Back in 1995, after the takeover of the House, I remember some congressman from Wisconsin beating the drums for the Log Cabin Republicans and how Pubblies needed to embrace “conservative gays.” I remember distinctly how Newt chose to publicly endorse the guy.
I remember telling my friends, for all the good Newt has done, if he cannot see how the gay movement is a daggar aimed at the heart of himself and his party, then he’s not trustworthy as a leader of conservatives. He’ll go for what he thinks will gain power rather than for principles.
I was not surprised, then, when Newt endorsed Scozzyfavie in New York. I had already seen that he was insufficiently principled and too susceptible to “pragmatism” (which in the long run often ends up being very unpractical—in the long run, principles actually win).
Already in 1995 I told friends that the gay issue would morph into persecution of Christians who refused to bend on gay marriage, that the beliefs of those Christians would be criminalized, and that Gingrich did not “get it” about the sexuality issues. My friends laughed. Persecution of Christians in America? Never will happen.
Well, it’s here. And Newt still doesn’t get it.
I admire the 1/2 genius side of Newt. He’s done a lot of good.
But if conservatives can’t see how he is simply not suitable to carry the flag in a national election, how his baggage destroys him, then we are in for a helluva ride.
I’m afraid Santorum is the only not-Romney left. Whatever weaknesses he has, those who are admanantly not-Romney need to think hard about destroying Santorum in favor of Newt. Because they’ll end up with Mittens.
I agree ... but very, very reluctantly. We're now down to only one tolerable “not-Romney” candidate and I'm not happy with Santorum.
I might have been willing to gag and vote for an economic conservative like Gingrich despite his multiple moral failings on the grounds that he's more qualified to be president than Santorum, and more electable than Perry. But this “open marriage” stuff is beyond the pale.
I continue to have serious concerns about Santorum’s electability, but I believe based on the new revelations about Gingrich, if we nominate him as our presidential candidate, we risk destroying thirty years of hard work to make the Republican Party the party of moral values.
I simply cannot accept that.
We cannot let the Republican Party turn into something comparable to conservative parties in Europe where gross immorality in the leaders of Italy and France is not just tolerated and winked at but actually considered to be no big deal, and just something powerful men do.
The stakes are too high. We're already seeing Freepers seriously argue that Gingrich's past adulteries are a private matter between him and his wife. That is not true. And it should not be something said by conservatives.
Nominating Gingrich, under current circumstances, will enable the worst segments of secular conservative politics. It will show the American electorate that the conservative wing of the Republican Party turned against three men (Romney, Perry and Santorum) who as far as anyone can tell, never cheated on their wives and were faithful to the teachings of their respective churches, and decided instead to back a serial adulterer and put him up against a Democrat whose politics are poison but who appears to have a stable marriage.
In my book, that is too much to lose.
I think I need to decide soon whether to start aggressively supporting Santorum. It's not where I wanted to be, but it appears be the only option left.