Gingrich Thread

[mary_bobo]

** If Newt is ‘qualified’ because he was Speaker of the House, I guess that makes Pelosi qualified for that office as well. Logical. Right?**
You can hold high office - even be president - and be unqualified for that position.

My point would be that Newt is unusually unqualified. I've mentioned why, but a quick recap of some of the reasons.

** 1. He was basically cast aside as House speaker** and had to pay a fine of $300,000 for some ethical failure - frankly, I forget the precise details, but while in the House. Something to do with something he wrote or published?

** 2. He has a messy personal life that I personally find immoral -and most Americans will feel likewise**. He had two divorces, various affairs, married a third wife 20 years his junior, has a $500,000 credit line at Tiffany’s etc. The fact that he was involved in so much scandal but then became Catholic seems to erase all that for some naive folks, but not for me. Frankly, I see his conversion as part of his sly plan to ‘redraw’ himself and pretend to be a new and more mature Newt - his only and last hope of getting to the White House. He also knows that lots and lots of devout Catholics are Democrats. Yes, he can be clever. And what business of ours where he, or anyone, might have a line of credit. Shameless class envy. And if you are going to assert that Gingrich, or anyone, has entered the Church for the reasons you gave, please offer proof. Do you know Newt of his wife personally? I doubt it.

 3. He impresses people with his cute one-liners as we  Since again you have made an assertion, please tell us which scholars you are referring to.ll as pseudo-intellectual lectures. Forgive me, but **scholars who know far more view him as a fake historian** who has a gift for making his analyses sound very smart. Actually, I see him as a compulsive prevaricator. I will use that relatively polite word.

** 4. His work as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, among others, shows that his big incentive was money.** Personal greed - a major failing in DC.  Freddie Mac alone paid him $1.8 million or more. This also proves that he is a Washington insider who has been part of the corrupt pattern that has so besmirched that political town. This is all a testimony to his deep-rooted self-centered hypocrisy. To leave the House and become a lobbyist was, in itself, unethical. It should be illegal. It is a major cause of Capitol Hill corruption.

 **5. He would be a shameful spokesman for the USA on the international stage**. Who wants a president with such a shabby and shady record speaking for our beloved America? To me, one could mistake him for a professor perhaps, but as leader of the world's greatest democracy? Hardly.  You obviously do not know the difference in a consultant and a lobbyist.

** 6. He flip-flopped on a variety of issues.** Didn’t he appear in ‘commercials’ with everyone from Hillary to Al Sharpton on such issues as global warning - etc.? Amazing. Call him a pragmatist? I would call him an opportunist.

 Hm! There's more to say, but my mind has slowed down. But, believe me, his critics will pull many more skeletons out of his closet. And the country as well as the Church will suffer for it if he can hoodwink enough citizens to become chief executive. What a disaster!

In your opinion.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

 **5. He would be a shameful spokesman for the USA on the international stage**. Who wants a president with such a shabby and shady record speaking for our beloved America? To me, one could mistake him for a professor perhaps, but as leader of the world's greatest democracy? Hardly.

** 6. He flip-flopped on a variety of issues.** Didn’t he appear in ‘commercials’ with everyone from Hillary to Al Sharpton on such issues as global warning - etc.? Amazing. Call him a pragmatist? I would call him an opportunist.

 Hm! There's more to say, but my mind has slowed down. But, believe me, his critics will pull many more skeletons out of his closet. And the country as well as the Church will suffer for it if he can hoodwink enough citizens to become chief executive. What a disaster!

Newt Gingrich would try to get the Congress to pass a law which would define personhood as beginning at the moment of conception. This law would use precedence of the 14th amendment, which gives power to determine who is a person. [The 14th amendment found that blacks were actually people, and not 3/5ths]. Because Congress would be using Constitutional power, the law would not be able to be judicially reviewed.

The Church would suffer? The Church would have it’s biggest victory ever in American politics. A Catholic President, who made abortion illegal. It sounds like a Roman Triumph- a Roman Catholic Triumph that is .

