Posted on 11/08/2011 1:55:48 PM PST by libertarian neocon
At the beginning of this race, I really didn't think I would consider supporting Newt Gingrich for the nomination. He had to resign as speaker, seems to want to reach across the aisle at random moments (like the commercial with Pelosi on a couch!), has a sordid personal life (with multiple marriages and affairs) and even put down the Ryan plan as "right wing social engineering" and "too great a leap". However, two things really have changed my mind. First, his performance in debates. He has extensive knowledge on what seems to be all issues and even gives historical examples as to why he believes what he believes (wouldn't it be great to have a candidate that the media doesn't automatically paint as stupid or uneducated?). He is the type of candidate who might actually convince people to become Republicans, unlike most of his competitors, who can't really say why they believe what they believe (or in the case of Romney, don't actually believe in anything but sound bytes that get them elected). I think if he gets the nomination and faces Obama he will absolutely cream him, by pointing out the fallacies and inconsistencies in his arguments & policies. Another thing he did in the debates that I really liked was that he constantly stayed above the fray, not attacking his fellow Republicans and instead focusing, and trying to keep the other candidates focused, on Obama.
The second main reason, I'm thinking about supporting him is just the process of elimination. There are really only three candidates who can articulate their positions and not stare blankly at the camera when given a complicated question, Romney, Gingrich and Santorum. Romney is polished but I have ZERO confidence he will actually enact conservative principles. When he was Governor of Massachusetts, only 25% of his judicial appointments were even Republican. With a court at 5-4, we can't afford a single misstep there. Also, I find it hard to believe he will fight tooth and nail to repeal Obamacare. He will try to "fix" it, taking out certain provisions and adding others. Not my idea of what needs to be done. Santorum wouldn't be a bad choice, he is definitely conservative and can explain why he believes what he believes. Unfortunately, he comes across as mean and has been a bit too much on the attack in the debates which I think is holding him back in the polls.
The other candidates have become a joke. While I like Herman Cain on a personal level, he is absolutely horrible at thinking on his feet (which is something I would think a President would have to do from time to time). Heck, he even has trouble thinking about the right way to deal with things with 10 days notice (Politico gave him 10 days notice before going public with the harassment story). It just boggles the mind how his story could change 3 times in one day when he had so long to prepare for it. Also, in the debate with Newt Gingrich he passed on the question about "premium support" or "defined benefit" plans for medicare. The problem with passing is that this was a debate on entitlements and so he should know what those terms mean. Even if he didn't, you should be able to figure it out right? It's not exactly rocket science. It's a good thing Newt was so gracious or he would have pointed out that someone who wants to be President of the United States should know such things. Also, given his lack of experience in government, it really is theoretical as to how he will act when in power. When given actual choices that will effect others, will he consistently choose the conservative one? His answers on abortion and the Palestinian right of return make me nervous.
Rick Perry really is starting to remind me of W especially when he does that deer in headlights impersonation when he gets a question he doesn't know how to answer. It really doesn't inspire confidence. Nor did his attempt to disqualify Romney on the basis of his landscaper using illegals. I'm also not convinced as to how conservative he really is. He just had to be conservative in Texas to be elected, who knows what he will be like with blue staters in the mix. Bachmann, while a relatively good speaker, is very gaffe prone and has a strange propensity to make up stuff as she goes along.
So there you have it. Newt definitely has his issues, but when it boils down to it, he is a great speaker with a much more conservative record than Romney (I'll probably only be pissed off part of the time with Newt). And that might be all it takes. I wouldn't want perfection to be the enemy of the good.
Liar.
Newt was 2nd on my list but now he is not. The worry about Newt is he always pick political expiency over the Right. Just did it with Cain today
At least Newt can get a message across in a couple of simple sentences - unlike the rest of the Republican community (not casting aspirsion on the other candidates, just saying).
At this point all I want to hear are candidates who speak clearly and don’t use a paragraph to say what can be said in one sentence.
