Posted on 01/26/2012 4:35:06 AM PST by icwhatudo
Anne Coulter pal Matt Drudge has declared all out war on the Gingrich campaign. As of 7am Eastern time he has 9 negative mentions about Newt (none on Romney):
NEWT FLASHBACK 1983: REAGAN RESPONSIBLE FOR NATIONAL 'DECAY'...
NEWT 1986: 'The Reagan administration has failed, is failing... President Reagan is clearly failing'...
NEWT 1988: 'If Bush runs as continuation of Reaganism he will lose'... VIDEO...
INSIDER: GINGRICH REPEATEDLY INSULTED REAGAN
R. EMMETT TYRRELL: William Jefferson Gingrich...
COULTER: RE-ELECT OBAMA: VOTE NEWT!...
CNN: Gingrich admits his ABC claim was false during debate...
Gingrich tells UNIVISION: No perjury during my divorce depositions...
Marianne Gingrich lawyer: 'He was never deposed'...
I agree. I don’t have a problem with people believing Gingrich has been consistently more conservative than Romney. It’s true. Gingrich was elected in a Georgia district too that was a safe one for him. Had he run in Massachusetts I believe he’d have been a Massachusetts moderate. His baggage is real, too, and cannot be wished away. Most of the Republicans in congress by a wide margin are not supporting him. I understand completely the criticisms and angst about Romney. I sure wish we had a better candidate.
Hi Black Elk;
In answer to your questions:
1. Sarah Palin. If I’m limited to those who are running currently, then Ron Paul, then Rick Santorum. And only if I’m absolutely forced to make the choice, Newt Gingrich over mitt. And once we’re down that far in the list of candidates, not running a candidate at all sounds better and better.
2. Of course I realize that he will never be POTUS. Even he realizes it. His candidacy in my view has little to do with him actually getting the office and more about generating publicity for libertarian/ paleoconservative views as well as establishing and preserving a permanent presence for those espouse said views within the GOP. As for his qualifications for POTUS, the legal ones are still 35 years of age, etc. His views on foreign policy and drug legalization, which I disagree with by the way, are no more “disqualifying” than Newt’s views on marital fidelity and global warming.
3. I like Rick Santorum. I really do. I don’t see a path to victory for him, although I do see a path to a deal.
4. As regards Newt’s marital infidelity, I do have a problem with it. You see the problem with adultery to me is not the sex, it’s the betrayal. Someone who will betray the person who should be their best friend in the world, their spouse, is a person who will betray ANYONE. I couldn’t care less whether he married his mistress or not. This is someone who has a glaring black hole in their character. I find it telling, and not a little disturbing, that “conservatives” are so willing to turn a blind eye to that. I also find it interesting that we’re comparing Newt favorably to people like LBJ and and BJC. Gosh, he’s an adulterer, but soooo much better than LBJ. Talk about being damned with faint praise.
As for your discussion of third parties, you’re right about your history. But did you also consider that the last time a third party successfully replaced an existing party was in the 1860’s? The LP is a great example of a third party that has accomplished precisely bupkis. There are numerous other examples. Each of whom thought that they would be the ones who would break the mold. If conservatives want to go down the third party path to marginalization, then God bless them. I was a member of a third party for too long to believe that it’s a way to electoral success. I think it’s incredibly dumb that a portion of traditional conservatives would seriously consider going with a third party, but I also think it’s probably going to happen.
Finally, with regards to kvetching, you’re right. And I need to stop. I had already intended to cut my FR time in order to do something a little more useful, like working on my candidates campaign. Thanks for reminding me of my decision to do that.
2. I have pinged you to a very worthwhile analysis by an Evangelical pastor which deals with most matters and very well with the matter of past adulteries by Gingrich. Newt has repudiated the global warming advocacy which was certainly a low point in his career. It was not on a par with distribution of the infamous fraudulent "Protocols of the Elders of Zion on the Paulistinian website Campaign for Liberty (for more than 3 years until taken down lately when discovered). I have pinged you to that one too.
3. Agreed 100%.
4. Adultery is not a government policy. His positions and performance in public office were infinitely superior to LBJ and BJC. I certainly do not advocate adultery. I think it is all too common today and always a spiritual killer unless and until repented and forgiven. Newt does not hide his misbehavior, does not try to spin it into insignificance. Even at the expense of embarrassing his current wife Callista (who one imagines approved of her misbehavior also being revealed quite publicly), he has been quite candid and forthcoming and I find it credible that he has sought and received forgiveness. So did the experienced pastor (a resident of San Diego) of forty years standing who went so far as to travel across the country to join Gingrich in worship at the Catholic Church (in DC) to judge his sincerity where Newt worships. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross provided what was needed to heal the black holes in the characters of anyone willing to sincerely repent and to take Christ's gift of suffering as salvation for any and all sins. I believe that the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson is in heaven for exactly that reason despite presiding over 250,000 abortions. He was a medical doctor who had pledged to obey the dictum: First of all, do no harm. His too was a pattern of betrayal but with far more and graver consequences to its victims. Many other examples come to mind but Jesus is the very definition of wonderful and He can do anything He promises so long as we accept and cooperate. He also taught every Christian of whatever denomination to pray: Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. That seems necessarily to mean that we are asking Him not to forgive us unless we forgive those who trespass against us.