Unless, in the slow movement of your mind, you were referring to “the Church” as some liberal body which is pro-choice. Then, you’re right, that church would indeed suffer.

1. President Obama is the first President in the history of the state of Israel, who was overall hated. We’re talking about 15% of Israelis or less like him. I think every other President since their founding has never gone below 45+ (can’t find the historical polls… but its online somewhere). Anyways… since Gingrich would recognize the capitol of Israel as Jerusalem… Israel would love him.

I can’t speak to relations with other countries. But, in case you haven’t read, no one listens to Obama anywhere overseas anymore. Mainly bc he tries to talk up his economic ideas, and he has no place to do that. His economic policies have failed.

Lastly, personal life has nothing to do with the ability of a leader to be awesome at foreign relations.
Exhibit A: Vladimir Putin
Exhibit B: Silvio Berlusconi
Exhibit C: Nikolas Sarkozy

These men have greatly furthered their national interests in foreign relations… and have pretty checkered personal lives.

1. What is his current position on the environment? He never flip flopped on it. He still believes that conservatives should care about the environment, but that they should take a different approach to it than liberals. Check out his position, it hasn’t changed.

I refuse to talk about ad hominem personal attacks… which is what your first 4 points are. That is what the democrats will do… make it a campaign of personal attacks. I want to talk about substance and policy… which the last 2 vaguely applied to, and Newt Gingrich wants to talk substance and policy as well.

 

[havana1]

Neutral observation: Someone posted a comment about Newt flirting with his or her daughter when she was an intern but the post has mysteriously disappeared.

Not-so-neutral observation: Any time personal recollection of a candidate is removed by forum moderator, that’s a big red flag for me.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Commentator thinsk Newt will get a pass from Republican voters on pass foibles and gaffes:

Fred Barnes writes in the Weekly Standard that: “In 1980, when Ronald Reagan emerged as the likely Republican presidential nominee, President Carter’s advisers were thrilled. They’d done extensive opposition research. By pointing to what Reagan had said in speeches, radio commentaries, newspaper columns, and conversations, they assumed it would be easy to characterize him as a right-wing extremist. And enough voters would reject him and reelect Carter. They were wrong. It wasn’t that voters ignored Reagan’s offbeat comments. They just didn’t think eccentric statements he’d made over the years were important. Bigger things were at stake, like Soviet aggression and a stagnant economy. And Reagan had better answers than Carter.”

“With Newt Gingrich continuing to surge in the polls, plenty of stories are bubbling to the surface, including things from the distant past. And let’s face it… Newt has been knocking around US politics for an awfully long time, with tales of many of his exploits being told and retold until they pass into legend. Of course, you know what they say about legends.” – HotAir

 

[ishii]

1. I’m not going to show you a Massachusetts Republican. Look at Newt Gingrich. The reason the “Republican Revolution” was so successful, they didn’t want to ram through the most conservative legislation. Though the Republicans controlled the House and Senate, they didn’t have enough votes to override a veto. So, Gingrich worked many bi-partisan compromises. He had to govern with democrats the same as Romney. The difference… his commitment to conservative principles was far greater than that of Romney.

Whew. Here is where you’re wrong: You say Newt had to govern with Democrats same as Romney. But both of Massachusett’s houses held large Democrat majorities which Romney had no choice but to work with. Newt and the GOP on the other hand, had majorities in both houses of congress. So your comparison falls short.

-Mitt Romney MAY appoint conservative justices who are for the repeal of Roe v. Wade. However, his record gives me little comfort. In 2002 Romney supported state funding of abortion. I want to be clear… he got what he wanted. He was responsible for legislation that gave state funding to abortion. *

On the other hand, Gingrich has always been against abortion (at one time, he was against it as much as many mainline Protestants are… he would allow it in the case of rape and incest). But, now that he’s Catholic he is completely against abortion. And, he’s never supported *

Romney is on record as saying that he would appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Alito. In fact, here is a quote: “Their (Alito, Scalia, Thomas) approach is the approach I would encourage,” he said. “I would try to find those who would follow the Constitution." Is that a gimmick? It seems to me that if you believe Gingrich will do all the things he says and take it at face value, you should afford Romney the same courtesy.
Semper Zelare;8598206:

Ah, so there it is… the two schools present themselves.

