Posted on 01/23/2012 11:20:48 AM PST by Kaslin
Many folks who oppose Mitt Romney do so due to the uncertainty of where he will stand on certain issues; his support of the individual mandate that forces people to buy health care insurance; and a general tendency to abandon conservative principles when expedient.
When you look past Newt Gingrich's marvelous oratory skills and unrivaled ability to "articulate" what most Americans believe, you start discovering a politician with many of the same issues that plague Romney.
Romney and Gingrich both give great lip service about the sanctity of marriage and family values. But while Romney's past reveals he doesn't always stand up and defend marriage when the going gets rough, well, Gingrich's past reveals - in a very different way - that he doesn't either. Both politicians claim they have "seen the light" and are now staunch supporters of traditional marriage. And, I for one, still doubt that both of them really do. And I seriously question whether either man has the conviction to unflinchingly stand for the rights and protection of the preborn when there are deals to be made - which there always are in Washington.
When it comes to a plethora of conservative issues, both politicians are found wanting. Romney, has a "moderate" take on nearly everything; Newt, while seemingly a staunch economic conservative, is a supporter of big government in critical areas - as a champion of the ethanol mandates; of the Endangered Species Act; and of the huge government prescription drug debacle. All of which, by the way, have huge negative economic impacts on our economy, jobs and our future.
The big difference between the two sides of the Mitt/Newt counterfeit conservative coin is this: while a Romney presidency will be dangerous to the preservation of conservative principles, a Gingrich presidency has the ability to entirely obliterate much of what we hold dear. Why? Because Romney has never been a Capitol Hill insider and thus doesn't know the ropes, and he can't seem to inspire passion or wield much influence. Gingrich, on the other hand, knows precisely how the system works and has the personality of a pit bull on steroids. And he has worked the system brilliantly - both for good and bad- for many years, as Congressman, as Speaker of the House, as a Washington power broker. He is a bully who thrives on power, fueled by an ego and an appetite that can't be matched. And he has repeatedly demonstrated that he behaves exactly how he wants to behave in every situation. When Newt wants it - Newt gets it. Period.
And that makes Newt much more dangerous to many of our conservative principles than Mitt could ever hope to be.
The ability that Newt has to make us forget or discount his many ethical violations in the past - both personal and as Speaker - makes my blood run cold. Do I believe in forgiveness? Of course I do. But forgiving Newt of his many martial infidelities is between God and Newt, and the people Newt betrayed and Newt. While God erases all sins of those who truly confess, the harm done largely remains. In the case of the adulterer, the families remain fractured; in the case of the arsonist, the building is still in ashes; in the case of the murderer, the victim is still dead.
And, on this earth, there are still consequences, even for the forgiven. In Newt's wake, there is human carnage - people he has used and discarded at will, and a legacy of repeatedly violating the public trust of the American people. His constant display of poor judgment over the years shows that he is fatally marred by, well, by poor judgment - and an ego so huge he always seems to believe he can "get away with it". The combination of poor judgment, repeated ethical violations and an unbridled ego is a recipe for disaster. And the very last thing you want to give a person with that record is the most powerful position in the world. Espcially if that person enjoys being a bully and has the oratory ability to intimidate and manipulate; and the uncanny ability to tell the masses exactly what they want to hear - and convince them to actually believe it.
Neither Romney nor Gingrich is an acceptable choice for conservatives who believe in timeless values. It's time to discard the fool's gold and put our efforts behind the real deal.
I have written a column on why Rick Santorum is both the best man to beat Obama, and why he is a good man - a man we can depend on to champion conservative principles with strength, conviction, wisdom and humility. A man who know how to get things done - ethically. I hope you will read it and prayerfully consider supporting Santorum - our best hope - for president.
“I have written a column on why Rick Santorum is both the best man to beat Obama, and why he is a good man - a man we can depend on to champion conservative principles with strength, conviction, wisdom and humility.”
Dude, just stop.
Take your 38 vote “win” in Iowa and just GO!
