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

Skip to comments.

Newt in 2002: None of the founding fathers were for weak government.
Power In The New Millennium ^ | February 21st, 2002 | C SPAN Debate

Posted on 01/05/2012 8:50:47 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing

01:06:40 NONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE FOR WEAK GOVERNMENT.

01:06:42 THEY WERE FOR LEAN GOVERNMENT THAT SPENT AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE AND THAT FOCUSED ITS POWER ON GETTING KEY THINGS DONE, BUT THEY WERE ALSO VERY PRAGMATIC AND THEY WERE FOR WHAT WORKED, AND I THINK THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY HAVE TO HAVE THAT DEBATE BUT INONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE FOR WEAK GOVERNMENT.

01:06:42 THEY WERE FOR LEAN GOVERNMENT THAT SPENT AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE AND THAT FOCUSED ITS POWER ON GETTING KEY THINGS DONE, BUT THEY WERE ALSO VERY PRAGMATIC AND THEY WERE FOR WHAT WORKED, AND I THINK THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY HAVE TO HAVE THAT DEBATE BUT I WOULD SEE NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY LOOKING AT THE MUNICIPAL CASES AROUND THE COUNTRY, LOOKING AT THE CURRENT SITUATION, AND I WANT TO REPEAT WHAT I SAID EARLIER BECAUSE I THINK IT'S CENTRAL TO THIS.

01:07:07 IF THE PEOPLE WHO GAVE THEMSELVES A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS WHILE DEFRAUDING THEIR EMPLOYEES DID SO IN A KNOWING WAY, THEN FRANKLY, WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT ANY INDIVIDUAL PERSON IN THIS CITY, BUT AS A GENERAL PROVISION, THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING WHICH LEADS TO PROSECUTION, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT HAVE -- YOU CANNOT DEFEND CAPITALISM IF IT IS THE ABILITY OF THE RICH AND POWERFUL TO EXPLOIT, LIE TO, AND RIP OFF EVERYBODY WHO WORKS FOR THEM OR INVESTS IN THEM.

01:07:34 THERE HAS TO BE A BASIC RULE OF HONESTY FOR CAPITALISM TO FUNCTION. WOULD SEE NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY LOOKING AT THE MUNICIPAL CASES AROUND THE COUNTRY, LOOKING AT THE CURRENT SITUATION, AND I WANT TO REPEAT WHAT I SAID EARLIER BECAUSE I THINK IT'S CENTRAL TO THIS.

01:07:07 IF THE PEOPLE WHO GAVE THEMSELVES A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS WHILE DEFRAUDING THEIR EMPLOYEES DID SO IN A KNOWING WAY, THEN FRANKLY, WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT ANY INDIVIDUAL PERSON IN THIS CITY, BUT AS A GENERAL PROVISION, THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING WHICH LEADS TO PROSECUTION, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT HAVE -- YOU CANNOT DEFEND CAPITALISM IF IT IS THE ABILITY OF THE RICH AND POWERFUL TO EXPLOIT, LIE TO, AND RIP OFF EVERYBODY WHO WORKS FOR THEM OR INVESTS IN THEM.

01:07:34 THERE HAS TO BE A BASIC RULE OF HONESTY FOR CAPITALISM TO FUNCTION.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gingrich; newt; newtgingrich
I apologize to everybody for the caps, that's how the transcript is written.

Alternate link. Incomplete transcript

1 posted on 01/05/2012 8:50:53 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Newt ping, debate with Ralph Nader


2 posted on 01/05/2012 8:52:02 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Media doesn't report, It advertises. So that last advertisement you just read, what was it worth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Let me shift your focus:

Obama is KILLING THIS COUNTRY, and Newt is the ONLY candidate willing to punch him in the mouth!


