Posted on 01/10/2012 10:34:33 PM PST by Minus_The_Bear
He had two bad marriages before he found a good one. BFD. It’s not a disqualifier for being a garbageman, a Pulitzer Prize winning author or a President. Most of us are not judgmental holier-than-thou witch-burners.
He was a self-described insider-REVOLUTIONARY and always lived up to the name.
Like you seem to have ignored in the post you’re replying to, I explained how Newt always backed the most conservative candidates he thought could win, to prevent Christine O’Donnell/Sharon Angle-like losses. That’s what he did with Dede. I believe he has said it was a mistake in retrospect. As I understand it, she dropped out and the Conservative candidate went up against the Democrat and lost...basically proving that Newt was right that only a moderate could win that district, always an important strategy to maintaining a majority nationwide. I don’t care...the idea that one bad endorsement amounts to a speck of dirt on a hill of beans in this man’s long and accomplished conservative career is ludicrous.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/newt_gingrich_endorses_dede_sc.html
“Our best chance to put responsible and principled leaders in Washington starts here, with Dede Scozzafava.”
He sees Scozzafava and the Upstate special election – the only House race in the nation this fall — as the best hope for Republicans to start a comeback and regain control of Congress.
Gingrich is apparently willing to overlook Scozzafava’s support for same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
“The Republican Revolution in 1994 started very much like what we see today,” Gingrich said in his statement. “Like then, our country is reeling from misguided liberal policies, high taxes and out-of-control spending. This special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District could be the first election of the new Republican Revolution, but we need the momentum to get it started.”
Gingrich noted that Scozzafava agrees with him on many of the key issues of the day, including her opposition to a cap-and-trade bill to limit pollution associated with climate change.
Unless the point of your 3rd party is to teach the Republicans a lesson to be more conservative, not to necessarily win. This would be very much like running a primary against a liberal Republican in a district where a more conservative Republican could win.
At times Newt can be positively on. But Newt is so taotally inconsistent to be able to have trust in him.
Look, I plan to vote for whomever I choose at the time in the primary here. It is in May, so the nominee will probably be decided. It won’t be my vote that wins it or loses it for anyone.
I plan to worry about the local and state races here. I will vote for who the people have chosen before me. I can’t get real excited over any of them. Wish I could.
Obama absolutely has to go absolutely. Nobody is as downright America hating and awful as that thing.
One 30 second video? How about 418 bills that Gingrich co-sponsored with Pelosi over 10 years? How about supporting amnesty for millions of illegals? How about him endorsing leftist Dede Scozzafava in a Republican primary? What about his supporting an individual mandate ala ObamaCare? What about pimping across the country with Al Sharpton to support Obama's public education reforms?
Face it, Gingrich is a self-described Rockefeller Republican who openly criticized the Reagan administration for failing to lead on "Civil Rights". Wake up and face the music. There is no true conservative in this year's race. Santorum and Gingrich are big government conservatives. Perry, I had hopes for, but he has trouble putting sentences together and defended the indefensible (tuition for illegals).
“I call B.S.”
Thank you! You’ve always been very bold.
We will see what happens in SC and FL.
“you nailed it, rush is a media whore....”
Well, he’s the first and foremost radio show host, with the highest ratings. He loves the media, but I wouldn’t call him a “media whore”. In fact, I didn’t call him that.
I said that he talked about both sides of the issue. He disagreed with Newt’s approach, but acknowledged that Romney started this food fight by spending millions of dollars to bash Newt in IA, when Newt didn’t have the money to fight back.
Frankly, until last week, there was no one on the debate stage who was as nice as Newt, and no one who took it to Obama and the LSM the way Newt did during the dabates.
You have to give him that.
As far as Rush is concerned...he doesn’t have to be a “media whore.” People naturally flock to him.
“Why shouldn’t his numbers be up!.... he has the help of rush, hannity, fox, wall street, and the liberal media. What conservative can fight against the onslaught of lies and attacks coming from their “so called” media friends?
Conservative can NO LONGER all rush a friend, he has attacked them on a daily basis. rush has become the very thing he’s railed bout for yrs., a leftist. He has become an establishment leftist. His new buddies are now Rove and the Bushes.””
That post is, on it’s face, absolutely not true.
However, I’ll let my fellow FReepers decide for themselves.
Rush has moved to the left on the issue of Bain Captial and Romney vs. Newt.
Just because one is a “captialist” doen’t necessarily mean they believe in FREE ENTERPRISE and the free market.
Hyperbole much?
Thank you TADSLOS. You may appreciate the post above this one also.
Take care.
With apologies, here is a link to my additional comments to Exit82.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2831258/posts?page=113#113
I don’t deny that. It baffles me to think they don’t know, but I just posted something to Exit82 that explains the Conservative road to salvation (politically), and if you use the same theory as you have expressed here in other terms, I think it fits.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2831258/posts?page=113#113
Darren, you raise some good sound points there. It was not as much my intent to explain every step we must take into the future, as it was to get folks to realize where we find ourselves at today.
I’m not saying this to be critical at all, but it does strike me that when confronted with what the party means to Conservatism and it’s future today, you none the less fell back into the mode of explaining how frustrating it is for you to try to influence the party today.
Exactly right my friend! That’s exactly my point. Why should you have to move Conservative principles up the line to the leadership? If we were talking about a Conservative movement (first and foremost), they’d already be hawking what you want them to.
The Republican Party makes it as difficult as it can for you to do what you know has to be done. That’s my conclusion too.
It’s time to give up on that party and replace it. We make our own rules. We loft our own candidates. We give the U. S. Citizen voter a real choice for a change.
Yes, let’s just hope I’m not boldly going where no idiot has gone before... LOL.
Thanks, D1 for that great treatise on evolving in conservatism. I saw myself as I read that, having had a similar path- and yes, thank God Ronald Reagan came along when he did in my formative early 20s. Your post ought to be required reading. I’m bookmarking it for future reference.
Thanks TADSLOS. I am glad you saw value in it. Take care.
Because we have two options. Republicans and Democrats.
It’s time to give up on that party and replace it. We make our own rules. We loft our own candidates. We give the U. S. Citizen voter a real choice for a change.
And how would we do that? The Constitution Party and Libertarian Parties don't elect anybody. Neither did Perot's Party. (Reform/United We Stand America).
In order for this new party to be successful, all of the following must occur.
1. Be on the ballot in enough senate and congressional races to get a chance at a majority.
2. Be on the ballot in enough state level districts to get a chance at a majority.
3. At least 50% of the districts are one party district. You'd have to break years of traditional loyalty to a party.
4. Be on the ballot for governor, senate, etc.
5. Have solid enough candidates to contend for winning a majority in at least one house. Third parties have trouble winning one seat.
I'm not interested in chasing suicide missions. We don't have enough money, organization, people, or time to succeed against 156 years of history.
The best solution is to stay with the republicans, run for leadership positions in the party, recruit good candidates, and form a PAC to primary bad folks at all levels. It's a long process.
And given another half century it just may work.
I’m done playing the Republican’s game.
The leadership doesn’t even give a damn if Democrats help us select our nominees.
What room for misconstruing that is there?
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.