you doing this.  I think it's great you're contacting others and trying to move them in the direction you want them to go too.  That's admirable.   I do not happen to think writing a note of support that exaggerates Newt's positives to the point of absurdity, is particularly ingratiating to those you are going to want to influence.

I included that to show you can support a candidate without the personal attacks and snide remarks, the overzealous comment will haunt me, such as yours against fellow Conservatives who do not support Santorum.

Since I am not attacking people who are merely supporting Gingrich, I'll dismiss this attempt to infer something untruthful.

Please link me to one post where I have attacked someone for stating they support Gingrich when they were merely addressing his record in a truthful accurate manner.

Insert Jeopardy theme music here...

[DoughtyOne]

I take your attack as personal because you attacked me for saying things I never said.

I would encourage you to stick with that, because that's your only denfense for clearly inferring things you didn't want to say outright.

You accuse me of doing what you did in the comment I responded to.

Tell you what, I provded the details for other folks to judge for themselves.  I am comfortable with them being of sound enough mind, to be able to determine if your complaints are valid.

You have no credibility as far as I’m concerned.

You have two choices.  You can read my original response to you and address it for what it truly was.  You can dig in your heels and determine that your over the top comments about Newt were truly based on facts, and went no farther than the facts would justify.

I'm not entirely surprised you selected option two here.

I stick with my responses to you.  Others can come down on this as they see fit.  I'm not perfect.  Perhaps folks will judge you to have been the most close to the truth here.

I have expressed my views, defended my positions, and provide as much information as I could to justify my perceptions.  I think that's what we're supposed to do here.

I have not challenged your Conservative credentials, I am challenging other things, I don’t really want to say veracity, I’m not sure that quite applies to you stating what I must be thinking and then reply to it.

Every once in a while I run into folks who do what you're doing, but I have seldom seen seen folks who are so intent on running from the implications of their own comments.

If some of this sounds convoluted that comes from your convoluted thought process.

Why of course it does.

[DoughtyOne]

I regret this Republican primary has deginerated into what it has become.  I blame the Romney and Paul campaigns to great degree for this.

Yes, I agree.  I haven't seen any of Gingrich's people causing problems.  /s  Some of your assertions take my breath away, with their avoidance of what is taking place on this forum.

I was very content to just post positive comments for Newt and save hostility and negativism for Obama and the Democrats.

I am a conservative.  Your comments about Newt were so over the top that I was compelled to respond.

Once people start challenging some of the things you posted, your document starts to deflate.  Once folks start addressing some of the things you implied, you're in trouble.

I don't dislike you.  I have no interest in this exchange other than an academic exchange of thoughts.

Yes I did call you on your Santorm/Hall Monitor comments.  I didn't think you realized what you were implying, and I called you on it.

I didn't then, and I don't now think that you're a bad guy.  I just wish you'd be more realistic about what others might gleen from your comments.

[DoughtyOne]

I’ve spent far more time on this than it was worth.

Why is that?  Have you asked yourself?  Could it be that you posted something that someone could reasonably object to, that covered enough territory that it would involve you in a lot off focused objections?

Could it be that your over the top praise of Newt resulted in being challenged based on it's veracity?

Could it be that your refusal to acknowledge reasoned objections caused you to have to defend your views when some of them were indefensable?

Could it be that you took some of this to be personal attacks, rather than reasoned attempts to address your take on things?

Our primary is Tuesday and I am trying to replace my Congressman, Alan Nunnelee (R) who truly is agood Christian man with family values and a very Socially Conservative voting record but he signed a pledge he would not increase spending and then he voted for the debt ceiling and the F35 jet engine.

Okay, I think you've got a point where it comes to voting for increasing the debt ceiling.  When it comes to the engine for the F-35, I'm questioning why you don't think we need to upgrade our aging fleet of military aircraft.  It's my personal belief you're over the top there.

 I am working to replace him with a good Christian with great family and family values and a FISCAL Conservative, Henry Ross, Republican,...

Okay great.  I'm not going to object to this.  Good for you.

 I am also doing some work for Newt.

I don't necessarily have a problem with this either, other than the issues I addressed here.  Keep it to what Newt has actually done, and I respect what you're trying to do, and how you're going about it.

How do you find the time for such a lengthy exchange not only to what someone says but to what they may be thinking.

How do you find the time to write such detailed posts, that either infer things you don't really believe, or continue to support the language that infers you believe things you actually don't?

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you Kit cat, nice to see you again too. That was nice of you.

I believe it will come down to folks having to decide if they want a charismatic that wants to do what Obama does, or a person less charismatic that wants to do what Santorum does. A lot of women have wished they didn’t go with flash, and had instead gone with Mr. Dependable.

Arguments that start with, “Santorum has decent values but...” don’t hold water with me. There is an argument that the general public buys into that, and some people here are very happy to reinforce that mindset at every opportunity.

You have asked a good question, not made a definitive statement about your beliefs. You have concerns. I don’t clump you in with the folks who are happy to advance the Santorum conundrum theory.

[DoughtyOne]

Blue and Yellow do equal Green.

Now wait just a darned minute.  You never said that!!!!!  Shouldn't you have responded with, "I never said that, you just made that up so you could take me to task on it!"

I mean, that's what you been doing up until now.  Why the new sense of wanting to admit to things, be congenial?

That I like Santorum because he is a Social Conservate and that I like Newt better because he has voted Socially Conservative and Fiscally Conservative and that I don’t think Santorum is Presidential DOES NOT equal the comments you said I must have THOUGHT about SANTORUM. It means I’d rather have Newt. PEROID, I”M NOT AGAINST SANTORUM, I’M FOR NEWT.