Well, my response is simple: they said the same thing about Ronald Reagan.

Look at those words: true conservative believer. That’s what the Church wants, not a moderate. And, by the power of prayer, it is fully possible to get one elected.

The criticisms of Reagan were different than what people are saying about Gingrich. I remember. They tried to make Reagan out to be a far right extremist warmonger. He was able to dispell that myth largely by his debate performance against Carter. It also helped Reagan in that the country was in a mess economically and around the world. Do you think the Church wants a “true conservative believer” ? I didn’t know the Church was in the business of getting involved in American politics on that level. I do know that the Church wants leaders to promote the sanctity of life, and certain other things that would probably come under the banner of “traditional values”. But the Church doesn’t require a certain tax policy or adherence to the free market philosophy ala Milton Freidman. When I said I don’t want to give Obama another four years by nominating a “true believer” I think you know what I meant. Its the same as the axiom of that conservative giant who influenced Reagan and Newt:

“The wisest choice would be the one who would win. No sense running Mona Lisa in a beauty contest. I’d be for the most right, viable candidate who could win." William F. Buckley

Ishii

 

[Darryl1958]

Everyone has been qualified…Constitutionally speaking. Most have been incompetant…a few grossly so.

It is not like being a surgeon where there is some kind of test, nor should it be.
/ut if Newt does not fully understand the workings of Washington politics no one does.

The question is whether you like the policies of a given politician or not. Not liking the politics of a person does not mean that the guy is unqualified.

It is not as if Newt has voted >Present< during his political career. He does have a long record in politics.

 

[louis91766]

And who in the world could be more unqualified than our current president?

Cain is less qualified than Obama, isn’t he?

 

[rlg94086]

Cain is less qualified than Obama, isn’t he?

Not really. He has run very large businesses (Godfather Pizza) and organizations (National Restaurant Association) and served as a deputy chairman of the board for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas.

He has a wealth of experience compared to what Obama had going into the whitehouse. But, this thread is actually about another candidate who is more qualified than Obama (as are most of the Republican candidates) - Newt Gingrich.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Whew. Here is where you’re wrong:
… your comparison falls short.

Obviously Newt had a different situation in government than Romney. That doesn’t make me the antithesis of right. I was asserting that in government, between Romney and Gingrich which one held truer to conservative principles? **Obviously Gingrich has, and you have admitted as much. **You can justify it any way you want, that’s not gonna stop most of the voting public [75%] from giving pause and asking (why are we given a choice between a radical liberal democrat and a Massachusetts liberal of a Republican?)

ishii:

Romney is on record as saying that he would appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Alito. In fact, here is a quote: “Their (Alito, Scalia, Thomas) approach is the approach I would encourage,” he said. “I would try to find those who would follow the Constitution." Is that a gimmick? It seems to me that if you believe Gingrich will do all the things he says and take it at face value, you should afford Romney the same courtesy.

Let’s get something as clear as crystal from the beginning: the word “gimmick” is a disgusting word. I only used it because you used it. It has a horrible connotation and rather sticks at the back of the throat. It’s a terrible tinny sort of word… AWFUL

youtube.com/watch?v=T70-HTlKRXo

Why do I believe Newt and not Romney? It’s not because Romney is portraying himself in a false way. It is because his credibility is SHOT. He has no credibility on the issue of abortion.

Here are some highlights from that article, that it looks like you chose not to read:

“Romney explicitly expressed support for Medicaid-funded abortions in 2002, sought Planned Parenthood’s endorsement, attended a Planned Parenthood fundraising event, and is no pledging to strip funding from Planned Parenthood”]

"From the president of the Planned Parenthood League of Mass., “That is an astonishing swing. He attended a Planned Parenthood house party. He filled out this questionnarie saying he supported Roe, sex education in schools, emergency contraception. … once he had presidential aspirations, these positions started to change. Now he’s totally different from where he was here in 2002.”]

