The 2012 GOP Presidential Field Is Set

[Roy5]

TEN TOP REASONS WHY GINGRICH SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT

1. Gingrich has been a Washington insider for years. After he was pushed out of Congress he became an ‘historian’ for Freddie Mac, being payed $1.8 million. Ironically, he said that Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd should be in jail, essentially for their ties with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
2. Gingrich has a huge ego, comparing himself to Charles de Gaulle, claiming that “people like me stand between us and Auschwitz”, and telling reporters that he is a 'world historical transformational figure." A messiah complex?
3. Gingrich has two divorces, infidelities, three marriages. He was assailing Clinton because of Monica while he was still married but involved with a pretty government staffer over 20years his junior, whom he eventually married. How can a man with such a record pretend to stand for family values? What a wild example for our youth. His former wife Marianne: “I don’t want him to be president and I don’t think he should be.”
4. Gingrich carefully avoided the draft during the Vietnam War. I believe such folks are called draft-dodgers. Is there any evidence that he dodged the draft because of principle - or was he a fair-weather patriot? Nevertheless, he is a perpetual hawk when it comes to wars overseas.
5. Gingrich exploits and often misrepresents history. For example, he treats our first presidents as devout Bible-believing Christians. The truth is: Washington was technically an Anglican and he did believe in God, but he never would receive communion and he was the top Mason in the entire USA, a son of the ‘Enlightenment’. John Adams was a Unitarian, the far ‘left wing’ of Protestantism that denies the trinity and other basic beliefs of traditional Christianity; Jefferson went so far as to cut and paste the New Testament, cutting out the miracles of Jesus, which he did not believe, keeping the teachings of Jesus with which he agreed.
6. Gingrich has flip-flopped on various issues. I believe he appeared in ads with Pelosi, Gore, and Sharpton. Is he liberal or conservative? There is plenty to support either viewpoint.

7.** Gingrich doesn’t have the temperament to be president of the most powerful country in the world.** He often has spoken without thinking, and even has had to follow up with a correction. For example, he attacked Ryan on his tax proposals, then said he had made a mistake. He has been a history teacher, so he has a masterful command of the language, which has given his candidacy impetus. He is clever in this. However, as president I wonder what wild statements he would make and then have to back away from. Remember, too, how most of his staff quit. He is not the conciliatory type. I don’t like to quote Barney Frank, a man I do not admire, but I found it interesting that when Frank announced that he was not running for reelection next year he stated that Gingrich was a major culprit in explaining the fierce partisanship existing in Congress today.

8.** Gingrich was Speaker of the House, but he was pressured out of that position because of financial irregularities.** His 1984 and 1995 book deals raise questions, one with the the Murdock empire which has been exposed as so irresponsible and notorious in recent months.

1. Gingrich’s baggage is so huge and his skeletons are so numerous that once the public becomes well-informed he would lose against Obama
2. Gingrich will be an embarrassment to the USA around the world, and to Catholicism as well. Questions will be raised such as these: why did the Catholic Church marry a twice-divorced man? was it okay to violate vows taken at earlier weddings? does this mean that Protestant weddings are not as binding? True, Gingrich is using the ‘I have changed’ argument, but that won’t work with millions. They will even suspect that as a clever manipulator Gingrich became a Catholic to claim ‘absolution’ as well as to appeal to the large Democratic constituency among Catholics Many Catholics and non-Catholics couldl become increasingly skeptical of Catholicism because of their distaste for Gingrich who (with Callista) has been exploiting Pope John Paul II, etc.

**May God bless America and grant wisdom to its voters. **

 

[louis91766]

I wonder how Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum (both claim to be Catholic) can be both pro-life and pro-war at the same time (I mean advocating actual war - not the so-called “war” on drugs or terrorism - against other nations without looking to discussion first). Whether you agree with Ron Paul on much or not, we cannot afford anymore wars. …

I agree with the foreign policy of Ron Paul.

