Gingrich Thread

[Julianna]

** I don’t believe that the Obama campaign will bring up Newt’s moral failings.** But they will be much in the press and spread by word of mouth. Rather like Mitt. No opponent is mentioning his Mormonism, but the word is passed around: “Mormons are not Christians, and Christians can’t vote for a Mormon.”

** Actually, some evangelicals may sit on their hands or vote third party both because of Newt’s moral failures and because they think even his conversion is fraudulent**. Newt is widely viewed as wildly arrogant, with something of a messiah complex, and (some think) he may even have converted so that he could claim that he is a ‘new creature’ as well as cut into the Catholic vote. They view him as a hypocrite. Yes, and the Tiffany account is indicative of what some see as his priorities. What does he know or care about the needy in our society when he can charge $60,000 for a speech and has a $500,000 credit account at an elitist jewelry outlet?

** I wish there were a candidate out there who might win and whom one could really support**. I’m an independent with a long GOP heritage who likes to vote Republican when that is possible. For awhile I thought Perry might be that person, but his star faded because of his bumbling with the language and some obvious misstatement of simple facts (like the voting age). I wouldn’t count him out yet, frankly, if Newt’s popularity fades as the case is made against him. I suspect that millions of **devout evangelicals will have lots of trouble **with Newt’s divorces and remarriages, plus his efforts on behalf of Freddie Mac, which seemed to suggest that he will abandon principle if paid well enough. I admire the courage and consistency of Ron Paul, but his position on some domestic issues is too close to anarchism. I do applaud his anti-war stance.

Oh, contrare my dear Roy! Nothing of the kind. Think back, way back towards the end of the Reagan administration. That is when Newt and the Contract “on” America were courting the Christian Coalition. Ralph Reed, remember him, hired by Pat Robertson as Exec Dir of same said organization? Good buddies all. Jerry Fallwell? Remember him? Newt knew them all, they were best buds in the 80’s. Yes, the Christian Right keeps the Catholics on the fringe, “can’t have all that Pope business going on”. They may question why Newt went there instead of fundamental/evangelicals he has known for years? Surely they would have welcomed him with open arms and open wallets.

Now that Bachmann, Perry and Cain are going quietly into the good night. … Romney is the remaining contender. Not much of a challenge since now Newt not only has the Christian Right with him, he now has the Catholics. Smart, very smart.

It will interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[gilliam]

A Strong Candidate Isn’t Needed to Beat a Weak IncumbentA Strong Candidate Isn’t Needed to Beat a Weak Incumbent

Part of the problem is that our chattering class hasn’t fully accepted how weak the president really is. His job approval in the RCP Average remains mired at 44 percent.
It has ventured above 50 percent exactly twice in the past few years: Once in the wake of the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords, and once when the United States killed Osama bin Laden. But even then, his ratings were at best tepid. His reward for killing America’s public enemy No. 1? An approval that peaked at 52.6 percent. Moreover, his approval ratings on individual issues remain horrific, suggesting more downside than upside once the campaign truly engages.

This suggests a ceiling for the Obama that is perilously close to the minimum a president needs in order to be re-elected. As Jay Cost has noted, presidents rarely receive the votes of more than a small percentage of voters who disapprove of the job they are doing.

In fact, oddly enough, incumbents have seldom been defeated by particularly strong candidates. We’re constantly reminded that defeating an incumbent president is a rare thing. Given this, we’d expect candidates who defeat incumbents to be pretty close to perfect. But instead, they’ve typically been very flawed.

…Bill Clinton. People remember him today as a strong Democratic president. But that was not how he was perceived as a candidate. There really was a time when an adulterer who smoked marijuana and avoided the draft could not conceivably be elected president. Combine these traits with Clinton’s “flexibility” on the issues, and many pundits wrote him off in early 1992, especially when he sank into the 20s in the polls against George H.W. Bush and H. Ross Perot.

Even Ronald Reagan was not perceived as a particularly strong candidate; he regularly polled about 15 points worse than Gerald Ford in hypothetical early matchups with Carter. Carter’s team truly hoped that they would face off against Reagan, who was universally viewed as too much of a radical to win.

realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/05/a_strong_candidate_isnt_needed_to_beat_a_weak_incumbent_112280.html

 

[Julianna]

Who claimed perfection? Are you in search of the “perfect” man/woman to be candidate for office? Do you have reason to believe that Gingrich doesn’t go to Confession?

