Posted on 11/21/2011 12:11:57 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
……..If 2012 were an ordinary election year, Gingrich would be doomed by his gaffes, three marriages, and fleeting alliances with HillaryClinton on health care and Nancy Pelosi on global warming. But 2012 is different. Republicans are fixated on defeating PresidentObama. They’re obsessed. They think about little else. And if that means choosing a candidate with a lurid past and a penchant for self-destruction to beat Obama, Republicans are likely to swallow hard and nominate Gingrich.
In their hearts, Republicans have always wanted a candidate who is bold and tough, and Gingrich is. They’re not sure about MittRomney, who is cautious, conventional, and sounds more conciliatory than Gingrich. There’s a reason Romney’s support has been stuck for months at roughly a quarter of the Republican electorate. His blandness explains it. Gingrich is anything but bland.
To rally behind Gingrich, Republicans wouldn’t have to forgive his past sins, just treat them as irrelevant. They already talk about how sweet it would be to see Gingrich crush Obama in presidential debates. They don’t see Romney that way.
But Romney has two important traits Gingrich lacks: carefulness and self-discipline. He doesn’t shoot off his mouth recklessly, as Gingrich often has. In May, the former House speaker practically blew up his campaign by attacking Representative Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan as “right-wing social engineering.” He later apologized.
Talk to any of Gingrich’s current or former associates and you hear about the “bad Newt.” This is the undisciplined Gingrich, prone, as one long-time friend says, “to overshoot the runway on something,” perhaps with a wild and inappropriate comment that’s ruinous to his campaign. Many of those who know him believe it’s only a matter of time before he runs amok.
Believe it or not, his press secretary…insists Gingrich has gotten a grip on himself….
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
—So, I go for the most conservative candidate that has a chance of beating Zero.—
Any of them could beat zero.
Oh, spare me. He was given money to promote Freddie when other pubbies were pushing for reform. You can pretend otherwise. I don't.
—Simply hiring advisers to handle this mess, because the candidate is too ignorant to understand it for himself...—
That statement doesn’t make sense. The point of advisors is to eliminate ignorance. The word you want to use in that statement is “stupid”, which Cain ain’t.
The advisers don’t handle the mess. They “advise” the president, and then he handles it. That is the way it works. And what we are looking for is a president with leadership ability, something Cain has, and Newt does not. Newt is a congressman. Executive experience is key here.
You’re going to vote for Newt Gingrich. You might not like it, but you will.
How can we look past them when he can’t say a complete paragraph without at least one “Callista and I”?
Uh, yeah, sure. Freddie just paid him for goodwill. You can choose to believe that. I don't.
I don't care who you support but you should at least educate yourself and work with truth not what you want the truth to be. Newt has plenty of faults you don't have to make any up
Once again, you would have me beleive that Newt was not paid for any influence over GOP Senators or House members wavering in the face of proposed GOP reforms of Fannie and Freddie.
Yeah, sure.
I’ll write in my dog in the primary before I vote for Newt. At least my dog wouldn’t do anything worse than chase the squirrels on the White House lawn. Newt would join Michelle Obama in proposing a new federal program as to study why the squirrels are so fat.
You’ll end up voting for Newt. It will pain you, and you may end up in tears, but it will happen.
Newt Gingrich was a lobbyist, plain and simple
So if Gingrich is going to rely on a legalism to claim he's not a lobbyist, that same legalism defines him as engaged in "lobbying," which he has denied.
His only conceivable out: Yes, he was a consultant helping drug companies pass this bill, but when he was persuading conservatives to back the bill, that was on his own time, and out of his own personal convictions -- and it had nothing to do with the drug industry cash he was receiving at the time.
Are you ready to believe this about Gingrich?
Apparently some are.
And you think the mods would be on your side?
Yer dreamin’, girl.
I think that's dangerous thinking. Any of them would be much better and I'd vote for them, but we see folks even on here saying they wouldn't vote for some of our candidates.
—I think that’s dangerous thinking.—
No. It’s RISKY thinking. And life is risk. There is no reward without risk. Play it safe and you get Dole. Play it safe and you get McCain. Play it safe and you get Romney.
Our founding fathers made bold, risky, decisions. I am thankful that they were not cowards.
Risk is a judgement call. In my opinion we risk the country our Founding Fathers left us.
So, i’m gonna disagree. Stopping this Regime is the critical objective.
—So, i’m gonna disagree. Stopping this Regime is the critical objective.—
Well, to be fair, I also don’t think Obama will be a presidential candidate in 2012. I’ve actually been saying that for a couple of years and I feel stronger than ever that it is true. We’ll see, though.
“Including Ronald Reagan in that list not only dishonest its shows a mind set that makes this whole article suspicious.”
Are you not aware that Reagan was the first divorced person elected POTUS and to this day remains the ONLY person to hold that distinction? Before him, a divorcee being elected POTUS was unthinkable. The comment is actually quite correct historically. Nothing ‘dishonet’ about it.
“I also don’t think Obama will be a presidential candidate in 2012”
I don’t either. I think he will be forced to resign or just decide not to run when he realizes he is going to get crushed. Or he will be incarcerated in Leavenworth after an unsuccessful coup attempt.
Of course I know Reagan was divorced and he was devastated when Jane Wyman filed for divorce. To include him in the same sentence as A serial womanizer like Schwarzenegger and a woman abuser and probably rapist Clinton is an outrage Ronald Reagan had no so called transgressions to speak of.
You’re lumping them together. Put in historical context of the time, it is a valid comment.
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.