 

[louis91766]

TEN TOP REASONS WHY GINGRICH SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT

1. Gingrich has been a Washington insider for years. After he was pushed out of Congress he became an ‘historian’ for Freddie Mac, being payed $1.8 million. Ironically, he said that Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd should be in jail, essentially for their ties with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
2. Gingrich has a huge ego, comparing himself to Charles de Gaulle, claiming that “people like me stand between us and Auschwitz”, and telling reporters that he is a 'world historical transformational figure." A messiah complex?
3. Gingrich has two divorces, infidelities, three marriages. He was assailing Clinton because of Monica while he was still married but involved with a pretty government staffer over 20years his junior, whom he eventually married. How can a man with such a record pretend to stand for family values? What a wild example for our youth. His former wife Marianne: “I don’t want him to be president and I don’t think he should be.”
4. Gingrich carefully avoided the draft during the Vietnam War. I believe such folks are called draft-dodgers. Is there any evidence that he dodged the draft because of principle - or was he a fair-weather patriot? Nevertheless, he is a perpetual hawk when it comes to wars overseas.
5. Gingrich exploits and often misrepresents history. For example, he treats our first presidents as devout Bible-believing Christians. The truth is: Washington was technically an Anglican and he did believe in God, but he never would receive communion and he was the top Mason in the entire USA, a son of the ‘Enlightenment’. John Adams was a Unitarian, the far ‘left wing’ of Protestantism that denies the trinity and other basic beliefs of traditional Christianity; Jefferson went so far as to cut and paste the New Testament, cutting out the miracles of Jesus, which he did not believe, keeping the teachings of Jesus with which he agreed.
6. Gingrich has flip-flopped on various issues. I believe he appeared in ads with Pelosi, Gore, and Sharpton. Is he liberal or conservative? There is plenty to support either viewpoint.

7.** Gingrich doesn’t have the temperament to be president of the most powerful country in the world.** He often has spoken without thinking, and even has had to follow up with a correction. For example, he attacked Ryan on his tax proposals, then said he had made a mistake. He has been a history teacher, so he has a masterful command of the language, which has given his candidacy impetus. He is clever in this. However, as president I wonder what wild statements he would make and then have to back away from. Remember, too, how most of his staff quit. He is not the conciliatory type. I don’t like to quote Barney Frank, a man I do not admire, but I found it interesting that when Frank announced that he was not running for reelection next year he stated that Gingrich was a major culprit in explaining the fierce partisanship existing in Congress today.

8.** Gingrich was Speaker of the House, but he was pressured out of that position because of financial irregularities.** His 1984 and 1995 book deals raise questions, one with the the Murdock empire which has been exposed as so irresponsible and notorious in recent months.

1. Gingrich’s baggage is so huge and his skeletons are so numerous that once the public becomes well-informed he would lose against Obama
2. Gingrich will be an embarrassment to the USA around the world, and to Catholicism as well. Questions will be raised such as these: why did the Catholic Church marry a twice-divorced man? was it okay to violate vows taken at earlier weddings? does this mean that Protestant weddings are not as binding? True, Gingrich is using the ‘I have changed’ argument, but that won’t work with millions. They will even suspect that as a clever manipulator Gingrich became a Catholic to claim ‘absolution’ as well as to appeal to the large Democratic constituency among Catholics Many Catholics and non-Catholics couldl become increasingly skeptical of Catholicism because of their distaste for Gingrich who (with Callista) has been exploiting Pope John Paul II, etc.

**May God bless America and grant wisdom to its voters. **

Gingrich has problems but they don’t seem to be hurting him at this point. On the other hand, Cain is being hurt by new questions being brought up.

 

[louis91766]

There can be ‘‘Just war.’’

Pope Benedict said in a 2004 letter, “While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment,” he said. “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia,” he added.

But if a war results in the use of nuclear weapons and the atomic bomb resulting in the indiscriminate harm and death to thousands of innocent civilians, would that be just?

 

[Alexius]

There can be ‘‘Just war.’’

Pope Benedict said in a 2004 letter, “While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment,” he said. “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia,” he added.