2012: Gingrich Defends Attacks On Romney
2010: Gingrich Defends Romney
>>Gingrich defends Romney
In a forthcoming interview with CBN, Newt Gingrich says that Mitt Romney has been unfairly maligned for the Massachusetts health care reform bill.
“Governor Romney’s made very clear that he favors absolute repeal of Obamacare,” said Gingrich. “I also think in all fairness to Governor Romney that he vetoed many provisions that the liberal Democrats in the Massachusetts state legislature added to the bill and they overrode his veto.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1110/Gingrich_defends_Romney.html
Newt Gingrich says not just that he saw the light, but that he moved into the lighthouse, and the lighthouse seems to have agreed.
Whatever theological differences some may have with the Roman Catholic church, at least on paper it can’t be accused of alley cat morality.
No way I’m going to support a candidate who is for SOPA/PIPA-like restrictions on the internet. Santorum would shut down FreeRepublic!
Santorum has been uncomfortably waffly about that subject. He’s a little too green a zealot to expect wisdom from.
There is some truth to the point the article is making, but there is not parity between the two candidates. Most politicians will, at times, say one thing and do another. Newt has.
But for Romney it is a lifestyle. Even when his deeds and words match it is more do to coincidence and political expediency than personal conviction. At least that is the general pereption - and that is what counts.
“Santorum has been uncomfortably waffly about that subject. He’s a little too green a zealot to expect wisdom from.”
He’s just another lawyer who needs his secretary to type out an email for him.
Between Romney and Gingrich, I’ll take the guy with a proven track record of conservative accomplishments. Hint: it ain’t Romney.
Plus, Newt has the Contract With America on his resume. He can put the full weight of the elephant on the donkey and make it move. This capability may be superfluous if Congress goes completely GOP in November, but if Congress backtracks it could be very helpful.
AMEN, Rebecca!! Thank you. Bob
This Primary election is the mother of all “vote-for-the-least-worst” elections.
Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are all inconsistent conservatives, and terrible, terrible candidates.
Barack Obama is a sitting duck, and this is our field? A couple of relics from the 90’s, a man whose flip-flop resume dwarfs that of John Kerry, and an old doddering dwarf whose base is kook fringe truthers and medical marijuana advocates.
2012 sucks.
Is this the best you can do, Santorumbot? That he’s allegedly “no worse” than Newt?
Sorry Kaslin, we part company here. I like many things about Rick Santorum but quite frankly the guy has all the charisma of a mashed potato sandwich. His damning Newt with faint praise in the South Carolina debate last week was a bonehead move. Even Romney had a better answer than Santorum when he told John Queen “Let’s move on to the real issues John” (proving even a broken clock can be right twice a day).
Rick Perry stepped up and did the right thing for conservative Americans, for Republicans and for people like you and me, he withdrew from the race and directed his own campaigners to rally behind Newt and all but one of them did, and that certainly contributed to Newt’s win over Romney, and Perry is committed to helping Newt become the GOP nominee.
Rick Santorum needs to show some class and do likewise.
Even Romney had a better answer than Santorum when he told John Queen “Let’s move on to the real issues John” (proving even a broken clock can be right twice a day).
Romney sure isn’t doing that now!
2011-2012 has been a bruising winnowing process, and some initially very promising candidates or would-be’s have fallen by the side. I was most disappointed to see Sarah Palin not grab this brass ring; she would probably have walked away with the nomination. But some say at unacceptable cost to her family. And she never punched at Obama quite like Gingrich has, repeatedly.
Gingrich is shining now, whether we like it or not. Again this is the Contract With America guy, and the handwriting on the wall is looking forward to Contract With America II. We could do far worse. FAR worse.
Yeah, but this happens to be an anti-Gingrich thread.
Dude, if I thought there was more than a negligible difference between Mitt and Newt, perhaps I wouldn’t be passionate about Santorum. A fight between two big government progressives does not stir the soul. If Rick survives through Pa, he has my vote, and he deserves it. I KNOW what a fine man Rick is. I watched him for 12 years, I worked for him in 1994, and I was proud of having him as my Senator. Bob
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.