I don't care who ya are, that right there is funny !
Posted on 01/20/2012 7:57:08 AM PST by true believer forever
I'm officially endorsing Newt Gingrich for president today. Was going to wait until after Florida, but see no reason to delay. We need Newt to win in South Carolina and Florida to stop any possible momentum building up for the establishment big government, statist, abortionist RINO!!
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
15 posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 10:08:11 AM by impimp: “I am still supporting Santorum. But Newt is my second favorite.”
Agreed, given the remaining four candidates.
99 posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 10:42:55 AM by SpringtoLiberty: “I disagree with JimRob on this but I have to say... The fact that some random dude (JimRob) took it upon himself to advance a cause he felt passionate about and is now a leading voice able to mobilize and inspire hundreds of thousands of like minded persons is incredible. His story is a testament to why this country is so great and deserves our efforts to save it. Any man, with passion, hard work, and faith, can accomplish the impossible in America. This is the New World still, it is still the land of opportunity.”
I totally agree with this.
The power of Free Republic, which is basically the brainchild of an individual entrepreneur and a small group of friends who “went viral” and now reach millions of people, is incredible.
Until the early- to mid-1900s, it was a realistic (if difficult) possibility for someone to start a newspaper, and if they worked hard at it, could be in charge of a voice calling elected officials to account. If they were saying things that made sense and had a history of breaking news on corrupt or incompetent elected officials, they got readers and with readers came influence.
That hasn’t been realistic since shortly after the end of World War II. The cost to start a newspaper has been prohibitive and the media has turned into a monopoly in most communities.
That’s been bad for the media, bad for political discourse, and bad for America.
What Jim Robinson did by creating Free Republic and taking down Dan Rather is something right out of the playbook of Pulitzer or Hearst a century and a half ago — or, for that matter, John Peter Zenger whose crusade against a corrupt New York colonial governor gave us the court precedent that eventually led to the First Amendment after American independence. What Robinson is doing is the sort of thing the First Amendment was designed to protect and promote.
One of our greatest Freepers is Britt Hume. I hope he can do some behind the scenes media play for Gingrich.
Good point. I will get fired up if Gingrich denounces his position on the Global Warming Scan. Till then, I will be lukewarm
I don't particular care for the choices either, but there are two that sure won't get my vote.
I don't care who ya are, that right there is funny !
THAT went out like a damp wick!
Isa 1:31 (NIV) "The mighty man will become tinder and his work a spark; both will burn together, with no one to quench the fire."
Go NEWT!
I agree, and plan to vote for Santorum in the Missouri primary and probably the caucuses if he's still in the running then — and I fully understand he may not be. I don't really have much other choice in the primary since Gingrich isn't on the Missouri ballot.
However, I think Gingrich really does “get it” about the importance of social conservatives. If he becomes president I think we'll get a seat at the table (actually quite a few seats). Gingrich knows he can't win without the base, and he needs to make very clear to social conservatives that he'll listen to us or he'll lose just as badly as McCain lost due to his history of attacking evangelicals.
But I'm really, really unhappy about the idea of having to try to explain to fellow church members why they should vote for a multiple adulterer who got President Clinton impeached while doing basically the same things himself.
I'm not sure it will work, and while I believe a Romney nomination will wreck the Republican Party, I'm seriously concerned about what will happen if Gingrich can't placate the social conservatives, or worse yet, if his supporters start publicly attacking social conservatives. Some of the recent anti-evangelical stuff on Free Republic is a scary preview of what I hope we don't see coming from Gingrich himself.
The leading elder in my local church is quietly backing Ron Paul, as are several other members of my local church. A longtime friend pastoring an Iowa church publicly endorsed Ron Paul. The parliamentarian of my denomination, who carries significant influence and respect in his church and community circles as a hard-right Christian conservative, is aggressively backing Ron Paul. I think they're all making a horrible mistake, but if the people I'm talking to represent anyone other than themselves — and they definitely do — my discussions with them show we have some serious problems ahead since they'd rather back a dangerous nut-case like Paul than a serial adulterer.
Folks, we have to deal with reality. Newt Gingrich as the Republican nominee will be a very, very hard sell to many of our people. I'm not convinced it can't be done, and he's definitely better than McCain, Romney or Obama, but this is not going to be easy to convince evangelical Protestants, who have a history of low turnout when they're not excited about a candidate, to aggressively work for Gingrich's election.
President Obama will almost certainly mobilize his inner-city blacks to get to the polls, and I can't blame them for voting for a man who personifies the ability of people to beat racism. Obama and the Democrats are definitely right when they say they changed the composition of the 2008 electorate. Despite the continued collapse of the American economy, there's a good chance he'll do that again. If we don't have a candidate who can convince low-turnout evangelical voters to vote Republican, we have a big problem this fall.
That is just it.I don’t think he supports any of them.
He just complains that we are losing the country and says the system needs to change, but wants you to buy a book to find out more...
Meanwhile, in the real world we have to make a choice of the 4 on the stage.
I say take him with grain of salt. He has jumped the shark.
Robinson has had the guts to do what the national Republican leadership wouldn't
Is that SANDY down there on the ground??
Eh ???
Oh do you mean in your 470 pic ???
Then that was quite loud enough..
This line of argument regarding Santorum keeps coming up on Huffington Post and other liberal websites. I honestly don't understand it.
Why would liberals who support a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body have a problem with a woman choosing to have lots of kids?
I suppose I could assume unstated motives and say these liberals are advocates of Zero Population Growth and fundamentally object to large families, but as a FReeper, I feel pretty confident your views don't stem from those ideas.
I would have major problems if someone could show me that Santorum believes the government should ban birth control. I don't see him saying that. In any event, it's a dead issue because the Supreme Court ruled decades ago that states could not legally require people to show proof of marriage before buying birth control devices. Whatever I may think about birth control — and as a Protestant, unlike Santorum, I have freedom in my church to be sincerely uncertain of my views in that issue — my line-in-the-sand is abortion, not birth control.
The government has a God-given mandate to protect life. It may have a role in encouraging strong families or encouraging families to have lots of kids, but that is at most an implication of Scripture.
I'll fight for the application of the plain text of the Word of God in public life to stop mass murder of babies, but I will be very hesitant to push for something which is at best implied by Scripture and I'd rather leave doubtful matters for families rather than government to decide. Limited government is pretty basic to being a conservative.
Remember the rest of the story: He lost in a horrible year for Republicans, while running against a fairly conservative Democrat who was the son of a prominent conservative pro-life Democratic governor who had major run-ins with the Democratic Party over abortion.
Newt Gingrich has had his own losses in his history. Politicians sometimes lose races; that's what elections are about. Santorum has a history of winning difficult races in Democratic-leaning districts while being an outspoken pro-life conservative, and that counts with me.
I personally wish Santorum had run for governor of Pennsylvania, won, and then run for president a few years from now with executive experience under his belt and a record of winning. His Pennsylvania loss definitely makes him a weaker candidate but doesn't rule him out entirely, especially given the circumstances.
Wasn’t she gonna shout from the roof?
“If Newt is the candidate, it will be “crotchety old white guy” versus “young, hip, black guy” all over again. And the MSM will play the old ethics stuff over and over again. Buckley’s rule — support the most conservative candidate who is electable. It ain’t Gingrich. It’s Romney.”
Because the Ted Bundy corporate guy is so much more attractive? Romney will make the election results of ‘06 and ‘08 look good.
Hi, Big Guy! You’re getting a little Divine Assistance these days? Cool.
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.