Oh, and I meant to add:
The louder others proclaim that they “don’t give a damn” about anything that Newt has done, whether in his personal or professional life, the more values voters tend to say, “Wait a minute. I *do* care about a man’s character and conduct. Yes, I’m pragmatic and I’m going to vote against Obama no matter what. But I’m not going to join in this wholesale throwing overboard of our traditional standards, not if I can find someone else who can win the nomination and *doesn’t* have to be given a pass on his moral failings.”
This is what I’m hearing. Whether it’s a viewpoint that’s widespread enough to make a difference, I don’t know.
There’s a difference between supporting a candidate and giving him a pass. That’s been my major concern about the Gingrich surge: I can see supporting him, but I would have rather seen the conservative base support him while riding herd on him all the way.
When a man such as Gingrich is not only supported, but given a pass (what I mean by that is not at the same time held accountable for certain things), the latter is what risks turning values voters away.
Well stated.
I’m not looking for perfect, because there is no such thing as a perfect human being.
But I would like “trustworthy”. If a man cannot be trusted in his personal life, how can he be trusted with the great responsibility of leading our country?
you say “but I would have rather seen the conservative base support “
Newt’s lifetime rating with the ACU
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2815398/posts
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64429.html
Just who on earth do you think all those people that are for him ARE?