Personally, I Confess regularly…weekly sometimes. While I’m not as terrible a person as I was before conversion, I am still a work in progress.

My point, we all are.

There is no such thing as a “perfect” human being. I’ve held my nose on quite a few elections. I don’t ever vote a straight ticket, and I do not let anyone goad me into “scare tactics” on who to vote for.

Politics is a dirty business, there aren’t any honest politicians.

 

[bbarrick8383]

My point, **

Politics is a dirty business, there aren’t any honest politicians.**

Yea, there are. But they are written off as crazy with far out ideas…

 

[rlg94086]

My point,** we all are**.

There is no such thing as a “perfect” human being. I’ve held my nose on quite a few elections. I don’t ever vote a straight ticket, and I do not let anyone goad me into “scare tactics” on who to vote for.

Politics is a dirty business, there aren’t any honest politicians.

So…that’s not the same attitude as “There is nothing worse than a “reformed” rake.”

“Worse” implies that you are better than someone else.

As far as “scare tactics,” who is using scare tactics? Can you give me an example?

 

[Julianna]

** I don’t believe that the Obama campaign will bring up Newt’s moral failings.** But they will be much in the press and spread by word of mouth. Rather like Mitt. No opponent is mentioning his Mormonism, but the word is passed around: “Mormons are not Christians, and Christians can’t vote for a Mormon.”

** Actually, some evangelicals may sit on their hands or vote third party both because of Newt’s moral failures and because they think even his conversion is fraudulent**. Newt is widely viewed as wildly arrogant, with something of a messiah complex, and (some think) he may even have converted so that he could claim that he is a ‘new creature’ as well as cut into the Catholic vote. They view him as a hypocrite. Yes, and the Tiffany account is indicative of what some see as his priorities. What does he know or care about the needy in our society when he can charge $60,000 for a speech and has a $500,000 credit account at an elitist jewelry outlet?

** I wish there were a candidate out there who might win and whom one could really support**. I’m an independent with a long GOP heritage who likes to vote Republican when that is possible. For awhile I thought Perry might be that person, but his star faded because of his bumbling with the language and some obvious misstatement of simple facts (like the voting age). I wouldn’t count him out yet, frankly, if Newt’s popularity fades as the case is made against him. I suspect that millions of devout evangelicals will have lots of trouble with Newt’s divorces and remarriages, plus his efforts on behalf of Freddie Mac, which seemed to suggest that he will abandon principle if paid well enough. I admire the courage and consistency of Ron Paul, but his position on some domestic issues is too close to anarchism. I do applaud his anti-war stance.

Yes, you are correct. It was the “same word of mouth” that ran through my Baptist grandmother’s community when John F. Kennedy was running for President. Most of the south was “worried”, because Catholics are not Christians and they feared the Pope was going to run the country. And in 2011 we are none the wiser.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yes, you are correct. It was the “same word of mouth” that ran through my Baptist grandmother’s community when John F. Kennedy was running for President. Most of the south was “worried”, because Catholics are not Christians and they feared the Pope was going to run the country. And in 2011 **we **are none the wiser.

Speak for yourself. As I wrote earlier, I never got the memo.

 

[Julianna]

So…that’s not the same attitude as “There is nothing worse than a “reformed” rake.”

“Worse” implies that you are better than someone else.

As far as “scare tactics,” who is using scare tactics? Can you give me an example?

Never said that I was better, I will never admit that I am better when I know I am not…

I am leary of “getting religion” all of a sudden…I guess it’s based on experiences…

• many of those who were the right hand man of God were found with their pockets lined with money and their bed with more than their wife in it
• it sends the wrong message,yeah, I can be a total screw-up, kind of like drunk on the etch a sketch, then “shake shake” wiped clean…I’m now reformed “trust me”…

“scare tactics”…nah, let’s not de-rail the thread…let’s just wait until Newt and Romney go at it as it gets closer to the election…traditional Catholics will be all over the boards stating we “must” vote for Newt…

I know, I am going against type, and dragging out my crystal ball…but seen it before…likely will happen again.

 

[Julianna]

Speak for yourself. As I wrote earlier, I never got the memo.

