Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul To Laura Ingraham: I Wouldn’t Put Newt Gingrich In The ‘Conservative’ Category
Mediaite ^ | Dec. 1, 2011 | Alex Alvarez

Posted on 12/01/2011 7:18:05 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY

On her show this afternoon, radio host Laura Ingraham asked GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul an intriguing question: Is Newt Gingrich a conservative?

Paul did not beat around the bush:

I wouldn’t put him in that category. You know, he was known to be from the left-wing of the party, especially early in his years, you know he would come up with conservative viewpoints and all, but that doesn’t make him a conservative. No, I don’t put him in that category.

When asked about the recent surge in popularity Gingrich has experienced, Paul put it all in perspective, opining it has more to do with people thinking about who will be the next to “beat Romney” and the way polling works (and, thus, the subsequent media attention candidates receive after a surge in the polls) than on any real “facts.”

“He’s not Herman Cain, though, right?” said Ingraham. “I mean he’s quite a bit different from Herman Cain or even Michele Bachmann. I mean, he’s been through the fire, has he not?”

(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: galvestonsnoopy; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

1 posted on 12/01/2011 7:18:12 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Have to agree with him on that.


2 posted on 12/01/2011 7:21:11 PM PST by bgill (The Obama administration is staging a coup. Wake up, America, before it's too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

For once, I agree with Ron Paul.


3 posted on 12/01/2011 7:21:36 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Heard Ann on the Beck show today and she still has a crush on Romney plus Paul should be running on the libertarian ticket as he is more liberal on social issues and some foreign issues than most liberals.


4 posted on 12/01/2011 7:21:57 PM PST by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman.Trolls get a life, I HATE OUR BIAS LIBERAL MEDIA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Newt is more liberal than Mittens, yet for some reason many FReepers give him a free pass.


5 posted on 12/01/2011 7:23:17 PM PST by NakedRampage (Puttin' the "stud" in Bible study)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Ron Paul is a libertarian.


6 posted on 12/01/2011 7:25:28 PM PST by Politics4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Mighty strange thing to say when Gingrich had a 90% conservative rating as a congressman.


7 posted on 12/01/2011 7:25:28 PM PST by Jukeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Yes, Newt probably shouldn’t be in the Conservative category.

But that still does not take Ron P out of the Nut category on many things...


8 posted on 12/01/2011 7:27:39 PM PST by Max_850
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Max_850

Yes, but that was not the topic at hand.


9 posted on 12/01/2011 7:29:02 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NakedRampage

As others point out, Gingrich had a 90% conservative rating. And Ron Paul is a libertarian.

The only reason Paul is attacking Newt is because of the lead that Newt obtained. For Paul to be relevent. He needs a close race and ultimately a split convention.


10 posted on 12/01/2011 7:29:07 PM PST by floridarunner01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Funny, I would have said the same thing about Ron Paul.


11 posted on 12/01/2011 7:29:34 PM PST by Patrick1 (" Let's all pray Kim Kardashian's divorce won't have an impact on her craft.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Obamma vs. Gingrich, who would you choose?


12 posted on 12/01/2011 7:33:29 PM PST by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jukeman
Mighty strange thing to say when Gingrich had a 90% conservative rating as a congressman.

Yeah, but just read the comments here...a lot of people are pissed that it's not 99%.

13 posted on 12/01/2011 7:35:11 PM PST by ez ("Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." - Milton, "Paradise Lost")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NakedRampage
Newt is more liberal than Mittens, yet for some reason many FReepers give him a free pass.

What a whopper. Mitt governed as a Massachusetts liberal, bringing us gay marriage, government-mandated health care, and was to the left of Ted Kennedy on abortion. All Newt did was LEAD conservative Republican Revolution in 1994, authoring the brilliant strategy behind the Contract with America that swept the GOP into power and stopped Clinton's liberal agenda, including Hillary Care dead in its tracks. The GOP House went on to act on every last piece of the Contract with America. You are delusional if you think Mitt is more conservative than Newt. What HAVE you been smoking?!
14 posted on 12/01/2011 7:37:35 PM PST by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ez

Yes, I see that and keep thinking “Beat Obama, win senate majority and increase majority in house”.