3 posted on 01/05/2012 8:54:53 AM PST by G Larry ("I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his Character.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Let’s focus on Rev. Santorhummmm

In 2004, while serving as a United States Senator, Rick Santorum claimed his legal address was a house in the Pittsburgh suburb of Penn Hills, which was immediately next door to the home of his wife’s parents. During the spring and summer of that year — in the leadup to the presidential election — Pittsburgh news crews started investigating whether or not Santorum really lived in the house he claimed as his Pennsylvania residence. Several of these “investigative reports” showed the Penn Hills “Santorum House” as abandoned, with an unkempt lawn, peeling paint, and junk mail piled up near the front door – as if no one had visited the house in many months. When the cameras peeked inside the house, viewers saw room after room empty of any furnishings; it was clear that the Santorum family did not live at that residence at all.
* The Pittsburgh media made a great stink over this, which quickly spread to average men and women on the street who became upset that Santorum didn’t really live at his “official residence”. The reason this really hit home with Pennsylvanians was because Santorum had railed against Congressman Doug Walgren for moving out of his own district and not maintaining a real residence there. Pennsylvanians hate hypocrisy — and that’s just what Rick Santorum was…a hypocrite…for haranguing Walgren for not living in his district when Santorum himself didn’t even live in the state of Pennsylvania anymore.
* Records ultimately showed that Santorum lived exclusively in a $600,000+ near-mansion in Virginia. This is another thing you need to understand about Pennsylvanians to appreciate just how damaging this was to Santorum. On paper, Santorum claimed his residence was a $90,000 modest house in a suburb of Pittsburgh, when in reality that house was abandoned and Santorum was REALLY living in a house six times as expensive in another state. Here in Chicago, $600,000 can’t buy you a big house, but in Pittsburgh it would land you a palace…so the people who heard about Santorum’s residency scam were enraged that he “abandoned the state” and “lied to his constituents” by living in what they perceived to be a mansion instead of the Penn Hills residence he claimed.
* After the 2004 election was over, Santorum very quietly tried to eliminate the appearance that his Penn Hills home was abandoned by renting it out to unnamed individuals. This didn’t solve the problem, but only made things worse, because the renters registered to vote using Santorum’s Penn Hills address. It’s a similar situation to what Rahm Emanuel found himself in when he rented out his Chicago home when he moved to Washington, only to later try to claim he still lived there — technically — when he wanted to run for Mayor of Chicago. Just like with Emanuel, Santorum was able to survive the residency challenge because he paid $2,000 worth of property taxes a year on his Penn Hills home and still held its deed…even though he hadn’t lived there in many years and had no intention of moving back there (at least not until the lease expired with the people he rented it to).
* The net effect of all this was an ingrained sense amongst Pennsylvanians that Rick Santorum couldn’t be trusted, was a slippery snake, and that the things he did “just weren’t right, even if they were legal”.
* The other shoe to drop in all of this was the question of where, exactly, Santorum’s children were living and who was paying for their education — the people of Pennsylvania or the people of Virginia. Even though Santorum’s family was clearly living in Virginia, Santorum was billing the state of Pennsylvania — and the Penn Hills School District in particular — around $40,000 per child to educate each of his five children in the “Western Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School”. After the Pittsburgh local news stations started showing viewers the tours of Santorum’s empty and abandoned Penn Hills home, irate citizens started demanding an investigation into the legality of Santorum charging the Penn Hills school district for the expensive education of five children who didn’t really live there, and instead were living in Virginia.
* Things got incredibly ugly as this was all hashed out in both the media and in the court of public opinion. Ultimately, Santorum yanked his kids out of the “Cyber Charter School” program and had his wife Karen start homeschooling them instead — but he refused to reimburse the state for the hundreds of thousands of dollars that were spent “cyber-schooling” the Santorum children while they lived in the state of Virginia. When confronted about any of this, Santorum became incredibly brittle on camera, lashing out at those who questioned him, and earning a solid reputation as an insufferable and impersonable jackass

Read more http://hillbuzz.org/why-rick-santorums-pennsylvania-residency-scam-and-school-tuition-fraud-still-matters-and-why-he-cant-be-the-nominee-because-of-it-95754

