Separated at birth?
Posted on 02/29/2012 7:21:05 PM PST by red flanker
Santorum was dumped from his Senate seat by 18 points, that was a freakish loss, other Republicans lost by 1 or 2 points in close races.
Santorum only won 39% of women and 42% of white Catholics in that race evicting him from the Senate.
What I said about Newt Gingrich is that he has had a coming to Christ moment, and converted to Catholicism, that is something that as the Republican nominee he can use to convert Catholic voters and Catholic Hispanics to vote Republican.
Santorum has never accomplished anything, or led anything, Gingrich took the Congress from the Democrats permanent clutches, and made history as a conservative leader and of the Reagan Revolution. Gingrich can destroy Obama in a head to head race, Santorum does not have what it takes to do any such thing.
Don’t get juvenille on us. Newt, endorsed McCain in 2008, even though he had much more conservative candidates to choose from. Santorum joined Rush and Levin in holding their noses and supporting Romney in a desparate attempt to stop an even bigger RINO McCain. But Newt, went straight for the most liberal candidate in the field.
Yes, Newt the Conservative leader, who trashed Romney for being a rich fat cat that cut jobs. (Why doesn’t he just get a job writing for the daily KOS) Newt, the conservative leader who pockets millions for a few “history sessions” with Freddie Mac execs. Newt, the conservative leader who endorses a candidate so liberal, that ACORN endorsed her over the democrat. Newt the Social Conservative, who never met a woman he didn’t like better than his wife dujour. Newt the Conservative, who attacked Reagan for not embracing the “Government Solutions”.
Newt may have championed Fiscal sanity at one point, but mr. Space mirrors and moon colonies has clearly gotten over his brush with conservatism.
The only reason any conservative should ever vote for the unelectable Newt, is if Newt and Romney were the last two standing.
It might not be about money for Drudge. There is some evidence that Romney has support for and promises from the gay international cabal. Drudge is a very private person but he might secretly like to help such an agenda.
Perhaps you can lead by example????
I’m not looking for someone without Sin, but with Newt, it isn’t a sin, it’s a way of life. And if that were Newt’s only flaw, it would be one thing, but when you add influence peddeling, Global Warming Nut, NY-23, McCain, Space Mirrors and Moon Colonies, Trashing Paul Ryan.
God help us if we get to the point that Conservatives are enthusiastic about the windbag Newt.
You’re absolutely telling lies. Newt endorsed NOBODY in 2008. Freddie Mac did NOT pay Newt or his firm “millions.” That’s just a bald-faced, made-up lie. Prove your false statements with links to sources or I recommend everyone report your post for abuse. Your lies are just wasting all of our time.
Sounds like a Rush listener.
http://www.newt.org/answers/#ryan-medicare-plan
Paul Ryan (and the House GOP’s) Medicare Plan
Like Ryan and the House GOP, Newt supports a premium support model for Medicare. However, he wants seniors to have the choice to opt into the new system or to stay in traditional Medicare.
Newt agrees wholeheartedly with Rep. Ryan that we must give our seniors more choices than the current one-size-fits-all Medicare model. Both concur that creating the opportunity for seniors to buy private insurance is the key to both improving care and lowering costs.
The one key difference is that under Newt’s plan, as outlined in his 21st Century Contract with America, seniors will also have the choice to stay in the current Medicare system or choose a private insurance plan with support from the government to pay the premiums. The other difference is that Newt believes that seniors should have this option starting next year, not in ten years.
Q: So why did Newt use the term “right wing social engineering” on Meet the Press when discussing these proposed changes to Medicare?
Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter.
In response to the host’s hypothetical question of whether Republicans should change Medicare even if there is public opposition, Gingrich’s response was no you should not. One of Newt’s basic governing philosophies is that government should offer a better alternative to existing entitlement programs that seniors can freely choose. Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter. Newt regards Paul Ryan as one of the biggest innovators in Washington, D.C. and he deeply admires the seriousness and boldness of his historic Path to Prosperity budget.
http://www.newt.org/answers/#global-warming-cap-and-trade
Global Warming/Cap and Trade
Newt does not believe there is a settled scientific conclusion about whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere.
Newt absolutely opposes “cap and trade” as well as any system of taxing carbon emissions. He testified before Congress against it in 2009 and led a grassroots effort while the Chairman of American Solutions to block its passage in the House and Senate.