15 posted on 12/01/2011 7:39:51 PM PST by Jukeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Neither would any thinking principled conservative.

His words and actions betray him.


16 posted on 12/01/2011 7:53:21 PM PST by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: floridarunner01
As others point out, Gingrich had a 90% conservative rating. And Ron Paul is a libertarian.

His last two years were aournd 75%.

Previous to that, for several years, he did not vote on many of the issues ACU used to rate. The votes are marked "S" for speaker which reflects a non-vote.

So your using this as some type of teflon coating for Newt does not work, especially since it was in the late 80's to mid 90's when he had his best scores. Add in the following issue positions since 2000, and at best you have a moderate to liberal:

1. Global Warming
2. Cap-n-Trade
3. Individual Mandate
4. Comprehensive Immigration Reform
5. "The Era of Reagan is Over"
6. "Limited Amnesty"
7. Calling Ryans plan "Right-wing Social Engineering"
8. Backing the liberal Scozzafazza in NY23 over Doug Hoffman.

Sorry, but you are cheerleading for a lousy candidate.
17 posted on 12/01/2011 8:06:58 PM PST by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY



Ron Paul Ad - Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

18 posted on 12/01/2011 8:08:09 PM PST by preacher (Communism has only killed 100 million people: Let's give it another chance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN

I never said Mitt was a conservative, I said Newt is even more liberal than he is.


19 posted on 12/01/2011 8:11:13 PM PST by NakedRampage (Puttin' the "stud" in Bible study)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Why in Hell would anyone take anything that the libertarian loon R-U-N Paul says as worthy of any attention? R-U-N Paul needs to drop out of the GOP primary and go join one of the turd party platforms.


20 posted on 12/01/2011 8:11:35 PM PST by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier currently deployed in the Valley of Death, Afghanistan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

I wouldn’t put Ron Paul is the sane category. Newt has done far more for conservatism than Ron Paul will ever do


21 posted on 12/01/2011 8:13:38 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NakedRampage
I never said Mitt was a conservative, I said Newt is even more liberal than he is.

*SIGH*. Play with words all you want. Saying Newt is more liberal than Mitt is the same as saying Mitt is more conservative than Newt.

In either case, you obviously don't have a clue of what you are talking about. Might as well ask someone who's never watched a football game who the better QB is between Brady and Manning.
22 posted on 12/01/2011 8:19:24 PM PST by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bgill

Ron Paul is a liberal based on his actual statements - He criticized the flat tax as being “horribly regressive” during the Herman Cain pile on debate back in October.

What a jerk this guy is.


23 posted on 12/01/2011 8:26:40 PM PST by o2bfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN
Newt is a friggin hack. He stated that parts of Obamacare are good, he favors open borders, he paid for his mistress to have an abortion, he jumped on the global warming bandwagon...

He is a liberal.

24 posted on 12/01/2011 8:30:44 PM PST by NakedRampage (Puttin' the "stud" in Bible study)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Politics4US

Up next to Ron Paul nobody is a conservative. LOL!


25 posted on 12/01/2011 8:35:43 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
It seems even Laura is reduced to asking stupid questions of Ron Paul. Shoot, Laura, next time just go to the top and ask Algore.
26 posted on 12/01/2011 8:41:54 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jukeman

Actually it is a lifetime ACU rating of 94%, and a perfect Pro-Life record, to boot.

That’s just the voting record - it doesn’t include engineering the Republican Revolution and creating the Contract With America or balancing a budget.

Of course, to read the anti-Newt folks, we are to use the following parameters:

1.) Anything positive he has done, like killing Hillarycare and the Contract with America, no longer counts.

2.) Everything he did that is disagreeable - even though it might just be words and not legislation - must be permanently held against him. ABSOLUTELY no possibility of redemption.

3.) Everything prior to his disagreeable statements doesn’t count, but the disagreeable stuff does. Also, anything said or done after the disagreeable stuff doesn’t count, no matter how much effort he put into pleading the Conservative case after catching the error (Global Warming). So we have to use a specific time window of what counts: only after date X and before date Y.

