Posted on 01/23/2012 6:54:16 PM PST by LonePalm
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson just endorsed Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination.
If you’re here to trash Newt, then start saying your good byes. Make it brief.
Yes, I do believe that the endorsements may matter more this year than in the past. If there are people who have any doubts about Newt’s past work as Speaker, the strong endorsements from solid Conservatives could very well have an impact. Yay for Fred!
I'm carefully weighing the plusses and minuses of Newt and Santorum, and will be comfortable campaigning hard for either one of them.
As soon as he wins the nomination, a Newt sign is going up in our front yard, and a bumper sticker on both of our cars.
I have never thought anything else.
If anyone told you otherwise, they are mistaken or dishonest.
As I've said all along, I will support whomever is the Republican nominee, and if that's Gingrich, I will back him wholeheartedly. I have not bashed or trashed, and I will not bash or trash, Newt Gingrich.
At the same time, I will give consideration, at least, to other possible Republican nominees, as long as they are campaigning as conservatives and seem to have a chance at defeating Obama. If there are things in their past that cause me to doubt how conservative they really are, I will remain skeptical and I will need to have those doubts overcome. But I will ar least give such candidates a hearing. To give a candidate a hearing, weighing his pros and cons, and evaluating his current conservative rhetoric vs. his past less-than-conservative record--that is not the same thing as promoting or supporting that candidate.
Now, Darrell, you say that abortion is a deal-breaker for you. Same here for me. In fact, in 40 years of voting, if a candidate is pro-abort, that has always been my #1 automatic disqualifier. I have never voted for, and will never vote for, someone who is avowedly pro-abortion. I have worked against, preached against, taught against, and written against the evil of abortion for decades. I want a president who will seek to have Roe v. Wade overturned and who will nominate Supreme Court justices accordingly. It is both a constitutional and a moral issue for me.
However, if a candidate was previously pro-abortion but then "flip-flopped" over to the pro-life side, I could possibly vote for such a candidate. For example, I voted for just such a candidate in 1980 and 1984--a candidate for president who had formerly been a pro-abortion governor but who later "flipped" to the right side of the issue. Of course, if someone *says* they are now pro-life but had previously been pro-abort, I will want to hear more to convince me of the sincerity of their current position, before I could support them.
Also, Darrell, as you say, this time Missouri does not have a binding primary, so that renders our votes rather moot. I will have to wait and see who our Republican nominee is, and I will then gladly back him, because my goal is to defeat Obama.
Reagan was not pro abortion and you’re a lying SOS for saying so. Don’t say you weren’t warned.
zot
Reverend Charles Henrickson is a casualty on LIFE.
President Reagan was always pro-life. ALWAYS.
Illbedamn, Charles!? He’s gone too?
Just a little while ago.
Looks like Charles was unZOTted.
Bless his heart.
Did you move to Texas by any chance? LOL
Mississippi.
:)
There’s a lot of misinformation out there about Reagan. I’ve been hearing for years that he had been pro-choice at one time, but apparently that’s not the case.
I want to retract and apologize for my use of the term “pro-abortion” in referring to Reagan as someone who had formerly been a “pro-abortion” governor. That was a mischaracterization on my part. I was referring to his signing of the 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act, which did permit abortions, a decision which Reagan later deeply regretted. But that does not mean that he himself was “pro-abortion” in his intent when he signed it. So again, I retract and apologize for that part of my post 165.
Thank you, Charles. As a pro-lifer, I knew what you were referring to, and appreciate the correction.
I have no idea what happened to change this and it's none of my business.
What I do know is that I've been trying to caution a number of Santorum supporters and others who aren't sold on Gingrich (at least not yet) to remember that as conservatives, we need to remember that an owner can do what he wants with his property.
Jim Robinson has explained his reasons for wanting to stop bashing of Gingrich on Free Republic. The reasons make sense to me. If they didn't, I would quietly defer to the site owner and stay quiet, but in this case I can not only accept but defend his reasons to fellow social conservatives.
I can live with either Santorum or Gingrich among the remaining candidates, and unless things change quickly for Santorum, all of us in the conservative movement are going to have to do the same and accept that Newt Gingrich is going to be the only candidate capable of stopping Romney.
It's not as if Gingrich isn't getting supporters from strongly conservative Christians. I just today read an internet post from a leader in my denomination saying that Newt Gingrich lost the precinct that includes Bob Jones University by **ONLY 15 VOTES!!** If Gingrich can do that in the heart of the Bible Belt, he's obviously succeeding in winning a significant number of conservative Christians.
Let's try to remember that the goal is to get rid of Barack Obama, not to attack our alternative conservative candidates.
I applaud your honesty in admitting your mistake. Honesty seems to be a forgotten virtue when it comes to politics and posts on political fora.
My tag line sums it up nicely.
Thank you also to Jim Robinson for unzotting a brother.
I had heard similar things about Reagan in pro-life circles, but had never personally researched the matter since it was obvious that whatever Reagan may have said or done years ago, he had long since become consistently pro-life and fought hard for pro-life positions.
I'm glad to see the facts about Reagan. Lots of people I know have said different things about him, but to roughly paraphrase Reagan himself, the problem is that lots of people “know” things that just aren't so.
Accepted, Reverend, and glad to see you back!
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.