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 ...
Cool. This just got bumped to Breaking News. Thanks Sidebar.
lolol. I had no idea this little thread would go far.
I disagree. Newt sprung the trap and walked away unscathed. He shut the pillow-biter down before anything else could be said.
"Don't like my policies? Go vote for the other guy." /conversation
Instead, Newt shut him down and sent him home.
What the guy was really asking Newt is “What special treatment are you going to give me for being gay?”
That's seem "fair" reporting. /s
What this Democrat doesn't realize is Newt does support all Americans and everyone's general interest but as Newt believes is in the American tradition.
Seriously, gays could just as easily push for a federal marriage amendment that specifically codifies their view for all states. They could be out passing such things in individual states.
I personally think any sort of marriage amendment effort would fail just as it did under W. It just wouldn't get out of Congress.
Even if SCOTUS upholds the federal court's ruling the CA voters violated the federal constitution by adding "traditional marriage" to the state constitution with Prop 8, more acute pressure will exist but I suspect it won't be sufficient to overcome the social-cultural momentum. Apathy is too high.
Since a president has no formal role in amending the constitution, it's largely academic to ask these types of questions. At best a president can play cheerleader but the real work will have to come from the constituents communicating with their representatives.
Look how it played in CA. The state legislature passed gay marriage, it was vetoed by Arnold. The people voted to ban it (a second time) by amending the state constitution. That shows a disconnect between the legislative reps and the voters and that same disconnect will be at the federal level as well.
Eventually it'll come down to a SCOTUS decision and presently those come down to what Anthony Kennedy had for breakfast.
I ould like to know what was ACTUALLY SAID.
Sure as hell didn’t get it from the Daily News.
Yeah. The little boy that approached Bachmann was a setup for all the cameras too. Like she told the little boy. We don’t make special rules for different groups. We are all Americans.
The Daily News poll has “What an idiot” (Newt is) leading by 65%.
We don't even know what the exchange was. In fact, we don't even know what he said, if anything!! Why do you even believe this guy? Do you seriously believe this was the sum total of the conversation?
"I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama."
I just do not understand this frenzy to eat our own every time the MSM takes a swipe at one of the candidates.
When Newt tells the queers to vote for Obama, he is telling me to vote for Newt.
Agree
I would like to see or hear the actual exchange
Not this guys version
As has been posted Newt can’t respond with out a lot of verbage
AND I would like to see exactly what this guy asked
Gay college professor —chances of him voting for Newt = zero
Wince-inducing. I won't have to put up with this every-four-years choice between a calamity and a catastrophe too many cycles longer. But I quake for my offspring, nieces and nephews.
I don’t exactly like Newt. However, the important facts here are that exactly what Newt said was not quoted. We don’t know what he said.
However, I would say this, which is probably something similar to what Gingrich would say:
1) The serious issues facing Americans nowadays are a problem for all Americans, not just the homosexuals. Unemployment is one of them, if businesses, individuals, and so on, receive the proper policy relief, then hopefully the issues are more easily achieved for you, as well as everyone else.
2) I am for the 2nd Amendment, because this entitles everyone, including those who are homosexual, to a right to self-defense against real bigots more than any hate crimes legislation actually will.
3) I am for finishing wars, which hopefully wraps up the need to lose more Americans.
The problem with my three statements on a political lobby’s agenda is specifically the fact that it doesn’t pander to them, but treats them as only part of a larger whole, and asks them to get their own lives figured out while the bigger picture gets addressed. I would suspect, that Gingrich, whether or not I like him, probably said something along these lines, because he probably doesn’t have time to pander to a lobbying group as much as he has to try and address the general American public about what’s going on for them. Again, however, the left conveniently poisons the well, or uses abstract reasoning to try and make any disagreeing politician more bad than they really are.
Gingrich is not a "loose cannon." He made his position very clear on this subject. People in the real world do not want to vote for a namby-pamby, gutless wonder who dodges, zigs and zags on issues like most politicians.
Furthermore, the gay/lesbian population votes for democrats anyway, so Gingrich has nothing to lose from the queer community; and Gingrich will most likely pick up more votes from straight voters.
Newt supporter here, but that was dumb. he should have said, “if you care about what really matters right now, don’t vote for Obama, because all the gay rights issues won’t matter when the economy is trashed and the rest of our freedoms are gone”.
He may have said something similar, but there was no quotation on Gingrich whatsoever, which leaves people to wonder, just like a Michael Moore flick cuts off the end of quote for some people interviewed.
Is there a video?
Or are we just taking Arnold’s word for it?
“I ould like to know what was ACTUALLY SAID.
Sure as hell didn’t get it from the Daily News.”
I agree, there’s so much to wonder about what was asked to him, which I would probably answer something similar given similar circumstances.
I would say, and Newt would likely say, that there’s bigger problems facing all over America, not just some minute segment. I just don’t have the time to appeal to one group when I have to address the larger whole, about issues that we’re pretty much all in the same boat about. If unemployment were reduced, that would make things much better for everyone, not just homosexuals.
Is it just me, or do many political lobbyists have utterly no clue what’s wrong for the greater chunk of the American populace right now? Aren’t there at least some homosexuals who are unemployed enough to get that hey, it’s an American Problem right now? Do I have to go to church and realize the people in need of charitable assistance this holiday season to get a clue?
The big problem with so much of politics is that they really don’t seem to get the picture, while Newt Gingrich, might reflect some of it with what he said, we will never know, as what he said, or was asked, was conveniently omitted.
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.