Posted on 01/19/2012 12:41:04 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Edited on 01/19/2012 12:44:42 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
Somebody needs to check: I believe current rules (which were not in effect when some former secretaries of defense were appointed) require that the Secretary of Defense cannot have been on active duty within the last ten years.
I'm going by memory here; I'm sure someone can verify this quickly.
If true, that would rule out West and virtually all other candidates with military service during the current War on Terror.
I would agree, if it were a single outlier poll (a POS poll, as you say) that showed Obama with a double digit lead over Gingrich.
But it is the Real Clear Politics Average that has Obama up by a 11% margin over Gingrich. This ranges from +7 (PPP) to such Left wing polls as Rassmussen (+ 9) and FOX (+14) and as much as Reuters (+15).
Of course, I expect given the collective attack on Romney his numbers against Obama will plummet as well.
So we end up with Obama. Beautiful. Just freaking beautiful.
I hope you're wrong. I'm afraid you're right.
A Gingrich-Santorum ticket may be the best we social conservatives can hope for, under the circumstances.
We conservatives never ... and I mean **NEVER** ... should have been in this situation. We should have been building on the momentum of 2010 and destroying President Obama politically in Congress to the point that Democrats were threatening to get rid of him in the primary to avoid losing the White House, as happened in 1979 and early 1980 with Teddy Kennedy versus Jimmy Carter.
Instead, we're dealing with a whole stable full of horses that have major faults which are showing up as they run the race; many of them never should have gotten to the starting line in the first place, let alone the finish line. We Republicans have numerous conservative governors who could have gotten into the race. They didn't run for a variety of reasons. Now we're down to deciding whether to support a “Massachusetts moderate” former governor who didn't run for re-election because he knew he would lose, a former senator from a left-of-center state who is a solid conservative on social issues but (legitimately) had to do what his constituents wanted and lost his last race for re-election, and a former Speaker of the House who is probably best described as a brilliant but somewhat absent-minded professor who has major moral problems in his past and will be branded as a hypocrite by the Democrats.
Don't get me wrong — I like Gingrich's fire. It's hard for me to remember that he's actually in his seventies, and I'm old enough to have been one of his huge fans during the Contract with America days. He acts and sounds like a young radical Tea Partier and I think that's a lot of his attractiveness to people much younger than himself in the modern conservative movement who see a lot of parallels with what Gingrich did as a successful backbencher in the days of he Reagan Revolution and then taking back the House during the days of Bill Clinton.
One of Gingrich's biggest positives is that he has many years of real experience in government, while at the same time, nobody can accuse him of “going along to get along.” He's a bomb-thrower in many ways, and he really did change the culture of the House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich share one thing in common besides a stupid photo on a couch — they both believe in a powerful Speaker and they both ran the Speakership from an ideological base, trampling on moderate members of their own party in the process. I have direct knowledge of how Pelosi treated people she might have called “Democrats in Name Only,” and Pelosi’s radical leftist practices as Speaker would have been inconceivable without Gingrich's precedent of using ideology as a cudgel to force moderates into submission by threatening to take away the power of committee chairmen.
Nevertheless, Gingrich's age and appearance are both factors in modern television politics. I was shocked when I saw the FR picture of him with Ronald Reagan; Gingrich looked much older than Reagan even then, with a head full of white hair. His weight won't help, either, unfortunately — it gives ammunition to those who say he can't control his appetites, whether for food or women, and reminds some of us of the way we used to attack Bill Clinton for the same problem.
Gingrich needs a substantially younger running mate, and maybe Santorum is the right one.
At this point, as I said, I'm afraid that may be the best solution we social conservatives can hope for.
I love it!
Even the liberals generally acknowledge that Newt Gingrich is at least one of the smartest people in the room. That may be a negative for lots of Republicans, but it isn't for people at the upper levels of business or politics, especially those who often have Ivy League graduate degrees in law or business. I often forget that despite his vast knowledge, Gingrich's actual degrees aren't very prestigious and President Obama will pretty much be forced to deal with Gingrich, not as a fellow Ivy Leaguer, but as someone who clawed his way up from nothing without the help of scholarships to top institutions like Obama had.
I can get used to at least some things about Gingrich, but I sure wish he'd kept his zipper zipped.
(I had started reading the thread before...) but thanks very much for the ping (at 508). This is a fascinating thread. I just finished reading every comment (from 500 on...where I left off before). From Guenevere to JimRob and everyone in between...BUMP!
I would vote for ANYONE...(including Romney, Huntsman, Paul, etc., etc) including ANY FReeper or any random American out of the phonebook over Obama.
I believe that the “kingmaker” in the 2012 presidential election will be the USSC.
From Obama’s SOTU smackdown of the robes to Newt’s recent questioning of the robes...this one will be most interesting...given the historical march of the leviathan (from anti-federalists to current) with all of its tentacles. “We the people” are waking up but we’ve been pushed, mandated, coerced, taxed, cajoled, regulated, deceived down a long road that has led to greater subjugation from all forms of elected officials, UNaccoutable bureaucrats and demand-driven collectives (try rolling any of it or them back...cut, cut, cut).
