Newt really is the anti-Romney

Right Speak ^ | Saturday, December 3, 2011 | Martha

[Grig]

Comparing and contrasting Newt and Mitt is a real eye-opener. The two men have taken very different paths in their personal and professional lives, and have wildly different personalities. Newt is a dreamer, Mitt a doer. Newt is reckless, Mitt is careful. Newt is famously undisciplined, Mitt is the epitome of self-discipline. Romney is a leader, Newt simply is not–according to those who worked most closely with him. Both men are intelligent, yet have chosen different ways to use their intelligence.

In education, Romney pursued business and law, while Newt chose modern European History. Romney earned his education quickly and entered the private sector, while Newt preferred academia.

Romney went on to a successful career in business, becoming wealthy helping businesses and creating jobs, while Newt made a career in government, becoming wealthy by exploiting his position of power and selling influence. Romney's skills were in high demand in the private sector, while Newt was removed from leadership in the House due to the chaos he created.

In matters of faith, Romney is a life-long member of his church and has a record of many years of service to it. Newt went from Lutheran to Baptist, to Catholic, with some speculation of political motive in making the conversions. I am not aware of service Newt may have given to his church. In their personal lives, they could not be more different. Mitt married his high school sweetheart after 4 years of courtship, and remains happily married. Newt also married his high school sweetheart - his geometry teacher whom he began dating at age 16. He has admitted that there is some truth in the notion that he hates women. He has a turbulent marital history due to selfishness and uncontrolled sexual appetites. While Romney helped Ann through both MS and cancer, Newt divorced Jackie, who had cancer–saying she was ‘not pretty enough or young enough to be a president’s wife–and besides she has cancer’. Newt divorced Marrianne, who was also diagnosed with MS. At the time, he asked Marrianne if she would please tolerate the six year affair with Callista, and remain married to him. She refused. He married Callista in 2000.

In matters of character, the contrast is keen. Romney has no hint of scandal–personal or professional. Newt has rumors of sexual scandals–including the infamous oral sex in a car with his neighbor's wife, while his little daughter was near. Newt also has a history of ethics violations, shady book deals, sham fundraising practices, and inconsistencies about whether he was hired as an ‘historian’ or as a lobbyist.

In the presidential campaign, they have also chosen very different paths. Romney is serious, organized, hardworking and prepared, while Newt has been flying by the seat of his pants. He now finds himself in the running, but unprepared, due to a severe lack of preparation and organization. While Romney has been mostly humble about his long term frontrunner status, Newt proclaimed himself the nominee after less than two weeks at the top of the polls.

There are many other differences--too many to list here. But we easily know enough to determine who is more worthy of support. We should not divorce the way a man lives in his personal life, from his actions in public life. Character is revealed in both professional and personal decisions. Romney has a solid record of being true to his word, family, and stewardships. Newt does not. While both men have significant accomplishments, only one has the background, character, leadership and temperament we need. That person is Mitt Romney.

[JRandomFreeper]

You will “vote” for the truly “evil” by not voting

Um... no. And no, I won't trust you. It's people like you that got us where we are.

I think I'll try something different this time.

Ross Perot and Ralph Nader didn't steal/throw elections.... Parties forgot who builds the base.

It's that time again, if the party wants to be stupid.

/johnny

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Free Republic has been declared a RINOmney-Free Pimping Zone.
Did you not get the memo, Grig???

[hinckley buzzard]

Like I said, Nobody cares. You can vote for anyone you want and it won't matter.

Why strain yourself.

[Tennessee Nana]

Oh, and I believe Mormons are better Christians than a lot of self-proclaimed Christians are.
___________________________________________

There ya go again..

Mormons are not Christians ..

There is no confusing pagan Mormonism with Biblical Christianity

The 2 religions are worlds apart

but you knew that already didnt ya kid ???

[Absolutely Nobama]

I stand corrected. I got so excited by how clever that sounded I forgot to be factual. Facts can be stupid things.

LOL!

:)

[Absolutely Nobama]

I stand corrected. I got so excited by how clever that sounded I forgot to be factual. Facts can be stupid things.

LOL!

:)

[VRWC For Truth]

The Pelosi couch potato Gorebal warming moron Mr Scozzafava can bite me. He’s another RINO,

[Colonel_Flagg]

Just change it to “nose guard” and you’re good to go!

Enjoy your night. :)

[Lou Budvis]

To which word is Slick Willard true? But that doesn’t even matter in the large sense. Myth is unelectable. See Whitman (Romneybot) v. Brown. If Romney is the nominee expect 0bama to win by more than he beat McCain.

[RIghtwardHo]

Ya know, I just don’t curse too often. I really don’t. But whoever wrote that crap makes me want to utter every curse word known to God and Man.

No RINO Romney. No RINO Newt. Ever.

The GOP Elite are shoving the Tea Party right off the cliff and come so called “conservatives” are more than happy to aid in the shoving.

[RIghtwardHo]

lol Oh that’s brilliant.

[Tennessee Nana]

I guess there is a photo of my peeing in the jungle in RVN.
_________________________________________________

Thank you for your service to our great country...

Romney wishes he had a photo like that instead of the fact that he Ps on our troops...

