Gingrich: GOP ‘Incapable Of Competing’ Against Hillary Clinton In 2016

[LisaA]

He is a world leader. I try to be charitable, but I find that he is just too conservative for this world, sort of an anachronism. I don’t mean this disrespectfully. I believe that with authority or power, also comes responsibility. I am not quite certain that he has shown the personal maturity and self discipline for his position.

Every public person is put under a magnifying glass. And, nobody is perfect. I really don’t want to get into bashing BXVI. I just disagree with him sometimes. But I don’t pretend to have his spiritual “credentials”, if you will. He has spent his life spiritually, and so I freely admit that I might just be ignorant. But I live by my own ideas and perceptions, which do not always coincide with his.

epan I note you are a Methodist so your knowledge and understanding of Pope Benedict is informed by a faith tradition that is very different than the Catholic Church. Too conservative? For what…a Methodist? I don’t doubt that but hey here’s a newsflash the Pope is Catholic!

I converted the year Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI. I delved into his writings, his biography, and read everything I could about him. He is a brilliant scholar, a brilliant mind, solid in every way. Maybe he doesn’t have the persona of Blessed John Paul II but that was a different time. Pope Benedict XVI has stood firm for our faith and I adore him.

Wow way off topic but to me it makes zero sense that a non-Catholic would expect the Pope to hold positions of one of the most liberal Protestant faith traditons.

Lisa

PS I was a Methodist so I know of what I speak

 

[LisaA]

LOL Well Gingrich should be able to define incapable, he couldn’t manage to win the nomination.

It’s hard to get off the ground when you’ve got more baggage than United Airlines. I love Newt’s pugnaciousness but it’s more appropriate in talk radio than in the White House. No way that man would have ever been nominated…yikes!

Lisa

 

[Birdpreacher]

Romney had a pro life record, so if the choice was between Romney and the most pro abortion president ever, Obama who supports unrestricted abortion, who would pro lifers trust? Not every pro lifer voted in this election. Some did not vote because they did not feel comfortable voting for Romney given that he believed in exceptions for incest and rape which is another reason why dropping abortion from the republican platform is ridiculous as more social conservatives who would vote republican, will not vote

Its not ridiculous its required if the party is to be truly conservative. A strict construction of the Constitution requires that social issues be regulated by the State Govts. If the Republicans ran on limiting the power of the Federal Govt, it would fare much better than it is now. Why? Because Republicans can’t agree on Social Issues amongst themselves! You pointed this out perfectly with the reference to Pro-lifers who skipped this election due to Mitt’s view on abortion in cases of rape and incest.

It is impossible to unite a majority on social issues: Most people who are against abortion are also against legalizing drugs. Unlike most pro-lifers, most people who are for legalizing drugs are for gay marriage. And lots of people who support gay marriage support a woman’s right to choose.

Solution: Run on limiting the power of the Federal Govt and letting the States make their own Social Issues policy. This turns the Republican Party into a defender of the Constitution and Popular Sovereignty rather than the moral police.

Social Issues are important. But they should be left to state elections not National ones.

Democrats said ‘war on women’ countless times and went on and about contraception but they never mentioned the word abortion which Planned Parnerhood is the largest provider of because they know that abortion is not an election winner

You’re right! Abortion is not a winner for anyone! Social Issues are not a winner for anyone. The less you talk about them the better off you are as a party.

In regards to the campaign: the Democrats had one winning move in the debate. They are not for abortions (obviously they arn’t rounding women up in the streets and forcing them to have abortions) they are for letting the individual woman decide. Democrats are selling freedom while Republicans are selling regulation. If Social regulation is to take place then it must happen through State Govts. The term Social Conservative is an oxymoron when it comes to National Elections. No need to scare away voters for the sake of a policies which the National Govt would have no right to uphold.

 

[austenbosten]

Social Issues are not a winner for anyone. The less you talk about them the better off you are as a party.

In regards to the campaign: the Democrats had one winning move in the debate. They are not for abortions (obviously they arn’t rounding women up in the streets and forcing them to have abortions) they are for letting the individual woman decide. Democrats are selling freedom while Republicans are selling regulation. If Social regulation is to take place then it must happen through State Govts. The term Social Conservative is an oxymoron when it comes to National Elections. No need to scare away voters for the sake of a policies which the National Govt would have no right to uphold.

