Free Republic

I fully support your right to follow your concience and vote for the candidate of your choice.

I simply cannot bring myself to vote for Mr. Gingrich. I simply do not trust him. He has revealed his true character in his dealings with his ex-wives, showing he will put his interests above those of his closest relationships. Character is not separable between private and public lives. One's values are truly revealed when they cost you something If he will cheat on his wives and toss them under the bus when it serves his interests, I am forced to conclude that he will toss us all under the bus if it comes to choose his self interests our ours. Quite frankly, in my view Me. Gingrich has failed the test and lost my vote. I used to be a big fan of his. We used videos of his "Democracy in America" course as curricula to home school our children many years ago (before the Callista scandal during the Clinton impeachment.) There are principled Republican and Libertarian candidates. I will choose one of those.

I do not give a damn about his personal life past. What I do care about is what he will do with the country from here on out.

The problem is that trying to separate one's actions in personal and political matters is a false dichotomy. One's character is shown when a choice costs you something. The relationship between a husband and wife is one of the most intimate of all human relationships. Mr. Gingrich's serial adultery shows he is willing to toss his closest human relationship under the bus when it serves his interest. Just what gives you confidence that he will put your interests and mine and those of our neighbors at least on par with his own if there is a time to choose as president? I used to have great respect for Mr. Gingrich but he has shown me that he will say/do anything to serve his own interests. I have no confidence in his integrity. You are, of course, free to disagree. My point is that some of us believe we have good reason to want a principled conservative other than Mr. Gingrich.

Prof. Warren differs from many of the other 1% in that she wants to see the 99% not fleeced. She tells the story of giving a seminar at a large bank reporting her analysis of bankruptcies. She outlined her analysis and noted that if they did not extend credit to a well-defined subset of the most uncredit worthy clients that they could cut their bankruptcies by a large percentage. She said she got the “But Prof. Warren” question and all the eyes turned to the person with all the power in the room. The power broker responded “that is where we make most of our money.” The banker had more in common with a drug pusher - he knew the clients couldn’t pay but was going to get them in trouble and fleece them for all kinds of penalties and fees before they went bankrupt. Now nobody held a gun to these poor schmuck’s heads and made them sign loan papers, but I’m glad when people like Prof. Warren want to force the bankers to provide clear disclosure in plain English.

Your analysis is correct. As Karl Denninger of The Market Ticker notes - it is about the math. Our deficit spending has been rising much faster than our production since the 1980s. These are diverging exponential functions and simply cannot continue. The question is not if the system will collapse, but when.

Time is totally irresponsible. This is too inflammatory to publish without sources on the record. May Time go bankrupt and pass out of existence for this screed.

Sadly, one can say this about all retirees. Pension fund returns have not averaged 8% in this decade and the money just isn’t there. Medical benefits are even more of a problem. There simply is no way that we can continue to pay for 10% per year cost in creases for health care when a 1-3% raise increase is considered generous these days.

Good point. IIRC, applications tend to be around $50 each. Whole point is to make sure there is genuine interest to not waste resources in the evaluation process. I say take all federal money out of education except as research funding (pay for work - hopefully useful.) All the easy credit has inflated cost and let too many students in that are incapable of doing the work - resulting in degree inflation. When I started work in our lab in 1982, BS Chemists were hired as professionals, now they are hired as technicians.

"This is the most critical time in our country's history, economically, morally, culturally, national security," he said. "And the reason President Obama has divided this country is because he has not told the truth to this country. He hides the ball. He plays games. He pits groups against another. It's all this political chess game, instead of trying to be honest with the American public."

This is my favorite line in the whole piece. Of the Republican field of candidates at the moment, I have the most respect for Santorum.

Newt’s character is AMERICAN. Zero’s character which he exposed over the past 3 years is UN-AMERICAN

I find your argument flawed for two reasons. First, it is a false dichotomy - there are other choices besides Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Obama, especially this early in the race. Second, I really hope repeated betrayal of one's most intimate human relationships (i.e. marriage) is inconsistent with your definition of "American Character". If what you really meant to claim is that Mr. Gingrich espouses many conservative principles that are better than the principles held by Pres. Obama - I would agree. However, "character" has many more dimensions than conservatism and includes trustworthiness. Some of Mr. Gingrich's choices (his behavior in his divorces, his relationship with Fannie and Freddie) cause me to question his trustworthiness.

Can you post a link to reliable documentation of that charge? I did note that they were married when he was 19 and she was 26, noting she had been his former high school geometry teacher. I did see the Esquire article, but could not find a charge that she had inappropriate contact while he was a student under 18. I certainly do not condone contact between a teacher and under age pupil (or any high school student, for that matter.) I also note that Mr. Gingrich was an adult (19) when he entered into a valid marriage. I would further add that wife #2's comments in the Esquire article increase my concerns over Mr. Gingrich's suitability to be POTUS.

I would note that CNN posted an in-depth article on the first divorce, including links to the original court documents that I read in full. After reading the original documents I have and the quotes from those familiar with both divorces, I simply cannot trust Mr. Gingrich's character. There simply has to be an ethical conservative Republican candidate. For me, that is not Mr. Gingrich.