Here is an actual Rick Santorum quote: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.” And also, “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
These comments were not dug up from some bygone moment of ideological purity, before dreams of a presidential campaign. He said it in October, to a blogger at CaffeinatedThoughts.com (they met at Des Moines’ Baby Boomers Cafe).
It’s pretty basic: Rick Santorum is coming for your contraception. Any and all of it. And while he may not be alone in his opposition to non-procreative sex, he is certainly the most honest about it — as he himself acknowledged in the interview
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/rick_santorum_is_coming_for_your_birth_control/


4 posted on 01/05/2012 8:56:03 AM PST by Reagan69 (I supported Sarah Palin and all I got was a lousy DVD !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan69

Might wanna reserve that for Santorum threads.

Just sayin’.


5 posted on 01/05/2012 8:57:29 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Reagan69

This deserves it’s own thread, or a couple of threads. As a relpy it will probably just get glanced at by most. I read it and find it very compelling.


6 posted on 01/05/2012 8:57:57 AM PST by pgkdan ("Make what Americans buy, Buy what Americans make, and sell it to the world" Perry 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Things must be looking good for Newt in SC & FL, there are no recent polls published.


7 posted on 01/05/2012 8:57:57 AM PST by Reagan69 (I supported Sarah Palin and all I got was a lousy DVD !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Yes, the founders were not for weak government. That is, they were FOR something stronger than the Articles of Confederation. But, they were NOT FOR an imperial King-George-Like National government, like we have today. They WERE for a limited federal government, where the only things they were allowed to do, was put on paper - written in stone. All the other things that a government could possible do otherwise was reserved to the people and their state governments.


8 posted on 01/05/2012 8:58:06 AM PST by C210N (Dems: "We must tax you so that we can buy your votes")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

The founding fathers were for a weak centralized government...


9 posted on 01/05/2012 8:58:34 AM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

The Founders were not for weak government.

They were, however, for limited government.

Big difference, and the two can co-exist. Whatever the fed government is supposed to do (see enumerated powers), it should do well.

But the big difference is that there are only (literally) a FEW things that the federal government was supposed to do.

My may how confused we are today. Today, the fed government is supposed to do everything, but everything in a sloppy, piss poor, inefficient, corrupt way.

Precisely the opposite of what the Founders envisioned.


10 posted on 01/05/2012 9:00:00 AM PST by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan69

Santorum owned a couple of houses and may have lived in the nice one while legally identifying the other as his residence?

Yeah, that’s just as bad as Romneycare and changing your position on abortion four times.


11 posted on 01/05/2012 9:00:52 AM PST by RIRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Reagan69

To be fair, I just saw that you’re not just in the tank for Romney, but supporting a good conservative.

I’m a Newt fan too. I would probably support him if he didn’t flip on the health care mandate


12 posted on 01/05/2012 9:03:39 AM PST by RIRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
...and Newt is the ONLY candidate willing to punch him in the mouth!

Really? As I recall, Newt squandered a lead in the polls debating how to rearrange the Judiciary for a couple weeks instead of "punching him in the mouth".

13 posted on 01/05/2012 9:05:57 AM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

[ The Founders were not for weak government.

They were, however, for limited government. ]

They wanted something stronger than the “Articles of Confederation” so they took a small step towards that with the constitution and the setup of the separation of powers.

If Newty boy was right about the founders wanting Strong government they would have swung the pendulum to the other side rather than just taking a few steps toward the center from anarchy.


14 posted on 01/05/2012 9:06:03 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: goat granny

nobody wants a weak government, just a smaller, more effective (at what it’s constitionally suppose to do and nothing else), less intrusive one.


15 posted on 01/05/2012 9:06:22 AM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (Go Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Newt is right on this. Limited and weak are two different things.

A weak government cannot enforce a rule of law, field a military, or collect taxes. Weak governments lead to anarchy.

Limited governments need not be weak.

Think of a large powerful man who doesn’t push people around.