LOL.  We've been over this several times now, and about all you have demonstrated is that you can't quite grasp political concepts concerning bias, marginalization, and good Christian candidates being able to voice their beliefs in public.

Thank you for trying to clarify your postion.  I'm not going to break these things down for you again.  If folks are all that interested on my thoughts on these matters, they can check them out up thread.

[DoughtyOne]

You mentioned my “populist tactic”, what kind of tactic is all this blue green crap?

The only place “populist tactic” appears in this series of twenty posts on Free Republic, is in this reponse to me. It did not appear in the post you are responding to. It did not appear on any of the other 19 posts on the same Free Republic page. Please link me to where I used that term, and I’ll address my utilization of that label.

Ah..., that would actually be..., “...all this blue yellow green crap?” No problem. I’m always here to help.

You take a simple statement and turn it into what you want me to have said so you can in your condescending way attack my “OUTRAGEOUS” statement. If you hadn’t been blindly attacking Conservatives that don’t agree with you, this whole exchange wouldn’t have happened. I don’t care how you say it you are attributing things to me that I have not said or even thought.I don’t care that you’ve divided up my statements I’ve read enough of this. I believe any RATIONAL person who read your original post, my response, and your response would agree that your reaction is irrational.

Then why are you paddling so hard? You should be happy. I don’t see your contortions to have mitigated what you did, and what you now wish to avoid credit for having done.

I nreally don’t have time for this kind of blather.

With all due respect, you certainly seem to have plenty of time for blather, if it involves denying what you have been up to, and why it might have cost you all this time.

[katiedidit1]

Newt should do very well in Mississippi..they were hit by Hurricane Katrina and Santorum voted to fund the bridge to nowhere rather than divert funds to help out the Katrina victims. I hope the folks in Miss. know this!
Santorum voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands and thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, according to Club for Growth, “in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.”

[dixiechick2000]

If Newt keeps up the pressure on gas prices, he’s going to do very well! And, he knows how to pronounce “y’all”. lol

Hang in there, Newt!

Thank you for the ping!

[duffee]

Your original comment

“To: unspun
You know, I thought Conservatives had a high opinion of Christian values.

Then one stands up and runs for the presidency, and folks all of a sudden take offense because he espouses their beliefs in public.

What’s wrong with espousing the belief that abortion is wrong, and that less promiscuity before marriage is a good thing?

This post in objection to Santorum’s values, is that what you wish to rest your hat on.

Is this an admission that Balut doesn’t back these values? What the heck?

14 posted on Friday, March 09, 2012 11:18:34 AM by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov’t heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.) “

My response to your comment

“Poll: Gingrich on top in Mississippi
Friday, March 09, 2012 12:00:44 PM · 31 of 139
duffee to DoughtyOne
Christian values are a big part of but not all that matters to me. Rick Santorum’s voting record on Socially Conservative issues is at best no better than Newt’s then there is the matter of “Fiscally Conservate” issues. Then there would be the ability to articulate what is needed to fix America and to clearly define issues and solutions and the difference in the socialist and Conservative principles and ideas. Newt will take the fight to obama ans will beat him. The difference is being in Presidential, not wanting to denigrate Rick but I’ve heard him described as an “over zealous hall monitor” and I belive that is how he will come across and be portrayed. Social Conservative issues are important to me but that is not all that’s on the table. We need an extrodinary individual for these times and I can’t think of any, anywhere better suited for the task ahead than Newt Gringrich whether they are in the race or not. Below are some of thr reasons I’m for Newt.

Newt Gingrich, an Extroidinary Man for These Extrodinary Times

Newt Gingrich is a Historian, he loves this country and understands our Constitution, our system of government and the sacrifices made by patriots to create it, and the importance of maintaining it. He knows how government works and how it should work. He is intelligent, educated, and has common sense. He has been in the public eye for thirty five years and has made public controversial decisions, he has cast over 7200 votes, made over 15,000 speeches, written twenty four books. His voting record has been consistantly “Conservative” whether you are speaking in terms of “Social”, “Fiscal” or anything else, Newt Gingrich is “THE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE.” His original “Contract with America” led to CONSERVATIVE Republicans taking the US House of Representatives and appears to be the basis for the modern day Tea Party. Under his leadership as Speaker of the House the Republican Congress produced four consecutive balanced budgets, welfare reform, strengthened our national defense and intelligence. The CBO had forecast a deficet for ten years of 2.5 trillion dollars when he was elected Speaker and four years later the ten year forecast was for a surplus of 2.5 trillion dollars for a turnaround of 5 trillion dollars. They cut taxes and unemployment dropped to 4.2%. President Clinton talks of his administration having balanced budgets, surplus, and welfare reform, that’s true but it was thrust upon him by Newt and the Republican Congress. Spending and earmarks dropped as soon as Newt became Speaker and both remained low during his tenure as Speaker and skyrocketed as soon as he left the Speaker’s position. Those who didn’t want him keeping government spending under control, the Republican establishment, are the ones who are now attacking him and trying to stop his return to Washington. Republicans should be apologizing to Newt for squandering the bounty he brought to the country instead of attacking him. I believe this is Newt’s time. America is in trouble and needs an advocate, Newt Gingrich is that advocate.

FRank

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies “

I am including your original comment as well as my response and also included a short pro Newt Gingrich statement that was with my response and you also take issue with that. My response to your comment was appropiate, I stand by it and do not apologize for it. I stand by my statement regarding Speaker Gingrich. You have spent a lot of time time responding to things I never said. You are certainly FRee to use your time and to define my few comments as you choose. I suspect that you are compelled to have the last word and so have at it. This is a busy time and not only do I not have it to spare it would be a waste. I do believe that any rational that would view your statement and my response to your statement would agree that your response was odd?