Each of us must do our own homework and then follow our conscience.

The article I saw was that Mrs. Gingrich #1 refused to comment out of deference to her daughters and grandchildren. The information I got came from the published court documents and the comments of the Baptist deacon who helped pick up the pieces after divorce #1.

Mr. Gingrich’s two ex wives and his (ex-friend, former colleague at the U, and Baptist deacon who helped wife #1 pick up the pieces afterward) would likely disagree with you about Mr. Gingrich’s truthfulness. One question for you: what makes you think he would not throw you, me, and the rest of the country under the bus like he did his two ex-wives if his interests and ours differed? Do you apply your tag line, “Trust God and question everybody else” equally to Mr. Gingrich? Mr. Gingrich did not get “Romney-boated” - he is just facing scrutiny for his choices. Many of us think those choices are relevant to his ability to govern.

That should tell you it takes more than saying nice things to get votes. It takes presence, personality, and money. He has none of those.

Perhaps this is why our government and society is so corrupt. I'd rather have a boring president with integrity than someone who looks good on TV and will toss his wife (or the people) under the bus when it serves his ambition. You can tell a person's true values when it costs them something. Just saying...

Not about issues? Is not the Constitutional requirement for the office a valid issue? Does not the electorate have the right to expect that those they compensate to oversee elections would exercise due diligence in seeing Constitutional mandates are followed? Isn’t Obama’s incompetent botching the release of that doctored document a valid issue? A competent president would have granted the appropriate office of the State of Hawaii permission to release a certified copy as a matter of public record. Not like an illegal alien could use it for identity theft...

al-Awlaki was involved in active rebellion against the government and citizens of the United States. He was plotting attacks that put our citizens and soldiers, like my son who is deployed, in harm’s way. I tell you what - l don’t lose a wink of sleep seeing this piece of work get a drone up the wazoo. Let me pose a question to those who do: Are you willing to put your own child or one whom you are close to in harm’s way to bring jokers like this to “justice”? There are evil people in this world who want to take away our freedom and force us to live under Sharia law. Not a choice - they want to impose it on us. The lives of my son and those who serve with him to protect us are far more important to me than grabbing any of these militants. Others are free to disagree. That is the beauty of our free country - something scum like al-Awlak want to take away from us.

Thanks for posting this. I think Hanson summed things up rather well. however, at the end of the day the responsibility for all of this rests on the electorate.

During the 2008 campaign, my son made an interesting observation - that Obama was the political equivalent of a Rorschach test (ink blot test.) People looked at him and saw what they wanted to see. They bought the vacuous "Hope and Change" mantra - forgetting that "change" can be bad as well as good. Sadly, we cannot get the Buffoon in Chief out of office fast enough.

Sadly, I think we are in for a very dismal future. We don't have a national will to do what it takes to get our national addiction to government spending under control. The debt load is crushing us and we don't have the will to "eat our peas" and make the required changes. Diverging exponential functions (gov't spending over time compared to wages/tax revenue over time) are a recipe for disaster. There is no credible solution proposed by either party. The results will not be pretty...

Note the footnote in the parent article:

*Yes, Syracuse is in present-day Sicily, but it was a Greek city at the time.

Guess that makes Dionysius the first wise guy too. Always did think that politicians and their crony Banksters were like the mob with legal protection...

Let McCain voluntarily surrender his government pensions to pay for this before he saddles us taxpayers with more debt. Come on John, be a good old soldier - fade away...

It really becomes a matter of economics. Employers over a given size who provide health insurance to their employees are permitted to charge premiums only on the basis of single, married, or family plans not on the basis of individual actuarial risk (age or lifestyle choices that have significant actuarial consequences.) However, when these employers actually purchase the health coverage it is typically billed on individual actuarial rates. So the younger person subsidizes the older person. One might rationalize this because over a career it averages out. But having employees who consistently make lifestyle choices that are typically accompanied by serious medical costs (i.e. smoking and obesity) just drives up cost for those who make prudent decisions when the costs are averaged.

One of the unintended consequences of globalization is the increased pressure on all employers caused by reduced profit margins. Here in Rochester, the local Excellus-Blue Cross office announced 2012 premium increases of 8-12%. No employer can continue to absorb these types of increases. The employer can't just pass these costs on to the customer. Neither can employees cover these cost increases, when a 2-3% raise is considered generous. We are just happy to have jobs. The sad truth is that each of us must assume responsibility for our own medical coverage. There are no rich uncles, flush with cash, to pay for our poor choices.

At the end of the day, those of us who are part of the spiritual oversight of Christian churches need to stand with the apostles and say, “We must obey God, rather than men.” Our church policy is that only currently serving elders and commended workers (a.k.a missionaries) are authorized to perform marriages by the church. We require both the prospective bride and groom to be believers and to undergo pre-marital counseling. Obviously, we believe the Scriptures are clear that marriage is between one man and one woman. We take the responsibilities of biblical eldership seriously, and as those who must give an account to the Chief Shepherd, will not be a preside over a marriage that is not consistent with the Scriptures. Many do not like our stand. They are free to look elsewhere for someone to marry them.