All of that is a lot worse, morally speaking, than divorce. Unborn children died.

ishii:

The criticisms of Reagan were different than what people are saying about Gingrich. I remember. … I do know that the Church wants leaders to promote the sanctity of life

I’m not saying they’re the same, I’m simply speaking, having read the article posted by _Abyssinia.

I think you should probably read this column by Fred Barnes… who continues in that most esteemed tradition as that of William F. Buckley. Aside… [and doing a quick search, though not a Catholic like Buckley, Fred Barnes’ Church apparently voted to leave the Episcopalian congregation (I would wager of the body’s slide into liberal theology)]
As posted by _Abyssinia
weeklystandard.com/articles/history-newt_609219.html

When all is said and done. If your only misgiving about Newt Gingrich is that he is unelectable… I would read this article: huffingtonpost.com/stewart-j-lawrence/newt-gingrich-campaign_b_1102349.html?ref=politics

Newt Gingrich is more electable than Bachmann, Perry, and Cain EVER WERE. Even at their peak, they were not as electable as Gingrich is. And, the reasons are clearly expressed in the huffington post article right there.

My job here is done. I’ve supplied you with a lot of resources underlying and supporting my arguments. I’m not going to triflingly argue with you for even 4 more posts… let alone 40 more (which I have seen you do on at least 2 occasions).

Good day sir :tiphat:

If you support Newt Gingrich, and haven’t signed up for his email at Newt.org, or “liked” him on facebook, GO FOR IT, SUPPORT GINGRICH!!!

 

[ishii]

   Obviously Newt had a different situation in government than Romney. That doesn't make me the antithesis of right. I was asserting that in government, between Romney and Gingrich which one held truer to conservative principles? **Obviously Gingrich has, and you have admitted as much. **You can justify it any way you want, that's not gonna stop most of the voting public [75%] from giving pause and asking (why are we given a choice between a radical liberal democrat and a Massachusetts liberal of a Republican?)

Massachussetts liberal? Like I said, show me a successful candidate in Mass. and I will show you someone who had to deal with the political realities of Democrat dominated Mass. politics. Not sure why you can’t grasp this. Gingrich on the other hand, was a rep. from Georgia and could afford to be as conservative as he wanted and be assured of re-election.

Let’s get something as clear as crystal from the beginning: the word “gimmick” is a disgusting word. I only used it because you used it. It has a horrible connotation and rather sticks at the back of the throat. It’s a terrible tinny sort of word… AWFUL

youtube.com/watch?v=T70-HTlKRXo

Why do I believe Newt and not Romney? It’s not because Romney is portraying himself in a false way. It is because his credibility is SHOT. He has no credibility on the issue of abortion.

If Romney has no credibility on abortion then your hero Newt Gingrich has no credibility on the sanctity of marriage, e.g. or traditional values due to his checkered past. Both candidates credibility amounts to " I’ve changed in the past few years and now believe in traditional values." Yet, you will take Gingrich at face value and say Romney has no credibility. And Romney has been married to the same woman for decades. Go figure.

Here are some highlights from that article, that it looks like you chose not to read:

“Romney explicitly expressed support for Medicaid-funded abortions in 2002, sought Planned Parenthood’s endorsement, attended a Planned Parenthood fundraising event, and is no pledging to strip funding from Planned Parenthood”]

"From the president of the Planned Parenthood League of Mass., “That is an astonishing swing. He attended a Planned Parenthood house party. He filled out this questionnarie saying he supported Roe, sex education in schools, emergency contraception. … once he had presidential aspirations, these positions started to change. Now he’s totally different from where he was here in 2002.”]

Which is why I am glad Romney has had a change of heart on abortion and has vowed to nominate constructionists to the supreme court. Gingrich would also do the same, but its hard to nominate justices if you don’t win the election, right?

I’m not saying they’re the same, I’m simply speaking, having read the article posted by _Abyssinia.

