First thanks for the agreement, and then thanks for... well... disagreeing. LOL
No problem. You make some good points of course. With Clinton it did escalate way beyond what Newt has been said to have done.
When I first found out about Clinton, it wasn’t for doing anything more than being unfaithful. That told me all I needed to know.
Let’s put that in context. I spent most of my adult life thinking Kennedy was a philandering prick. Along comes Clinton, and he’s doing the same thing. I knew before he was elected the first time. I wrote him off, and then had to endure all that followed.
What I am faced with today is this. Should I lower my standards to include folks like Clinton in the list of people I should consider supporting for the office of the presidency? Was I mistaken to count him out based on his marital mistakes alone, knowing what we knew in 1992?
I don’t think so.
Gingrich like Clinton? Anybody seen a ‘Gingrich Body Count’ list?
Don’t let liars define the terms of the argument. You’ll lose every time.
Accept nothing. Challenge everything. You’ll be surprised.
That’s certainly within your right, but the pickins are getting mighty slim right about now.
I admire Newt’s learnedness and communication abilities, and, while his baggage is significant, he may be our best bet.
Santorum could be better than Newt, but his backing of “SOPA-like” legislation and claiming that supporting anti-2A measures b/c “the NRA supported them” are pretty significant weaknesses.
That leaves Romney (no thanks) and Paul (Allah Akhbar!). It sucks, but it’s simply the reality of our current situation.