In other words, we must give him no credit for anything positive he’s done, but total blame for everything disagreeable he’s ever said. Things like his perfect Pro-life record and 94% ACU rating should be discarded as fast as they are pointed out. Just because we want someone else. That’s the way it’s done now.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: Ronald Reagan would have been an apostate to many of these folks. He really would not have been NEARLY good enough for them to support.


27 posted on 12/01/2011 8:42:25 PM PST by TitansAFC (Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry are not your enemies, my fellow Freepers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NakedRampage

Thank you for confirming my earlier suspicions regarding your policital “insight”. LOL


28 posted on 12/01/2011 8:46:50 PM PST by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
The votes are marked "S" for speaker which reflects a non-vote.

That's right. Historically and traditionally, the Speaker does not vote on ordinary issues of legislation. Your attempt to disparage Newt by showing that he merely followed traditions of the House as Speaker, reveals only that you are an ignorant and incompetent observer.

29 posted on 12/01/2011 8:47:00 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN
Might as well ask someone who's never watched a football game who the better QB is between Brady and Manning

I think we had that thread last weekend...only it was more about Tebow.

30 posted on 12/01/2011 8:49:39 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

First time I’ve agreed with Ron Paul....


31 posted on 12/01/2011 8:51:55 PM PST by JulieRNR21 (*OMG ...means Obama Must Go in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NakedRampage
yet for some reason many FReepers give him a free pass.

It's the whole "lesser of evils" thing so long as their is an "R" after the name.

32 posted on 12/01/2011 8:57:21 PM PST by Michael Barnes (Obamaa+ Downgrade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: floridarunner01
As others point out, Gingrich had a 90% conservative rating. And Ron Paul is a libertarian.

So what. Paul's 2010 ACU rating was 96%.

33 posted on 12/01/2011 9:13:08 PM PST by Pomosapien (Buck Religion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bgill

Paul / Bachmann.

Yoda and the HellCat.


34 posted on 12/01/2011 9:17:05 PM PST by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
That's right. Historically and traditionally, the Speaker does not vote on ordinary issues of legislation. Your attempt to disparage Newt by showing that he merely followed traditions of the House as Speaker, reveals only that you are an ignorant and incompetent observer.

It's Newt's own record that disparages any claim to conservatism.

Quit lying about him being conservate, he's a moderate, at best.

Furthermore, nothing I said about his ACU rating was inaccurate or untruthful, PROVE ME WRONG!
35 posted on 12/01/2011 9:19:11 PM PST by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY; Absolutely Nobama; Allegra; mnehring; lormand; shibumi

Not that Ron Paul would recognize an actual conservative if one should smack him up side the head with a 2 by 4. Neville Chamberlain was no conservative. Margaret Sanger was no conservative. Lavender supporting enemies of our military are not conservative. Neither is paleoPaulie.


36 posted on 12/01/2011 9:33:36 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NakedRampage

When you said that Newt was more liberal than the Mittwit, you were flatout wrong. When you make the claim that he paid for his mistress to have an abortion, you crossed the line unless you can back that up with something other than your fantasies. Stormfront or Infowars are not documentation either. The rest of your claims are largely nonsense as well but let’s stick to your over the top claim about the abortion. What have you got? If nothing, I won’t be surprised. Nor will I be surprised if it turns out that you are a Paulistinian, Newbie.


37 posted on 12/01/2011 9:51:40 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NakedRampage
If Newt is more liberal than Mitt, as you claim, then bear in mind that Mittwit:

Promised to be more pro-abort than Ted Kennedy, more "gay friendly" than Ted Kennedy, presided over Massachusetts when its state supreme judicial court purported to find a state constitutional excuse for forcing "gay""marriage" down the throats of the Massachusetts voters without any known response of Mittwit against the decision, has never cared about the gun issues (and likely does not know which end of the gun to aim), and cares about nothing but money issues and, even there, not to save normal taxpayers from being raped by spenders but to protect his own class of comfy trust fund babies at the expense of everyone else.

Whatever Newt's imperfections, he does not begin to compare with Mittwit's despicable record and career of evasions and of being an ideological flip-flopping weather vane. Newt led the GOP back into control of the House after an extremely long drought.

