Heck, just about two or three years ago, when Gingrich supported this Dede Scozazzafavabean and sided with the RINO elite in upstate New York, about every other comment on FR (and I remember it vividly) were things like "Shut up Newt", or "Go Away Newt". It was endemic, I remember it. He had support by about 10% of people on FR for doing that.
Now, a few years later in South Carolina, this morning on FR it seems like the second coming of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ it is so overwhelming for Gingrich. I wonder why FR shifts doctrinally in the winds like that. Is it just that different people are checking in? Or is it that people equivocate that much? I know Sen. Santorum has had strong, solid support on FR as well as name calling and bashing. It is odd. At any rate, we should adjust the turret and turn the fire on Romney and Paul and Obama at the of the day. This is kind of like a "separated brethren situation" within Christendom, it seems. Weird.
I do agree with your sentiment. However since we have to choose between a very flawed imperfect conservative and the immaculate RINO, then I say go with the Newtster. We need this man, he fights.
Santorum got on stage and endorsed Arlen Spector, and all I’ve heard from his sanctimonious choir of purist supporters is that he was “forced” or they “understood” why he did it.
And now they march around with their nose in the air pretending he is sent from on high as the 2nd son of the Creator.
Did I like when Newt did that? No.
Is that the biggest issue NOW? Hell no.
Newt is the same guy that he was when he backed Scozzafava.
Santorum is the same guy that backed Spectre.
It’s a wash.
Situations have changed DRAMATICALLY in a few months as far as Newt goes. They change daily, as we have seen. FR is just CURRENT. It's “on the cutting edge of societal evolution” to quote Rush.
Get rid of your dial telephone, 8 track player, and typewriter and join the present.
The LORD Jeus Christ could not get a pass with some of them
He was a Jew
He wore a dress
He had a loud voice
He whipped and assaulted other men
He caused riots
he didnt have a real job
He paid his taxes from off shore accounts
He forgave adulterers
He consorted with prostitutes
he ate with liberals
He had secret meetings with other men on roof tops
He lived in the Middle East
He was homeless
He was never married
He had lots of men friends
He had lots of women friends
Rich women supported him
He never voted Republican
he never voted for a Conservative
he never went to church
he was not well liked by the good people
etc
It could just be human nature. When in doubt, scream and shout. When you are losing the argument, lam-bast your opponent.
Also, we have been conditioned non-stop by LSM, Alinsky radicals, and some TV sitcoms that the appropriate way to deal with disagreements is to name call and slap-down instead of discussing the issues.
I think the fire should be turned on Obama and Romney. Once Romney is out the other 3 can duke it out, and let the chips fall where they may.
And don't you believe for a minute that we've forgotten it. I myself was one of his loudest critics on this website, but sometime during this race, I found myself drawing a distinction between Newt's errant positions, and his real ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
It's only when I did that, that I began to warm up to the idea of lending the man my support. I've also noted that he's freely admitted where he's been wrong on some of his positions of recent years.
That took guts to do. Most politicians will try to con you that they didn't say what they clearly did, or that YOU somehow misconstrued the true meaning of their statements.
He showed me that he can self-correct when he drifts off course, and that is very important to me, because there's no such thing as a perfect politician. They all make mistakes, but few of them have the wisdom to realize it, then abandon errant ideas.