Posted on 12/21/2011 6:46:36 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
Newt Gingrich isn't exactly chasing the gay vote.
The Republican presidential candidate told a homosexual Iowa man at a campaign event on Tuesday to vote for President Obama.
Scott Arnold, a Democrat and associate professor of writing at William Penn University, approached the ex-House speaker in Oskaloosa wanting to know how Gingrich would represent him as President, according to the Des Moines Register.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Anyone know what the actual exchange was as opposed to just what the homosexual guys says it was.
Newt should have said that if you vote for me, I’ll see to it that you get the help you so desperately need to be straight again.
<><><><
I think Bachmann has that market cornered.
We’re going to get drubbed?
By who, exactly? And why?
You really think that guy was ever going to vote for anyone other than the Democrat?
Governor Rick Perry!!!
Governor Rick Perry!!!
I agree it would have been a better choice to have said something about how he had plans that would benefit ALL Americans, including this man. He could have made some comment about sexual pasts not being a big issue for him, given his own sordid choices in the bedroom. Perhaps that would have disarmed the man.
Of course, it’s all from the questioner’s point of view, and it likely is not accurate. Rather than asking a general question as the article reports, perhaps he more specifically focused on same sex marriage. In that case, gingrich’s answer would be more appropriate in context.
And I wonder at the tone of the questioner’s voice. If he was shrill and confrontational, that could have brought up personal animus Gingrich has over his sister’s public betrayal and whatever behind the scenes rancor may exist between the two. I’m sure his sister has berated him with the ‘pot calling the kettle black’ argument, and nobody likes to be publicly reminded of one’s shortcomings.
This is refreshing. If Macy’s doesn’t have what they want and Gimbel’s does, don’t BS them, send them to Gimbel’s. Obama can have all the lefties, gays, feminists, etc., and Newt takes the rest. Every nutcase gets referred to the Dems. Sounds like a strategy. (I mean it.) The rest of us are fed up.
A gay demacrat professor. Hmm...I think Newt knew he was never going to get this guy’s vote, no matter what. If I were Newt once I heard this man’s demographic, I think I would have simply said...”next question.”
No, I think he expected Newt to agree to hold his d--- for him while he lubed up his partner. That's the only answer that will make them happy.
He should tell him that:
America is in terrible trouble, in part, because the social policies of the Democratic Party over the years have been destroying the traditional American family. Emphasizing gay rights and gay marriage takes the emphasis off of a problem that has a far more profound negative impact on us all, including gays.
Gays are free to do pretty much anything they want to and legalizing gay marriage really would not improve life much for anybody, including gays. Let’s spend our energy and time on the American family, a social issue that will make a truly fundamental and meaningful difference . . . in the lives of straights, in the lives of gays, and especially in the lives of vulnerable children.
EVERYONE should listen to Newt Gingrich’s remarks.
I respect Newt for the way it was handled.
Exactly. If being represented simply as an American isn't good enough for this guy, then he needs to vote for the party of the hyphenated.
I know what the article stated. If it is incorrect Newt can tell us so.
Speaker Gingrich handled the question correctly. The reporting was piss poor.
Indeed, we are all in this and the correct response is something to the effect of assuring the guy he will be treated on par with everyone else as an American citizen.
If Newt did say things that you suggest he may have then that is a different story than the article carried it across as, and I hope he will correct the record and not let it stand as if he just told the guy his party was not for them.
If he thinks the president should/could do something for him, he still should be in diapers...we aren ‘t electing a baby sitter...glad newt was honest...to say anything else would be pandering and the guy is better off voting for the other guy if he needs a diaper change...
That is a response that his pastor should give him, not a man running for president of the USA
Go watch the video. His answer is lot better than they are revealing.
I wasn’t aware that Obama changed his position to support gay marriage. Is there really much difference between Gingrich and Obama on gay issues? Other than the obvious fact that Newt is a known womanizer and Obama is a closeted gay man, that is . . .
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.