Gingrich Thread

[Semper_Zelare]

A prediction. Gingrich is gaining because of GOP desperation, Every candidate seems to tumble. He likely will get the nomination barring any major development to topple him.

   Yes, Gingrich might get that nomination. But

Excuses
Some will Others will
Many may

   Frankly, Perry has stumbled badly, but he just might win in a national election. Too bad Daniels stayed out of the race. Or, that Pawlenty left early, for that matter. 

   Mitt is the best equipped candidate, with his business background and his calm and cool demeanor, but like many others I find myself reluctant to elect a Mormon to the White House, especially a man who has been a Mormon bishop. To be born into Mormonism is one thing.

There you are ladies and genlemen!!! YESS, there is a reason that this thread is slowing down. Here you have, even from the mouth of a man who has condemned Gingrich’s religious conversion, here you have from the most AVID Gingrich detractor on these forums, an admission,

“He [Gingrich] will likely get the nomination”

It’s like I said in my previous post, in which I pointed out in size 7 font that Gingrich is 21 points ahead of Romney. Gingrich is 21 points ahead of Romney. Gingrich is 21 points ahead of Romney. Gingrich is 21 points ahead of Romney. Gingrich is 21 points ahead of Romney. Gingrich is 21 points ahead of Romney. Gingrich is 21 points ahead of Romney.

There it is 7 times in size 1 font. I think size 7 font is a bit better.

Well… as I said in that post… it looks like all the attacks on Gingrich haven’t been effective at all. He has risen higher than anyone else who opposed Mitt. And, deservedly so, he actually knows the issues more than anyone else, and actually shows he believes strongly and to his core on what he wants to do to solve the problems America faces.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, Gingrich will likely get the nomination, barring any development to topple him. If that means some people might vote for a third party or not vote at all very well. Polling suggested that 22% of people would not vote for a Mormon. I would barely not be among them, anyone is better than Obama.

I couldn’t have put it better myself. Now, I encourage all Gingrich supporters to pray fervently that no such development occurs.

Btw peoples, Gingrich 45 > Obama 43

 

[ishii]

          Mitt is the best equipped candidate, with his business background and his calm and cool demeanor, but like many others I find myself reluctant to elect a Mormon to the White House, especially a man who has been a Mormon bishop. To be born into Mormonism is one thing. To embrace it so completely is something else. Yet, the Constitution does say that there will be no 'religious test' for those who run for office. Mormons are fine people - probably more moral as a group than the rest of us. But they have to believe such stuff that it can make you wonder. On the other hand, there are those who say this about Catholics - or about all Christians for that matter.

I can sort of agree with your sentiment expressed in the words above.

However, regarding Newt Gingrich, I would like all of those opposing him to answer me these questions:

What has Newt done, that would have you vote for the re-election of the most pro-abortion rights president in our history instead of him?

What has Newt done, that would have you indirectly help the most pro-abortion rights president in our history get re-elected by voting for a 3rd party candidate?

Who would you like to choose the next one or two supreme court justices?

I would like you to answer the above questions.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Yes ladies and gentlemen, Gingrich will likely get the nomination, barring any development to topple him. If that means some people might vote for a third party or not vote at all very well. Polling suggested that 22% of people would not vote for a Mormon. I would barely not be among them, anyone is better than Obama.
Gingrich 45 > Obama 43

Today, Michael Medved said that Gingrich has the best chance of becoming a “great” president. But Romney has the best chance of actually becoming president. What does “becoming president” mean? It means, beating Obama. Right now, I am for Romney over Gingrich because I think Romney - in spite of the flavor of the month polls - has the best chance of beating Obama. Beating Obama is the top priority.

Ishii

 

[havana1]

You may want to hold off on the melodramatic, bolded, 30-point font until you see the polls as to which nominee can most easily beat Obama. (Is that not the primary objective in all of this?) For all we know, Obama’s camp are donating to Newt because it would be a landslide of a re-election. National Journal’s Washington “insiders” aren’t exactly sold on Newt - I noticed this story is conspicuously absent from the thread.

 

[havana1]

   Mitt is the best equipped candidate, with his business background and his calm and cool demeanor...