Newt believes that cap and trade would kill hundreds of thousands of American jobs, cause electricity and fuel prices to skyrocket, and make America poorer. In contrast, Gingrich believes the best way to protect the environment is through markets, incentives, and entrepreneurs, who quite often are deploying innovative new technologies.
As for the question of whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere, Newt has noted there is no settled scientific conclusion. Many scientists believe it is the case. Others do not. But this unsettled scientific question has nothing to do with the best approach to protecting our environment, which is always markets, incentives, and entrepreneurs creating better and more efficient products and services.
Q: So why did Newt do the ad with Nancy Pelosi in 2007 calling for action to address climate change?
Newt does not believe there is a settled scientific conclusion about whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere.
Newt 2012 > Get the Facts
Setting the Record Straight: Newt’s Positions on the Issues and His Record
Now that our campaign to rebuild the America we love is gaining momentum, those who want to see us fail are on the attack, digging through Newt’s past to try and stop us.
Newt, Callista and our campaign welcome the opportunity to tell the truth about Newt and set the record straight about Newt’s positions on the issues as well as his record in public life and as a private citizen.
We’ve set up this page to arm you with answers to the attacks.
See an attack that is not answered? Let us know here. This page will grow as we receive more feedback to help you answer the attacks.
Menu
Ryan Medicare Plan
Health Insurance Mandate
Ethanol
Fairness Doctrine
Global Warming/Cap and Trade
Immigration/DREAM Act
Spanish a “ghetto language”
Agriculture Subsidies
TARP
Zero-Based Budgeting in Foreign Aid/Inclusion of Israel
Libya
U.S. Sovereignty/Council on Foreign Relations
China’s One Child Policy
NAFTA
Vote for Department of Education
Education Tour with Sharpton/Duncan
Consistent Pro-Life Record
End-of-Life Care
Healthcare Rationing/Donald Berwick
Second Amendment
Dede Scozzafava Endorsement
Praise for FDR
Government Shutdown
Ethics Investigation
Lobbying
Relationship with Freddie Mac
Personal Life
FEC Requests on Reimbursements to Gingrich and Staff
Newt is the only candidate in the race for the Republican nomination who has led a national movement to elect a Republican majority and then actually achieved substantial conservative reforms of the federal government, including welfare reform, balanced budgets, and tax cuts. These historic reforms liberated the American people to create 11 million new jobs in just four years. Read more about the remarkable Newt Gingrich record here.
No candidate in the race can match Newt Gingrich’s 35-year career as a public figure advocating, explaining and achieving conservative reforms in government.
With this vast amount of experience, however, comes over 7,000 votes, over 1,500 speeches, thousands of television and radio appearances, thousands of articles and opeds and 24 books to scrutinize.
The following are the most commonly asked questions about Newt’s record:
Paul Ryan (and the House GOP’s) Medicare Plan
Like Ryan and the House GOP, Newt supports a premium support model for Medicare. However, he wants seniors to have the choice to opt into the new system or to stay in traditional Medicare.
Newt agrees wholeheartedly with Rep. Ryan that we must give our seniors more choices than the current one-size-fits-all Medicare model. Both concur that creating the opportunity for seniors to buy private insurance is the key to both improving care and lowering costs.
The one key difference is that under Newt’s plan, as outlined in his 21st Century Contract with America, seniors will also have the choice to stay in the current Medicare system or choose a private insurance plan with support from the government to pay the premiums. The other difference is that Newt believes that seniors should have this option starting next year, not in ten years.
Q: So why did Newt use the term “right wing social engineering” on Meet the Press when discussing these proposed changes to Medicare?
Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter.
In response to the host’s hypothetical question of whether Republicans should change Medicare even if there is public opposition, Gingrich’s response was no you should not. One of Newt’s basic governing philosophies is that government should offer a better alternative to existing entitlement programs that seniors can freely choose. Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter. Newt regards Paul Ryan as one of the biggest innovators in Washington, D.C. and he deeply admires the seriousness and boldness of his historic Path to Prosperity budget.
Back to Menu
Mandate to Purchase health insurance
Newt opposes Governor Romney’s health insurance mandate, and Newt opposes President Obama’s health insurance mandate. Newt believes mandates to buy health insurance are wrong on principle, and in the case of the Obamacare health insurance mandate, unconstitutional as well.
With respect to President Obama’s health insurance mandate, Newt believes it is an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of federal power. If the federal government can coerce individuals—by threat of fines—to buy health insurance, there is no stopping the federal government from forcing Americans to buy any good or service. It is a serious and unconstitutional infringement of individual liberty.