[mike_9958]

“I was USAF. Flack=target. Apparently, I am scraping some nerves.”

You think you’re a target ?

Who’s uncomfortable ?

I think you are realizing you have been enabling liberals and big government.

[JRandomFreeper]

Why strain yourself.

Because I have a misplaced faith in the possibility of a Constitutional federal government.

I know. It's silly.

But what happens when I lose that faith, and decide it's not required, at all, anymore? And others do the same?

/johnny

[familyop]

How Conservative is Newt's Actual Voting Record?
http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-conservative-is-newts-actual-voting.html ^ | libertarian neocon

Posted on 12/02/2011 1:50:20 PM PST by libertarian neocon

The folks at Club for Growth has white papers on all the GOP candidates summarizing their public records and does a pretty objective job. Looking at Newt's I really was struck by how conservative Newt's actual voting record was (which of course was mischaracterized by Jennifer Rubin, who I think must have been offered a post in a Romney administration. How else do you explain her going full spittle in support of Romney and anti-Newt?)., with most of the worrisome aspects of his record coming from speeches AFTER he left public office. This is pretty much the exact opposite of Romney, who has a very questionable record from his limited time in elected office, with most of his conservatism coming from campaign speeches. Anyway, let's look at Newt's actual record:

• Voted YES on the Reagan tax cut of 1981
• Voted YES on the Reagan tax reform bill of 1986
• Voted NO on the George H.W. Bush "Read My Lips" tax hike in 1990.
• Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993.
• Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997.
• Voted NO on the Chrysler bailout in 1979
• Voted YES on the Gramm-Rudman balanced budget bill in 1985
• Voted YES on a balanced budget amendment (as part of the "Contract for America" effort that he led) in 1995
• Led the effort and voted YES to cut $16.4 billion from the budget in 1995.
• Voted YES on welfare reform in 1996

I also decided to look myself at how much federal spending increased while Gingrich was Speaker of the House (1995-1999). By my calculations, Federal spending rose an average of 3.1% a year while he was speaker. When you compare it to the Presidential terms from Reagan on, this is the lowest rate of spending growth over the last 30 years. Under Reagan, spending grew an average of 7.6% a year. Under George H.W. Bush, 6.7%. Under Clinton, 3.3% (it would have been much more if he got his single payor health care plan through, also he was restrained by Newt later). Under W., it as 6.6% and under Obama, a whopping 8.6% a year. Also, under Newt, Federal spending as a % of GDP fell from 21% to 18.5%, a whopping decline in 4 short years.

Is his record perfect? Nope. Not even close. But the point is that on the big issues, he voted Conservative and helped champion balanced budgets and tax reform. Focusing on that actual voting record really makes me more comfortable with him. Especially when his main opponent is someone whose main accomplishment is a massive government healthcare program.

[JRandomFreeper]

People that berate folks that don't vote for the 'approved candidate' are the enablers. You know, the guys in the conference room that figure out 'the best way forward'.

Not buying it. No Sale.

And you can't do anything about it.

I will not pull a lever for a non-conservative.

/johnny

[Graybeard58]

In the primary phase of any election the candidates will try to appeal to the their base, before reaching out to independents during the general election. It's equally true of both parties. All the remaining GOP contenders are still trying to polish their conservative credentials. And that's where the scary part comes in - this is the conservative version of Romney.

What you said is true and bears repeating. We are looking at the conservative side of milt. If he's given a chance, he will swing a little more to the left for the general election and further, would govern from the extreme left.

No Romney ever, for anything.

[mike_9958]

“It’s that time again, if the party wants to be stupid”

and you’re a genius....

you are a guy on a conservative blog site that wants a liberal in office if he doesn’t get his way....

so yes if you chose to vote third party like folks did in the 90’s you get what they got - a liberal.. you know that so you own that. Since you own it you are responsible for it - simple. So man up.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Right, right - RINO A is very different from RINO B. Tough choice. I choose neither.

[narses]

Look at their accomplishments. Newt allied himself with Ronald Reagan to build the Reagan Coalition, the Religious Right, and the Republican majority (together the Reagan Revolution) which directly led the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Contract with America, government reforms, less government, tax cuts, a balanced budget, and the great, long-standing Reagan economy.

Romney, on the other hand, vehemently denied Ronald Reagan and aligned himself with Ted Kennedy and the left. Romney accomplished installing liberal big government programs, defended and promoted Roe v Wade and legalized abortion as “settled law,” advocated and implemented RomneyCare with its liberty killing government mandates against formerly free citizens and its taxpayer funded or subsidized and mandated abortion procedures. He ran and governed to the left of Ted Kennedy on the “gay agenda” resulting in gay marriage in Massachusetts. He appointed liberal judges and liberal appointees throughout his government. Under his “leadership” conservatism and the Republican party was all but destroyed in Massachusetts.

Romney is one evil liberal progressive. No way in hell will MittBots be allowed to support this abortionist, big government, socialist scumbag on FR!

Guess my message isn’t clear enough. I have to keep repeating it and zotting would be MittBots.

79 posted on Sat Dec 03 2011 19:59:37 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Jim Robinson