…and the only one who can beat Obama in a general election. Case closed.

 

[mary_bobo]

Can you tell me what’s wrong with having an account with Tiffany’s? His consulting firm was paid fees for services rendered. Too bad they didn’t listen What is wrong with charging for speeches. Clinton does it. Most speakers I know charge for speaking. They’re not skeletons any more. I think the real moral issue is a president who supports and endorses the slaughter of millions of babies, born and unborn, supports SSM, drives our country into TRILLIONS of dollars in debt.

That’s the elephant sitting in a room. And you want to blast Newt for earning an honest living and having a Tiffany’s credit card in his wallet?

Good post. Many people have lines of credit in many different places, including their bank. Sounds like a bad case of class envy to me.

 

[rlg94086]

…and the only one who can beat Obama in a general election. Case closed.

The case won’t be closed until November, 2012. I voted for Romney in 2008, but I was told that McCain was the one who could beat Obama. That didn’t work out so well.

I think any of the candidates have a good shot at taking down Obama.

 

[rlg94086]

Today, Michael Medved said that Gingrich has the best chance of becoming a “great” president. But Romney has the best chance of actually becoming president. What does “becoming president” mean? It means, beating Obama. Right now, I am for Romney over Gingrich because I think Romney - in spite of the flavor of the month polls - has the best chance of beating Obama. Beating Obama is the top priority.

Ishii

I like Michael Medved, but he supported John McCain in the 2008 primaries because he thought McCain would have the best chance.

 

[ishii]

I like Michael Medved, but he supported John McCain in the 2008 primaries because he thought McCain would have the best chance.

Yes he did. Do you think Romney would have been a stronger candidate in 2008? As I recall, the deck was stacked against the GOP that year due to the economy mainly, and the 8 years of Bush. My concern is that Obama’s surrogates in the media and elsewhere will have a field day with Newt’s baggage. The election will be about Gingrich and his baggage, not Obama and his policies. Romney, on the other hand, won’t be as vulnerable imo. flip flops, yes, but if the economy is still in the tank, and things abroad are still iffy, it seeems to me that America might go for the calm, cool, business administrator/manager (Romney) over the idea man. Chris Christie’s recent comments bear that out - neither Obama nor Gingrich has ever really “run” anything. Romney has. If Gingrich is more easily painted as “risky”, then Romney would be the stronger candidate.

For me, its all about who is the strongest candidate to beat Obama.

Ishii

 

[rlg94086]

Yes he did. Do you think Romney would have been a stronger candidate in 2008? As I recall, the deck was stacked against the GOP that year due to the economy mainly, and the 8 years of Bush. My concern is that Obama’s surrogates in the media and elsewhere will have a field day with Newt’s baggage. The election will be about Gingrich and his baggage, not Obama and his policies. Romney, on the other hand, won’t be as vulnerable imo. flip flops, yes, but if the economy is still in the tank, and things abroad are still iffy, it seeems to me that America might go for the calm, cool, business administrator/manager (Romney) over the idea man. Chris Christie’s recent comments bear that out - neither Obama nor Gingrich has ever really “run” anything. Romney has. If Gingrich is more easily painted as “risky”, then Romney would be the stronger candidate.

For me, its all about who is the strongest candidate to beat Obama.

Ishii

I don’t know if Romney would have been stronger or not. I don’t know that he would be stronger this year. That is my point. Medved may very well have been wrong. Obviously, his choice didn’t work out. Would Romney have done better?

I do consider electability when voting, but I think both Romney and Gingrich are electable. I’m not sure which is stronger against Obama, so I will just vote for the one that I think will be the best president.

I’ll wait to do that until the day of my primary though. As previously posted, I voted by mail for Romney and he pulled out the next day. There is no need for me to pick a horse in the race the day before the race occurs, when one of them may end up wounded the morning of.

 

[ishii]

The case won’t be closed until November, 2012. I voted for Romney in 2008, but I was told that McCain was the one who could beat Obama. That didn’t work out so well.

I think any of the candidates have a good shot at taking down Obama.

