Gingrich Thread

[Julianna]

Ok, well, why isn’t the race a 2 man race between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum then?
Rick Santorum doesn’t have any personal baggage to my knowledge. And, in the high tech age we use the term “personal baggage”, but the Biblical term for it would be whether or not someone is “blameless” or not. As it talks about Priests and Deacons being blameless in 1 Timothy 3.

I just wanted to say that, because irregardless of my support for Newt Gingrich. If you asked me which candidate I personally identified with the most it would be Rick Santorum. The man is a staunch and devout CRADLE Catholic, who to all my knowledge is just as blameless in his personal life as Mitt Romney is. In fact, I think on a Piers Morgan interview he had two situations in his life where he and his wife were told they should get an abortion. One of the children was born stillborn, and the other one was born and is alive to this day. So, just like the Palin family, the Santorums have also shown that they don’t just talk the pro-life talk, they walk the pro-life walk.

But, look where that got him… nowhere. It doesn’t matter if a politican is an honest and decent man. Most people in America aren’t honest and decent people. Am I wrong? More Americans can relate with Newt Gingrich’s divorces than with Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum being married only to one woman (correct me if I’m wrong).

I close my general complaints with two quotes from the Founding Fathers:

1. “Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society” - George Washington.
2. “Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people” -John Adams.

Our first and second Presidents respectively. So there you are, being blameless does not give you political traction. Look at Rick Santorum. And, for the general reasons described in this post I myself a while ago forswore that I would ever get involved in politics.

Thank you for that insightful post. I too thought there was a candidate who was blameless. He came on the scene (yes, a Republican, don’t start gasping) young, with a young family…I believe at that time he had one child. I voted for him, even my yellow-dog Democrat mother voted for him. Things were great for awhile…he and his wife seemed blissful…good people. I think they have 4 children now. (I have since moved out of state). His name is Mark Sanford. We believed in what he said he would do for SC. We liked his style, his family values, the whole package.

Until one day my mother calls and was so upset. “Have you seen the news?” yes, mother, I know the whole Appalachin Trail was just a hoax. I am as devestated as you are. Just one more thing to despise about politics and politicians. Went through it again with John Edwards.

I admire your idealism about Rick Santorum…however, he won’t be a sell to the average American. Not because he hasn’t had an affair or laundered money…but actually “because” of his stoic Catholicism. When one is President, he/she represents “all of the people”…and truthfully, “all of the people” could not back him as a candidate. It was tried before with the Christian Coalition. My uncles and aunts (mom’s side) thought Ralph Reed was going “save” this country from going to hell in a handbasket…then Abramoff came along and you know the rest.

 

[gilliam]

http://images.politico.com/global/news/111206_iowagraphic8_kristen.jpg

politico.com/news/stories/1211/69865.html

 

[bbarrick8383]

http://images.politico.com/global/news/111206_iowagraphic8_kristen.jpg

politico.com/news/stories/1211/69865.html

Ron Paul may not win this election, but I don’t think anyone can deny that his “crazy” ideas are quickly gaining numbers.

 

[gilliam]

Ron Paul may not win this election, but I don’t think anyone can deny that his “crazy” ideas are quickly gaining numbers.

In Iowa anyway. Nationally, not so much.

gallup.com/poll/151355/Gingrich-Romney-Among-GOP-Voters-Nationwide.aspxhttp://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com...roduction/Cms/POLL/wgsecrflrueg_2natxgy-w.gif

Paul has stayed pretty steady since summer see the RCP average here:

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

 

[bbarrick8383]

In Iowa anyway. Nationally, not so much.

Up until 2008, I had no idea who he was. Really, I didn’t know anything about politics. When I started paying attention to those on the radio and television my first impression of Paul was that he was a fruitcake based on what I’d heard.

I kind of took their word for it for the meantime, but the more I listen to the guy the more I wonder why we just brush him off and continue to kick the can down the road. We all want congress to change, but nobody has the backbone to vote in the politicians like Paul that will actually do it. We all complain about politics but we don’t vote for those who could make a difference in Washington.