16 posted on 01/05/2012 9:07:04 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
... YOU CANNOT DEFEND CAPITALISM IF IT IS THE ABILITY OF THE RICH AND POWERFUL TO EXPLOIT, LIE TO, AND RIP OFF EVERYBODY WHO WORKS FOR THEM OR INVESTS IN THEM

Boy, Newt sounds just like Bari doesn't he!

17 posted on 01/05/2012 9:08:18 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goat granny

[ The founding fathers were for a weak centralized government... ]

Weak in what it could dictate to the states and citizenry, but strong on protecting the states as a whole from foreign powers.

I like the term “Limited” rather than “Weak” because limited is what it cannot do. Wheras weak implies it cannot do or enforce anythign or even protect itself.


18 posted on 01/05/2012 9:08:39 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

What’s your problem with that part of his statement?


19 posted on 01/05/2012 9:13:00 AM PST by Clara Lou (nObama, noRomney, noPaul, noBachmann, noSantorum . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
I want to know which Candidate understands what is comming, unless things change?
http://youtu.be/thgUVbcqWIU
20 posted on 01/05/2012 9:13:16 AM PST by swamprebel (Where liberty dwells, there is my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
"Boy, Newt sounds just like Bari doesn't he!"

Ahhhhh, no.

The sort of "capitalism" he is talking about that is "indefensible" is CRONY capitalism. Get it?

21 posted on 01/05/2012 9:13:31 AM PST by Matchett-PI ("One party will generally represent the envied, the other the envious. Guess which ones." ~GagdadBob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

[ YOU CANNOT DEFEND CAPITALISM IF IT IS THE ABILITY OF THE RICH AND POWERFUL TO EXPLOIT, LIE TO, AND RIP OFF EVERYBODY WHO WORKS FOR THEM OR INVESTS IN THEM ]

Crony Capitalism only works when the government can pick winners and losers via Regulations and Taxes that are applied unequally... Ie. the situation we have today.

G.E. can afford to hire enough lawyers to fit the whole company through the head of a needle sized loophole. But a small to medium sized business cannot economically afford to do that to avoid the same laws that are supposed to “punish rich companies like G.E.”. So the laws that are meant and sold to the public to “Punish the evil big guys like G.E.” and actually USED by G.E. to keep down any upstarts that could challenge them fairly if we actually lived in a free market.

The same goes for any of the Giant Multinationals like Monsanto, G.M., G.E. etc etc.... The Laws that are sold to the public as a way to “punish” them end up being used to squash competition.


22 posted on 01/05/2012 9:14:39 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Strong ≠ Big
23 posted on 01/05/2012 9:14:54 AM PST by Eagle of Liberty (Shaking My Head on a daily basis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goat granny
Definitely they wanted a weak one in the sense that it wouldn't have anywhere near the powers today's government has usurped. Also known as limited. There is no way that today's government can in any way claim to be a legitimate heir of the one the founders created. As Madison said in the Federalist, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
The States having more powers than the federal government? Who today can imagine this? Yet the tenth amendment clearly lays it out. Yet the States today have become the docile pets of the federal monster, rarely daring to challenge it, even when it does things unconstitutional (which is all the time now)...The states (and the courts) should have acted as the watchdogs of liberty for the people, yet they mostly have stood idly by as the government feasted itself upon the freedoms of citizens, and like a glutton grabbing more and more power for itself. Yes, we claim to have a Constitution, but for the most part it is void. To the extent that the government even tries to justify its many illegitimate acts it usually cites the elastic clause, which the founders never dreamed would be so abused. So depressing.
24 posted on 01/05/2012 9:16:19 AM PST by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: C210N

“Yes, the founders were not for weak government. That is, they were FOR something stronger than the Articles of Confederation. But, they were NOT FOR an imperial King-George-Like National government, like we have today.”

Thanks God for some sanity on here.

Gingrich was exactly correct on his comment about the Founders vis a vis The Articles of Confederation.