I think you should probably read this column by Fred Barnes… who continues in that most esteemed tradition as that of William F. Buckley. Aside… [and doing a quick search, though not a Catholic like Buckley, Fred Barnes’ Church apparently voted to leave the Episcopalian congregation (I would wager of the body’s slide into liberal theology)]
As posted by _Abyssinia
weeklystandard.com/articles/history-newt_609219.html

When all is said and done. If your only misgiving about Newt Gingrich is that he is unelectable… I would read this article: huffingtonpost.com/stewart-j-lawrence/newt-gingrich-campaign_b_1102349.html?ref=politics

Well, allow me to trifle. I never said Gingrich was “unelectable”. Its a question of who is the most electable. Gingrich has a chance, but I believe that Romney would have a better chance.

Newt Gingrich is more electable than Bachmann, Perry, and Cain EVER WERE. Even at their peak, they were not as electable as Gingrich is. And, the reasons are clearly expressed in the huffington post article right there.

Okay. And your point is? I never argued that the others were more electable than Newt.

My job here is done. I’ve supplied you with a lot of resources underlying and supporting my arguments. I’m not going to triflingly argue with you for even 4 more posts… let alone 40 more (which I have seen you do on at least 2 occasions).

Thanks for the insult. If I have ever posted have as much as you falsely claim I assure you it was to try to convince a pro-abortion catholic that he was in the wrong. I have no problem with your support for Gingrich. I don’t think its necessary to trash a candidate like Romney in order to support Gingrich - and I think Gingrich would be the first to agree with me, not you. You really ought to follow the advice of your hero and follow the 11th commandment.

Ishii

 

[gilliam]

USA Today/Gallup Gingrich 22, Romney 21, Cain 16, Perry 8, Paul 9, Bachmann 4, Santorum 1, Huntsman 1

I really don’t expect this to last.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

USA Today/Gallup Gingrich 22, Romney 21, Cain 16, Perry 8, Paul 9, Bachmann 4, Santorum 1, Huntsman 1

I really don’t expect this to last.

I expect Santorum and Huntsman to drop out soon and if Bachmann doesn’t get a bounce, her as well. This should be a 5 way race in the next month. The top 5 listed are fully committed to this race and can’t see any of them dropping out until the results of the primaries start coming out.

 

[Roy5]

In the final analysis, Gingrich will not get most of the evangelical vote, so vital in the GOP. His three marriages, his flagrant infidelities, and other serious character defects will not be acceptable among millions of Southern Baptists, Pentecostalists and the like. These weaknesses of his will help undermine any appeal he may have on other issues.

 If Gingrich does win the nomination, either a strong evangelical third party will emerge, strong in the South and Midwest, or millions of evangelicals will stay home. Obama will win, probably by a landslide plurality. 45% for Obama, 38% for Gingrich, 17% for others,

Just a warning.

 

[gilliam]

I expect Santorum and Huntsman to drop out soon and if Bachmann doesn’t get a bounce, her as well. This should be a 5 way race in the next month. The top 5 listed are fully committed to this race and can’t see any of them dropping out until the results of the primaries start coming out.

Currently I don’t see Santorum or Bachmann making it past Iowa unless Ron Paul wins there (which will be considered a fluke) and they still have money for SC. Remember, I have said that Ron Paul has a chance in the caucus states since the caucuses are mostly about dedication to a candidate (especially if the weather is poor.)

Gingrich will stay in at least until NH, and if he doesn’t win or come in 2nd there,only a little longer as his funding dries up.

I agree the top 5 will last for a few primaries… maybe until Super Tuesday.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

In the final analysis, Gingrich will not get most of the evangelical vote, so vital in the GOP. His three marriages, his flagrant infidelities, and other serious character defects will not be acceptable among millions of Southern Baptists, Pentecostalists and the like. These weaknesses of his will help undermine any appeal he may have on other issues.

 If Gingrich does win the nomination, either a strong evangelical third party will emerge, strong in the South and Midwest, or millions of evangelicals will stay home. Obama will win, probably by a landslide plurality. 45% for Obama, 38% for Gingrich, 17% for others,

Just a warning.