 

[Roy5]

What a sadness that Gingrich, with all of his baggage, his arrogance, his wild statements, and much else may be nominated for president. It somehow brings to mind the story of Adam and Eve when they were tempted by the snake in the garden. I don’t know why that came to mind, but it did.

I watch 'Morning Joe' with some regularity and Scarborough's deep hostility toward Gingrich has impressed me. Joe wants to support the GOP but obviously has little respect for Newt, whom he knows well. His problem seems to be that he doesn't trust the integrity, the stability and/or the stature of Gingrich to fill that most important office in the world.

 Of course, if Newt is nominated, Obama probably could be reelected. What a choice! What a lost opportunity!

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Up until 2008, I had no idea who he was. Really, I didn’t know anything about politics. When I started paying attention to those on the radio and television my first impression of Paul was that he was a fruitcake based on what I’d heard.

I kind of took their word for it for the meantime, but the more I listen to the guy the more I wonder why we just brush him off and continue to kick the can down the road. We all want congress to change, but nobody has the backbone to vote in the politicians like Paul that will actually do it. We all complain about politics but we don’t vote for those who could make a difference in Washington.

Thanks for making the point I’ve been trying to make for the last 4 months. Newt, Santorum, Romney, Bachmann, the other guy… are all status quo politicians. Even Barack Obama is a “point the compass towards socialism and full speed ahead” status quo Democrat. I know I know, Democrats are going to deny that Obama is a socialist until the cows come home to roost, but when Hugo Chavez and Castro are both concerned that Obama will make them look conservative, that says it all for me.

Paul is the only candidate that is different from the other mainstream party candidates. We all know that Obama is NOT the “great uniter” he was made out to be. We all know he is no different from the rest of the politicians in office. In fact, he is more like they are than…they are. He is the master of deflection of responsibility, pointing the finger at others when things go wrong, taking all the credit when things go…okay. He is a divisive collectivist and spends his time grouping people into categories and then pointing the finger at people of other categories and telling group A that group B is the cause of their problems.

Paul is the one who gets to the meat of the meal. The problem is our system is Keynesian economics and fiat money. It is the source of the housing problem, the markets, etc… Look at the world. Everyone is talking about how this country or that country is on the verge of collapse. The source of the problem? Central banks and fiat money. It is the root of the entitlement problem. It is the reason why people have left their Christian faith and now worship at the altar of the state. They worship Mammon, known in this country as the Federal Reserve.

The only other candidate who was riding the anti-Fed train was Perry, and it may have been the thing that completely derailed his campaign (calling Bernanke a traitor…which I agree with).

 

[gilliam]

“RUSH: It’s like clockwork. It’s becoming predictable. I don’t care who it is, a Republican presidential candidate breaks out of the pack, gets close to Romney – or even surpasses Romney in polling data in certain states – and the Republican establishment goes after him. …” bit.ly/tElBuY

 

[bbarrick8383]

Thanks for making the point I’ve been trying to make for the last 4 months. Newt, Santorum, Romney, Bachmann, the other guy… are all status quo politicians. Even Barack Obama is a “point the compass towards socialism and full speed ahead” status quo Democrat. I know I know, Democrats are going to deny that Obama is a socialist until the cows come home to roost, but when Hugo Chavez and Castro are both concerned that Obama will make them look conservative, that says it all for me.

Paul is the only candidate that is different from the other mainstream party candidates. We all know that Obama is NOT the “great uniter” he was made out to be. We all know he is no different from the rest of the politicians in office. In fact, he is more like they are than…they are. He is the master of deflection of responsibility, pointing the finger at others when things go wrong, taking all the credit when things go…okay. He is a divisive collectivist and spends his time grouping people into categories and then pointing the finger at people of other categories and telling group A that group B is the cause of their problems.

Paul is the one who gets to the meat of the meal. The problem is our system is Keynesian economics and fiat money. It is the source of the housing problem, the markets, etc… Look at the world. Everyone is talking about how this country or that country is on the verge of collapse. The source of the problem? Central banks and fiat money. It is the root of the entitlement problem. It is the reason why people have left their Christian faith and now worship at the altar of the state. They worship Mammon, known in this country as the Federal Reserve.