25 posted on 01/05/2012 9:18:10 AM PST by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
"Newt in 2002: None of the founding fathers were for weak government."

Or, as Rush said yesterday....

bttt

26 posted on 01/05/2012 9:18:11 AM PST by Matchett-PI ("One party will generally represent the envied, the other the envious. Guess which ones." ~GagdadBob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan69

Wouldn’t it be more effective to tell us why we should support your candidate rather than spreading Romney intel?

Pray for America


27 posted on 01/05/2012 9:18:20 AM PST by bray (Ride Santorum back to Sanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

“If Newty boy was right about the founders wanting Strong government”

Gingrich didn’t say what you just said...he said, “The founders were not for weak government”

He is exactly correct.


28 posted on 01/05/2012 9:24:08 AM PST by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

Yes, “Really”!

Please, tell us, who else has stepped up to punch Obama in the Mouth?

Newt was back at it last night!


29 posted on 01/05/2012 9:25:15 AM PST by G Larry ("I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his Character.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Mittwits trying to slam Newt....with this?
Romneybots should get a brain.


30 posted on 01/05/2012 9:32:12 AM PST by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector

Beck is using this for his soundbites to nuke Newt this morning on his radio show.


31 posted on 01/05/2012 9:33:58 AM PST by sheikdetailfeather ("Kick The Communists Out Of Your Govt. And Don't Accept Their Goodies"-Yuri Bezmenov-KGB Defector)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
I get it.

Just like when Chase, Wells Fargo, BofA & Citi, all exploited, lied to and rip off all those sub-prime customers.

Good thing government sponsored Freddy & Fannie where there to ensure Capitalism was not corrupted in any way or fashion.

32 posted on 01/05/2012 9:39:45 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Newt is not exactly correct. The first government was weak. Way to weak to survive.

The Founders prior to the constitution were running a new government that was much to weak to get anything done. They could not even muster enough power to pay the veterans of the Revolution who were themselves talking about an armed revolution against the new government if wrongs done them weren’t righted. George Washington himself said the government formed was too weak and would collapse if not given more power.
Granted – even the biggest supporter of a more powerful government in the 1780s was not envisioning anything close to the government we have today.

But regardless, I am more concerned with quotes from Newt like this one, “The Progressive movement soundly changed America for the better”. Newt


33 posted on 01/05/2012 9:47:38 AM PST by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

There is a huge difference between holding people to the rule of law and Obama’s (and Rino) socialist, croney capitalist ideology.

It illegal to for corporate representatives to lie, scam and steal from investors in order to enrich themselves and thier pals and that is what the banks did when they knowingly gave out bad loans and then turned around and sold those loans as an investment to others.

Theft is what the politicans did when they cooked up the real estate scam with the banksters. They should all be prosecuted for corruption, misrepresenting and stealing.

You can not have free markets if politicans and business leaders are not held to the rule of law like everyone else. Part of business is honesty - you can’t lie about the value and financial condition of your business to investors in order to scam them.

Currently we have penalities for failure and theft apply to everyone but the elite with connections. The scammers get bailouts for their bad faith and are not being prosecuted for crimes. The politicians who cooked up the scam get protection from the corporate media and the money they need to be reelected.


34 posted on 01/05/2012 9:47:45 AM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

I just don’t understand the man crush on Newt all of a sudden by those on FR and from those in the TEA party. You could not get a kind word from a Freeper about Newt when Cain and Perry were on top and Newt was in the single digits. It’s one thing to have to support the guy because no one else has caught fire. But it’s quite another to get amnesia about all the reasons you did not like Newt a few months ago. And now with Santorum the latest non-Romney candidate to catch fire, you are starting to see how truly loyal the new Newt followers really were. They are storming over to the Santorum camp.


35 posted on 01/05/2012 9:51:48 AM PST by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: C210N
Newt is right, none of the founders were for WEAK government, they had had that under the articles of confederation and it was failing them.. hence the Constitutional Convention was convened.