38 posted on 12/01/2011 10:03:34 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

I wouldn’t either.


39 posted on 12/01/2011 10:14:21 PM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Unless you define “conservative” as “slightly to the right of Romney.”


40 posted on 12/01/2011 10:14:50 PM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NakedRampage

I don’t agree with that at all. Newt has his flaws no doubt, but at least he can fight. I don’t trust Mitt to stand up and fight for us.


41 posted on 12/01/2011 11:30:23 PM PST by desertfreedom765
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
My mistake, I looked it up again and it Bob Barr who paid for his wife's abortion. Newt had an affair while his wife was in the hospital.

And yes, Newt IS more liberal than Romney in my opinion. That does mean I'm advocating Romney, FYI; I don't like either of them.

And no, I'm not a Ron Paul fan, because HE is pro-open borders, pro-gayness, pro-legalizing marijuana, and I believe pro-abortion in that he thinks the government has no right to ban the pratice thereof.

In short, I like NONE of them.

42 posted on 12/02/2011 6:31:36 AM PST by NakedRampage (Puttin' the "stud" in Bible study)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765

I don’t trust either of them.


43 posted on 12/02/2011 6:32:31 AM PST by NakedRampage (Puttin' the "stud" in Bible study)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: NakedRampage

Does = does NOT


44 posted on 12/02/2011 6:37:33 AM PST by NakedRampage (Puttin' the "stud" in Bible study)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN
In either case, you obviously don't have a clue of what you are talking about. Might as well ask someone who's never watched a football game who the better QB is between Brady and Manning.

Tom Brady, but it's wicked, wicked close. 1A and 1B. I give the nod to Brady only because his decision making seems to be better than Manning's. Manning's an incredible quarterback, and he thinks he can make the unreal happen sometimes when it can't, and that leads to more turnovers than you'll get with Mr. Bundchen.

45 posted on 12/02/2011 6:43:48 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY; All

RuPaul is not a Conservative.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter what s/he claims to think.


46 posted on 12/02/2011 10:57:55 AM PST by Absolutely Nobama (Chairman Obama And Ron Paul Are Sure Signs The Republic Is In Serious Trouble. God Help Us All.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY; All

RuPaul is not a Conservative.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter what s/he claims to think.


47 posted on 12/02/2011 10:58:16 AM PST by Absolutely Nobama (Chairman Obama And Ron Paul Are Sure Signs The Republic Is In Serious Trouble. God Help Us All.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

“Why in Hell would anyone take anything that the libertarian loon R-U-N Paul says as worthy of any attention?”

Just out of curiosity....what exactly has Ron Paul said/done that makes him a loon? I’ve done some reading on him and his stance on some issues. Seems to be a straight shooter, Calls it as he see’s it kinda guy. He doesn’t seem like the type who’s in anyone’s pocket, that’s for sure.


48 posted on 12/02/2011 11:02:58 AM PST by djanes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: djanes

So, you missed his 2008 debate performances? You didn’t listen to him blame America and Americans for 9/11/01? You haven’t heard R-U-N Paul state during the 2012 campaign that he believes Iran should be allowed to complete their nuclear weapons program? These are just the most glaring problems with R-U-N Paul. He also is a liar and hypocrite when it comes to pork.


49 posted on 12/02/2011 12:44:59 PM PST by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier currently deployed in the Valley of Death, Afghanistan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: NakedRampage; Fiji Hill; fieldmarshaldj; Dr. Sivana; Tax-chick; Allegra; shibumi
Naked Rampage:

Thank you for a gracious response. Many here ignore criticisms of their opinions and will not look for documentation. You did not ignore and you did your research. Good for you. I did call you a Newbie but you look like a promising Newbie even when we disagree. Good for you and welcome.

It WAS Barr who paid for his paramour's abortion. I think she was a staffer and not his wife but I may be wrong about her status. If she was his wife, he is even more despicable in degree but not in kind.