I absolutely agree that there are times when war is justified (via the Just War Theory for example), but I am concerned that we may be jumping the gun by having an overly aggressive policy toward countries like Iran. I’m not saying that being “nice” to them will bring mutual respect or stop their ambitions of creating a nuclear arsenal, but we could at least try to find an alternative to war like we did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I know some are opposed to this because it borders negotiating with terrorists, but I believe it is our best option - after all, we are still dealing with a sovereign nation. We also have Russia ticked off at us over our missile defense strategy in Eastern Europe and it is no secret that Russia and Iran are rather close. They know that pulling us into a few more wars would raise our debt by trillions more and seal our fate. I think we really need to be careful how we interact with these nations if we don’t want more problems. Just my thoughts…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I agree with the foreign policy of Ron Paul.

I thought he was a kooky isolationist.

 

[louis91766]

I thought he was a kooky isolationist.

You can call him whatever name you want. But I don’t see name-calling as adding all that much to an intelligent discussion of the issues involved.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

You can call him whatever name you want. But I don’t see name-calling as adding all that much to an intelligent discussion of the issues involved.

You aren’t going to get a fight from me. I have been a Paul supporter for quite some time. I like his foreign policy as well, and noone has convinced me that our foreign policy stance of shoot first and ask questions later has brought us anything but trouble and misery.

 

[Alexius]

I thought he was a kooky isolationist.

He is a non-interventionist like our founders, not an isolationist (isolationist means protectionism - anti-free trade - and non-intervention)…Just pointing that out to other people who might not know the difference…

 

[Alexius]

He is a non-interventionist like most of our founders, not an isolationist (isolationist means protectionism - anti-free trade - and non-intervention)…Just pointing that out to other people who might not know the difference…

 

[Tsuwano]

He is a non-interventionist like our founders, not an isolationist (isolationist means protectionism - anti-free trade - and non-intervention)…Just pointing that out to other people who might not know the difference…

I suppose the American Founders could have been considered non - interventionist in a way . . . except, of course, when it meant interfering in the affairs of those native nations to the west of the new republic.

 

[louis91766]

I suppose the American Founders could have been considered non - interventionist in a way . . . except, of course, when it meant interfering in the affairs of those native nations to the west of the new republic.

Interesting point.

 

[CMatt25]

Gingrich has problems but they don’t seem to be hurting him at this point. On the other hand, Cain is being hurt by new questions being brought up.

Perhaps timing has something to do with it. The caucuses and primaries are fast approaching and voters are trying to decide upon their anti Romney choice. Of course I think Romney might prefer the GOP field not to be narrowed to just him and one other so soon. Seems to me Romney benefits by the anti Romney vote splintering between a number of other candidates in the field.

 

[gilliam]

. Seems to me Romney benefits by the anti Romney vote splintering between a number of other candidates in the field.

true

 

[rlg94086]

You aren’t going to get a fight from me. I have been a Paul supporter for quite some time. I like his foreign policy as well, and noone has convinced me that our foreign policy stance of shoot first and ask questions later has brought us anything but trouble and misery.

I think his foreign policy goes to far. I don’t think we can withdraw to the levels he advocates. More importantly, I don’t think he is a leader. He makes for a good, cranky neighbor, complaining about everyone else down the street, but I don’t see him effectively rallying people to get anything done. Maybe, he’d be a better dictator.

From a personality standpoint, I don’t think I could handle his whiney tone for four years.

Other than that, he’s my perfect candidate at the federal level.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Did you just copy this from Maureen Dowd?

TEN TOP REASONS WHY GINGRICH SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT

1. Gingrich has been a Washington insider for years. After he was pushed out of Congress he became an ‘historian’ for Freddie Mac, being payed $1.8 million. Ironically, he said that Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd should be in jail, essentially for their ties with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

$1.6 million over 8 years is about $200,000 a year. Gingrich time’s working for Freddie Mac could be of benefit to him in the presidential campaign, he says he warned them about the housing bubble and that their lending practices were ‘‘insane.’’