Are you a Democrat? I read the corpus of your posts and you seem to strongly favor Romney when Gingrich is clearly the stronger conservative, much more articulate on the issues, and actually knows exactly what he will do his first week in office.

YOu favor tax raises as a means of shrinking the deficit, in spite of the fact that the only effect that raising taxes has is to grow the size of government. Congress NEVER uses extra revenue to pay down the debt. It ALWAYS takes the extra revenue and finds new ways to spend it. Yet, this is what you favor. I am not making an accusation, just pointing a few things out that beg the question.

 

[gilliam]

In the final analysis, Gingrich will not get most of the evangelical vote, so vital in the GOP. His three marriages, his flagrant infidelities, and other serious character defects will not be acceptable among millions of Southern Baptists, Pentecostalists and the like. These weaknesses of his will help undermine any appeal he may have on other issues.

If Gingrich does win the nomination, either a strong evangelical third party will emerge, strong in the South and Midwest, or millions of evangelicals will stay home. Obama will win, probably by a landslide plurality. 45% for Obama, 38% for Gingrich, 17% for others,

Just a warning.

Not very likely, and may not be that accurate either. See:

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com...roduction/Cms/POLL/albbbq8bq06e4v9er0nthg.gif

Conservatives outnumber moderates and liberals by better than 2-to-1 in the Republican rank-and-file.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com...roduction/Cms/POLL/ehrlsy6yykymyresugv7fq.gif

Older Americans in general are more likely to vote in elections than younger Americans, suggesting that Gingrich’s and Romney’s greater support among older Republicans may translate better to actual voting than Cain’s and Paul’s among younger Republicans.

gallup.com/poll/150845/Romney-Gingrich-Top-Choices-GOP-Nomination.aspx

 

[gilliam]

Here is a little more to support my remark in the previous post:
The basic idea is to take a candidate’s polls in each of the four key early-voting states — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida — and compare them to his overall polling trendline from all national and state surveys at the time the poll was conducted. So, for instance, if Gov. Rick Perry had polled at 15 percent in a South Carolina poll during a point in the campaign that he was polling at 10 percent nationally, that would indicate his numbers were 50 percent stronger in South Carolina than they were elsewhere.

Got it? The actual method is a little more complicated than that (to get very technical, it involves a regression of a candidate’s state polls against his national polling trendline at the time, omitting the constant term) but operates on the same basic principle. I’ve rounded the scores to the nearest 10 percent just to make them a little more legible.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Here’s how to read these numbers. Jon M. Huntsman Jr.’s score in New Hampshire is 110 percent, which happens to be the highest number in the table. That means we’d expect Mr. Huntsman to get a 110 percent bonus in New Hampshire relative to his national polls at the time. Right now, with Mr. Huntsman polling at only 2 percent nationally, that bonus is only worth another 2 or 3 percentage points on top of it, meaning that he’s still just polling in roughly the 5 percent range in New Hampshire. If, however, Mr. Huntsman were to rise to 10 percent in the national polls, a 110 percent bonus would be worth 11 additional points in New Hampshire — meaning he’d poll at about 21 percent there and could be quite dangerous.

Obviously, this method involves some degree of extrapolation, especially for candidates like Mr. Huntsman who never have polled all that well nationally. Still, it should be a nice complement to looking at the polls on an ad-hoc basis.
fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/romneys-early-state-obstacle-course/#more-18879

Gingrich actually has a better advantage in Iowa than Romney or Huntsman have. I also think he helped himself with the evangelicals at the forum on Saturday. However we won’t know for sure until another Iowa poll comes out.

 

[Roy5]

Gingrich hasn’t been fully exposed to the GOP base as yet. Wait until the evangelicals hear all about the skeletons in his closet - and it sinks in. He has made a hit because of his clever debates to date, but that will wither away when people really learn the sordid tales of his past. His conversion to Catholicism will boost him among conservative Catholics, true, but not help him among evangelicals. Mark my word.