I grew up on both sides of the house…baptized in 1958…raised Catholic…my mother Baptist, and my southern grandmother and her community were very, very, worried in the early 60’s.

No matter how flat you make a pancake, it still has two sides. Let’s just say, I didn’t grow up in a fish bowl.

 

[rlg94086]

No matter how flat you make a pancake, it still has two sides. Let’s just say, I didn’t grow up in a fish bowl.

That’s good, because eating pancakes in a fish bowl would not work out so well…

 

[rlg94086]

Never said that I was better, I will never admit that I am better when I know I am not…

I am leary of “getting religion” all of a sudden…I guess it’s based on experiences…

• many of those who were the right hand man of God were found with their pockets lined with money and their bed with more than their wife in it
• it sends the wrong message,yeah, I can be a total screw-up, kind of like drunk on the etch a sketch, then “shake shake” wiped clean…I’m now reformed “trust me”…

“scare tactics”…nah, let’s not de-rail the thread…let’s just wait until Newt and Romney go at it as it gets closer to the election…traditional Catholics will be all over the boards stating we “must” vote for Newt…

I know, I am going against type, and dragging out my crystal ball…but seen it before…likely will happen again.

Oh, okay. So, you are doubting Gingrich’s conversion - both uncharitable and against CAF rules, but suit yourself.

And, there haven’t been any scare tactics.

You do realize you now have no credibility whatsoever?

 

[Julianna]

Newt better duck, the Christian liberals are going to be throwing stones. Apparently if a conservative converts and tries to change their life it must be for political gain. I wonder if there is a double standard there…

hmmmmm…who said I was a liberal? I don’t do “extremist politics”…I dare to think for myself…I would be just as “skeptical” of John Edwards…

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please discuss the issues not each other

Catholic Answers does not endorse or oppose any candidate or party. Rather, CA seeks only to explain and defend Catholic moral teachings.

Discussions of political news among CAF members is acceptable in the World News sub-forum. However, CAF is not a channel that political parties, candidates, or advocates can use to further their political agendas. Please do not post campaign ads.

No name calling or belittling anyone, including political candidates. Keep all comments charitable. Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.

News stories discussed here should at least tangentially related to religion. When posting new threads, please keep this in mind.

It is fair to discuss a politician’s position on the issues and their qualifications for office, it is not fair to discuss their spiritual well being. Criticisms of a anyone’s spiritual life or spirituality should be left between that person and their spiritual director or confessor. They are not allowed in the forums.

When starting a new thread in a In the News subforum, please start it with a news article from a reputable news outlet. The title of the thread must be the same as the title of the news article.

Op-Eds, blog postings and commentary are acceptable to start a new thread if they contain links to hard news stories or press releases. However, they must otherwise adhere to CAF rules on charity.

Avoid YouTube or other video links as news articles to start a new thread, unless they are a full news report or a full speech from a first source.

Please do not post comments by radio or TV commentators or articles about comments given by media commentators to start a new thread. They are rarely news stories. Commentators are paid to make controversial statements.

Thank you for your cooperation.

This is going to be a long political season, let’s make it a charitable one at CAF.

 

[Julianna]

Oh, okay. So, you are doubting Gingrich’s conversion - both uncharitable and against CAF rules, but suit yourself.

And, there haven’t been any scare tactics.

You do realize you now have no credibility whatsoever?

ah…message boards, they really bring out the best in people. My doubt lies not in the conversion in of itself…it’s more his motive of why now, why Catholic? And I am not alone in wondering.

I said I was not going to derail the thread by answering your question on scare tactics. I am guessing that wasn’t the answer you expected.

My credibility is not something you should have concern over. I believe I mentioned taking a look in my crystal ball a bit too early…I hear the train coming, I don’t have see it to know it’s approaching.

 

[rlg94086]

ah…message boards, they really bring out the best in people. My doubt lies not in the conversion in of itself…it’s more his motive of why now, why Catholic? And I am not alone in wondering.

I said I was not going to derail the thread by answering your question on scare tactics. I am guessing that wasn’t the answer you expected.

My credibility is not something you should have concern over. I believe I mentioned taking a look in my crystal ball a bit too early…I hear the train coming, I don’t have see it to know it’s approaching.