With respect to Governor Romney’s mandate, we have observed that it doesn’t achieve its goal of providing low cost catastrophic coverage for the uninsured. The intractable problem we have learned from experience with health insurance mandates is this: once you have a mandate, the government has to specify exactly what coverage must be included in insurance for it to qualify. This introduces political considerations into determining these minimum standards, guaranteeing that nothing desired by the special interests will be left out.
In the 1990s, Newt and many other conservatives, such as the Heritage Foundation, proposed a mandate to purchase health insurance as the alternative to Hillarycare. However, the problems outlined above caused Newt to come to the principled conclusion that a mandate to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional, unworkable and counterproductive to lowering the cost of healthcare.
Today, Newt carries the banner in fighting for the repeal of Obamacare and advocates for a “patient power” replacement that will create a free market framework for healthcare, provide affordable, portable, and reliable healthcare coverage, and establish a healthcare safety net focused on those truly in need. This system moves us towards the goal of healthcare for all with no unconstitutional mandate of any kind.
Back to Menu
Ethanol
Newt supports an “all of the above” approach to achieving American energy independence by the aggressive development of American energy resources, including American oil, natural gas, coal, and biofuels like ethanol.
Newt’s position towards supporting American farmers, American energy, and American security has been consistent for over 25 years. He supported ethanol development since 1984 with Ronald Reagan, and supported it over objections of other Republicans as Speaker.
Newt’s American Energy Plan, part of his 21st Century Contract with America, will reverse Barack Obama’s assault on American energy. Every day, the Obama Administration continues to prevent unleashing new sources of American energy that will create thousands of new American jobs, make energy more affordable, and reduce our dependence on unfriendly nations.
Meanwhile, Obama tells foreign countries that we want to be one of their best customers for oil and natural gas.
Newt prefers that energy development happens here in America. If the choice is for the next job to be created in Iran or in Iowa, Newt prefers Iowa. If the next dollar is to go to Saudi Arabia or to South Dakota, Newt prefers South Dakota. Ethanol has been a 25-year success story of greater and greater productivity, which has kept money here at home, enriched rural communities, and made Americans safer by lowering our dependence on overseas sources of fuel.
Back to Menu
Fairness Doctrine
Newt opposes the left’s efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and vocally supported Rep. Mike Pence’s 2007 bill that prohibited government censorship in radio.
Newt does not support the Fairness Doctrine and he has been vocally critical of the left’s efforts to reinstate the doctrine over the past decade, including supporting Mike Pence’s bill that prohibited government censorship in radio in 2007.
In 1987, the three left-wing networks plus PBS/NPR dominated media, and talk-radio was still nascent; many of America’s most influential conservative activists, including the American Conservative Union and Phyllis Schlafly, supported the Fairness Doctrine at this time.
The rapid growth of conservative viewpoints in the media in the last 25 years is a testament to the power and innovation of the conservative movement once power is taken out of the hands of the elite networks and put into the hands of consumers.
Back to Menu
Global Warming/Cap and Trade
Newt does not believe there is a settled scientific conclusion about whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere.
Newt absolutely opposes “cap and trade” as well as any system of taxing carbon emissions. He testified before Congress against it in 2009 and led a grassroots effort while the Chairman of American Solutions to block its passage in the House and Senate.
Newt believes that cap and trade would kill hundreds of thousands of American jobs, cause electricity and fuel prices to skyrocket, and make America poorer. In contrast, Gingrich believes the best way to protect the environment is through markets, incentives, and entrepreneurs, who quite often are deploying innovative new technologies.
As for the question of whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere, Newt has noted there is no settled scientific conclusion. Many scientists believe it is the case. Others do not. But this unsettled scientific question has nothing to do with the best approach to protecting our environment, which is always markets, incentives, and entrepreneurs creating better and more efficient products and services.
Q: So why did Newt do the ad with Nancy Pelosi in 2007 calling for action to address climate change?
Newt does not believe there is a settled scientific conclusion about whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere.
Through his entire career, Newt has supported pro-market, pro-entrepreneur, innovative solutions to our environmental challenges, which he believes are superior to the liberal pro-bureaucracy, pro-tax, pro-regulation approach to the environment.
Newt believes that conservatives cannot be absent from the conversation about the environment and instead that conservatives must offer and explain why conservative solutions are better. Unfortunately, the attempt to get that message out through the ad with Nancy Pelosi failed. On November 8, 2011, Newt told FOX News’ Bret Baier that doing that commercial with Pelosi was “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve ever done”.
