Idiot BenKenobi calls Gingrich a bigamist and gets the ZOT!
To be added or removed from the Viking Kitty/ZOT Ping List, FReepmail Darkwing104 or 50mm.
Posted on 01/20/2012 5:18:17 PM PST by chessplayer
Rick Santorum walked a fine line in his response to questions about Marianne Gingrich’s accusations against her ex-husband and Santorum’s GOP rival, Newt.
“Personal matters are personal matters, but they are matters that are — particularly when you are in public life as he was at the time and the people involved were also in a sense in public life — those issues are issues that people will look at,” Santorum responded.
“I believe in forgiveness, I’m called to believe in forgiveness,” he continued. “I do believe having some accountability to a higher calling other than self is a very, very important aspect and perspective that is important for leaders.
“To make the final comment, these are issues of character and these are issues that people will consider based upon the time, when, where, how all those thing will factor in and I’ll let people make that decision, I’m certainly not going to make it for them,” he said to a crowd of about 150 people.
So why does Iowa not matter and South Carolina does? I don’t see it.
I’m not going to go and say that Newt didn’t earn his win in South Carolina. He did.
Same with Santorum in Iowa. Is this too much to ask folks?
Wow! Heavy accusation! I'm sure you have some kind of evidence to back up the assertion that Newt is philandering on Callista, or that he asked her for an 'open' marriage!
Breathlessly awaiting your evidence!
Thanks in advance!
Santorum won Iowa, but Iowa was NOT a primary, it was a Caucus, so apples and oranges there. Secondly, and I have challenged every Santorum supporter here and elsewhere to answer this, and have not been able to get one... What did Santorum do to earn your support?
Did he stand out in any way? Did he personally do anything? No one can cite me anything he did during the campaign, other than not being Romney or Newt, that moved them to support him. He basically got the votes by being last man standing... that’s not going to win you a national campaign.
I congratulate Santorum for winning Iowa, but Iowa does not a national campaign make. In fact rarely does Iowa actually pick the ending nominee.
I’m arguing his lawful wife is Jackie, so clearly you’ve not understood what I’m arguing. :)
What did he do to earn my support?
He already was my number two when Cain got in, where Cain was my number one.
Why was Cain stronger? I loved Cain’s plan to fix the system, gut the right things from the budget and the fact that he was solid on prolife cause, and on gay marriage? Sold.
I liked the fact that Cain was an outsider.
Now, what did Santorum do to rank being second? Solid on the prolife cause, solid on gay marriage, faithful Catholic, opposed to contraception.
Less strong on the fiscal conservative end, sitting Senator, on the inside. So his record earned him a number two on my list.
When Cain was savaged and pushed out, Santorum earned my support by simply standing up for the right things at the right time.
I actually had Gingrich ranked 5th, behind Paul when Cain was still in.
Gingrich, advantages -
Stronger on the military. Stronger on fiscal policy, stronger on Israel, stronger on gay marriage.
Paul, advantages
Stronger on prolife - Much stronger fiscal conservative, Not even in the same ballpark as Newt. Stronger on marriage and family overall than Newt, stronger on economic globalism, stronger on the environment, stronger on Obamacare than Newt, which was the deciding factor - even over Gay marriage. I can’t support someone who’s supported O-Care even if it was ‘just in the past’. I simply can’t trust them on that issue.
Perry, advantages - across the board over Newt.
Perry, advantage over Santorum - better fiscal conservative, executive experiencem, Santorum is stronger on the prolife cause, and that was my deciding factor for Santorum over Perry.
Bachmann/Santorum, but Santorum as a Senator has more experience than Bachmann. The two are really close, but for me, I wanted a guy. :)
So in order:
Cain
Santorum
Bachmann
Perry
Paul
Newt
Romney
Huntsmen
You posted the morning of the primary, Newt was already ahead of Santorum in delegates then. SC was in progress. Done deal.
You posted the morning of the primary, Newt was already ahead of Santorum in delegates then. SC was in progress. Done deal. Unless you’re saying no Newt voters until after you posted. A whupping, another at the end of the month, time for Santorum to hit the pine.
Are you speaking as someone in authority in the Catholic church, or for yourself? Didn’t the Catholics cover this when he converted? Surely his bishop in in a better position than you, is his conversion defective in the church’s eyes or just your own?
Ok, so you are a social conservative, and by that mark Santorum is probably the closest to that from day one.
However, he was always the strongest social conservative from day one. Yet he had no support until just before the end in Iowa.
Santorum will likely be down to single digits by Florida, or shortly there after. At best he’s playing spoiler at this point. Though if Gingrich keeps his momentum, even that won’t be true.
We have very different views on effective candidates, some believe find the one closest to your beliefs and stick to them, while that is noble, it is also not very effective. If you don’t win, it doesn’t matter.. sad but true fact of Politics.
Now, these are my opinions, and mine alone and they are going to differ greatly from yours, so, lets just agree to disagree before we get into any flaming.
