Posted on 11/07/2011 6:27:38 PM PST by jsdjason
He's come up from 4th or 5th on my list to probably #1 at the moment. Obviously I can't stand Romney. I wasn't for Cain even before the scandals because I simply do not think the 999 Plan is a good idea. I'd rather not give the government yet another form of taxation to impose on us. I'd much prefer a flat-tax, which Newt is a proponent of. Perry is obviously scum. Palin is out, which sucks. Paul, some days I love him, some days I think he's really crazy.
Bottom line is this, Newt has great ideas on taxes and a pro-growth agenda. He is the best debater in the field. And it turns out his baggage ain't so bad compared to what's being said about Cain. Not saying the Cain stuff is true, but it doesn't look good.
Anyways, if I had to vote tomorrow I'd probably vote for Newt. Anyone else?
me too, I’ve really took a liking to him and I hope he calls out the media to call out zero into doing some debates
I have always liked Newt. I honestly think he has undergone a transformation in the last few years.
Nope. Newt. Talks a good game but he likes to play nice with the other side too much. We can’t have that now...time is running out for this country.
I’d rather vote for Rick Perry before I chose to vote for Newt. I’d choose Newt before Romney, Huntsman or Paul but that’s about it.
No.
I'll support Perry, but only to stop Romney.
Well if that is your criteria then I guess you support Bachmann. You could say the same thing about almost anyone in the field. Out of the top contenders in fact you could say the same thing. We really don’t have a track record on Cain as a politician.
Newt Gingrich is very intelligent, a master of history and a great debater but Newt’s Achilles Heel is his lack of judgement. He cannot be trusted. (I’m not even talking about his personal issues either)
I like Newt..I would vote for him over Obama.
I have always liked Newt, too. He is the only one in the field I would feel comfortable voting for. I know what he would do as president.
Perry is straight up slime. He is worse than even your average politician. I have friends high up in the Republican Party of Texas and they all say the same thing. The guy will literally say anything to push his polls numbers up but will govern in a far different way. He’s a terrible debater. I honestly think Obama could out-debate him. He was slaughtered in debates by Paul-ite libertarian Debra Medina in the Texas Governor’s debates last year. I don’t think she’s ever been elected to anything other than Party Chairs. Debra Medina would have been a better choice than Slick Rick!!!
1989: Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) co-sponsors the ambitious Global Warming Prevention Act (H.R. 1078), which finds that “the Earth’s atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants resulting from human activities, inefficient and wasteful fossil fuel use, and the effects of rapid population growth in many regions,” that “global warming imperils human health and well-being” and calls for policies “to reduce world emissions of carbon dioxide by at least 20 percent from 1988 levels by 2000.” The legislation recognizes that global warming is a “major threat to political stability, international security, and economic prosperity.” [H.R. 1078, 2/22/1989]
1992: Gingrich calls the environmental proposals in Al Gore’s book Earth in Balance “devastatingly threatening to most American pocketbooks and jobs.” [National Journal, 9/5/92]
1996: At a speech for the Detroit Economic Club, Gingrich mocks “Al Gore’s global warming,” citing “the largest snowstorm in New York City’s history”: “We were in the middle of budget negotiations; the football games were coming up and we noticed on the weather channel that an early symptom of Al Gore’s global warming was coming to the East Coast. And it does make you wonder sometimes, doesn’t it, how theoretical statisticians in the middle of the largest snowstorm in New York City’s history could stand there and say, ‘I don’t care what it’s doing. It’s going to get very hot soon.’” [FDCH Political Transcripts, 1/16/96]
1997: As Speaker of the House, Gingrich co-sponsors H. Con. Res. 151, which notes carbon dioxide is a “major greenhouse gas” that comes from “products whose manufacture consumes fossil fuels” and calls on the United States to “manage its public domain national forests to maximize the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” [H. Con. Res. 151, 9/10/1997]
2007: Gingrich calls for a cap-and-trade system with tax incentives for clean energy. “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.” [Frontline, 2/15/07]
February 15, 2007: “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.” [Frontline, 2/15/07]
In a debate on climate policy with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Gingrich says “the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere,” and that we should “do it urgently.” [ThinkProgress, 4/10/07]
In a Washington Post chat, Gingrich rejects a cap-and-trade system, saying it “would lead to corruption, political favoritism, and would have a huge impact on the economy.” He says he supports “tax credits for dramatically reducing carbon emissions.” [Washington Post, 4/17/08]
2008: In an advertisement made for Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, Gingrich sat with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and said that “we do agree our country must take action to address climate change.” [We Campaign, 4/18/08]
“I don’t think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don’t think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.” [Newt.org, 4/22/08]
April 4, 2009: “And now, in 2009, instead of making energy cheaper—which would help create jobs and save Americans money—President Obama wants to impose a cap-and-trade regime. Such a plan would have the effect of an across-the-board energy tax on every American. That will make our artificial energy crisis even worse—and raising taxes during a deep economic recession will only accelerate American job losses.” [Newsweek, 4/4/09]
I’ve come on board. I’ve watched as many debates, interviews, speeches as I can by Newt and it’s amazing that he can speak intelligently and in depth on nearly any subject! You never see him stammer, hesitate or defer any interview questions. Moreover, it’s not just debating prowess that attracts my interest. Whoever raises their right hand on the Capitol steps in Jan 2013 is going to walk into a true cluster-f*** of a government/society/country. They are going to have to enact big changes and deal with (if they’re Pubbies) a hostile press, rampaging union/Soros acolytes, plus a slew of nearly intractable problems. Do we really want the guy with the best soundbites or do we want someone who has the intellectual breadth and depth to comprehend and help devise realistic effective solutions? Newt’s being thinking about wide swaths of policy for the better part of 2 decades. My first choice was Palin, but with her in Wasila, I think Newt gives us the best chance to beat Obama and, more importantly, to actually enact solutions for the country.
I agree with you except I think I put Santorum above Bachmann. I’d probably go Romney over Perry. I really don’t like Perry.
Of course, I’ll probably have to pick between Perry and Romney.
Last time, I had to choose between McCain and Romney. Ugghhhh! I could have flipped a coin. I chose Romney last time. I was a Fred Thompson supporter. Of course, I think I had McCain and Romney as my 2 least favorites last time, and that is who I got to choose between.
I like Newt, but I would like to hear where he is at regarding global warming and some more of his views on immigration.
Yes. I’d forgotten how effective he is at tongue-lashing the press over their herd mentality. No wonder they attempted to destroy him in the 90s.
I want Obama destroyed in the debates. I want him humiliated, flattened, and ripped to shreds for all the misery and humiliation he has brought on this country. Romney is smart enough to do it, but he’s too much of a choir boy and a sap. He doesn’t even swear. Gingrich has a mean, nasty streak that he would have to keep under wraps in a debate. He also can outsmart and outwit Zero and make him look like the fool and imposter that he is. I want him in there taking Obama apart. Period. Forget Cain. If he can’t handle bimbo eruptions and he can’t handle Gloria Allred, and he most certainly can’t handle Obama.
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.