For years Newt has reminded me of a pilot whale.
For some reason, Balut Whale came to mind when I thought of this.
At any rate, it should have been Pilot not Balut, and no
connection to the egg was intended, if that was on your mind.
Posted on 03/09/2012 9:00:30 AM PST by Red Steel
(CNN) – Newt Gingrich is edging out his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination in Mississippi, according to a new poll.
The American Research Group survey of likely Republican primary voters released Friday showed Gingrich with 35% support, followed by Mitt Romney with 31%, Rick Santorum with 20% and Ron Paul with 7%.
Gingrich's margin over Romney increased slightly among those who said they will definitely vote in the March 13 primary, 37% to 30%. Santorum garnered 17% support and Paul received 5% among the same group.
The poll was conducted after Super Tuesday, when each of the GOP White House contenders picked up delegates. Romney won the popular vote in six states, while Santorum captured three and Gingrich nabbed one, his native Georgia.
Despite calls for him to bow out of the race, Gingrich has said he will remain in the contest until the convention and has also stressed the importance of wins in Mississippi and Alabama, which both vote on Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
The media will eat Newt alive and add Obama gang to that he will not do any better than McCain or Dole.
The media will eat Newt alive and add Obama gang to that he will not do any better than McCain or Dole.
Sanatorum is too green for the times right now. We need Newt’s wisdom and intelligence and gonads at this time. Santorum would make a good VP to Newt.
Despite all the screaming to the contrary, the media has held their fire on Gingrich. If he managed to become the nominee they would discover all kinds of things his supporters choose to ignore.
He hasn’t taken anywhere near the fire that Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum have taken. Santorum is quickly catching Sarah Palin in that respect. Unfortunately some “conservatives” have chosen to join in.
I happen to agree with you that Rick Santorum was referring to liberal Protestants who have denied the Gospel.
But I'm not sure why you want to get into the doctrinal differrences between his Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Already a huge number of Protestants...Evangelicals....have searched their hearts and with discernment have chosen to support him.
Smells of Anti-catholic Klan-speak.
A third seems to want to enact Vatican dicta in America.
Actually that would not be a bad thing. Hear me out.....lol. The Vatican is NOT having an economic problem. They balance the budget every year AND in fact, the Italian government is trying to get the Vatican to help them out financially. Now you are changing your tune, huh?
He needs to withstand the news of Santorum winning in Kansas, Saturday.
The timing for Santorum could not be better. Sunday morning talk shows will all be talking about the win in Kansas the day before. Santorum is pretty brilliant to campaign in the state. Newt and Romney are frightened of losing so they are bowing out. Go Santorum!!!!
For whatever it's worth, I voted for Santorum in the Missouri primary last month and barring something totally unexpected I assume I will be voting for him in about a week in the Missouri caucus.
You ask a valid question about why I'm raising the issue of doctrinal differences between evangelicals and Roman Catholics.
If I read Unspun correctly, he's trying to argue that Santorum attacked Protestantism in that speech and therefore Bible Belt conservatives in the South shouldn't support Santorum. That's a misreading of what Santorum said.
However, I believe it is important that we realize that Santorum probably **HAS** said some pretty negative things somewhere, not just about Protestant liberals but about Protestant theology as a whole. I would not be at all surprised if somebody unearths a tape of Santorum attacking Protestantism as defective theology. That doesn't bother me. A faithful Catholic **SHOULD** have doctrinal problems with evangelicals and vice versa, but both evangelicals and Catholics can agree on enough that we can fight together in the political sphere even if we cannot be members of the same church.
Maybe that's a surprise to liberals, but for most people in the pro-life movement, we learned long ago that we need to agree to disagree. Conservatives aren't as narrowminded as lots of liberals think we are when it comes to understanding important differences between the standards for participation in the church as communicant members and in the state as voting citizens or elected officials.
Now if that photo doesn’t make a red-blooded American male feel patriotic, I don’t know what will!
Could not agree more with your entire statement.
newt is the only candidate that is capable to lead our nation at this time in history.
Forget his baggage ( it is really very little). Newt knows how government works AND where the bodies are buried.
BS
..but I still take exception to your highlighted word **HAS** (speaking of Santorum) & whether he has spoken any negative comments about Protestanism....
...you prefaced that HAS with PROBABLY so you don't know & you're putting it out there 'just in case'.
I seriously doubt James Dobson & the other evangelical leaders who publicly endorsed him would have done so without vetting him first.
If Santorum harbored any ill will towards evangelicals they would know it....(we are fairly discerning folks)
Don't know if you read WORLD magazine-(March 10 issue), but there's a great article in the recent one about Santorum....and it IS fair and balanced.
It comments how he evolved from ' Senator Slash (in his early days in the Senate--1990's))....to 'Mr.Sweater Vest'.....
Three things humbled & helped turn him around...
..the Bible study he attended with other Senators......
...the death of his son, Gabriel....
...and losing the 2006 election.
A man who is humbled..... and yet, presses on.....
.. is a man who has a lot to give.
A man who will go to an evangelical church & appreciate the laying on of hands by the church leaders...
... is a man who seeks God's will, imo and the very person who I believe will seek the best for our country.
From the standpoint of political cooperation, I have no problem with Santorum’s religious views. I've voted for pro-life conservative Roman Catholics before and certainly expect to do so many times again in the future. That's not a problem for me, and given the clear intent of the Founding Fathers to give full civil rights to Roman Catholics in Maryland, that shouldn't be a problem for any conservative who values the Constitution.
