In reality, Newt Gingrich was very outspoken in promoting the global warming hoax (even agreeing John Kerry in a "debate" that man-made global warming is an urgent crisis and we must take action now), called for setting up a government board to determine which illegal aliens should get amnesty, giving an example as "people who have lived here for 25 years and have families" as one group that would qualify (as JimRob noted, "by any other name it's still amnesty") and Newt was still touting an Individual Mandate for Health Care as Recently as May 2009
There WAS (past tense) a candidate in the race who had a clear record opposing all those things, but freepers refused to vote for him.
I agree Ron Paul should have a column, since he's still one of the "presidential choices as it stands today". You can make the case that Newt Gingrich is "more conservative" than Paul (he certainly is on foriegn policy), but ignoring Paul all together and not listing his positions doesn't sway any freepers who on the fence and considering Paul. (for the record: I am NOT considering Paul)
New was also in favor of TARP, his reasons were sound but he was in favor of TARP. And I agree, Ron Paul should have a column. What’s the point if all serious candidates are not listed?
Jim Robinson shows Newt is a pretty good fit to the Tea Party values: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2818986/posts?page=38#38
You could start your education with the above, if you were sincerely seeking information about topics you show ignorance or deception over.
I agree that Rep. Paul should be listed, since he’s a congressman who has 51 delegates. He supports deporting more illegal aliens, but Rep. Gingrich wants to give amnesty to all illegal aliens.