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.
Yup. We're toast. How old is Newt Gingrich? He had a full head of white hair 20 years ago and looked old. Fortunately, i'm a partisan not an ideologue, like so many here, so when the time finally comes to raise money and rally the troops I will have little trouble doing it for any one of them, though I'm pretty sure what you have here is the second coming of John McCain.
And the amount of time I have spent as a member of FR is relevant because?...
Anyway, you seemed to ignore my comment about Santorum’s leadership PAC. You can get more information here http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-rick-santorum-corrupt.html
Also, why I think conservatives should choose Newt over Santorum here http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/2012/01/should-conservatives-get-behind-newt-or.html
Rick Santorum is a GREAT Opening Act... but he's NOT a MAIN ATTRACTION.
I said the same about Michelle Bachmann 5 months ago.
I have nothing against either Santorum or Bachmann, but they're NOT heavyweights because they just don't stir people up enough on a deep emotional level.
Whether you like him or not... Newt Gingrich does that.
In the entertainment business many a headliner is an egotistical, pompous ass.. but that becomes secondary because they possess the ability to connect with and really stimulate the audience.
Whatever you think of Newt... in my book he's a headliner.
How do you know it is politically motivated? Can you read my mind?
I agree that people do in fact change and I would be happy to entertain the possibility. Reagan mentions Gingrich only once in his biography and then adversely. So beyond Gingrich’s words, and this Catholic noting the world is full of “expedient Catholics,” what evidence can you offer that convinces me Gingrich will be a conservative President?
I will gladly post lots of Gingrich’s problems, based on his track record.
Give me a reason to support him. Or insult me, you choose I suppose. I’m looking for sound reasons to support ANY of the GOP field.
This is, I believe, largely because the hunters’ lobby prevailed upon Santorum in Pennsylvania. To read the text Santorum supplies on his website in documentation of his claim to be a 2nd amendment supporter — you’d think it was all about harvesting game.
Newt is not perfect, but he seems at least to get the self-defense intent that the drafters of the 2nd amendment wanted.
LOL! Excellent.
Well, maybe you as a Roman Catholic can look further into issues that poor evangelical I cannot. Like did Newt join a looie loose diocese, or one that would have made a serious attempt to vet Newt’s sincerity, which would include being a faithful churchgoer? This ought to be a substantial matter of researchable fact. Generally expedient Catholics go to expedient churches, from all I’ve read here (and it happens in the Protestant world too). And they don’t try to go at least every Sunday, from statistics on who voted R and who voted D in 2008.
The second coming of John McCain. Are you kidding.
Maybe both have faded hair and wear an R badge, but that’s about where the similarity stops. If John McCain had put half the verve into opposing Obama that Newt Gingrich is putting now — well, we’d be discussing the re-election of John McCain right now. Newt Gingrich is not your Kentucky Fried Gentleman. Maybe he’d look punker with a Marine shave job, or some Grecian Formula, but why? Many people associate grey or white hair with wisdom.
Also... I can’t identify any reason that Newt would have come knocking on your church’s door wanting to be “expedient.” He was a Baptist before that, if a wayward one in a probably lukewarm congregation. Can you? Does it help his “optics” that much? Non-Christians and casual Christians would not care, and serious Christians would want to dig into issues deeper than the surface.
At least Santorum was responsive to his constituents. Let's take a look at what Newt's folks in Georgia have to say:
That doesn’t negate Santorum’s odd eyepiece upon the amendment. I can see how the well intended fingerprint system got civil libertarians in a real tizzy, because there would be immense pressure to let the FBI root around in there if they can’t match a fingerprint at some dire crime in any other fashion. But Newt learns too — he backed off of global warming.
You want to know why I believe Newt Gingrich is the best choice at this point in time to be our President? Here’s why.
The only threat the Republican members of the House of Representatives actually see is that their gravy train will end once Newt Gingrich is President.
