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 ...
Witness the subtle double entendre...
I didn’t read the exact quote but he should have explained how his plans will help all americans. that dividing Americans into groups hurts us.
Now, if the guy had asked for something in the radical gay agenda, then Gingrich should have said that he doesn’t believe in pandering and that his justice department would treat every American equally.
The thng is, his refreshing sense of propriety NOW will lose him the election. It might be refreshing as President, but if Gingrich is going to be a losse cannon NOW he will be perceived as too negative to win either the primary or the general.
There were a million refreshing answers he could have given without telling the guy to go vote for his opponent.
“I dont believe in dividing the needs of Americans by their sex lives.”
“Obama panders to groups, and all it does is increase the divide between Americans.”
“have you stopped to consider that what you are asking for hurts other Americans? Best to treat all Americans the same and give no special treatment unless they are seriously differently abled.”
Etc.
Newt knows that any answer he gave would be used to beat him with. He gave the same answer every target of these people should give.
Good for Newt.
Probably less than 1% of gays vote republican or donate to the republican party.
He will not lose any votes by getting into bed with a Gay Professor to get the gay vote.
How could you support Perry ( I also do), but then choose Romney over Gingrich as a second choice?
What do you like about Romney? Is it the queer agenda, gun-grabbing, or murdering babies that you like most?
More straights that homo’s, he said the right thing.
Nice to see a candidate stand up against the phony “gay rights” thing, vote or no vote.
That would be because the article didn't print it. I'd like to know what the exact quote was, myself, but all we have is a second-hand characterization of what Gingrich said, from a hardly disinterested and unbiased source.
This is why Newt is falling. I don’t know if I can vote for Newt or Mitt at this point.
What you tell the guy is you will represent him just as you would every American citizen. What you don’t tell him is that my America doesn’t include you, which is essentially what Newt did.
Well, Scott, what you're really asking is how will I support the homosexual agenda as President. The answer is simple: I won't. For three reasons:
1) The President is not a representative. He is an executive. You must be confusing me with your congressman. As the Chief Executive I will carry out my responsibilities under the oath I swear, and that means I will accord you and every other citizen of this country the rights they are vouchsafed under our Constitution.
2) To the degree I am a guardian of the public well-being, I choose to represent the 99 percent of Americans who are NOT homosexual rather than the handful who are.
3) I am not aligned with homosexuality as a lifestyle. It violates the most fundamental relationships between humans and I will not sanction any action that equates it with heterosexuality. I will not advocate extraordinary protections for homosexuals nor will I champion the designation of homosexuals as a victim group.
To reiterate, I will NOT represent the homosexual agenda as President. If that position is inconsistent with your personal and political ideology, you might find a more amenable candidate in my opponent.
Hey ASS**** what planet have you been living on for the last three years? This is how Obama treats the Republicans!
At least Newt was honest enough to tell you the truth to your face!
Who said I like Romney? IF I support him - it would be because he is the best option to defeat Øbama and has morals and integrity that Newt never had.
I’m not sold on Newt, but I agree with his answer. You can’t please everyone and you can’t please queers who’s political stance is “what’s in it for queers” as it were. Pandering doesn’t work.
Good for newt. Decency and public health concerns trump deviant behavior and disease vectoring. The deviants have always allied themselves with other deviants (GLBTP) and the demorats—let them remain there.
Principle over pandering, how refreshing. Romney would have pandered.
Romney has no morals at all. Nothing in his worthless excuse of a life is of any value at all.Romney is no better than Obama, but the damage he would do would be longer lasting.
.
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.