Posted on 12/27/2011 2:54:17 PM PST by TBBT
Newt Gingrich on Tuesday lit into Ron Paul over extremist newsletters he once published, saying that he would not vote for him if he were the Republican nominee.
Asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about tough attack ads Paul has been running against him, Gingrich slammed his rival, who he said “disowns ten years of his own letter, says he doesn’t really realize what was in it, had no idea that he was making money on, that it was racist, anti-Semitic.”
“He’s attacking me for serial hypocrisy and he spent ten years out of earning money off a newsletter that had his name that he didn’t notice,” he said. “He’s got to come up with some very straight answers to get somebody to take him seriously. Would I be willing to listen to him? Sure. I think the choice of Ron Paul or Barack Obama would be a very bad choice for America.”
Gingrich flatly said “no” when asked if he would vote for Paul himself.
“There will come a morning people won’t take him as a serious person,” Gingrich said, saying he was a “reasonable candidate” as a protest vote.
“As a potential president, a person who thinks the United States was [responsible] for 9/11, a person who believes, who wrote in his newsletter, that the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 might have been a CIA plot, the person who says it doesn’t matter if the Iranians have a nuclear weapon — you look at Ron Paul’s record of systemic avoidance of reality, his ads are about as accurate as his newsletter.”
(Excerpt) Read more at 2012.talkingpointsmemo.com ...
Newt speaks the truth. That is refreshing.
Go Newt!
Nobody is voting for Paul, he’s nuts.
...and nobody had to decide whether to vote for Paul or Obama because Paul is a joke and gets no votes except for his brainwashed core of whack jobs.
Newt is a typical flabby, pasty faced warmongering neocon Baby Boomer idiot who wants to send young people overseas to fight in the type of wars he himself opted out on.
Like the man he adores with an unnatural passion, Ron Paul, WilliamHouston is expert at avoiding reality. He cannot address the conclusive evidence that Ron Paul is a whackjob in #19, so he pretends it doesn’t exist.
John McCain seems like a paragon of martial stability compared to Newt.
When McCain was the Republican nominee in 2008, even his harshest critics could respect the fact that he had “walked the walk” so to speak on the subject of foreign wars, and that as a tortured Vietnam POW he spoke with a level of gravitas about putting “country first.”
Apparently so. Lmao!
You, however, enjoy regular conjugal visits with Ron Paul.
(1) There are Daily Kos kids who are opposed to foreign wars because they are opposed to the military, hate patriotism, and romanticize foreigners as noble savages.
(2) There are conservatives who oppose foreign wars because ...
- they don’t believe in the neocon global democracy crusade (see the results in Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt) which requires taking trillions of dollars out of the American economy.
- don’t believe in progressive nation building and social planning in America and are even more skeptical of its application to foreign countries.
- don’t believe that young people should be sent to die for stupid liberal causes like bringing “demcocracy” or “women’s rights” to Afghanistan and Iraq when Arizona and Texas are being invaded by illegal aliens.
You throw around terms like “foreign wars” and “neocon” and “globalist” and I bet you have no idea how to define them.
I would also say, that unlike the NFL - where you want to play at home - the ONLY kind of war one should be in is a FOREIGN WAR!!!!
War at home SUCKS.
I won’t vote for Ron Paul either. He really is a nut case.
Prior to this, I would have voted for Newt.
Newt is now dead to me. I would now never vote for Newt.
I thought that one of Newt’s pluses was his intelligence. I was wrong. Newt is an idiot.
Well, there are those who like their pongs....
I have no intention of voting for Ron Paul. I disagree with his immigration policy. I dislike his stance on DADT and his libertarian position on various other issues.
OTOH, I respect his stances on several other major issues, namely his unwillingness to start costly, destructive, and unprovoked foreign wars (see Iraq or Vietnam or Serbia) which cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.
I can’t think of any redeeming virtue possessed by Newt Gingrich that would give me a reason to vote for him. At least with Ron Paul, we know for certain that he will oppose frivolous foreign wars and curtail government spending, and the neocons will be shut out of power.
(1) Well, let’s see: foreign wars, where to start, how about Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, and Serbia, all of which were wars of choice (the crucial distinction) started by either Democratic or Republican presidents.
(2) By “neocon,” I am referring to that species of conservative (most of whom used to be Democrats) which believes in an aggressive and antagonistic foreign policy designed to promote “democracy” overseas.
(3) By “globalist,” I am referring to that species of conservative (or the “duty to protect” liberal, there being no essential difference on this issue) who is content to allow 11 million illegal aliens to invade the United States while the U.S. military has the South Korean border locked down airtight.
I am a pretty consistent nationalist: I don’t believe that the wars in Serbia, Vietnam, Libya, or Iraq were in our national interest, and I certainly don’t believe they are worth paying for either.
Thanks for an honest answer, and I should say it’s classy of you not to respond in kind to my taunts.
Goody for you. You learned to use a search engine. (I guess my schooling you the other day on the correct definition of “classical liberal” taught you a valuable lesson.
So now that you’ve defined the words right, how about using them in some adult context from now on instead of just throwing them around at every candidate not named Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul.
The Civil War taught the the “thinking part” of the US military such a Upton, Mahan to name a few early US military philosophers!) that wars if they occur must be elsewhere! I know this is obvious, but it has to be stated again and again. To put it another way if the enemy is at the gates, you have big problems, because the next stage if things go badly is the enemy inside the gates!
Neither would I
The neocon is a macho version of the “duty to protect” liberal.
He’s a lying Paul spambot...he adores Paul.
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.