Note the following:
When Speaker Gingrich allowed Representative John R. Kasich of Ohio, the budget committee chairman, to try to rally House Republicans around a conservative blueprint for more than $100 billion in new savings, the moderates refused to back it.
It was the so-called moderates who pushed Gingrich out of Congress. He left because too many Republicans refused to stop eating off the bloated corpse of Uncle Sam.
Whole ball o’wax.
He’s scaring the bejeebers out of the Establishment Republicans - who have ruled like the aristocracy of old England for decades.
Newt want’s to finish what Reagan hoped to do. But Reagan was loaded down with the Elites, from his VP (GHW Bush, to appointment foxes, etc.
Newt was there. and when he became Speaker in the mid 90’s, he had a good start on reestablishing and pushing through Reagan’s goals - but he was ONE MAN against the hoard. They turned on as they are now - to protect their hides and powere, not our country and our Constitution.
Newt had the Socialists, their lackeys the MSM AND the Republican Elite (no better than the Socialists in their quest for power and control) coming at him like the Hounds of Baskerville.
Newt has a better chance now than ever to carry out Reagan’s goals. Newt saw what happened when Establishment Foxes were forced into Reagan’s cabinet...as fro his VP.
Newt will not let this happen. He has signaled he wants Col. West for his VP and has that Sarah would be great in energy - like Energy Sec. In addition, he has said: “I will not keep ONE holdover!” (That is what threw the monkey wrench in GW’s way. Too many holdovers from the Clinton house and they sabotaged right from day one.)
And what is the common denominator of Newt and the people he is looking at?
They are “US.” They were born in modest-means families and became who they are through their own effort. (Newt lived with his mother over a gas station when the Sr. Gingrich was in Korea. West was raised in a middle income family in the south, Sarah was raised by school teacher parents. They don’t see themselves as ‘heirs apparent to rule.” They love this country and want to ‘serve’, not rule.)
P.S.: you sound very agitated. Perhaps a nap or shot o’ spirits would make you feel better?
Rick Santorum has two chances to be president. Slim and none. And I don’t want another 4 years of Obama.
Oh — and the fingerprint instant OK system, which dates back to Newt’s global warming days — did that ever become a bill, let alone get Newt’s vote on it? Newt is an idea box, and some of those ideas will be bad. The flip side of that is the good ideas could really get the US out of some bad pinches. Newt won’t govern as an Obama-style emperor, from all indications. He will cooperate with Congress.
Yup.
Time to eject, Rick.
While I agree with you that Santorum's website does seem a little "hunter" intensive, his views on the 2nd Amendment at large are fairly robust, and IMHO, it's to his own detriment that he doesn't better advertise them.
Santorum's responses on the GOA Survey pretty much speak for themselves:
Iowa showed that if Santorum pushes hard enough he can connect with family values voters at least as well as Mitt can. It was a virtual tie with Mitt. Have to give that to Santorum. Maybe Santorum might take a post as head of health and human services? (As long as the department — which Gingrich might abolish — exists.)
Gingrich in South Carolina really shined forth as an inspiring figure, however. South Carolinans are really fed up with Obama and want to see a bare knuckles fighter come his way.
I agree that even for Newtron Bombers, Santorum stands as a figure to play prominently in the coming GOP sweep that Obama has long been due to be swept over by.
Thinking beyond FR’s internal debates, how would it be possible to prevail upon Santorum to open his official 2nd amendment views beyond the hunter cousins of his miner redneck family? I don’t begrudge a wiser Santorum.
I associate it with looking like an out of touch old white guy, and I LIKE Newt. He definitely has more verve than McCain, though, what he is going to need, however, is money, truckloads of the stuff. And Mitt has that Gordon Gecko hair (and resume.) LOL! I know he knows how to shake down donors. We shall see.
Why should Rick Santorum get out? The one that needs to get out is Ron Paul. How many primary elections has he won? None, zero, zilch. Santorum, Romney and Gingrich each have won a caucus or primary election
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.