“Face it, your mind has always been weld shut about Cain. To pretend otherwise to those of us who have seen your postings is absurd.”
Maybe you didnt see this one http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/2011/10/latest-thoughts-on-gop-race-and-latest.html in which I write:
“Now on to Cain, who I still really like. His knee jerk reaction to things seems to be, “government shouldn’t be involved in that” which, as a libertarian, I love. “
Doesn’t sound too closed. I do go on to complain about the lack of professionalism about his campaign but that is generally accepted no?
Thanks for proving my point. Instead of a factual rational response, you once again start screaming bile at anyone pointing out Newt’s record.
Don’t project your behavior onto others.
While I like Herman Cain on a personal level, he is absolutely horrible at thinking on his feet ...
_____________________________________________________________________________________
do you make this stuff up?
herman bested newt in the debate. for example, herman’s vice president question to newt.
obama can’t think. even on his feet.
“Talk about an oxymoron - what the hell is a “libertarian neocon”? Is it some sort of Democrat Republican hybrid? Or maybe a liberal conservative like Rudy McRomney?”
No it means I am a libertarian (pro-free market, pro-individual freedom, anti-government spending) on domestic matters but also believe in a strong and active defense.
Thanks for your post. I totally agtree. WHO would carry around such an odd FReepname?
Libertarian neocon? Sounds like a cross between Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan.
Sheesh!
You posted the same diatribe about Cain in every one of your blog posts. So spare us the posturing as if you have ever even thought about him seriously
Just come out and be honest. It is this pretending to be open minded about him when you are not that is so insulting to readers.
Well I am very emotionally attached to Cain...I have known him for over 7yrs...
I know him and trust him...None of these women scare me at all...I fear that the folks who have been screaming for politicos to stand up to the media, not play the media games, stand up to the RINO establishment, have a spine, etc etc are ready to abandon the man who actually rises to the occasion....
It seems ironic how many folks are lacking the very backbone they claim they want from others.
No one should flip from their candidate, but they should not humor the elitist/media attack on Cain either.....
As for MNJohnnie— LOL!! he is my husband...I am well aware of his reputation as Mr Grim....we met here on FR years ago...
;-)
“Sorry, but sitting next to Pelosi disqualifies him for anything past being head dogcatcher.
An intelligent person does not associate with ignorant s*uts who sc**wed their way into political office by boinking a rich guy.”
As someone who hates Pelosi enormously I sympathize with your sentiment. I also dont like anyone who proposes that we do anything about global warming. Unfortunately, based on the Buckley principle he is looking like the most conservative electable candidate in this race.
So basically you're okay with Big Government™ abroad but not okay with Big Government™ at home?
“You posted the same diatribe about Cain in every one of your blog posts. So spare us the posturing as if you have ever even thought about him seriously”
“Just come out and be honest. It is this pretending to be open minded about him when you are not that is so insulting to readers.”
I have been open minded about all the candidates. I’ve had to be. Anyway, I have had some criticism of Cain but I defended him here (http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/2011/10/neoconservatives-vs-cain.html) made positive comments on the ideas behind 999 here (http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-isnt-mitt-romney-gaining-more.html) posted his debate with Clinton here (http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/2011/09/see-herman-cain-battle-bill-clinton-in.html) and posted his debate response on what would have happened to him as a cancer sufferer on Obamacare here (http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/2011/09/cain-obamacare-would-have-killed-me.html). Sorry I dont think I was ever dead set against him.
“So basically you’re okay with Big Government™ abroad but not okay with Big Government™ at home?”
Yes, watching 9/11 from my office window cured me of any historic isolationist tendencies I might have had (though admittedly I really only was against some of Clinton’s meaningless adventures).
Your position will inevitably result in Big Government™ abroad and at home.
Your mind reading abilities are flawed, as is your ability to assign motive.
Take a look at what has actually been said regarding this latest matter, by EACH of the (R) candidates today.
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.