The only other candidate who was riding the anti-Fed train was Perry, and it may have been the thing that completely derailed his campaign (calling Bernanke a traitor…which I agree with).

I’m no mental health expert, not really much of an expert in anything…but I do know the definition of insanity…and by the looks of it this country is completely insane. The only hope I see is in the GOP party in the few freshmen candidates like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. I hope they become great leaders and bring this country back to some common sense.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I guess I’m missing the part where it says or implies that “the RNC wants Gingrich to be attacked.”

gilliam found this:

realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/06/rush_gop_establishment_attacks_every_candidate_who_gets_close_to_romney.html

 

[qui_est_ce]

gilliam found this:

realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/06/rush_gop_establishment_attacks_every_candidate_who_gets_close_to_romney.html

He won’t name names? Should I just take his word for it?

 

[bcarson]

IMHO:
Gingrich can beat Obama
Romney is very iffy (McCain II ?)
Bachmann and Santorum = a toss-up
Huntsman doesn’t have a chance
Ron Paul will set the conservative movement back to the stone age. He not only will lose, he will disenfranchise many staunch right wingers. For heavens sake, he thinks 9/11 was our fault and his ideas for national security are naive at best.

Therefore, I say “Go Newt, GO!”

 

[bbarrick8383]

IMHO:
Gingrich can beat Obama
Romney is very iffy (McCain II ?)
Bachmann and Santorum = a toss-up
Huntsman doesn’t have a chance
Ron Paul will set the conservative movement back to the stone age. He not only will lose, he will disenfranchise many staunch right wingers. For heavens sake, he thinks 9/11 was our fault and his ideas for national security are naive at best.

Therefore, I say “Go Newt, GO!”

He did not say that it was our fault, but that our actions have had influence on the motivation of those who did it.

Since when did peace through strength equal naive?

 

[AlwaysCurious]

In Iowa anyway. Nationally, not so much.

I am curious to see if Paul’s national numbers would get a boost if he did well in Iowa and NH. Momentum, and all that. He has been ignored and written off for so long that any good performance at all will be a shock to some people.

I still think Gingrich’s surge is due largely to the fact that people see him as the last resort for an anti-Romney candidate. I think lots of people were supporting Cain because he was the entertaining flavor of the month, and now that the Cain train has wrecked, they’re supporting Gingrich because he’s the new entertaining flavor of the month. He’s well-spoken, and these days that seems to be about all it takes.

I also think Obama would rather run against Gingrich. The Dems have such an arsenal of dirty laundry to use against Gingrich (largely based on his leadership style from his days in the House) that they can probably keep the independents and disgruntled Democrats from supporting him. As far as I can tell, the only 3 GOP candidates that could attract any real independent support are Romney, Huntsman, and Ron Paul.

 

[rlg94086]

gilliam found this:

realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/06/rush_gop_establishment_attacks_every_candidate_who_gets_close_to_romney.html

Rush: “Today there is a coordinated – **well, I don’t know that it’s coordinated, but it sure appears to be. **Regardless, no matter where you look in the Republican establishment media today, there looks to be a coordinated attack on Mr. Newt.”

So, there was nothing from the RNC saying they want Gingrich to be attacked…

I agree with Rush that the commentators and congressmen are hurting our chances against Obama, but there is nothing coordinated.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

From that Rush Limbaugh transcript:

“So I’m just gonna tell you, there are – count 'em, one, two, three, four – there are five, not counting whatever’s happened on television, there are five hit pieces on Newt Gingrich today that come from Republican establishment conservative media. It’s amazing,” he said.

… What’s happening, anybody that gets close to Romney – we talked about this yesterday, we talked about this back in November. The Republican establishment is now, I’m convinced, fully invested in Romney, which is fine, I’m not endorsing anybody, but the reason is the House and Senate, not the White House."