Newt will continue to oppose the Democrats’ destructive cap-and-trade and carbon tax proposals, continue to support expanded domestic oil and gas drilling, and continue to fight for a fundamental replacement of the job-killing Environmental Protection Agency with an Environmental Solutions Agency.
Newt Gingrich on Global Warming Ad With Pelosi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp1xkAKKeNM&feature=player_embedded
Newt Rips Gore’s ‘Facts’ To Pieces:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7VUg7nG3lw&feature=player_embedded
http://www.newt.org/answers/#relationship-with-freddie-mac
Relationship with Freddie Mac
Recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group’s consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.
After leaving public office, Newt Gingrich founded a number of very successful small businesses. One of these small businesses, a consulting firm called The Gingrich Group, offered strategic advice on a wide variety of topics to a very wide range of clients. One of these clients was Freddie Mac. At no time did Gingrich lobby for Freddie Mac, or for any client, and neither did anyone in Gingrich’s firm. This prohibition against lobbying was made clear to all Gingrich Group clients. Nor did Gingrich ever advocate against pending legislation affecting Freddie Mac, as some articles have incorrectly alleged. In fact, recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group’s consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.
Furthermore, as the New York Times documents, Newt urged House Republicans to vote against the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. View Newt’s Freddie Mac consulting contract here.
Newt is in favor of efforts to increase home ownership in America but as a conservative believes they must be within a context of learning how to budget and save in a responsible way, the opposite of the lending practices that led to the financial crisis. You can watch a video from March 2008 of Newt warning about the danger of politicized decision making in the housing crisis here.
As part of Newt’s Jobs and Prosperity Plan, Newt advocates breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and moving their smaller successors off of government guarantees and into the free market.
Newt Explains Freddie Mac Consulting, Puts Issue to Rest on Face the Nation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsLEw-7Lqo4&feature=player_embedded
“Santorum won state-wide twice running on a conservative platform in a deep blue state. A lot of Republicans got run out of office in 2006. Santorum had a thin margin of error in Pennsylvania, and he stood on principle, not like Newt, who firmly stakes out both sides of major issues.”
Here is an example of Rick Santorum pitching his ability to be moderate and work with democrats in his 2006 race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCk3DMNpJIY
Thanks to my job, which involes a lot of local travel, I get to ride around and listen to most of Rush's show nearly every day. You clearly do not listen to Rush. Therefore, the comments you have posted regarding Rush - - "He told you and the rest of his audience, right to your faces, they were a bunch of rubes and yokels." - - reveal you to be a moron, and probably a liar.
I seem to recall the second as being a bit of a sage. Love to hear what they would have to say about the '12 election cycle.
Thank you. I wish more people would read what you wrote (and understand it). Too many FReepers consider Obama an empty suit, when the truth is he is anything but. He is intelligent, articulate (or can come across as such), has a team that is very good when it comes to strategy (very very good), has the largest amount of funding of any person participating in a US presidential election in history, and has a core base that will vote for him.
As you said, he comes with around 48% (I would put it 40% locked in) who will not vote for anyone else. If Obama is as foolish or as empty as some try to make him, then how did he get the most powerful seat in the world?
Sure, some say it is his 'handlers' that made that happen. That Obama is not smart, couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag, and it is his backers that made him become POTUS. Ok, even if you work with that, that means he has 'handlers' who gave a near-unknown first time junior senator who is wet-behind-the-ears the most powerful position in the world! That is actually more worrying than the first option if you ask me.
Bottom line ...Obama is the greatest political adversary to any Republican in modern history, both in terms of his ability to draft a message (something McCain absolutely did not have), as well as having a warchest of approximately $1 billion available to him once you put everything together. Those who think he is an 'empty suit' or that people would 'vote for a hamster before they vote for Obama' are sadly deluded. As you correctly put it, he has certain segments of society all for him (e.g. unions, women, etc). He has the media all for him (and just as importantly, against his opponent in the General, whomever that might be). He has loads of cash, both directly and indirectly through various support groups. He knows how to draft a message quite well, and with the support of the media can have that message playing quite well. This is a person who will say he got bin Laden. Already Newsweek Magazine has a story on Navy SEALs and how Obama has used them effectively as 'his army' to do all sorts of cool things. The economy is improving, at least according to the media, and there will be some who will buy into that (especially considering the human condition that tends to accept what is said often ...just look at how effective Romney's attack ads were in Florida against Newt). Apparently North Korea is now behaving, and I would not be surprised to see Syria also, 'miraculously,' get in line in the next few weeks. Going back to the economy, I would not be surprised if all indicators start showing improvement - whether or not that improvement is being seen by people on the ground is another question altogether, but the media will definitely report there is improvement. Also, the US will be compared to Europe and the reason for things not being as bad as they are there will be due to ...who else! Furthermore, the rise in the deficit and other things will be blamed on the 'sage action' of the administration to fight against the errors and issues wrought and brought about by the Bush administration. Yes, blaming Bush again, but it will work in a certain segment (and may even get some swing voters, especially when the media starts having 'experts' saying how bad things could have been IF ...)