With regard to World Magazine, not only do I read the magazine and have for many years, I attend church with Janie Cheaney, whose name you will probably recognize as one of the magazine's longest-term writers. Back in the 1990s when I was working in the ultimately failed fight against liberalism in the Christian Reformed Church, I stayed in contact with Joel Belz and some of the other top leaders of World, but I have had no reason to maintain close contact with them for a long time. I respect World's positions on most issues and when I have a problem with something in the magazine, it's usually something written by a staff member or columnist that does not reflect the view of the top management.
My point here is not in any way to criticize Rick Santorum. After all, I voted for him and hope he wins the presidency.
My point is that as evangelicals, we need to clearly understand that there are important differences between Protestants and Catholics. Cooperating in the political sphere is perfectly fine. What we don't want to do is act as if the Roman Catholic Church is just another denomination. It is not.
Also, what we do **NOT** need is another Michelle Bachmann moment when people figured out what her conservative Lutheran denomination believes and then got upset. The Council of Trent is not a dead letter to a conservative Roman Catholic. Unlike Bachmann who apparently didn't know what the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod's doctrinal statements said, I'm assuming that Rick Santorum actually knows what his church believes about the difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Bachmann could have easily solved her problem by pointing out that Wisconsin Synod Lutherans and Roman Catholics have cooperated for many years in the pro-life movement without agreeing on theology, and I assume that the Bachmann incident gave Santorum fair warning of the need to be prepared to answer such questions when — not if but when — they get raised about his beliefs. Considering that he apparently attends a church which celebrates the Latin Mass and is tied to the Opus Dei movement, and that has already been raised by some of his critics, I'm assuming he's got a good answer to give when pressed on the point.
Since Rick Santorum presents himself as a faithful Roman Catholic, he **SHOULD** believe things which are just as negative toward Protestants as our confessions teach about Roman Catholicism. That doesn't bother me; we just need to understand up front as evangelicals that whenever we work with a Roman Catholic, we're working with someone who can be an ally in politics, but who does not share the beliefs for which Calvin and Luther fought at the risk of their lives.
Political cooperation does not need to lead to theological compromise, and as long as both sides understand that, I'm fine with cooperating with Roman Catholics.
I hope that is of some help in understanding where I'm coming from. This is going to be an issue sooner or later, probably sooner, but I'm pretty confident in the ability of a well-catechized Catholic to explain and defend what he believes. It's us as evangelicals who sometimes get fuzzy around the edges of our doctrine and have trouble explaining ourselves.
OK...and Thanks :)
I was on the way out the door when I read your extremely long critique of my reply to your remark. I addressed part of it before I left. and most of yours was not only an attack on Newt but I also believe on me as you have seen fit to speak for me and then tell me where I’m wrong. I said two things about Santorum, three if you count that I said I don’t think he can beat obama. I said he Socially Conservative but that his voting record on Social issues was no better than Newt’s and possibly not as good. I am a Conservative and to me that includes being Fiscally Conservative and I pointed out that Santorum’s voting record on Fiscal matters was not as good as Newt’s. I have NEVER said that Santorum or ant other candiidate should not espouse Christian values, that is what you said I said. never used the term “GOODY TWO SHOES” you did, what I said is still posted go back and read it.
I did say that Rick Santorum comes across as an “OVER ZEALOUS HALL MONITOR” I regret using it and don’t want credit for it but it did resonate with me and helps define that NOT-PRESIDENTIAL concern that many have about him but don’t really know how to describe. You yourself said Santorum’s voting record on Fiscal matters was one of his weaknesses, that is MAJOR weakness. I could go on and on but I really try to promote Newt instead of denigrating others but I must admit I have failed miserably when it comes to Romney and Paul. Of course you do recall what prompted me respond to your original post. Earmarks and spending both dropped when Newt became Speaker, they parallel each other on graphs they drop when he came in and remained at a stable level until he left office and then the spending under Speaker Hastert and the Republicans went through the roof. If you were to look at the tenets and the platform of the modern day Tea Party you will see that it appears to be about the same as the 1994 Contract with America, I didn’t say NEWT founded the Tea Party again that is what you said I said. Again for you to deny that Newt was involved in the writing of the Contract with America and the leader of the group and it is most likely that it would not have been written and equally as possible that the Republican victory of 1994 would not have occured. You appear to go out of your way to diminish Newt’s accomplishments, and to put words in my mouth. Because of this I don’t take your remarks as respectful but as condescending, having read some of your comments on this thread I doubt this is the first time someone has intimated that you may be condescending.
My screen name, duffee, is the name of my ten year old, not very bright scottish terrier, I sometimes wonder about the screen names some choose, not being critical but if someone really wants to be reffered to as excellant why not just call themself the excellant one?
Good for Newt but come on. Vatican dicta? Isn’t Ginrich a Catholic too?
Rick endorsed Romney because he hated McCain. from 2008 when his only choice was McCain or Romney.
“This is how I took it: They [the McCain campaign] really are fighting against the base of the Republican party, the conservatives in the Republican Party, that’s what they see this as. Because certainly that’s what I represented in many respects,” Santorum said. “So I sort of said, ‘Wow, this really is a battle for who we are going to be as a party.’”
Santorum also insists that his opposition to McCain cuts deeper than the issue of personal animus or an objection to the Arizona senator’s temper. “It’s unpredictability — the lack of a woven or synthesized worldview. It is the compulsion to do what everyone in Washington, if you’re Republican, knows will get you good press. And you know what that is: beat up on a Republican, take on a Republican,” he said. “This is a man who is not in principle a conservative
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.