Posted on 12/05/2011 7:08:26 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Yes, he's imperfect. Who's not?
But compare Gingrich to Obama. G has a Ph.D. in history (something the leftist media always forgets to tell us) and has written 20 books, some of them good ones, all expressing a deep understanding of the unique American experiment and the U.S. Constitution.
Obama thinks the Constitution is some kind of white imperialist plot designed to keep the victims of the world down and oppressed. That's why he did those deep bows to medieval tyrants like President Hu (the terror-master of Tibet), the figurehead emperor of Japan, and the desert-king of Arabia, King Abdullah of the house of Saud. No American president in history -- ever -- has physically and symbolically bowed down to medieval tyrants. Never.
Thomas Jefferson sent the U.S. Marines to Tripoli to fight the Barbary pirates. Obama has tried desperately, over and over again, to make nice with horrific fascist regimes, notably the nuclearizing mullahs of Tehran, who are about to explode their first Ego Bomb.
It's not just Israel that's in their sights, but America and Europe. That's why they just had a mob of Basiji thugs trash the British embassy in Tehran. That's why, you may remember, the thugocracy over there makes all the schoolchildren chant "Death to Israel! Death to America!" Every single day for the last thirty years.
This is not a bunch of rowdy football fans at a game. It's not a game at all to the Shi'ite martyrdom regime. It's a deadly earnest war ideology, which is why they just tried to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States.
So here's Obama trying to play footsie with the Saudis; the Khomeinist regime; and soon, the Muslim Brotherhood bosses of Egypt, Syria, Gaza, Lebanon, and many another failed state in the ME.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Much as we may wish to deny it, the country just isn’t conservative enough anymore to elect a Bachmann or a Santorum.”
So the solution is to make the country even less conservative by supporting amnesty? If we don’t fight amnesty now, soon it is too late. What people don’t realize is that amnesty attitude will destroy the country permanently. If you don’t start enforcing the law (deportations, e-verify, fence) and oppose any form of amnesty, more and more people will come here, stay here and eventually, one way or other, end up voting. And no matter what GOP is doing, former illegals will vote dems.
If Newt is surrendering already in the GOP primary phase, how do you think he will behave when he is the President and him, McCain, and Harry Reid sit down to plan “comprehensive immigration bill”. You can’t trust House or Senate to stop the insanity if you have open amnesty freak in the White House.
Yeah but what about that debate with Obama? Newt’s going to debate Obama and beat him. Did you forget about the debate? He’s going to wipe the floor with Obama in the debate. I can’t believe you won’t even mention the debate. That debate is going to be like the second coming of Jesus Christ Himself. Newt’s going to win that debate against Obama. Can you imagine when the debate comes on TV? It will truly be the most glorious moment in the history of the Republic and debating. In the name of everything holy I can’t believe you didn’t even talk about the debate!
Bachman and Santorum are polling at 6-8% in Iowa. 2 months ago Newt was polling at 5% there. Things change quickly.
I will never accept defeat by voting absolute RINO (whether it is Romney or Newt). Every time we have amnesty loving president, country will move more left as a result of new voters resulting from illegal immigration. Few more rounds and conservatives can’t win a single state anymore.
We need to stop Newt’s deranged amnesty push.
So, AGAIN, the pubbies put up a RINO or establishment candidate and then campaign on the slogan, "He's not as bad as ... ."
In each case that has been true. But we've ended up with the same socialist policies anyway.
We’re reduced to considering candidates one notch of barrel scaping. The founding fathers must be rolling in their graves.
I love how all these holier-than-thou “strong Christians” ignore Jesus’s teachings on forgiveness. They give the rest of us a bad name. When someone goes out of their way to immediately identify themselves as a “Christian,” I check my wallet.
Has it yet occurred to you that your pursuit of perfection results in Romney as the nominee? Is Milt perfect in your eyes? ... Of course that was a rhetorical question. You don’t have to now step up and defend Milt as a good copnservative, since he has never been even close to that. But Newt is a conservative. He may not be the perfect conservative in your eyes, but he is the best bet to overcome the Milt ‘designed by media destiny’. Until you see that, your insistence serves Milt Rominey’s agenda/goal, which is ‘nomination by default’. [Rominy rhymes with hominy, the huskless corn product.]
You support the most conservative candidate, period, in the primaries.
Then, you support the nominee, regardless, in the primary.
Well, that's the theory, anyhow.
But there's a good reason behind that theory.
You can't predict electability.
Who thought Obama could win?