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please discuss the issues not each other

Catholic Answers does not endorse or oppose any candidate or party. Rather, CA seeks only to explain and defend Catholic moral teachings.

Discussions of political news among CAF members is acceptable in the World News sub-forum. However, CAF is not a channel that political parties, candidates, or advocates can use to further their political agendas. Please do not post campaign ads.

No name calling or belittling anyone, including political candidates. Keep all comments charitable. Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.

News stories discussed here should at least tangentially related to religion. When posting new threads, please keep this in mind.

It is fair to discuss a politician’s position on the issues and their qualifications for office, it is not fair to discuss their spiritual well being. Criticisms of a anyone’s spiritual life or spirituality should be left between that person and their spiritual director or confessor. They are not allowed in the forums.

When starting a new thread in a In the News subforum, please start it with a news article from a reputable news outlet. The title of the thread must be the same as the title of the news article.

Op-Eds, blog postings and commentary are acceptable to start a new thread if they contain links to hard news stories or press releases. However, they must otherwise adhere to CAF rules on charity.

Avoid YouTube or other video links as news articles to start a new thread, unless they are a full news report or a full speech from a first source.

Please do not post comments by radio or TV commentators or articles about comments given by media commentators to start a new thread. They are rarely news stories. Commentators are paid to make controversial statements.

Thank you for your cooperation.

This is going to be a long political season, let’s make it a charitable one at CAF.

 

[bbarrick8383]

hmmmmm…who said I was a liberal? I don’t do “extremist politics”…I dare to think for myself…I would be just as “skeptical” of John Edwards…

So where do us “extremists” get our thoughts?

Questioning a politicians intentions is one thing, questioning his faith is another. I’d accept Edwards conversion as a serious catholic without hesitation, I would then assume that he’s done some serious soul searching after the despicable things he’s done.

 

[Roy5]

JFK won because he took most of the hyper-Protestant deep South, Their loyalty to the Democratic Party, from the Civil War forward, still overcame their fear of Catholicism.

 It will be interesting to see what happens next year if Newt gets the nomination. Most Catholics I know will not be influenced by his conversion. Those who will probably are conservatives already. After all, the majority of Catholics voted against Kerry, a Catholic.

  I'm one of those who is wary enough of Newt to wonder about his conversion. He is a very clever politician, and he may have weighed it out. To become Catholic would permit him to say that he has changed radically since his 'bad' days. He also may have figured that he can win over some long-time Catholic Democrats because of his new-found religious faith. Then, of course, Callista was a devout Catholic. She is his third wife and, what is it, 20 and more years younger than he is? I've seen a quote of his to the effect that at least one of his earlier wives wouldn't make an appropriate wife for the president of the USA. If he talked that way, he is a scoundrel.

  One question. Did he have to get two annulments to remarry Callista? Or, didn't the vows in a Protestant ceremony count?  

  I will never vote for Gingrich. I would sit on my hands first, perhaps vote third party, or write-in some decent politician. There must be a few around. Sadly, most of them seem to be concerned mainly about themselves instead of country and serving the people.

 

[bbarrick8383]

JFK won because he took most of the hyper-Protestant deep South, Their loyalty to the Democratic Party, from the Civil War forward, still overcame their fear of Catholicism.

 It will be interesting to see what happens next year if Newt gets the nomination. Most Catholics I know will not be influenced by his conversion. Those who will probably are conservatives already. After all, the majority of Catholics voted against Kerry, a Catholic.

  I'm one of those who is wary enough of Newt to wonder about his conversion. He is a very clever politician, and he may have weighed it out. To become Catholic would permit him to say that he has changed radically since his 'bad' days. He also may have figured that he can win over some long-time Catholic Democrats because of his new-found religious faith. Then, of course, Callista was a devout Catholic. She is his third wife and, what is it, 20 and more years younger than he is? I've seen a quote of his to the effect that at least one of his earlier wives wouldn't make an appropriate wife for the president of the USA. If he talked that way, he is a scoundrel.

  One question. Did he have to get two annulments to remarry Callista? Or, didn't the vows in a Protestant ceremony count?  

  I will never vote for Gingrich. I would sit on my hands first, perhaps vote third party, or write-in some decent politician. There must be a few around. Sadly, most of them seem to be concerned mainly about themselves instead of country and serving the people.

