I think a brokered convention with an energized conservative grass-roots to maximize influence on the final call is what I would hope for at this point.
Even if Gingrich or Romney eventually get the nomination anyway, it would have shaken things up a bit, and perhaps (just perhaps) they will take conservatives more seriously.
Who knows, we might get someone different and truly conservative (unlikely....but one can hope)
I didn’t know about Tony Blair’s views on obvious issues important to Catholics. Well, at least getting an annulment was not among his issues (was it?)
In case you can’t tell....I’m not a Newt-er. I’d have been equally skeptical if he had a “Jimmy Swaggart” moment, or if he had converted to Judaism. He picked Catholicism because it suited his purpose, in my opinion.
It is reported that Gingrich actually spent a year or more (some claim five years) at weekly instructions one on one from the vicar of the National Catholic Cathedral in DC. Opus Dei has numerous notable conversions to its credit including Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, the late columnist Robert Novak and Lew Lehrman.
Certainly opinions differ among conservatives as to Gingrich. We are not a monolithic army. I don't mean to be rude to you in any way or to suggest that you need to fall in line with those who support Newt Gingrich.
I do believe in a technique I used to use when leading a substantial Congressional District delegation (40-50 delegates of sometimes differing opinions) to state Young Republican conventions that were sometimes hotly contested.
Every delegate from the CD was invited to a closed door caucus (not practical on FR to have closed caucuses but maybe something else will work). As chairman, I would explain that every single delegate was absolutely entitled to his/her opinion and to vote as he/she saw fit and that no one would be punished in any way for candor or for choice of candidates, that we would discuss at the caucus any position advanced by any delegate as to whom they would choose and why, that we owed it to one another to respectfully listen to each opinion and to ask only respectful questions. When that process was exhausted, we should TRY to reach a consensus because a solid wall of 50 delegates was more influential and lent more clout to the district than a divided vote of, say 32-18 which would be a net of only 14. We prevailed as a district at each convention we attended where this caucus was used and people really tried to reach a mutually respectful consensus. There were about 4 dissenting votes at one very tough convention out of about 50. We also made a point of making conservatism and effective leadership the primary criteria.
I honestly hope (probably in vain but who knows?) that conservatives will come up with an effective means to achieve that kind of mutually respectful unanimity this year against Romney.
Again, your vote and choice can NEVER be determined by demands from others. It is your vote and your choice and, however you cast it, we owe you respect as a fellow conservative. Without being pressured, it is fair to ask that you at least note that Gingrich has been sort of endorsed by Sarah Palin, and outright endorsed by Rick Perry and Herman Cain. Michelle Bachmann has so far refrained from endorsing anyone. Rick Santorum is still in the race and is, IMNSHO, a very fine man, was a very fine senator and is a worthy candidate. He is not gaining traction, however, and time grows short. I may be wrong but my gut is that he will pull out because of his little daughter's medical condition. He may not endorse anyone else. I regard Romney and Paul as beyond the pale and I suspect you agree on those two. I favor Gingrich at this point but I am not pushing you in that direction.
It may be that a brokered convention could work out well because it can bring forth the surprise and genuinely conservative nominee. In that event, the more conservative (i.e. not pro-Romney and probably not pro-Paul) the delegates the better for a goal of choosing a conservative newcomer. As to Paul, I recognize that he has some conservative views especialy on matters fiscal but it does not work if his delegates alienate everyone by babbling about "neocons" or globalists or war mongers or drugs or any number of other exotic stances that so many of them cherish. One thing to bear in mind is that a brokered convention could also produce an unpleasant surprise candidate. My primary concern at any convention is that neither Romney nor anyone like him be nominated. My second concern is that the nomination not be bought by deleterious back room deals or even the appearance of same. That is as much as I should say.
Tony Blair's wife Cherie is apparently, at best, a liberal borderline Catholic. His children have been brought up accordingly. It has apparently caused him some pain to be an Anglican when his entire immediate family is Catholic. Blessed Pope John Paul II (who had the authority to do such things) is believed to have given the Holy Eucharist to Tony Blair before his conversion (when he was Prime Minister on at least one occasion). This received only minor publicity lest any MP take umbrage and claim that Blair had already become Catholic and therefore under old archaic 16th century laws require his removal as Prime Minister. That was the pragmatic reason for delaying his conversion until his retirement from the PM job. Mr. Blair is a very liberal borderline Catholic. I wish him and his family well and hope that their Catholicism will deepen considerably. He is a very talented man whatever his flaws and, as PM, he was a great friend to our country.
You are skeptical of Gingrich's conversion. I cannot say that your skepticism is outside reasonable bounds. I will say (while probably violating the standard as to Romney but with good evidence) that charity requires us to give a reasonable benefit of the doubt to others on matters of character. Newt's behavior in his prior marriages was certainly abysmal and indefensible. When people react adversely to that behavior, he has only himself to blame.
I think (but you must decide for yourself) that Newt's conversion was sincere. I might have more credibility on this subject if he were converting to a religion which is not my own. I like Tony Blair and I like Newt Gingrich. I believe Newt is converting legitimately and also that Tony Blair should have waited until he was prepared to accept all of the teachings of the Church. In the case of either of these men, the conversion is no triumph unless it is complete and genuine.
All that having been said, may God bless you and yours.