Oops. That should read: "Then, you support the nominee, regardless, in the general."
I am shifting my support to Newt Also. They cannot destroy him on his past. He can bring up all the crap libs have done and he will. He is not afraid of the Lame Stream media. Plus in the debates Obama will wee wee himself. And new needs to tell the Debate commision to take a flying F-00 off. We know their game and we wont play it. I wish he would but I doubt it.
IMHO it is too early to settle on the anti-Romney candidate. I don’t seek perfection in a candidate. There are better anti-Romney choices than Gingrich.
And when the anti-Romney choice becomes apparent, I will support the anti-Romney choice (as long as it is not Huntsman).
Why should we settle for someone who “will do” (as the title of the article suggests, and which I agree with), when we can have “great”?
“You support the most conservative candidate, period, in the primaries. “
Amen. We have two actual conservatives running (and in theory a new candidate in brokered convention) but people are already pushing for lying amnesty freak who has joined every liberal cause in the last 5 years (Amnesty, Global Warming, Cap-and-trade, Individual mandate in OmabaCare, bashing conservatives).
World has gone mad.
“You support the most conservative candidate, period, in the primaries. “
Amen. We have two actual conservatives running (and in theory a new candidate in brokered convention) but people are already pushing for lying amnesty freak who has joined every liberal cause in the last 5 years (Amnesty, Global Warming, Cap-and-trade, Individual mandate in OmabaCare, bashing conservatives).
World has gone mad.
“I am shifting my support to Newt Also.”
I can sell you some Newt bumber stickers:
“Era of Reagan is Over - Newt2012”
or maybe this golden one:
“Stop radical rightwing social engineering - Gingrich2012!”
not to forget
“Amnesty: Today, Tomorrow, Forever! - Vote Newt2012”
These should go down well near Harvard faculty lounge.
No. I never said I agreed with the idea of embracing amnesty. I'm saying, on the whole.. across the plethora of issues, the country has shifted to the left.
Of course, each individual issue -- whether it's immigration, health care or taxes -- should be fought aggressively. But the undeniable fact is... overall.. we're in an era in which the Dems can have as their standardbearer the most leftist occupant of the WH (I'll never call him my "president") in history, and, regardless of the damage Obama and his cabal have done to this country, the odds are against his defeat in 2012. It says volumes, IMO.
You mean the debates that will happen twice, at most?
Or the debates that will have a viewing audience of less than 1 million out of 13 million likely voters, most of which will be those who would tune in just to see Obama get destroyed because they plan to vote against Obama anyway?
Or the debates that will be conducted by the biased MSM, and likewise reported with bias by the MSM?
Or the debates that will have schedule conflict with Anerican Idol and thus won’t change the mind of anyone anyway?
You mean the debates that will happen twice, at most?
Or the debates that will have a viewing audience of less than 1 million out of 13 million likely voters, most of which will be those who would tune in just to see Obama get destroyed because they plan to vote against Obama anyway?
Or the debates that will be conducted by the biased MSM, and likewise reported with bias by the MSM?
Or the debates that will have schedule conflict with Anerican Idol and thus won’t change the mind of anyone anyway?
Newt is by far the brightest mind in the field. His brain races much faster than the average person. I do not believe he would have got us into the Iraq war as quickly as W. He is the brilliant college professor who suffers fools lightly. I’ve read several of his Civil War books .. .and they are good! If the guy surrounds himself with competent conservatives, He could be a game changer for this country. Incidentally your comments about forgiveness are spot on. None of us can exist a day without God’s forgiveness.
OK, let’s examine the typical thinking on this forum.
If we round up a million illegal immigrants and send them back, to Mexico, let’s say, what makes you think that the Nation will admit them?
How about two million?
I can hear it now: “Jose’ Who? We have no records.”
When reason finally surfaces you will see that we’re stuck with the big numbers and Newt has the best workable plan.
This is the “we can’t do it” attitude. This is outright ridiculous. If Mexico (or any other country) starts opposing the policy, we can cancel their visas. They have to take them back. Besides, we can simply push them over the border. Mexico can do whatever they want to these illegals (give them money, deport them to Guatemala, execute them). I don’t care.
In anycase, new illegals will not come here, and many existing ones will go back, if we get serious. Newt is the only one who openly advocates for Amnesty.
I can’t understand why any freeper is pushing for Amnesty. Bush, McCain, Newt. Three amnesty freaks in a row.
Anyway, you are right. Only Newt has open plan (to surrender).
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.