Be prepared (for all contingencies) as much as possible.
live - free - republic - people
Bingo.
I was born and raised in Michigan, growing up as the son of a Republican politician. I know what those days were like from firsthand experience. Gerald Ford certainly wasn't the worst thing in the world, and I personally believe he did the best he realistically could do in an incredibly difficult situation as House Minority Leader, but the Republican Party of his generation was headed toward extinction. Back then, we saw no hope of ever becoming a majority and thought the only thing we could do was build coalitions with moderate Democrats to keep the leftists from making things even worse.
Ronald Reagan, the Christian conservative movement, and then later Newt Gingrich's “Contract with America” coalition did things nobody thought were remotely possible under the old Republican paradigms. Let's not forget that.
I said in a different post today how helpful things like Free Republic are to the conservative movement by giving us something comparable to a mass media organ. We need that to have an effective conservative movement, so we can disseminate our ideas, attack our enemies, rebut attacks on us, and discuss our own differences.
Very well said Mr. Jefferson. (I never cease to be in awe of the Founders. To think that they all ended up in one place at one time. Truly ordained by God.)
For what it is worth though, surfer did give a much more in depth explanation, (at post #648 - Thank you surfer for the additional information), from Santorum concerning his viewpoints. It still does not represent my take on Conservatism or the Constitution, but it does go into a little more detail on his. It would seem that he was trying to differentiate between a Ron Paul Constitutional outlook, versus his own, but IMHO his biggest mistake was in phrasing it as if he was speaking for Conservatives across the nation, which he clearly was not, and actually THAT is the quality about Mr. Santorum that I find the most troubling - that he has an unfortunate tendency to tell other Americans how they should behave and what they need to believe, AND that he would use the Government to ensure it : o
Anyway, thanks again to all for the discussion, and a special P.S. to you surfer - thank you for noting and appreciating my closing lines; but in all honesty; they are as much a reminder for ME as for anyone who reads my posts, VERY sheepish look.
May God indeed grant each of us strength and wisdom, and courage.
Tatt
Stand fast South Carolina - for the Republic.
While I don't agree with CynicalBear, I wouldn't go quite so far in saying he doesn't have any point at all.
Santorum is a faithful Roman Catholic. He believes what his church teaches. Roman Catholic views on social policy are not always in line with modern American conservative thinking, and this isn't a recent development. As a Calvinist, I happen to believe that much of the development of modern capitalism would have been impossible without the Reformation and I have fundamental problems with Roman Catholic ecclesiastical history when it comes to economics and politics. However, I will not blame Santorum for being faithful to what his church teaches — if you don't believe what your church is teaching, you should not be a member.
Furthermore, Santorum is from Pennsylvania, not Texas, not the West, and not the Deep South. As an elected official, he had to deal with strong unions and had to rely on the support of ethnic blue-collar voters who were a key part of the Reagan Democrat coalition. It is not fair to blame an elected official for doing what his constituents clearly wanted. That's his job, assuming, of course, we're not talking about demands to voters to violate his oath to support the Constitution.
I expect a person from that background to have had votes which are not always what I would like.
Most evangelicals decades ago decided to let the abortion issue trump our theological differences with Roman Catholics so we can work together in secular politics. I'm willing to overlook political positions Santorum may have taken on economic issues that are consistent with a Roman Catholic version of “compassionate conservative” views. I don't deny those problems are there, but I'm willing to overlook them based on his pro-life positions, which **ALSO** come directly from what his church teaches.
Government's primary job under God is to use the sword of the magistrate to protect its people. Santorum is fine on that issue, despite other things where we disagree.
Gingrich, despite all his moral problems, has never to my knowledge wavered on his opposition to baby killing or support for a strong defense. That makes a major difference to me.
I just saw your post today.
I don't know who you're speaking of, but speaking for myself only, nobody is telling me what to write except me and I'm not organizing anything with anyone.
I do expect that when the Missouri primary gets closer I will at least privately support some candidate, and if there is still a race when the Missouri caucuses get closer, there's a good chance I will be aggressively supporting a candidate.
Also, while it's true that one of the members of my local church is on the staff of World Magazine, and it's true that I know some of the people in the national Christian conservative movement, and it's true that the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (to which my local church recently transferred its affiliation) has its headquarters and a significant presence in South Carolina, I write what I write here based on my own views, not as a proxy for anybody else.
Please remember that for some of us who you see “religiously working that angle,” the Marianne Gingrich accusations are truly horrifying and truly shocking. Yes, we all knew about Gingrich's repeated adulteries, but this goes beyond anything we've heard before about Gingrich. Also, it opens up our worst fears of what else is out there ready to pounce on Gingrich.
I'm not saying anything different with regard to Newt Gingrich than I said with regard to Herman Cain, with regard to Rudy Giuliani, and long before that, with regard to Bill Clinton. As other posters have noted, I'd be a serious hypocrite if I applied a different standard to a politically conservative Republican than I applied to Clinton, or more recently to other Republicans.