Any of the candidates? Ron Paul? Cain? Bachmann? Santorum and Huntsman have as much traction as a bald tire on ice. I think the political reality is that its between Romney and Gingrich. Things would have to get much worse for the others to have a shot. Not sure Paul would even have a shot then.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I don’t know if Romney would have been stronger or not. I don’t know that he would be stronger this year. That is my point. Medved may very well have been wrong. Obviously, his choice didn’t work out. Would Romney have done better?

I do consider electability when voting, but I think both Romney and Gingrich are electable. I’m not sure which is stronger against Obama, so I will just vote for the one that I think will be the best president.

I’ll wait to do that until the day of my primary though. As previously posted, I voted by mail for Romney and he pulled out the next day. There is no need for me to pick a horse in the race the day before the race occurs, when one of them may end up wounded the morning of.

I think a case can be made that Romney would be stronger than Gingrich - mostly due to Gingrich’s past. As for 2008 - it was a Democrat year; not sure any GOP candidate would have won. Of course every election is different.

Ishii

 

[Roy5]

** While I’m inclined to think that Gingrich will get the nomination, in part because of Romney’s religion, I also think that he could lose to Obama.** Why? Gingrich has so many contradictions (flip-flops), poor decisions, reckless statements, money-driven enterprises, his Freddie Mac connection, hawkish rhetoric, divorces and infidelities that, when the chips are down, millions of on-the-fence-now folks could vote to Obama. Much depends, of course, on the economy in November 2012.

** One serious weakness of the GOP is the low esteem for Congress, but also its fervent opposition to added taxes for millionaires.** What this does is seem to underscore the Democrat charge that the Republicans are the party owned by the rich. Personally, I don’t feel all that sorry for millionaires-plus if they have to pay more to help out their country. I sometimes wonder how many of their sons and daughters are in Iraq or Afghanistan, wars that have helped them become richer and richer.

** These millionaires still will have huge amounts of money left to live high, travel around the world, buy the big cars, have summer and winter homes and finance lobbyists**… Moreover, most of them have tax experts who find every loophole and exemption and places overseas or elsewhere to hide money. The idea that the rich produce jobs has some truth, but if this is entirely true where are those jobs at the present time? The stock market people certainly are flourishing. Many of them have never worked on construction, plowed a field, or spend day after day on an assembly line. No tears for those who maneuver and manipulate money, who barely know what an honest day of real work involves. I am not that sympathetic to the Occupy Wall St. folks as so many of them are off-the-wall, but some of what they say is true. The rich get richer. I heard the other day the USA now has the greatest gap between the wealthy and the rest of us of any industrialized nation except - interestingly - Russia, India and China! Shame on us.

** Isn’t there much in the ministry and teaching of Christ that showed his concern for the poor, the outcasts?** Re-read the last part of Matt. 25 - and many other passages from the gospels.

** God bless America.**

 

[ishii]

** While I’m inclined to think that Gingrich will get the nomination, in part because of Romney’s religion, I also think that he could lose to Obama.** Why? Gingrich has so many contradictions (flip-flops), poor decisions, reckless statements, money-driven enterprises, his Freddie Mac connection, hawkish rhetoric, divorces and infidelities that, when the chips are down, millions of on-the-fence-now folks could vote to Obama. Much depends, of course, on the economy in November 2012.
.

Would you vote for Obama over Gingrich?

Ishii

 

[Roy5]

I would never vote for Gingrich. I consider him morally unfit to be our president. It troubles me to think that this great nation would have such a man in the White House. What does it say to our young people - and to others around the world?

Quite likely I would check out third parties and cast a protest vote. You can be sure that I will vote, my civic privilege and duty.

Unlike some CAF posters, I am not a one-issue-tops-everything-else voter. In all honesty, in certain extreme situations I would not rush to condemn every abortion. My goal would be to make abortions as rare as possible. But there will be millions anyway, legal or illegal - plus millions more which we call miscarriages. I've often wondered if those are caused and/or approved by God. Else, why do they occur? 