They were for LIMITED government, not WEAK government.

36 posted on 01/05/2012 9:56:59 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo

“Newt is not exactly correct.”

Actually, he was exactly correct. The Articles failed and it was obvious that it failed due to being too weak to function properly.

So, stating that the Founders weren’t for weak government is accurate. The Founders envisioned a divided and limited government, not a weak one.


37 posted on 01/05/2012 10:02:23 AM PST by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

He (Gingrich) lost his lead because of millions of $$$$ in negative ads by Romney and Paul and lies from Bachmann, while Santorum was ignored.


38 posted on 01/05/2012 10:06:40 AM PST by Leto (Damn shame Palin didn't run, The Presidency was Her's for the taking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
Please, tell us, who else has stepped up to punch Obama in the Mouth?

I guess you haven't been listening to Santorums stump speeches.

39 posted on 01/05/2012 10:09:56 AM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Leto

To me that is an excuse. It may explain his slump in IA, but it doesn’t cover his decline nationally. The smartest man in the room should have known to stay on topic and keep hitting Obummer. He instead headed into obscure histrionics of the 9th circuit and the judiciary when this is a straight up economy election. It made no sense to people out of work or in trouble in this bad economy. Newt has problems staying on message.


40 posted on 01/05/2012 10:17:33 AM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Nice word play to allow for misinterpretation. Weak as opposed to strong? Or weak as opposed to large?


41 posted on 01/05/2012 10:22:03 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo

People are looking for a conservative who can beat Obama. They know none of the guys are perfect and many here have had problems with Gingrich and felt Santorum could not win so when he won Iowa, many felt maybe there was a chance. As for those who post all of Newts sins and the problems they have with him over and over, they think nobody has seen any of this before because some people are for Newt. The reality is..people are willing to overlook what they see if they have a candidate to beat Obama. Many felt Newt would take Obama on and although he has warts, he is not the anti-christ as some would have you believe.


42 posted on 01/05/2012 10:22:03 AM PST by sheikdetailfeather ("Kick The Communists Out Of Your Govt. And Don't Accept Their Goodies"-Yuri Bezmenov-KGB Defector)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo
I am more concerned with quotes from Newt like this one, “The Progressive movement soundly changed America for the better”. Newt

Context needed.

Is he referring here to the Progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, or to the present one using the same name?

If he was referring to the first one, I think most Americans would agree. The original Progressive Movement was a very diverse movement. Much of what it did we would today consider positive.

Other aspects of it were eugenic, proto-fascist and anti-constitutional.

IOW, mixed, like most things.

But I think it is difficult to argue that the Progressive movement did NOT change America for the better. Whether it would have done so, on a net basis, had it ever gained unchallenged power is an entirely different question. But it didn't gain such power, and so its primary function was to push the country in directions that were on a net basis positive.

43 posted on 01/05/2012 10:22:44 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

To me that is an excuse. It may explain his slump in IA, but it doesn’t cover his decline nationally. The smartest man in the room should have known to stay on topic and keep hitting Obummer.
_________________________________________________________

You missed where Fox News who are in the tank for Romney and almost every ‘elite/establishment’ ‘conservative’ pundit in the country trashed him for the past 6 weeks.....

He should have responded to the smears earlier.

Santorum has gotten a free pass because he isn’t a threat to Romney nationally.


44 posted on 01/05/2012 10:34:49 AM PST by Leto (Damn shame Palin didn't run, The Presidency was Her's for the taking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

limited does sound a lot better than weak.. but compared to what centralized government does today, it is neither limited or weak..one thing it is responsible for are protecting the borders which it does nothing about....getting tired of hearing about what they are doing next...


45 posted on 01/05/2012 11:09:30 AM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

Love Rick!

But he’s no fighter in the Big Leagues.

Show us a Santorum sound bite that’s received any media attention, attacking Obama....


46 posted on 01/05/2012 11:33:05 AM PST by G Larry ("I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his Character.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

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