Bottom line ...Obama is indeed beatable. He is not an invincible political juggernaut, but he is definitely a very powerful political juggernaut. Even more so than he was in 2008. If the GOP and Conservatives (there is an obvious difference between the two) do not get their act together they will get thrashed and trashed. They think they are facing Jimmy Carter when in fact what they are facing is the Democrat Ronald Reagan and the Second Coming of JFK rolled-into one (more so than Clinton was even). The GOP candidate will have to be able to stand up - directly - to Obama, to be able to intellectually defeat him as well as do so in a manner that is not so academic that people cannot get it (one of the things about Reagan that was sheer magic was how he could be extremely intelligent yet do so in a manner that got through to the common man), and basically be a strategic and tactical genius. That way, the GOP candidate would be able to edge out Obama to win. Anything else is a loss.
I believe that candidate is Gingrich.
However I am worried that the circular firing squad, and the endless debates (that are a HUGE record) have damaged both him and the other candidates. I cannot blame that on Obama (I am not big on conspiracy theories), but it could easily be said that one of the biggest positives for the man was for him to have his opponents trash each other in the public eye over and over and over again ...without him having to spend a single cent to do so. There was a time that pro-Perry and pro-Cain supporters couldn't stand each other, and now there is some (slight) friction between pro-Santorum and pro-Gingrich supporters. And obviously there is the huge divide between Romney and anti-Romney camps (for good reasons though). I am clearly not a political scientist or historian, but I doubt there has been an election cycle like this one (both in the number of debates, as well as in the amount of money spent in a primary trashing other candidates). It is like the various tribes of ancient Germany squabbling with each other, and raiding and killing one another, with the aim being that the winner of those wars of attrition will face off against Rome at the height of its power! It was ridiculous then, it is ridiculous now, and just like in the past the only way the tribal hordes can win is by coming together and assaulting as one.
Anyways, what do I know. Maybe this exercise by the GOP that appears like pure poison to me is manna from heaven, and maybe Obama is an empty suit who can fold to a hamster as some FReepers claim, and even Dr. Paul can defeat Obama later in the year. It is also possible that pigs can fly and the moon is made of cheese. All the same, I think those who think it will be easy are wrong, and unless the GOP and Conservatives get their act together - and quickly - they will realize that while Obama is not unbeatable he, and his team, are a veritable political juggernaut bearing down on them like some sentient steamroller.
But hey, as I said it may be possible that those who claim a hamster or their 5th grader niece could beat Obama in November may be correct. I just would not, to quote Thomas Sowell (in a very astute article where he also said Gingrich is the man to beat Obama), 'bet the rent money on it. And what is at stake is far bigger than the rent money.'
What’s this Dudge you all speak of?
Yeah, I’m sure they paid Newt a couple of million, because the hard core lefties that run Freddie were dying to know who won the Battle of Spotsylvania Courthouse. I’m sure if it hadn’t been Newt, that 2 million would have found it’s way into the pocket of some other historian.
This stinks as much as Moochelle Obama’s hospital job that paid over 500K. Although strangely enough, they didn’t replace her when she left.
And with Newt on your side, it doesn't matter if he crosses the isle or not, he will spend us into oblivion with his moon bases and space mirrors all by himself.
If ideology were all I based my vote on - Santorum. However, I want someone who can defeat Obama. Therefore, on Super Tuesday, I shall vote for Newt.
Santorum cannot overcome the MSM + Obama one two punch.
Yep, Romney has McCain supporters thinking they have a sure bet, and Santorum has Huckabee supporters thinking evangelical bliss.
Go Newt! Best Economic plan! Best legislative agenda! Starts January 3, 2012!
You do not like Newt, but you can support a big spending, big union supporter like Santorum? It does not make sense.
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.