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.
“Your position will inevitably result in Big Government™ abroad and at home.”
Ignoring the threat won’t make it go away. The radical islamists in places like Iran will want to kill us regardless of what we do. And historically there have been two key roles for government, Rule of Law and National Defense.
No one has bested Newt in the debates. No one.
lol!
Yeah, vote for Newt. Pelosi, Hilliary, the illegals and the DNC will appreciate it.
newt’s face turned red.
he paused.
he laughed.
and then he answered cain’s question.
You're ignoring the root of this problem.
The only reason these "radical islamists" have any capability to do dumb things is because the Western establishment (including the U.S., which stupidly allowed itself to get entangled in this miess) keeps feeding them money (foreign aid, oil exports) and weapons in a feeble attempt to bring them into the sphere of Western influence.
Of course, any "fixes" from the Western establishment usually compound existing problems - as is typical of Big Government™ "solutions."
Nation building is NOT national defense, and starting illegal wars of aggression completely violates any concept of rule of law.
Yep, I was too until today.........In fact, any of the GOPers who don't stand up for Cain have lost my respect......
And to you that means he won a debate?
It will be Newt Bachman, just wait.
Cain is an amateur, he is a mile wide and an inch deep.
You seem honest and wise...refreshing to find!!!
I thought he did a great job as well...
I don't know where you've been but Cain has addressed every allegation that's come out......The only festering that's going on is from the Cain haters who are waiting, aka, praying, for him to cave in and withdraw from the primary......
it’s one example.
you can’t trust what newt says.
remember how rush said in january 2009 that he hoped obama’s policies failed?
newt agreed.
and the msm media demanded that rush and newt et al apologize.
rush did not apologize.
newt did apologize to the leftists.
“I don’t know where you’ve been but Cain has addressed every allegation that’s come out.”
Dont you remember how he changed his story three times the day these first came out? And we just had two issues then, I think we are up to 5 now. I’m sure a few of them are fake but it only takes one to be true. And the way he is responding is just not inspiring confidence.
You might want to examine your own posts chum. Your attacks against anyone who dares to question whether Cain is being truthful have been as vicious as any I have seen on FR.
You'll be sorry.
I just had to laugh about that one....you know...pondering the astronomic significance [re: libertarians] and irrelevance [re: actual impact on the collective thought] of it all at once......very funny.....
That's why the Tea Partiers came into being, we're sick and tired of the sameo sameo bullshit from these posers.
We want new blood in the political arena and the 2010 election proved our resolve...........
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.