 It's a very complex issue and I have serious trouble with those who believe in abortion-on-demand while also being annoyed by those who always insist upon calling it murder. In a clearcut case where an abortion must be performed to save the life of a mother, I don't know if the state has the right to make that decision. I know one woman of several children, a good Catholic, who died (and the baby died) because she followed the church teaching. Her husband and the four surviving children resent Catholicism today and attend an Episcopal church. 

 God bless everybody. We need warm and soft hearts that reflect the love of Christ. It's not always easy to know in advance where that can lead us.

 

[ishii]

I would never vote for Gingrich. I consider him morally unfit to be our president. It troubles me to think that this great nation would have such a man in the White House. What does it say to our young people - and to others around the world?

Quite likely I would check out third parties and cast a protest vote. You can be sure that I will vote, my civic privilege and duty.

Unlike some CAF posters, I am not a one-issue-tops-everything-else voter. In all honesty, in certain extreme situations I would not rush to condemn every abortion. My goal would be to make abortions as rare as possible. But there will be millions anyway, legal or illegal - plus millions more which we call miscarriages. I've often wondered if those are caused and/or approved by God. Else, why do they occur? 

 It's a very complex issue .

Thank you. Now I see where you are coming from and its good to have this clarification. You think that an affair by Gingrich is worse than the killing of millions of unborn. Right?

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

Thank you. Now I see where you are coming from and its good to have this clarification. You think that an affair by Gingrich is worse than the killing of millions of unborn. Right?

Ishii

Archbishop Chaput describes such an attitude as mental gymnastics worthy of an Olympic gold medal.

 

[Roy5]

ishii

**Kindly don't misrepresent my viewpoint.**

** To begin with the Republicans did nothing about abortion when they were in control of the White House and Congress.**

** I carefully spelled out that under certain dire conditions I would not sit in judgment where a medical abortion is performed to save the life of a mother.** You apparently would let the mother die, leaving behind a widower and other children. Your opinion. I respect it, but I don’t agree with it. I don’t think the state has a right to decide which one would die. In the instance I cited both the mother and baby died. Who benefited? How many hearts were broken and lives impacted?

 **Maybe you would give the standard answer: that you would try to save the life of both.** A good response except that now and then the choice is between mother and baby. In such an instance, I would certainly let the mother and her husband have a say. Leaving behind a grieving widower and several motherless children involves a difficult decision, of course, but I would let the couple and the medical experts make it. Here we seem to differ. You would let the government decide.

** That is far removed from any approval of killing millions of babies. Please present my view honestly. **

** God surely has a wonderful place for babies who die.** I don’t pretend to know much about it, as I haven’t been there and back. A few years ago the Church moved away from the Catholic teaching I learned years ago: that there is a limbo for such babies. It surprised me that it now is seen as only one possibility by the Church when it was clearly what was taught years ago. I see it as a definite change, but the Church obviously denies that. It never changes doctrines!?

** It always has interested me that so many who become angrily pious when it comes to even a single medical abortion have no trouble pushing for war **where thousands, even millions, of basically innocent people lose their lives, including babies in and out of the womb. And they seem to have no difficulty believing that God drowned everybody on earth (again, including babies and babies still in the womb) in the days of Noah. And they believe that God told Joshua to kill all the inhabitants of Jericho and ordered Saul to slaughter every remaining Amalekite. I find it strange that they aren’t repulsed by these heinous crimes attributed to our loving God (an insult to God, in my view) but are so incensed by a loving husband and children who want to save their beloved wife and mother.

 **There are different ways of looking at these difficult moral questions** and I think we ought to avoid a rush to judgment. How about Matt. 7:1-8 for starters?

** God bless you and everybody else, especially innocent babies.**

 

[havana1]

ishii

** To begin with the Republicans did nothing about abortion when they were in control of the White House and Congress.**

Here, here…! :clapping:

Same Republicans who can find the time to vote on whether pizza is a vegetable - really? - so, abortion is hardly the only thing about which they’re doing absolutely zippo.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Somebody said that the Republicans had made no pro-life accomplishments.