Could you dig up that quote and post it here for us?

 

[ishii]

  I wish there were a candidate out there who might win and whom one could really support

. I’m an independent with a long GOP heritage who likes to vote Republican when that is possible. For awhile I thought Perry might be that person, but his star faded because of his bumbling with the language and some obvious misstatement of simple facts (like the voting age). I wouldn’t count him out yet, frankly, if Newt’s popularity fades as the case is made against him. I suspect that millions of devout evangelicals will have lots of trouble with Newt’s divorces and remarriages, plus his efforts on behalf of Freddie Mac, which seemed to suggest that he will abandon principle if paid well enough. I admire the courage and consistency of Ron Paul, but his position on some domestic issues is too close to anarchism. I do applaud his anti-war stance.

Roy5, I noticed you didn’t answer my question. Here is my post again if you out there:

Some are opposed to Gingrich because of his past sins. Some state that if Gingrich got the nomination they would vote for a protest candidate. The protest candidate would help Obama get elected. Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate in history. He fights to keep abortion legal and force states to keep abortion legal or prevent the states from passing laws restricting abortion. The next president will likely choose one or two supreme court justices. Obama would choose justices that force states to keep abortion legal. Gingrich will choose justices who want to let states restrict or even outlaw abortion. Some are ok with helping Obama get re-elected and keep abortion legal in every state of the union. Because they’re angry at Gingrich’s sins, they are willing to forego the chance to allow states to restrict abortion and decrease the slaughter that takes place in every state in the union. That also seems to be your position when one reduces your wordy and repetitive posts down to their logical conclusion.

** Show me where I’m wrong. **

Ishii

 

[Roy5]

ishii

There are those times when both candidates are such that one needs as a matter of principle to vote for neither. I could do that. I simply don't base all my political decisions on the abortion question. 

 As one example, that recent case at St, Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix, as I recall. The doctors warned that if the pregnancy were continued, both the mother and baby would die. A nun, you may remember, was serving on the hospital ethics committee and she was among those who approved the medical procedure. The mother's life was saved, the best news possible apparently for the husband and their four young children.

 Now, the Bishop excommunicated the nun and declared that the hospital no longer was a Catholic hospital. I presume you think the Bishop was right, that the mother should have sacrificed her life if necessary even if the baby also would likely die. I personally am deeply sympthetic to the husband and children, to the doctors, and to the nun - not to the Bishop! I presume that makes me bad! I think the other decision would have been outrageous. When the Church takes such an inflexible position, seemingly unconcerned about the health of the mother, about a grieving husband and four motherless children - that Church is cold and callous. That's my opinion. I'm sure you disagree.

 As I probably have said before, I get sick and tired of those who always yell 'murder' when an abortion is performed but seem to have no trouble cheering on killing thousands of babies elsewhere in the world, many still in the womb, with bombs and bombers. I remember one devoted Catholic couple who followed the Church's policy. The mother and baby died and the father and the children came to despise the Catholic Church and became Episcopalians. Perhaps their reaction was extreme but I understand why they had it.

 The most common abortion in the world is called the miscarriage. God apparently permits them, probably because something is wrong with the pregnancy. I am generally opposed to abortion, but there are those few exceptions when it is the lesser of evils. In such cases I don't want the state deciding what to do. Such hard decisions are to be made by the mother and her family and their medical professionals. I don't worry that much about the babies because I'm sure they spend time on the lap pf Jesus, now that the Church has said that Limbo is just one possible theological theory. Amazing how that changed since I was a child and people rushed to have their babies baptized to avoid the risk of Limbo.

  This whole problem is accentuated because the Church maintains a condemnatory policy on birth control. I'm sure many abortions are performed, often under terrible conditions, because birth control devices are not legal or available. Since as many as 90% of American Catholic couples apparently use artificial birth control when they feel their families are the size they want, it only alienates those who would be faithful from the Church. And what do most celibate Bishops and priests know about married life anyway? 

  Have I answered your question? I have voted third party before and will not hesitate to do so again. With me - I repeat - it's a matter of principle when I feel that neither candidate is fit to serve as president. Maybe it's time that the USA had a third party?

 God bless you and especially those women who are facing crisis pregnancies. May the Lord give them guidance and help the rest of us to be gentle when we condemn their decisions..