That does not mean that anyone has an obligation, arising from the forgiveness of a candidate's sins, to vote for the candidate. We Catholics would say that the loss of such electoral support as he loses will be part of the "temporal punishment due to sin." I understand that you are an Eastern Rite Catholic but we may have Reformed Christians in our audience for this discussion. Reformed Christians might not accept that Catholic formulation as to temporal punishment since I think they believe that forgiveness entails a complete remission of one's sins and that God's forgiveness would mean an absence of punishment whether on Earth or in Purgatory (which has no place in Reformed theology). If I am wrong about Reformed theology, it won't be the first time (nor probably the last) and I welcome correction by those more knowledgeable on the subject than I. If you or anyone else cannot vote for Gingrich because of the betrayals represented by his adulteries, this Catholic can certainly understand.
As to Romney, I simply will not vote for him. I might not vote for POTUS at all or I might vote (with no expectation of victory) for a pro-life, etc., third party candidate. Unless, of course, that candidate were Sarah Palin in which case I believe she can certainly win. If she actually won as a third party candidate and announced an intention to govern as a Republican, she would have an incredible whip hand over the Congressional GOP quislings. She would also terrify her and our Demonrat enemies. That would restore the GOP.
Short of a Palin nomination to run third party, a Romney nomination would be a total disaster for the GOP and for the nation. The GOP would be dead like the Whigs and Federalists and for the same reasons. Even if she does not run, Palin could pick up the pieces as a sort of outsider (Andy) Jacksonian Republican since Lord knows the Demonrats would not take up the banner of their distinguished ancestor.
The GOP, BTW, became the second party or the opposition party by 1856 when Fremont ran and lost against Buchanan.
The LP does not, whatever it may suppose, have a broad enough constituency. It tends to be a sort of aristocracy of the mind requiring too much knowledge of Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, Lysander Spooner, John Stuart Mill and others who might reasonably be accused of heavy and complex thinking (not always fairly). Many LP ideas would terrify the public, if fully understood: such as a return to the Gold Standard or a rigorous and sudden re-establishment (or merely establishment) of constitutional fundamentalism and literal application. The same thing might be said if we tried to establish a specifically Catholic Party. Great intellectual and spiritual antecedents and far too complex for even most members of the Faith to grasp much less many outside the Faith.
Successful parties in the US tend to be far broader in their appeal. What I regard as real Republicans are generally in agreement on pro-life, pro-family, opposition to homosexuality and other perversions, hard-line and interventionist foreign policy, strong military, pro-gun, support lowering taxes (on everyone), lowering federal and state and local spending, reducing regulation within reason, subsidiarity, respectably sound currency, and a number of other issues. None of us are perfect. If we include bordermania, I dissent on that issue but might vote for such a candidate. If the question is the taxes paid by the very well off and the suggestion is made that it is better for the teenager flipping burgers at Mickey D's to pay more so that the polo players may pay less, my answer is no and I am very serious about that no. If conservatism insists on meaningfully cutting Social Security and Medicare for those of us of modest means, I do not favor such a policy because I do not favor suicide for me and others like me and that would be a deal breaker as would be violations on the essential social issues (babies, marriage, guns). Others may favor a non-interventionist foreign policy or cutting the military forces and weapons procurement or "reproductive choice" or wedding bells for Adam and Steve or "legalizing" narcotics. I can reluctantly out up with SOME but not all of these.
To maintain a winning coalition it is necessary that those who are in the minority within it on important issues be willing to back off for the good of the party and (through it) the overall good of the nation. Sometimes me. Sometimes thee. Sometimes that guy behind the tree.
OTOH, violation by the party or a major candidate of bedrock issues means that we are in te wrong party.
To make a long story short, I hope to spend the rest of my days voting generally GOP but the GOP can end that marriage and I won't feel unfaithful.
I have not earned the right to be modest. You have and you should practice it. You are making the obvious mistake of imagining I give a da*n for your opinions.
If you had a resume of political accomplishments, we would be hearing about it. I gave you only one item of many. In any event, I have heard enough from you to form an absolutely permanent opinion.
“Most of the Republicans in congress by a wide margin are not supporting him.”
So ? What does that mean ?
Newt got my vote today in Florida’s early voting.
The choice wasn’t hard. After all, Newt isn’t a closet socialist like Mitt Commie or a dementia patient and Jew hater like RuPaul.
As far as Rick Santorum went, I like him a lot, but he’s not the brawler that Newt is. We need a candidate who can not only fight Obama, but the in the tank media as well. I just don’t see Santorum being able to do that. This is not a knock against Santorum. It’s a rare gift that Newt Gingrich has.
Ah, poor Black Elk, is your pride wounded, great man?
Awwww, poor elhombre"libre," chock full of irrelevant and not very bright opinions with no resume of actual accomplishment resulting from them. Someone might say that you coulda been a contenda but, of course, that would be silly and soooo obviously wrong.
Ah, it’s BlackElk back to lecture me some more. I feared I wouldn’t be reading your brilliance today. I thought maybe you’d had apoplexy during the night. Anyway, man up, old fellow. Life has been tougher in much of history and is in much of the world. Good luck with your exaggerated angst and realize, please, that America’s strength doesn’t come from one man, no matter how much you’ve come to believe in one.
http://news.yahoo.com/gingrichs-baggage-gives-voters-pause-panhandle-090255621.html
There’s a lot of truth in what you’re saying. Sometimes it’s as simple as likeability. And a person with a bad character is often perceived as not very likeable.
I think this cycle has become all about electability. But even then the character issue matters, because even the voter has decided to do whatever it takes to nominate the person they think can defeat Obama knows that certain types of character flaws undermine a candidate’s electability.
So even if the particular voter were willing to overlook certain things about a candidate, the voter may still conclude that others won’t overlook or that it is of a nature that it could be used effectively against the candidate. So they don’t vote for the guy even though they would otherwise overlook the character trait.
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.