Please note that for his entire eight years, President Bush was opposed vehemently and undermined at every opportunity, from the first day of his administration. He had to contend with the pro-choice Democrats and with the RINO’s and then the last two years, he had a Democrat majority in Congress. In fact some posters here on CAF said that to overcome their very own opposition that Bush should have fought harder.

Anyway, …

Here is a list from an earlier post on another thread:

Here are the facts about the President and abortion from Priests for Life. Read them, and then tell me that he has done “nothing” on this issue.

Thanks.

priestsforlife.org/elections/consequences.htm

Quote:

1. Appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. The appointments resulted in the upholding of the federal partial-birth abortion ban by a 5-4 decision.
2. Reinstituted the Mexico City Policy, begun by the Reagan Administration and reversed by the Clinton Administration (when Congress tried to reinstitute the policy, Clinton vetoed the bill), that bars foreign aid funding to groups that perform or advocate for abortions. In 2003, the Bush Administration expanded the Mexico City Policy to include not just funds dispensed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), but also the State Department.
3. Discouraged advancement of pro-abortion legislation by announcing early in his administration that he would veto legislation that threatened pro-life policy.
4. Signed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which made it a federal crime not to treat babies who survive abortion.
5. Signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003.
6. Signed Unborn Victims of Violence Act, recognizing the unborn child as a separate crime victim if injured or killed during an assault.
7. Cut off all federal funds to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for its involvement in China’s one-child policy which includes forced abortion and sterilization. President Bush sent a fact-finding mission to China which found that the nation’s one-child policy was indeed coercive in nature and that the UNFPA was an integral part of implementing that policy, placing the UNFPA in clear violation of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment that prohibits any aid to any program that involves forced abortion or forced sterilization. Tens of millions of dollars that otherwise would have gone to the UNFPA were redirected to maternal and child health programs.
8. Thwarted efforts at the United Nations to promote abortion by instructing U.S. delegates to state at every appropriate opportunity that America does not regard anything in any document before the U.N. to establish any international right to abortion.
9. Issued Executive Order banning the use of new lines of embryonic stem cells in federally funded experiments. Later vetoed legislation passed by Congress to permit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
10. Signed the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, which will fund research using umbilical cord and adult stem cells. The measure provides funding to increase the inventory of cord blood units available to match and treat patients and to link cord blood banks so that doctors have a single source to search for cord blood and bone marrow matches. It also reauthorizes the National Bone Marrow Registry.
11. Launched public awareness of adoption campaign, working with the National Council for Adoption and pregnancy help centers across the country. The campaign sponsored conferences encouraging faith based communities to promote adoption and produced public service announcements featuring the First Lady urging the adoption of foster children.
12. Established the first federal government and national website listing and showing children available for adoption across the country (www.AdoptUSKids.org).
13. Increased the tax credit for adoption related expenses from $5,000 to $10,000; for special needs children, the credit was raised from $5,000 for qualified adoption related expenses to $10,000 for any adoption related expenses. This was done as part of the President’s tax relief bill.
14. Annually declared Sanctity of Human Life Day.
15. Issued a federal regulation allowing states to include unborn children in the federal/state S-CHIP program, which provides health insurance for children in poor families. This allowed states to include pre-natal care in the health insurance they offer to poor children under the program.
16. The Bush Administration did what it could to stop assisted suicide from taking further hold in Oregon. The state of Oregon passed an assisted suicide law that allows doctors to prescribe federally controlled drugs in lethal amounts to certain of their patients who say they want to die. Federal law holds that federally controlled drugs may only be prescribed for legitimate medical purposes. During the Clinton Administration, Attorney General Janet Reno decreed that assisted suicide was a legitimate medical purpose in those states that permit it. During the Bush Administration, Attorney General John Ashcroft changed that ruling, saying that assisted suicide was not a legitimate medical purpose, thereby barring doctors from prescribing lethal drugs. A lawsuit was filed and ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing the drugs to be used for assisted suicide.
17. Signed legislation making it possible for a federal court to hear whether Terri Schiavo’s constitutional rights had been violated by being denied hydration and nutrition.
18. Dramatically increased funding for abstinence education through the Department of Health and Human Services, although Congress did not approve the full amount the Bush Administration requested