Newt is often reported as having had wife #1 served with divorce papers when she was hospitalized on her deathbed with cancer. Their daughter, Jackie, who gets along with both of them, has (this year in the American Spectator) refuted this tale (which originated in a 1984 article in the quite radical Mother Jones magazine) has recently refuted this apocryphal tale in numerous ways. First, Newt's wife had a tumor removed back then but is still quite alive and simply non-political. Second, it was the first Mrs. Gingrich who requested the divorce BEFORE she was hospitalized. She and Newt sat the children down at home to explain what was about to happen. Third, as you may not know, the first Mrs. Gingrich was Newt's cradle-robbing high school math teacher. Personally, I hate divorce but I can also make room for the possibility that Newt married wife #1 under undue influence of her seniority and status. I don't know but I also don't doubt that Newt was having an affair with wife #2 while still married to wife #1.

That wife #2 and he were carrying on while he was still married, undermines any claim by her of being abandoned for wife #3 since wife #3 and Newt were simply doing to her what she and Newt had done to wife #1. All of this is verrrry ugly nonetheless and our society would be a lot better off if such misbehavior were far rarer than it apparently has become.

You and I are probably separated in age by many years since I am almost as old as Newt and your homepage indicates that you are a college student.

In the movie Dr. Zhivago which I strongly recommend to you and to anyone despite its being the product of Boris Pasternak (a Marxist) and spirited to publication in the west by Gramscian communists in Italy, there is a relevant scene.

Boy revolutionary Pavel Antipov is seeking the approval of the utterly corrupt Komarovsky to marry the compellingly delicious 17-year-old Lara (Komarovsky's lover who is determined to be done with him and with adultery). Her father is dead and Komarovsky is also Lara's mother's lover (he is a busy guy). Pavel Antipov is painfully naive (having no idea of Lara's submissions to Komarovsky) but utterly dedicated as a Bolshevik and ohhh sooooo earnest. Lara urgently asks Komarovsky in Antipov's presence at a working class cafe what he thinks. Komarovsky says cynically: I think he is very young. Antipov: If people do not bring youth to their marriage, what can they bring. Komarovsky (contemptuously): A certain measure of experience! ..... Komarovsky again: The young are intolerant! Antipov (standing up suddenly in offended dignity): The young are intolerant because we have so much less to tolerate in ourselves!!! There is more to the scene but you get the drift. Antipov's response beats the hell out of Rhett Butler's: Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn, as the greatest line in cinematic history.

I saw that scene when I was eighteen and imagined that Dr. Zhivago was an anti-communist movie. I soooo admired Antipov for standing up to Komarovsky. It was a damn right moment. Now I am aging and aged and I also appreciate Komarovsky in a different light. He is not admirable but revolutionary WWI era Moscow does not make principle a comfortable guide to life. He has been making compromises for a very long time (as have many of us who have reached senior status). He describes himself as "an ignoble Caliban." We compromised seniors are not unreservedly admirable in that respect either.

Nor is Newt. OTOH, we have to elect somebody as POTUS in 2012. I have never compromised so far as to find the likes of Romney supportable. Bob Barr is also not acceptable for the stated reasons. I would prefer that he refrain from public life altogether although he is more conservative than Romney. We obviously cannot voluntarily re-elect Obozo.

We are stuck with a POTUS candidate field in which Sarah Palin might have been a star but apparently was reluctant to catch any more slime from the Demonrat slime machine. Michelle Bachmann looked like she might be a star but she has faltered repeatedly on a bigger stage than a couple of terms in the Minnesota State Senate and a couple of terms in Congress qualified her. The Slime Merchants could not touch her with scandal so they claimed that her long-time husband is a lavender queen. No one believed them and they shut up.

Rick Perry, Texas's longest serving governor in its long history, could not make the transition to the national media context. The Demonrats were offering money for anyone willing to come forward as a potential bimbo eruption against Perry, straight or particularly lavender. Surprisingly, no one apparently tried to get the money. I had fully expected that some lavender queen with a yen for cash would have been happy to slime Perry while dialing for dollars. Of course, Perry would have been innocent but that does not seem to matter to the media or the Demonrats any more.

Herman Cain has impressive business credentials (much better for political purposes than Romney) but has been the target of classic Axelrod autoslime. He will probably withdraw by 12/5/11, and we will lose the first math major to run for POTUS. I don't care for 9-9-9 but Cain deserved a better fate. He is too old for a 2016 re-run (as is Newt) but tough talking Secretary of Commerce sounds right as does Axelrod apologizing on national TV to Mrs. Cain.