Cain & Bachmann were political jokes in my opinion, Bachmann comes across as a shrew, and her political hyperbole is so over the top that it makes Newts most outlandish statements during his heyday of Hyperbole seem mild by comparison. She plays a populist bent by screaming what people what to hear, regardless of the truth to the statement. A good foot soldier perhaps, but not a good leader.
What you consider an asset for Cain (absolutely no political experience) is in fact to me a rediculous liability. I would never go out to hire someone to do a job with zero experience in the field, EVER, not in any field of endeavor I have or will ever engage in.. other than an entry level job, and while we may not see eye to eye, I think we can agree, that the highest and most powerful political job on the planet is not an “entry level position”. Some will say,he has business experience, and I say, so what. I’ve worked in Business and with Government, and what makes an effective Business Leader, does not remotely make a good Political Leader. Business Leaders have the luxury of saying JUMP and those below them say HOW HIGH.. that is not how it works in government, not even close. Cain would have been a disaster had he made it to the White House, and he wasn’t going to make it there. He was an affiable enough fellow with a one hit wonder, that he drove into the ground, but did not have the skills or capacity to run a campaign, let alone the executive branch of government. We alread have a neophyte incompetent at 1600 PA Avenue, I am not going to send another one there, just because this one has an R beside his name.
Perry, he at least has a track record, and some executive exprerience. However, he wasn’t up to the task, which became blidingly obvious during the debates.
Santorum, with santorum, as a constituent of his during his political career, I can tell you, he is far more liked outside of PA than he is inside, and there is a reason for that, and its not simply because of his Spectre endorcement, as many here claim. Yes, he is probably the most socially conservative of the class of 2012, but he’s also not all that politically astute, very little charisma, and has shown that he can’t handle a tough campaign. He lost PA not only by a large margin, but lost it to a virtual no show of an oponent, he was effectively defined as extreme, and honestly never ever offered an effective counter to the criticism of him, and that was in a state race where far less effort and energy to destroy him was spent than will be spent against the Republican in the coming Presidential battle. Santorum, certainly is a social conservative, but he doesn’t have the intellect or ability to articulate the conservative viewpoint effectively. He alienated those that he needed politically by repeated actions over his tenure, hes NOT a fiscal conservative in the lease, he can’t articulate the conservative philosphy, because he doesn’t believe in it. He’s not a raging liberal obviously, but he is not a “get out of my wallet and get off my back” conservative. For those reasons and others, I see no way he can win a national campaign.
This leaves the field with Romney, who sucks, but is a “safe” candidate, he’s not going to offend anyone.. he looks presidential, stands for little if anything, and has name recognition etc etc. Can he win a general election? Yes he can, especially when put against the most incompetent administration of the last 60 years at least. Will he be a great president if he wins? Nope, budgets will continue to expand, social liberalism and nanny state will continue to grow, government intrusion will continue to move forward, just at a slower pace.
And Newt. Newt may have his problems, and yes he may not be as small government ideologically pure as many would like, but Newt has the experience, intellect, and frankly nads to take it to Obama, and make the election a true ideological choice, not simply a turd sandwhich vs deuchebag competition. In fact, he’s the only candidate who has been focusing on OBAMA from day one, not sniping at other republicans.. Yes, he has put out negative ads after Romney released the hounds, but his message when he speaks is still about BEATING LIBERALISM and OBAMA< and offering exact, real plans to effect that if elected. He is without question the smartest guy in the room, and will make the election an ideological decision, not just a who’s the lesser of two crapholes.
I see a Romney V Obama matchup of being 45-55 Romney, or in that ballpark range, and a Gingrich v Obama being a 40-60 range. That’s a “safe” candidate vs a failed Presidency, with no major wave making etc. When articulating the philosophical differences, and contrasting them, forcing a decision of record and beliefs, it will easily gain a 5 point swing to the Republican. The electoral map won’t break down as bad as other elections due to population distributions, but the electoral disaster waiting the democrats if Newt is the nominee hasn’t been seen in a long long time.. and frankly if Newt doesn’t have a temper losing event, and keeps the debate and pressure on and at the ideological record level, Obama will likely not even get 40% of the vote. IMHO.
2008 was more of a repudiation of Bush, than an endorcement of Obama... and Obama was a joke of a candidate who offered nothing but essoteric rhetoric and a minority face. That’s not going to be 2012.. The repudiation of this administration, barring something completely unforseen and massive is going to be insane, if someone like Newt were to be the nominee.
Obviously the future isn’t written, and time will tell.
“Zero, count ‘em, zero balanced budgets”
Four consecutive....YOU LIE !
Seriously, I’m going to suggest that you support Santorum and not lie about Gingrich.
Saying he is Bill Clinton, when Gingrich fought his ass off to bring Welfare Reform, balanced budgets...and to stave off Hillary Care...is being a troll.
Wise up or I see a short future for you here.
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_1992_2000USr_13s1li111mcn_H0t
No, I don’t lie.
Call for my zotting, but there were no balanced budgets under Newt’s Speakership.
Gross public debt, increased every year.