** Evangelicals are a major bloc among Republicans these days, dominant in much of the South and very strong in the Midwest, too.** Between his divorces and infidelities, his lobbying for Freddie Mac and others, his flip-flops, his $300,000 fine years ago when House Speaker, etc. - plus his arrogance, tendency to lose his cool, and other information to come forth - well, Obama would beat him to a pulp.

** The one most likely to win probably is Perry, whose chances for the nomination are now slim.** I’m not a Perry supporter, but he doesn’t have 1/10th of the baggage Gingrich has. He has flubbed the ball, but there still is time. He has a personality appeal, has strong evangelical credentials, is from a major state, has government experience, and is not a Washgington insider. Romney is the best qualified of the candidates, but his Mormonism will hurt him among the same voters who will not warm up to Gingrich.
**Now if Christie or Daniels were to be drafted, the entire picture could change overnight**. Trump is a blowhard, so forget him.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

I wanted Newt to be the candidate 4 years ago when John McCain was being pushed on us by the moderates.

I think true conservatism sells (as Reagan proved), so I wish Newt the best of luck this time around.

Peace,
John

 

[TMC]

That’s right, the unbiased observer airs on my side. Looks like I won the debate.

When you’re going to split hairs over somehow a difference between Favorability and Likability… I mean give me a break. He wins the polls on this, he gets the most applause at every multi-candidate event and debate… what more do you want from me? :hypno:

And, you can’t conceede that Newt Gingrich doesn’t have a problem because he’s Catholic? There are WAY more evangelicals than 7% in this country. Yet, that’s the amount of people who are HESITANT to vote for a Catholic. That number isn’t even based off "they’d never vote for a Catholic, they’re hesitant. Like 22% of people are hesitant to vote for a mormon, including me.

You said it yourself, “he was a solid conservative”. Just because that was in the 90’s, is really arguably relevant. Are you referring to the Tea Party, I mean, you claimed the Tea Party won’t forgive him for his marital infedility… well I forgave him, I’m a part of the Tea Party.
According to this article based off the Metrics of a Fox News poll:

It looks like 35% of Tea Partiers don’t give a rotten banana about Newt’s personal baggage. Considering the Tea Partiers are a disparate group, consolidating 35% of their support is impressive. Even more so in a field of 8 candidates.

So, I’m wrong about everything? I haven’t changed your mind on any single thing of the 10 things you mentioned? I have FAR from refuted ANYTHING you said? Really? I’m not even close? I’m completely out of the ball park? Am I really? :ehh:

1. Once more, there was nothing more to Rick Perry than his gaffes. There was nothing more to Herman Cain than 9-9-9, a wierd commercial, and sex harassment allegations. These candidates had so few positives, that once a negative emerged, there was little reason for people to continue to support them.
   That’s not the case for Gingrich. He has a lot of positives: he PWNS the debates, he has very substantive solutions and actually talks policy and issues, as opposed to negative attack ad campaigning. Those positives have the power to keep people to the campaign despite negatives. When he says things like

“I have the most experience dealing with these problems on a national level, and my campaign is the most substantive in modern history” He’s right.

1. That leads us to my 2nd point on that. Yes, I am a firm supporter of Newt Gingrich. I’ve donated to his campaign, I’m hoping I’ll get to volunteer for him in Alabama. It is A LOT EASIER to criticize someone than to support them. It is a lot easier to criticize a problem than to offer an alternative solution. Who do you support?

If you support no one right now, yet post a 10+ point thing criticizing 1 candidate, it would appear you are an idealist. Hoping for Mr. Generic Republican to come walking down the pipe, he votes the party line every time, he has no ideas of his own he simply does what his handlers/ superiors tell him to do. He has never sinned, so the media can’t use one thing from his personal life to attack him.

Surely you actually support one of the 8 people running though… surely you’re not that out of touch with reality in the realm of politics. And, I’m sorry I called you Surely

I don’t consider it out of touch to recognize that none of the eight running are particularly good choices. If I had to pick one I would pick Huntsman. If I had to pick one that actually has a chance of being nominated, I guess I would be forced to pick Mitt.