Rick Santorum would have made a good candidate in many ways. I regard him as one of the best senators of this era. I am prejudiced as a Catholic but I also think he is one of the best Catholics in public life. He lost his Senate seat by supporting pro-abort Arlen Spector in a GOP primary in about 2004 against the previously pro-abort ex-Congressman Tuomey who changed his mind on abortion as easily as Mittwit did and, it seemed, for the same reason of improving electability. Spector, we now know paid for that endorsement by promising and delivering on his promise to support Dubya's pro-life nominations to SCOTUS and other courts as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Many in Pennsylvania and elsewhere so hated Spector that they have treated Santorum as a pariah. That is unfortunate but it is what it is and Santorum is getting no traction.

Opposing Huntsman needs little explanation since he apparently supports gay everything, apparently voted for Obozo, served him as envoy to Red China, has yet to become a blip on the radar screen and is probably Mother Jones's favorite "Republican." Nice looking daughters are not enough of an excuse. Else, I might run which I won't.

Gary Johnson must have been smoking his favorite herb to think he had any business in this race. Buddy Roemer was a lying opportunistic governor of Louisiana (in the Jurassic era and never heard from since) who changed from Demonrat to Republican as a "pro-lifer," got elected and then governed as a pro-abort and was rightfully thrown out after that one term. He made Edwin (Laissez bon temps roullez) Edwards look like a moral and honest man.

Finally, we have Dr. Ron Paul. Personally, I will shock you by saying (in an extreme minority around here) that I do not get moved by bordermania. I know a lot of Mexicans here in Northern Illinois, some entered legally and others did not. I am happy that they are all here and I look forward to them voting their generally conservative principles (socially, militarily, economically, etc.). They are natural born Republicans and conservatives. Give them some time to settle in and the less they are threatened with deportation the sooner they will be our voters (like early Italian-American immigrants in my native New England).

That issue aside, Ron Paul is a two-faced liar who CLAIMS to be pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, fiscally conservative, pro-gun rights. He may well be pro-gun rights. That is important but not enough. Only the Mittwit would evade declaring on guns and probably would be bad on the subject. Ron Paul's exotic love affair with the otherwise ignored 10th Amendment leads him to be operatively a pro-abort, and an enemy of marriage as being for one man and one woman only. He claims Christianity while resisting its two most important issues. He packs every budget with pork for Galveston while posing for holy pictures at press conferences as a "fiscal conservative," votes against each budget bill but rests assured that his corrupt liberal colleagues will vote his pork into law anyways. He consorts with the likes of David Duke and the proprietors of neo-Nazi Stormfront though he is no neo-nazi but he IS a collector of embarrassingly exotic voters. Having had three kids, I am no longer favorable to any "right" to use recreational drugs. Paul's "foreign policy" and "military policy" is an embarrassment to rational humanity. When Israel (or parts of the USA) is/are incinerated by Iranian nukes, Ron Paul will be blaming America first along with Alex Jones, Infowars and his fellow 9/11 Troofers.

You like none of the GOP candidates. That is understandable and certainly your right. I suspect that you are also no fan of Obozo. This nation does have an election in November, 2012. Someone will be elected. Newt has many sins but seems better than this inadequate field either by an admittedly flawed governing philosophy or electability or both. He will not make my generation forget Ronaldus Maximus (for whom I worked on staff at the 1968 GOP convention and for whom I was a state chairman in 1976 when he challenged feckless Ford).

If someone has a rational path to nominating Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin (in spite of her determination to the contrary), they can count on me but right now it looks like its Mittwit or Newt and I'll take Newt and urge others to do so. If I and others like me get him elected, it will be up to your generation to hold his feet mercilessly to the fire on all the issues that count.

I disagree with your assessment that Newt is somehow more liberal than the Mittwit but that is a somewhat separate issue. The length and tone of this post mean that I respect you nonetheless and express to you every good wish for success in your future as a conservative. I would swap ages with you gladly to get the chance to do it all over again. God bless you and yours.

50 posted on 12/02/2011 1:10:10 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson