Posted on 01/16/2012 5:07:24 PM PST by blueyon
GOP Debate
(Excerpt) Read more at live.foxnews.com ...
I condem no one.
I consider Gingrich a weak and person. His adulterous affairs speak of his weakness, but so do other actions of his.
Quitting the House because he did not want to fight it out with those who didn't agree with him, right after he was reelected, shows his weakness.
Working as a shill for Fannie/Freddie at a time when he had to have known they were destroying our economy, because of the money involved, shows weakness.
Working with the likes of Pelosi to support government intervention because of Global Warming, shows weakness.
The inability to stand up to the illegal immigration lobby shows weakness.
His failure to be up front and honest with the House Ethics Committee, resulting in the first public censure of a sitting Speaker, shows weakness.
Gingrich pales in comparison to other candidates when it comes to character, and right now, maybe more than ever, we need a president with a strong character.
"I consider Gingrich a weak and unreliable person".
Right now we need a strong, brave man with the intellect, experience and debating skills to bring down the Marxist/Muslim.
Newt is the man to b*tch-slap Hussein down.
The Roman Republic had an executive, legislative and judicial systems for government. The executive had an elected senior console and junior console. The legislature consisted of a elected senior body the Senate and an elected junior body the Plebeian assembly. Roman judiciary did not developed into an independent body of government. But looking at Roman government one could make the case that our government was model on Roman government with 2000 years of 20-20 hindsight. Senior and junior console, President and Vice President. Senate and Plebeian assembly, Senate and House of Representatives. Coincidence? I think not. We are the Romans.
Do you think Santorum can beat the Marxist Kenyan? Seriously?
Your post shows more about you than Newt. You, however, have been shown to be a reliably uninformed. Keep it up, you even serve a purpose.
Santorum is not a fiscal conservative, sorry, he’s NOT! Plus he has zero chance of winning in the general election. If he did win the nomination, I would could vote for him without holding my nose, but I would much rather have Gingrich or Perry.
I would pay 1000.00 to see him debate the Kenyan. I’m serious. I’m not sure the Barry the Kenyan Islamic Marxist would debate him. He could say no.
Even if I were to agree with you, Obama was not elected because of his intellect, experience or his debating skills. There will be no one on one debates, there will be carefully orchestrated "debates" moderated for the purpose of making Gingrich defend the indefensible, it will be real politik, not an academic exercise.
Whether you believe it or not, Obama's strongest trait is his likeability. Poll after poll confirm this. Gingrich has always been unlikeable, to Republicans let alone Independents or Democrats. This will be a large part of what the election will be decided on.
Anybody that votes for national right to work legislation has never read the Constitution.
Me too. Perry is the more consistent conservative and he's got the best executive experience. His service record is a plua as well.
He’d have a hard time pulling that off, since he doesn’t believe the most fundamental liberty of all — life — should be protected at the federal level.
I was thinking more along the lines of braying jackass.
Why don't you actually read the bill instead of worrying about how other Senators voted. Border states would get the bulk of the additional federal agents at the expense of non-border states that are dealing with illegals living in their states. But then you would know that if you had actually read what you copied and reposted.
You think the gov't/unions should be able to tell workers they have to join a union or they can't work?
You must also think the gov't should tell companies they can't move to states that have right to work laws!
That isn't in the Constitution I have read!
Yours is an Obama interpretation of the Constitution!
So how does Santorum Help? The last time he ran in PA he got whooped...by the stupidest man in DC...by 17 points!
Absolutely. In fact, I think he has the best chance of all the candidates. Santorum picks up Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Iowa, and New Hampshire. That is more than enough to beat Obama. There's a chance he picks up Colorado and Wisconsin as well.
The best thing Santorum has going is that he doesn't have high negatives. As a relative unknown, he has the potential of grabbing support from the greatest number of voters. Compare that to Newt. His negatives are over 45%, which means the deck is already stacked against him. His negatives are especially high among women. Current polling shows his support with women is around 14%. Since women make up the majority of the electorate, it does not bode well for the GOP. Women elected Obama, and without a viable alternative, they will elect him again. Rick Santorum provides that viable alternative.
The non-border states don't help control the border and then sit and point your fingers at us for not doing it when it is a federal responsibility to control the border.
Why do you think you have illegals in your states? The states don't have the money or resources to control what is the federal gov't's job! When states pass immigrant laws, we're sued by the fed gov't.
Non-border states are part of the problem...and congressmen like Santorum!
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.