But they are a winner. Why do you think so many Catholics voted Democrat this election. Because while the GOP was Jobs Jobs Jobs,

The Democrats were: Women’s Choice, Equality, (Marx’s) Social Justice, Unemployment, Unions…ect. All of these social issues.

 

[LisaA]

Its not ridiculous its required if the party is to be truly conservative. A strict construction of the Constitution requires that social issues be regulated by the State Govts. If the Republicans ran on limiting the power of the Federal Govt, it would fare much better than it is now. Why? Because Republicans can’t agree on Social Issues amongst themselves! You pointed this out perfectly with the reference to Pro-lifers who skipped this election due to Mitt’s view on abortion in cases of rape and incest.

It is impossible to unite a majority on social issues: Most people who are against abortion are also against legalizing drugs. Unlike most pro-lifers, most people who are for legalizing drugs are for gay marriage. And lots of people who support gay marriage support a woman’s right to choose.

Solution: Run on limiting the power of the Federal Govt and letting the States make their own Social Issues policy. This turns the Republican Party into a defender of the Constitution and Popular Sovereignty rather than the moral police.

Social Issues are important. But they should be left to state elections not National ones.

Your right! Abortion is not a winner for anyone! Social Issues are not a winner for anyone. The less you talk about them the better off you are as a party.

In regards to the campaign: the Democrats had one winning move in the debate. They are not for abortions (obviously they arn’t rounding women up in the streets and forcing them to have abortions) they are for letting the individual woman decide. Democrats are selling freedom while Republicans are selling regulation. If Social regulation is to take place then it must happen through State Govts. The term Social Conservative is an oxymoron when it comes to National Elections. No need to scare away voters for the sake of a policies which the National Govt would have no right to uphold.

Hey did we all read the same column in Townhall? I agree completely. These are state issues. As Dear Abby used to stay “stick to your own knitting” That goes for the Feds too.

Lisa

 

[Birdpreacher]

Hey did we all read the same column in Townhall? I agree completely. These are state issues. As Dear Abby used to stay “stick to your own knitting” That goes for the Feds too.

Lisa

I will have to check out that article. I am with you and Dear Abby

 

[irishpatrick]

Hey did we all read the same column in Townhall? I agree completely. These are state issues. As Dear Abby used to stay “stick to your own knitting” That goes for the Feds too.

Lisa

Abortion should be a winning issue for prolife candidates.

 

[ProVobis]

Most people who are against abortion are also against legalizing drugs. Unlike most pro-lifers, most people who are for legalizing drugs are for gay marriage. And lots of people who support gay marriage support a woman’s right to choose.

Solution: Run on limiting the power of the Federal Govt and letting the States make their own Social Issues policy. This turns the Republican Party into a defender of the Constitution and Popular Sovereignty rather than the moral police.

You’re sort of contradicting yourself here, unless I’m not reading you right.

I’m not promoting anything here but making or keeping drugs illegal is forcing more government. And so on.

I’m not comfortable with the old Republican line of “get government out of our lives” because in all honesty it seems the Democrats are doing a better job of that.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Abortion should be a winning issue for prolife candidates.

Yes, but only In a State Election. Not on the National Stage

Is it a good idea to sacrifice the Constitution and limits on govt for the sake on enacting a law which outlaws abortion? Why have any faith in an anti-abortion law when the Supreme Law of the Land has just been trampled on?

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, but only In a State Election. Not on the National Stage

I would agree with that. It’s a waste of money and unrealistic IMO to try to restrict any of the freedoms already allowed by the Constitution or the Supreme Court.

 

[LisaA]

I will have to check out that article. I am with you and Dear Abby

townhall.com/columnists/brucebialosky/2012/12/10/republicans_easy_way_to_defuse_social_issues?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Here it is. I read it and thought…geez too little and way too late. I am certainly staunchly pro-life, against SS marriage, sanctuary cities, etc. But like what age you can get a driver’s license or a hunting license or whom you can marry or drinking age or speed limits, those are not something on which a federal platform should be based. The reality is that it was the FEDERAL platform of Roe that has created untold horrors with the promotion of abortion to all 50 states. Before Roe it WAS a states issue and how many fewer abortions were there at the time? My state was an abortion mecca but many states had restrictions and thus abortion was discouraged rather than subsidized with federal dollars. Were this not a “federal” issue our party would not have been so damaged by Akin and Muordock who in every other way were just obscure state candidates, not national figures.

