As I've said all along, I will support whomever is the Republican nominee, and if that's Gingrich, I will back him wholeheartedly. I have not bashed or trashed, and I will not bash or trash, Newt Gingrich.
At the same time, I will give consideration, at least, to other possible Republican nominees, as long as they are campaigning as conservatives and seem to have a chance at defeating Obama. If there are things in their past that cause me to doubt how conservative they really are, I will remain skeptical and I will need to have those doubts overcome. But I will ar least give such candidates a hearing. To give a candidate a hearing, weighing his pros and cons, and evaluating his current conservative rhetoric vs. his past less-than-conservative record--that is not the same thing as promoting or supporting that candidate.
Now, Darrell, you say that abortion is a deal-breaker for you. Same here for me. In fact, in 40 years of voting, if a candidate is pro-abort, that has always been my #1 automatic disqualifier. I have never voted for, and will never vote for, someone who is avowedly pro-abortion. I have worked against, preached against, taught against, and written against the evil of abortion for decades. I want a president who will seek to have Roe v. Wade overturned and who will nominate Supreme Court justices accordingly. It is both a constitutional and a moral issue for me.
However, if a candidate was previously pro-abortion but then "flip-flopped" over to the pro-life side, I could possibly vote for such a candidate. For example, I voted for just such a candidate in 1980 and 1984--a candidate for president who had formerly been a pro-abortion governor but who later "flipped" to the right side of the issue. Of course, if someone *says* they are now pro-life but had previously been pro-abort, I will want to hear more to convince me of the sincerity of their current position, before I could support them.
Also, Darrell, as you say, this time Missouri does not have a binding primary, so that renders our votes rather moot. I will have to wait and see who our Republican nominee is, and I will then gladly back him, because my goal is to defeat Obama.
Reagan was not pro abortion and you’re a lying SOS for saying so. Don’t say you weren’t warned.
zot
There’s a lot of misinformation out there about Reagan. I’ve been hearing for years that he had been pro-choice at one time, but apparently that’s not the case.
I want to retract and apologize for my use of the term “pro-abortion” in referring to Reagan as someone who had formerly been a “pro-abortion” governor. That was a mischaracterization on my part. I was referring to his signing of the 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act, which did permit abortions, a decision which Reagan later deeply regretted. But that does not mean that he himself was “pro-abortion” in his intent when he signed it. So again, I retract and apologize for that part of my post 165.
While it's nice to hear how others support a candidate, by NO way do they persuade me. If one can be persuaded by anything other than the candidates record, then they also can be persuaded by the media. And that's what they excel in because they have the means to do it and too many willing to listen to their garbage. Garbage in, garbage out.
I have not bashed or trashed, and I will not bash or trash, Newt Gingrich.
Why should you? What is to bash? His love of America is obvious. He hasn't burned the midnight oil studying socialism but Our Constitution. You don't spend your life studying on something you don't have a deep love for. That's patriotism! Contract for America, balance the budget, etc., etc, etc. and his years in Congress have, hands down, shown Newt is the man for the job.
I will give consideration, at least, to other possible Republican nominees, as long as they are campaigning as conservatives
NEWFLASH! They ALL are - so that tactic didn't work.
Comparing a candidates accomplishments FOR AMERICA, Newt wins hands down. Comparing candidates on their truthfulness, Mitt loses hands down. He's a known liar even among his own peers.
And he's lying about repealing obamacare and that would only take an ounce of wisdom to know that. Embracing romneycare and repealing obamacare doesn't even compute! But yet he is able to persuade many that he will! LOL! Con men need suckers to survive as we are living that now. Barry had soros money, the media and his liberal buddies behind him. And mitt has the money, the media and his GOP elite, Wall St behind him. It takes all that to scam Americans and they learn from each other how it's done.
And there is a difference from flip flopping and admitting you flipped - to flipping and not admitting it. And that's Mitt - denying his past exists, 'acting' like he was on the right track when he wasn't.
But I will ar least give such candidates a hearing. To give a candidate a hearing, weighing his pros and cons,
Mitt's pros and cons have been discussed here over and over again and there is a link for it here. He had his 'hearing' since 2008 - he has no new accomplishments but his known backstabbing has continued.
And that's my rant and it's not meant to persuade. Will I trash Mitt? You betcha - every chance I get. Liars repulse me. He can lie on national TV and doesn't flinch but wears that smirky smile. One doesn't need much wisdom and discernment to know what that man is full of - EVIL! Sounds like barry I'm talking about but it's mittens himself, barry's counterpart!