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 ...
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.
That would be hilarious. That would also guarantee a lose for Newt in the General FOR SURE. There is no way the Independents believe that. I wish we had 51 percent true conservatives so we wouldn’t have to worry about getting Independents every time.
“But, we really want to tell people to go vote for the other guy?”
If those people are going to vote for the other guy come hell or high water, then why not? We should pander to them like RINO’s even though we’ll never get their vote anyway? That just suppresses conservative turnout.
What an illogical reply!
The headline is misleading. Newt told the man if being gay is your biggest issue then maybe you need to vote for Obama. If jobs and national security are more important then you should vote for Newt
Clink on the link and then down below the story is the video link of what Newt actually said.
no need to be curious - just peruse his/her past posts ;o )
If it came down to Obama/Romney, I’d vote for the best 3rd party candidate I could find. Many here will do the same I suspect.
Won’t hold my nose and vote again. McCain was the last time....and Myth is far worse.
Hank
I had to wait till I got home to listen. Thanks for posting that.
It clearly showed Obama wanted the man’s vote. But - since gay rights was THE ONLY ISSUE that queer was concerned about (Not the economy or jobs or etc) then fine - vote for Obama.
The NYDaily would have a hayday with my reply and of course I’m not running for POTUS...
I will not be intimidated by a movement for personal preference of a perverted life style.
This preference agenda if carried to extreme limits would allow for laws to be written in support of any and every whim or trend of the moment. Our government would be further entangled in writing laws based solely on preference. The range would run from those who preferred human-canine marriage to human-inanimate object marriage with all the privileges afforded to traditional marriage.
I will never associate homosexuality with the honest and justified history of black people or women’s equal rights. A black person is a member of a race by birth. A woman is a member of a gender by birth. Homosexuality on the other hand, is a preference for self-centered, self- satisfying, and self-gratifying activities.
Homosexuality may have psychiatry, psychology, the media, and most politicians in its back pocket; but, it won’t receive any quarter from me. As long as I have a first amendment right to free speech I will exercise it based on my personal preference. Homosexuality is a disease of the mind and spirit.
Nicely done.
Rick Perry is your dude? Oh s**t; that fumb duck??? Well, as a native Texan, I’ve endured Perry’s 25 years of being on the taxpayers’ dole as a career politician. I could never support him for President. His political machine has kept him in power for the past 10 years as Governor, but most Texans know he is an empty suit. We’re not surprised that he can’t remember what he had for breakfast this morning, forgot that the voting age was 18, not 21 and that he thought Solyndra was a country instead of a manufacturing firm. And then, there’s the Debates.......... He has embarrassed the State of Texas in this Primary Process. I guarantee, this will be his last term as Governor
A little well-aimed snarkiness is good in a candidate.
This morning, I got a good look at the sort of squishy republican that supports Mitt. One of my carpoolers told me "now I know why I think Gingrich is unelectable". He started to tell me about this "gay professor" incident. I told him "first, we don't know exactly what Gingrich said. This is just hearsay. And besides, what was he supposed to say?" He went on to say "we need a candidate who can also appeal to the people who get their news from Jon Stewart".
I told him "no way we get the Jon Stewart vote unless our candidate becomes Obama. I'd as well have Obama as a 'fake Obama'". He said "well, we'll have to disagree on that".
I'm sure he thinks I'm just a fanatical anti-gay right-winger who does not see the big picture. This guy is really squishy; and there are lots of them out there. He is also Jewish, and remarked once that "Lieberman would be a good president". Now, no true conservative would make such a statement, as Lieberman is as lib as they come. Just goes to show how many RINOs walk among us.
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.