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Thank you for that insightful post. I too thought there was a candidate who was blameless. He came on the scene (yes, a Republican, don’t start gasping) young, with a young family…I believe at that time he had one child. I voted for him, even my yellow-dog Democrat mother voted for him. Things were great for awhile…he and his wife seemed blissful…good people. I think they have 4 children now. (I have since moved out of state). His name is Mark Sanford. We believed in what he said he would do for SC. We liked his style, his family values, the whole package.

Until one day my mother calls and was so upset. “Have you seen the news?” yes, mother, I know the whole Appalachin Trail was just a hoax. I am as devestated as you are. Just one more thing to despise about politics and politicians. Went through it again with John Edwards.

I admire your idealism about Rick Santorum…however, he won’t be a sell to the average American. Not because he hasn’t had an affair or laundered money…but actually “because” of his stoic Catholicism. When one is President, he/she represents “all of the people”…and truthfully, “all of the people” could not back him as a candidate. It was tried before with the Christian Coalition. My uncles and aunts (mom’s side) thought Ralph Reed was going “save” this country from going to hell in a handbasket…then Abramoff came along and you know the rest.

Yeah, I unfortunately have to agree with you. It’s just such a shame that we can’t trust the people governing our country. Jon Huntsman talked about “restoring the trust deficit” in American politics… well I don’t think that’s gonna happen for a long time to come.

As Catholics, obviously we’re obligated to participate in the political process. We have a duty as citizens to ourselves, to God, to follow our consciences and all that. But, at the end of the day it often seems like we’re choosing for the lesser of two evils.

Once again, I want to be clear that I am really enthusiastic about supporting Gingrich for President. But, it’s such a shame that a man like Rick Santorum can’t be elected in this country. [He is a former Senator as well… he currently does not hold public office, and it’s unlikely he will again… of course I would love for that to happen again, I just don’t see it happening].

But yeah, at the end of the day, the Catholic Church might have its problems, but it still has a far greater chance of actually promoting positive changes in society than any other institution in the world. And, that definitely includes our government. So yes, we should still care about politics and who runs this country, but our government is incapable of even coming close to being as strong a force for good in the world as the Catholic Church is. IMHO.

 

[rlg94086]

From that Rush Limbaugh transcript:

“So I’m just gonna tell you, there are – count 'em, one, two, three, four – there are five, not counting whatever’s happened on television, there are five hit pieces on Newt Gingrich today that come from Republican establishment conservative media. It’s amazing,” he said.

… What’s happening, anybody that gets close to Romney – we talked about this yesterday, we talked about this back in November. The Republican establishment is now, I’m convinced, fully invested in Romney, which is fine, I’m not endorsing anybody, but the reason is the House and Senate, not the White House."

How/when did the “Republican establishment” settle on Romney? Who are the “Republican establishment?” it could be that a large percentage of conservative commentators, Congressmen, etc., if that’s who the “establishment” is, have determined that Romney is the best bet. There is nothing from the RNC that gives evidence to a concerted effort or conspiracy.

Regarding Speaker Gingrich, specifically, there are certainly a lot of people concerned about his electability due to his past. I’ve defended Gingrich quite a bit, but he is not a spotless lamb by any stretch of the imagination. He could very well be a bad choice for the general election.

 

[gilliam]

Fresh TIME/CNN first-in-the-nation polls show Gingrich dominating Iowa, South Carolina and Florida — and within striking distance in New Hampshire.

Iowa: Gingrich 33 — Romney 20
New Hampshire: Romney 35 — Gingrich 26
South Carolina: Gingrich 43 — Romney 20
Florida: Gingrich 48 — Romney 25
See the full results, including how the other candidates stack up, here.

Read more: thepage.time.com/2011/12/07/newt-nation/#ixzz1ftCWPDHf

Explains why Romney’s team is not attacking Newt

 

[gilliam]

I am curious to see if Paul’s national numbers would get a boost if he did well in Iowa and NH. Momentum, and all that. He has been ignored and written off for so long that any good performance at all will be a shock to some people.

Paul doing well in IA or NH (or both) should help his national numbers. My gues though is he has a ceiling in the low teens.