I just hope the powers that be get a clue. This approach looks like a winner to me!
Lisa

 

[irishpatrick]

Yes, but only In a State Election. Not on the National Stage

Is it a good idea to sacrifice the Constitution and limits on govt for the sake on enacting a law which outlaws abortion? Why have any faith in an anti-abortion law when the Supreme Law of the Land has just been trampled on?

I disagree. It is disgusting that the evil practice of legal abortion is not utterly erased by now. There should be a clamor the likes of which we have not heard before. What good is the economy, or jobs, or healthcare, if we go about the busy daily work of slaughtering our youngest and most vulnerable among us?

 

[LisaA]

I would agree with that. It’s a waste of money and unrealistic IMO to try to restrict any of the freedoms already allowed by the Constitution or the Supreme Court.

Right like slavery and segregated schools? Really? I don’t think the Supreme Court is toady’s equivalent of Moses and the Ten Commandments. They have made mistakes and the Constitution has been amended. Sure such overturning of laws should be approached with caution and understanding of the consequences. But don’t claim that neither can or should occasionally be disputed.

Lisa

 

[irishpatrick]

I would agree with that. It’s a waste of money and unrealistic IMO to try to restrict any of the freedoms already allowed by the Constitution or the Supreme Court.

I am certain that a great many people felt that it was a waste of money, and unrealistic, to try to restrict slavery in any way.

Having liberty does not equate to being able to do whatever we want. There are limits, and taking the life of an innocent human falls into the category of, “everyone should be against this.”

 

[SamH]

But they are a winner. Why do you think so many Catholics voted Democrat this election. Because while the GOP was Jobs Jobs Jobs,

The Democrats were: Women’s Choice, Equality, (Marx’s) Social Justice, Unemployment, Unions…ect. All of these social issues.

Basically Romney asked do you want to work? 51% said no.

 

[Birdpreacher]

ProVorbis
You’re sort of contradicting yourself here, unless I’m not reading you right.

I’m not promoting anything here but making or keeping drugs illegal is forcing more government. And so on.

I’m not comfortable with the old Republican line of “get government out of our lives” because in all honesty it seems the Democrats are doing a better job of that.

Yes! you are absolutely correct. The Federal Govt’s War on Drugs has cost a lot of taxpayer $$$. The Federal Govt has no right to be engaging in a war on drugs. The police powers belong to the State and if that State’s people decide they want to spend a lot of resources on a war against drugs then more power to them. Why should my tax dollars from Texas fund a DEA program in Colorado when the people of colorado want to use drugs anyway.

I am not even advocating for more or less govt in this debate. I am just saying that the people of the states should be able to decide what amount of govt is in their best interest when it comes to regulating social issues.

 

[ProVobis]

I disagree. It is disgusting that the evil practice of legal abortion is not utterly erased by now. There should be a clamor the likes of which we have not heard before. What good is the economy, or jobs, or healthcare, if we go about the busy daily work of slaughtering our youngest and most vulnerable among us?

Then we should pass a Constitutional Amendment to do this. It is possible to do so without Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. But we need 3/4 of the states to do this. Certainly something can be written up, even a rewrite of the tenth amendment, which will pass.

 

[irishpatrick]

Too bad for America. BTW I think Hillary is NOT going to be nominated or win. As Sec of State she’s got a good approval (based on what accomplishment I do not know). But we are not going to vote her in as President.

Lisa

Remember, Obama will support her, and so will Bill. There are millions who would vote for Bill Clinton today if they could, and they will sell the fact that he will be back in the WH.

The only chance the GOP has is to actually stand for something real. Have real plans. Have real people. Address it all to all people, and to somehow disconnect themselves from being seen as the party of the wealthy (which it is not).

 

[irishpatrick]

Then we should pass a Constitutional Amendment to do this. It is possible to do so without Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. But we need 3/4 of the states to do this. Certainly something can be written up, even a rewrite of the tenth amendment, which will pass.

Yes, but 50% of the populace is under the spell of the leftists, and they have little regard for life other than their own.

 

[irishpatrick]

Basically Romney asked do you want to work? 51% said no.

Or, they felt that Romney only cared about the wealthy.