Replies

I would urge Newt supporters to think twice about him. If he's POTUS there is no doubt he would be 100x's better than obama, but I don't think he's the small govt conservative everyone thinks he is.

From a realistic standpoint, the only "conservative" standing between Romney and the nomination is Gingrich. If we all start having second thoughts about him, then the nomination will fall to Romney by default. Maybe it is you who needs to start thinking twice about Gingrich.

The Perry machine has blown a rod and I don't see the AAA truck anywhere near him. Newt has literally 10 times the support that Perry has right now. I realistically don't see that turning around. Money and organization can only buy you so much support. You can't buy a 30 point poll swing.

Below are Gingrich's actual words that caused trouble. I have read and reread them, and I think Newt's clarification in this article extends the earlier remarks. They need to be read with an eye toward understanding spoken versus written comments:

TAPPER: Abortion is a big issue here in Iowa among conservative Republican voters and Rick Santorum has said you are inconsistent. The big argument here is that you have supported in the past embryonic stem cell research and you made a comment about how these fertilized eggs, these embryos are not yet “pre-human” because they have not been implanted. This has upset conservatives in this state who worry you don’t see these fertilized eggs as human life. When do you think human life begins?
GINGRICH: Well, I think the question of being implanted is a very big question. My friends who have ideological positions that sound good don’t then follow through the logic of: ‘So how many additional potential lives are they talking about? What are they going to do as a practical matter to make this real?’
I think that if you take a position when a woman has fertilized egg and that’s been successfully implanted that now you’re dealing with life. because otherwise you’re going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions
TAPPER: So implantation is the moment for you.
GINGRICH: Implantation and successful implantation. In addition I would say that I’ve never been for embryonic stem cell research per se. I have been for, there are a lot of different ways to get embryonic stem cells. I think if you can get embryonic stem cells for example from placental blood if you can get it in ways that do not involve the loss of a life that’s a perfectly legitimate avenue of approach.
What I reject is the idea that we’re going to take one life for the purpose of doing research for other purposes and I think that crosses a threshold of de-humanizing us that’s very very dangerous.

Gingrich is saying above simply that there is a difference between an implanted zygote and one that is not implanted.

He is then saying, "If you take the position that an unimplanted zygote is to be seen as a fully human life, then what are you prepared to do about all those zygotes that do not naturally implant? The number is seen as being as high as 80% of all fertilizations. Will there be funerals? Will there be names? Should there be autopsies?

I think he is then saying that those that are not implanted and being naturally passed through the system are even ineligible for stem cell research.

He would conduct such research on stem cells in placental blood.

Now, IF your 25 year old relative dies, would you approve an autopsy even though many of the cells are still living? Is that similar to studying a zygote that has passed through unimplanted and the cells of which will die?

If your 25 year old relative had not left paperwork but had spoken to you approvingly of organ donation, would you permit his organs to be used? Is that similar to using cells from an unimplanted zygote that definitely, absolutely is dying?

These are the kinds of questions that get Gingrich in trouble. They are exactly the questions that had me at the "implantation life" stage for a while.

I don't think they are questions that mean you are not pro-life. I think they are natural questions for anyone who reflects on the nature and destiny of unimplanted zygotes.

Before I throw support to a sometime conservative I want to see how the votes go in SC & FL. Right now everyone seems to be excited about Newt but he is hardly a solid conservative and as he has just shown on abortion there are some caveats in his Pro-Life views. Also, I believe that Pery has gotten a lot more endorsements among his peers than Gingrich.

Also, how much difference is there between Gingrich and Romney. They both supported the personal mandate in healthcare. They both are establishment candidates and Gingrich is the consummate inside the beltway politician. The only big difference I see between Romney and Gingrich is Romney actively supported a pro-abortion agenda and Newt did not.

The Perry machine has blown a rod and I don't see the AAA truck anywhere near him. Newt has literally 10 times the support that Perry has right now.

Again, no votes have been cast and at this point last time around McCain was in 4th place. If Gingrich gets the nomination I will vote for him in the general election. I won't do that for Romney. I intend to support the conservative running (Perry) not the sometime conservative (Gingrich) that everyone thinks is going to win debates.

I think Gingrich can win in the general election, but don't think it will be easy. Gingrich plays right into all the stereo types that obama wants to run against. He's the inside the beltway politician who after he left office made millions peddling influence. He's the rich guy who spent $500,000 on his wife at Tiffany's. Also, the expectations are so high for Gingrich in debating that if he stumbles at all it looks like a win for obama.