Barney Frank is allowed to hire somebody for his company as an executive or a six or seven figure salary plus bonuses, but f somebody hires a Republican that is not allowed?

1. Gingrich has a huge ego, comparing himself to Charles de Gaulle, claiming that “people like me stand between us and Auschwitz”, and telling reporters that he is a 'world historical transformational figure." A messiah complex?

Charles de Gaulle is one of his heroes. Where has Gingrich ever compared himself to Charles de Gaulle?

Regarding this quote, “people like me stand between us and Auschwitz”, Newt continued with ‘‘I see evil all around me every day.’’ Referencing Aushwitz, not the best thing, but he is talking about ‘evil.’

'World historical transformational figure," I believe comes from Joe McQuaid, publisher of the New Hampshire Union Leader, which endorsed Gingrich, tells National Review Online he likes the speaker’s style. And through his eyes, Gingrich resembles another world-historical figure: Winston Churchill. “Look at the broad history of the guy — when’s been in the wilderness, as Churchill was — and I don’t think that’s an inaccurate comparison at all,” he says.

Those are not Gingrich’s specific words.

1. Gingrich has two divorces, infidelities, three marriages. He was assailing Clinton because of Monica while he was still married but involved with a pretty government staffer over 20years his junior, whom he eventually married. How can a man with such a record pretend to stand for family values? What a wild example for our youth. His former wife Marianne: “I don’t want him to be president and I don’t think he should be.”

I think Gingrich would be the first one to say he has made some bad mistakes in the past, but we have all made mistakes, all he can do now is repent.

1. Gingrich carefully avoided the draft during the Vietnam War. I believe such folks are called draft-dodgers. Is there any evidence that he dodged the draft because of principle - or was he a fair-weather patriot? Nevertheless, he is a perpetual hawk when it comes to wars overseas.

I don’t think it was like Clinton, who went to Canada instead of serving in the Vietnam war.

Gingrich sought graduate school deferment.

 

[_Abyssinia]

TEN TOP REASONS WHY GINGRICH SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT

1. Gingrich exploits and often misrepresents history. For example, he treats our first presidents as devout Bible-believing Christians. The truth is: Washington was technically an Anglican and he did believe in God, but he never would receive communion and he was the top Mason in the entire USA, a son of the ‘Enlightenment’. John Adams was a Unitarian, the far ‘left wing’ of Protestantism that denies the trinity and other basic beliefs of traditional Christianity; Jefferson went so far as to cut and paste the New Testament, cutting out the miracles of Jesus, which he did not believe, keeping the teachings of Jesus with which he agreed.

Where has Gingrich said the first presidents were devout Bible believing Christians?’

I believe all of the founding fathers believed in a supreme being, but not all of them would subscribe to the Apostles’ Creed.

1. Gingrich has flip-flopped on various issues. I believe he appeared in ads with Pelosi, Gore, and Sharpton. Is he liberal or conservative? There is plenty to support either viewpoint.

First Romney was a flip flopper, now its Gingrich?

7.** Gingrich doesn’t have the temperament to be president of the most powerful country in the world.** He often has spoken without thinking, and even has had to follow up with a correction. For example, he attacked Ryan on his tax proposals, then said he had made a mistake. He has been a history teacher, so he has a masterful command of the language, which has given his candidacy impetus. He is clever in this. However, as president I wonder what wild statements he would make and then have to back away from. Remember, too, how most of his staff quit. He is not the conciliatory type. I don’t like to quote Barney Frank, a man I do not admire, but I found it interesting that when Frank announced that he was not running for reelection next year he stated that Gingrich was a major culprit in explaining the fierce partisanship existing in Congress today.

Some of his staff probably quit because he was low in the polls and probably not receiving many donations to his campaign. Some of them have not come back.

I wonder if Barney got it because he suspects there will be a big change in on Washington in 2012. Barney Frank, who was found facing ethics charges over using his DC apartment for male prostitution. Why anyone should believe or even care what the he has to say about Gingrich?

