Seriously: If you want to intelligently critique Newt, rather than proof-texting his comments, or engaging, as others do, in calumny, how about attacking his actual position when they are liberal?
Newt supports an “amnesty,” and seems purposefully vague on whether it would apply only (reasonably) to those whose presence here predates the Reagan amnesty, and who have jobs, dependents, etc., in America, or one which would apply broadly to most immigrants.
Newt caves to what he believes is inevitable. He now says he opposed an individual mandate. Fine, I’ll believe him. The problem is that I don’t want a “leader” who will buckle under to evil the moment he believes evil is winning. Saying, “Oh, wait, we’re winning now? Let ME grab the flag!” is no trait of leadership.
On the other hand, his statements about the right to life lead me to conclude he will pick excellent Supreme Court justices. And for this reason, I support him over Mitt Romney, who has appointed tyrrants to the bench, Ron Paul who is bat-shot insane, and will probably appoint bat-shot insane justices, and Rick Perry, who seems to think that tyranny and oppression are fine as long as its the states, not the federal government.
I’d’ve been happy with Cain or Santorum (although Santorum shares Gingrich’s flaw of buckling.) I’d love to see Gingrich adopt certain of Paul’s libertarian beliefs, but it’s too bad that Paul is, yes, I’ll say it again, bat-shot insane.
Thanks for misstating and otherwise acting like a propagandist of whom the total control statists would be proud, Rick Perry’s views on state government vs federal power.
You’re right, dangus. I overreacted without having proof.
The word progressive makes me batty.