1992- 4.98 trillion
1993- 5.37 trillion
1994- 5.72 trillion
1995- 6.04 trillion
1996- 6.35 trillion
1997- 6.59 trillion
1998- 6.76 trillion
1999- 6.97 trillion
2000- 7.08 trillion
Under the Clinton administration, gross debt increased 42 percent.
Newt was speaker for the 1995,1996,1997,1998 budgets. Under him the gross debt increased 12 percent, and government spending went up from 2.63 trillion to 2.92 trillion, or 11.4 percent, or a rate of 2.85 percent a year increase.
Not only did he fail to produce a decrease in the gross debt, he also increased spending every year he was in power. The last time that spending was cut - it was halved in the 1946 and 1947 budgets.
Also, zero percent of the spending increase was defense. Defense was allocated the same amount in 1992 as it was in 2000. Defense in 1992 was allocated 350 billion dollars, and was just 330 billion dollars in 1999. So in actuality, defense was cut 10 percent in the clinton years, not accounting for inflation. Accounting for inflation, the military spending should have increased 25 percent. The military was cut 40 percent during the Clinton administration, through the cuts to the defense budget and inflation.
In reality - Clinton administration and Newt’s term as speaker saw defense cuts and increases in domestic spending every year he was in power. Gross debt increased every year that Newt was Speaker and has for every year since 1947.
As I said previous - if someone can show me that he secured an annulment for his marriage from Jackie, I would be very grateful.
The previous announcement stated that he had one from just Marianne. Has there been an oversight? I don’t know. I had thought he received both together, but I checked it out and only saw the one for Marianne.
Couple things here - I’m not going to flame anyone for supporting Newt and rejecting Santorum. Ok? You asked for my honest beliefs and I gave you them - I can only expect honesty in return.
“Yet he had no support until just before the end in Iowa.”
Cain was close, Bachmann was close as well. When you have three pretty solid social conservatives together - especially when Cain was stronger on the fiscal side, most of the support would go to them, not Santorum.
“Bachmann comes across as a shrew, and her political hyperbole is so over the top that it makes Newts most outlandish statements during his heyday of Hyperbole seem mild by comparison. She plays a populist bent by screaming what people what to hear, regardless of the truth to the statement. A good foot soldier perhaps, but not a good leader.”
I greatly disagree with this characterisation, and I think it’s quite unfair to her, and her positions. I don’t see her as a joke candidate at all.
“What you consider an asset for Cain (absolutely no political experience) is in fact to me a rediculous liability”
And this is the great divide. The system is in trouble right now. Why would I hire an insider to clean things up? See, the business world doesn’t do this. When they want an impartial inventory done or an audit - they seek an outsider to conduct it. I’ve done them for other businesses. You want to clean up the system - you hire someone who’s not a part of it.
“would never go out to hire someone to do a job with zero experience in the field, EVER, not in any field of endeavor”
Again, it’s a question of what you are looking for. Are you looking for political experience, or are you looking for executive experience? Only Perry has more than Cain who’s been a CEO for many years.
“We alread have a neophyte incompetent at 1600 PA Avenue”
Look at their resumes. Cain was a ballistics mathematician in the Navy. You’re saying he would be incompetent at his job? I would love to see someone who actually can do math at the helm trying to get the budget balanced, spending under control, fixing the economy.
“However, he wasn’t up to the task, which became blidingly obvious during the debates.”
How many debates does a president conduct?
“He lost PA not only by a large margin, but lost it to a virtual no show of an oponent”
I suggest you check out Bob Casey Sr. He was a solidly prolife democrat. There’s a reason that the Dems ran Casey Jr against Santorum and it isn’t because they are the stupid party.
See, here’s what I don’t get - why is a debate considered an essential tool for a president? You don’t conduct debates as a president. Seems to me executive experience - knowing how to find good people and put them in the right places is by far the best experience you can have. That - and having the right positions.
Newt doesn’t strike me as significantly more fiscally conservative than Santorum. They both have been part of the system for a long time.
LOL, I could care less about your inability to understand the Debt situation.
Your warning was for other statements that were blatant lies re: gingrich. I suggested you simply prop up Sanitorum instead of lying about Gingrich. I’ll let those statements go without reproducing them, in hopes that you’ve come to some sanity.
..
Now as far as your listing of the gross public debt. That is misleading because the increase comes due to interest on the Debt.
Gingrich was Speaker when for several consecutive years the amount of incoming revenue was more than the amount of pure (non interest) spending.
So, the reality is that payments were made against the principal of the Debt.
Idiot BenKenobi calls Gingrich a bigamist and gets the ZOT!
To be added or removed from the Viking Kitty/ZOT Ping List, FReepmail Darkwing104 or 50mm.
Bout time.
Buh bye Nobi Wan.
Thanks...I even gave the guy fair warning.
He could argue well on the positive side...but he kept insisting on trashing Gingrich with lies.
Obi Wan lives in the land of Zot.
I knew it was only a matter of time for BenKenobi. He turned into a nasty troll.
Good riddance.
GO NEWT!!!
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.