I'll almost certainly vote for Newt Gingrich if he's the nominee, but I am deeply concerned that many of my fellow Christian conservatives will 1) stay home, 2) vote Republican for state and local office while ignoring the presidential race, or 3) at best, voting Republican but not doing the aggressive campaigning required to win.
I fear what could happen with a Gingrich nomination, but I am even more fearful what is quite likely to happen with a Romney nomination. If Gingrich is the last remaining viable “not-Romney,” I probably will vote for him, but with great reluctance. Too many other people I know can't do that.
It occurs to me that you may have failed to take into account one important possibility: that Marianne Gingrich might be lying!
Well, buck up, soxfan. You can always go over to the elite establishment forum on FOX News and pimp their electable RINO du jour.
Good stuff. It may help rebut the accusations that he's a closet racist. Even if it doesn't, it will show he's held the same views for decades based on convictions.
Using “crowdsourcing” for conservatives to dig out stuff like that is part of why I read Free Republic. People here find things and write about them which much of the media don't know about or don't care to find out.
Don’t mince words, JR... Tell us what you really think!
GO NEWT, GO TEA PARTY!!!!!!!!
I'm well aware an ex-wife could be lying. In fact, she has a clear motive to do so.
However, is it not also true that we never found out whether Herman Cain's accusers were lying or not?
We simply don't have enough time left to find out the truth or falsehood of Marianne Gingrich's allegations. She's done real damage and that damage will persist unless she can clearly be proved wrong. We don't yet know how much damage she did, but it won't be minor, and I don't see any way to clearly prove her wrong in the next few weeks.
Gingrich as our nominee creates major, major problems for the Republican Party. Santorum has his own problems as well. We had much better potential conservative candidates out there than either Gingrich or Santorum; both have serious problems, but only those two are still in the running. Unfortunately we're going to have to choose one or the other to be the “not-Romney,” because if we don't we're going to get Romney and that's likely to get President Obama re-elected.
We never should have been in this position.
Agreed with regard to Marianne Gingrich's own issues as an adulteress. While I don't see her claiming to come in Christ's name — that's more of a rebuke to heretics and cultists like Romney, and I don't see her claiming to be a faithful Christian wife who was wronged by her husband — I agree with what I think is your primary point that Satan masquerades as an angel of light.
See post #695 for my response on the rest.
We’ll know soon enough. If Marianne’s accusations cause as much damage as you say, Newt will lose South Carolina today by a significant margin.
Possibly, but I'm not sure.
My “on the ground” contacts in South Carolina aren't anywhere close to my contacts in Iowa so much of what I'm getting is secondhand and from people who I've known for years, but whose level of political savvy I don't know well enough to have a track record for accuracy.
Put bluntly, I trust laypeople much more than pastors when it comes to politics unless the pastor is very politically active, and while I know many ruling elders in Iowa from church connections and a fair number have been politically active for decades, I know very few people personally in the Carolinas who are not ordained ministers and most have little background in secular politics.
What I'm hearing is that the “open marriage” accusations have done major damage to Gingrich among people in the more rural parts of the state. What complicates that is the usual role of Bob Jones University and its supporters isn't as much of a factor because both Santorum and Gingrich are Roman Catholic, and many conservative evangelicals who are more evangelical than fundamentalist aren't really happy with either candidate and have always been lukewarm supporters.
(Don't misinterpret that as support for Bob Jones University. I have an interracial marriage to a Korean, and I'm a Calvinist. Bob Jones University no longer officially has problems with interracial dating, but except for the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster and some of the older people left over from the remnants of Carl McIntyre's Bible Presbyterian Church, BJU has historically been far from friendly to Calvinists. However, I'll work with Bob Jones University people in the political realm for the same reasons I'll work with Roman Catholics — we need to get to 50 percent to win elections — and I say that knowing it will infuriate some BJU grads reading this to compare BJU to Catholics. Sorry guys, but that's the way you too often treat us Calvinists.)
The result is there are Gingrich supporters who long ago decided to back Gingrich and are now saying some version of, “Well, we knew all along he wasn't a Christian — after all, Catholics can't be trusted morally.” (Sorry, I don't agree **AT ALL** but that is a stereotype coming from perceptions of Hispanic immorality.) Likewise, people who are really upset by Gingrich's behavior don't necessarily have a clear alternative now that Rick Perry is out of the race and has endorsed Gingrich.
My big concern is that the new accusations will have the effect of damaging Gingrich just enough to send supporters to Santorum without giving Santorum enough votes to win, with the result that Romney wins the primary.
Thank you for that information. I hardly recall the comment but I do remember being worried that the ABC story would torpedo Newt’s campaign. As I remember, I posted that warning to watch out for agitators in that spirit, but I am certain that I had no-one specific in mind. In hindsight, the reaction against Marianne for looking vindictive and psychotic could not have been anticipated, so I worried for nothing. Best FReegards...
Beck is attacking Newt and pumping Santorum because he knows Newt is the only credible threat to RINO McROMNEY for the nomination.
Your posts fit this bill to a "T."
It's time for you to stop lying about Newt.
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.