8.** Gingrich was Speaker of the House, but he was pressured out of that position because of financial irregularities.** His 1984 and 1995 book deals raise questions, one with the the Murdock empire which has been exposed as so irresponsible and notorious in recent months.

if you are talking about the book contract with Murdoch, I believe it complied with the House ethics manuel. I don’t think there was any evidence could be supplied that proved Gingrich broke the law or rule. I think it was investigated by the House Ethics committee.

1. Gingrich’s baggage is so huge and his skeletons are so numerous that once the public becomes well-informed he would lose against Obama

Every political candidate has baggage.

1. Gingrich will be an embarrassment to the USA around the world, and to Catholicism as well. Questions will be raised such as these: why did the Catholic Church marry a twice-divorced man? was it okay to violate vows taken at earlier weddings? does this mean that Protestant weddings are not as binding? True, Gingrich is using the ‘I have changed’ argument, but that won’t work with millions. They will even suspect that as a clever manipulator Gingrich became a Catholic to claim ‘absolution’ as well as to appeal to the large Democratic constituency among Catholics Many Catholics and non-Catholics couldl become increasingly skeptical of Catholicism because of their distaste for Gingrich who (with Callista) has been exploiting Pope John Paul II, etc.

How have they been exploiting John Paul II etc.? To question Gingrich’s conversion as a political ploy is disgusting.

I read a comment in the comments section on NCRegister that Newt Gingrich has no canonical impediment. Jackie Battley, who Newt was first married too has passed away. Gingrich’s ‘‘second marriage’’ was not a marriage because Marianne Ginther had been married before thus rendering this marriage between Newt and Marrianne guilty on ligamen grounds under Canon Law. The Diocese of Atlanta ratified this as a matter of law in a 2000 annulment. As such, Newt Gingrich was free to marry his present wife and they enjoy a licit sacramental marriage.

Please correct me if wrong.

**May God bless America and grant wisdom to its voters. **

May God Bless America and grant wisdom to her voters that they never to listen to Maureen Dowd when considering voting.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I also read a comment on the comments section on on CatholicVote regarding Newt’s marriages that said, ‘The Marriage Tribunal in his Diocese reviewed his and Callista’s applications for annulment. And guess what – the Tribunal found that for both of them, their previous marriages were invalid due to impediments that existed in their previous “marriages.” He is obviously not living in an “adulterous relationship” because his (and Callista’s) annulments had to be approved before they were received into the Church.’’

 

[qui_est_ce]

How have they been exploiting John Paul II etc.? To question Gingrich’s conversion as a political ploy is disgusting.

This has been bothersome to me from the beginning.

I read a comment in the comments section on NCRegister that Newt Gingrich has no canonical impediment. Jackie Battley, who Newt was first married too has passed away. Gingrich’s ‘‘second marriage’’ was not a marriage because Marianne Ginther had been married before thus rendering this marriage between Newt and Marrianne guilty on ligamen grounds under Canon Law. The Diocese of Atlanta ratified this as a matter of law in a 2000 annulment. As such, Newt Gingrich was free to marry his present wife and they enjoy a licit sacramental marriage.

Please correct me if wrong.

So his annulment happened 9 years before his conversion? That’s very interesting.

May God Bless America and grant wisdom to her voters that they never to listen to Maureen Dowd when considering voting.

 

[estesbob]

I read a comment in the comments section on NCRegister that Newt Gingrich has no canonical impediment. Jackie Battley, who Newt was first married too has passed away. Gingrich’s ‘‘second marriage’’ was not a marriage because Marianne Ginther had been married before thus rendering this marriage between Newt and Marrianne guilty on ligamen grounds under Canon Law. The Diocese of Atlanta ratified this as a matter of law in a 2000 annulment. As such, Newt Gingrich was free to marry his present wife and they enjoy a licit sacramental marriage.

Please correct me if wrong.

May God Bless America and grant wisdom to her voters that they never to listen to Maureen Dowd when considering voting.

His firstwife is still alive