Posted on 12/06/2011 4:24:42 PM PST by presidio9
They state their reasons and some conservatives just dismiss them.
Those who do not see Gingrich as the best choice for President are more than willing to outline their reasons and give chapter and verse. But who is listening among the crowd that simply says "I don't care what kind of leader or politician Gingrich was when he was Speaker"?
They state their reasons and some conservatives just dismiss them.
Those who do not see Gingrich as the best choice for President are more than willing to outline their reasons and give chapter and verse. But who is listening among the crowd that simply says "I don't care what kind of leader or politician Gingrich was when he was Speaker"?
They state their reasons and some conservatives just dismiss them.
Those who do not see Gingrich as the best choice for President are more than willing to outline their reasons and give chapter and verse. But who is listening among the crowd that simply says "I don't care what kind of leader or politician Gingrich was when he was Speaker"?
We’ll have to see how America votes. I guess it’s possible that Newt could win. But I keep hearing about those three marriages and two divorces even from people who don’t follow politics much.
Or how about they were there, they know Gingrich, they what happened, and they sincerely do not think Gingrich should be President?
It's pretty simple, really.
I do recall that in the first issue of The New Yorker magazine that was written after the Congressional election in November 1998, Jeffrey Tobin was given the "Talk of the Town" lead-off column, and it began with "Mistah Impeachment, he be daid..." He was certain that the result of the election meant no articles of impeachment would pass the House. Oops, an oracle he is not.
Probably I shouldn't have said "Three marriages and two divorces means Newt's not likely to be elected."
The three marriages and two divorces are reasons why people don't like or trust him, but they might still vote for him, I guess.
Podhoretz is fatter version of David Brooks, nothing more.
You can always remind them that Obama has only been married once and there are no other women in his background. None whatsoever. Hasn't stopped him from trying to take America down.
How about because Pod filius is a largely untalented oaf who thinks that crude propaganda works.
If its a "trust" thing between two men, one who campainged on getting out of Iraq, closing Gitmo, and bringing this nation together, before promising unemployment would never go above 8% doing all of the exact opposite, and another who balanced the budget for four years, ended welfare, and, oh yeah, he's got two ex-wives who have made their peace with them: I like my horse in that race.
Plus the current occupant has been lying about his relationship with Bill Ayers, Acorn, Rev. Wright, etc., and the last guy we sent out to meet him let all of that slide.
Failure to use the ammunition provided is a hallmark of Republican Strategy. The Greatest Political Mystery of the 20th Century is "Why Didn't GHWB Use What He Knew About Clinton?"
The most glaring example in regard to Obama is the failure to ask the simplest of questions. "Is Obama constitutionally eligible to run for the office of President?"
WTF? It's just a question. We employ local, state, and federal employees of one sort or another who are paid to find out the answers to questions like this. Right now, I don't even care what the answer is! Just give it to us and tell us why you reached that conclusion.
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.