Two questions for Newt-leaning Republicans

[gabosaurus]

(1) Why would the "Party of Moral Values" embrace a candidate with no moral values?

(2) Would would a party whose sole purpose is to defeat Obama in 2012 nominate a candidate who has zero chance to defeating Obama?

[darin]

(1) Why would the "Party of Moral Values" embrace a candidate with no moral values?

(2) Would would a party whose sole purpose is to defeat Obama in 2012 nominate a candidate who has zero chance to defeating Obama?

1) There's a problem with your statement because it's factually inaccurate. Frankly, it's only an insult, NOT a question.

2) There's a problem with your 'question' because again, it's factually inaccurate; it's speculation and insult - not a request for information.

Do you have anything to add, or is this simply a 'let's insult somebody' thread?

[revelarts]

I saw Newt this moring on the News.

Personally I pick Ron Paul 1st, Santorum 2nd Rommey 3rd and Newt not at all.

Not to start a debate here, I'm just curious.
Newt said "...I'm not a Washington insider.." among other things this morning.
Does anyone buy that? I laughed out loud when I heard it. Maybe my question should be ,
Should Newt really think that anyone's buying that line? Maybe he's thinking of the Lincoln quote "...you can fool some of the people all of the time.."

[Gunny]

(1) Why would the "Party of Moral Values" embrace a candidate with no moral values?

(2) Would would a party whose sole purpose is to defeat Obama in 2012 nominate a candidate who has zero chance to defeating Obama?

Guess my Gunny was wrong all those years ago. There ARE stupid questions.

[jimnyc]

Gabby, you have stated before that Romney is the only one who could defeat Obama. Can you be more specific and state why it is you feel Gingrich can't beat Obama?

[Gunny]

Gabby, you have stated before that Romney is the only one who could defeat Obama. Can you be more specific and state why it is you feel Gingrich can't beat Obama?

It's leftwing code for: that's who Obama wants to run against. Last election it was: "Now if it was McCain, I might consider him" from the left.

[Little-Acorn]

1) There's a problem with your statement because it's factually inaccurate. Frankly, it's only an insult, NOT a question.

2) There's a problem with your 'question' because again, it's factually inaccurate; it's speculation and insult - not a request for information.

Do you have anything to add, or is this simply a 'let's insult somebody' thread?

Dmp, this is little gabby you're talking to. You KNOW the answer to that question, since it never varies.

[gabosaurus]

Gabby, you have stated before that Romney is the only one who could defeat Obama. Can you be more specific and state why it is you feel Gingrich can't beat Obama?

Certainly. Gingrich is a liar and a serial adulterer. What makes Newt any more acceptable than, say, John Edwards?
If Gingrich ran in the general election, the media would find every skeleton in his closet and more. Instead of the focus being on what Obama failed to achieve while in office, it would be Gingrich's past.
In addition to Newt's lack of moral integrity, he has favored some of the same health care issues that Obama has.

When Shrub ran against John Kerry, the GOP ran a campaign attacking Kerry's character rather than defending Shrub's performance in office.
The Dems will run the same campaign this year, only dirtier and more vicious. The GOP will spend all their time and resources and defending Newt instead of attacking Obama.

[jimnyc]

Certainly. Gingrich is a liar and a serial adulterer. What makes Newt any more acceptable than, say, John Edwards?
If Gingrich ran in the general election, the media would find every skeleton in his closet and more. Instead of the focus being on what Obama failed to achieve while in office, it would be Gingrich's past.
In addition to Newt's lack of moral integrity, he has favored some of the same health care issues that Obama has.

When Shrub ran against John Kerry, the GOP ran a campaign attacking Kerry's character rather than defending Shrub's performance in office.
The Dems will run the same campaign this year, only dirtier and more vicious. The GOP will spend all their time and resources and defending Newt instead of attacking Obama.

I didn't say he was any more/less acceptable than Edwards. Just simply wondering why you think Romney could beat Obama but not Gingrich. Gingrich's skeletons have been out and around forever. He just showed in the last debate how he can take a skeleton and use it to his advantage to win the SC primary. The first 3 minutes of the debate is what turned things in his favor, and it was addressing what his ex-wife stated to the media.

If the media focused on his personal life and not the issues, they would be making a mistake with Gingrich. He's MUCH too smart for that crap. He doesn't need teleprompters to speak. Obama would have to be WELL prepared to debate him, as I think Gingrich would absolutely destroy him in any head to head debates.

Also, while you may look at Gingrich and health care issues, don't forget about Romney in Mass. Not much better, IMO.

All any nominee would have to do, is continually point out to the entire country just how much Obama has screwed things up in only 4 years. Continually point to the debt and what Obama has doen to that in such a short time.

I'm no fan of Romney or Gingrich - but both of them are head and shoulders smarter than Obama. I think either one has the capability of beating Obama come November.

[gabosaurus]

Romney doesn't have the character issues that Gingrich.
You have to remember that the audience watching the GOP debate in SC was hand picked to be favorable to the candidates. Thus their reaction to the question posed about Gingrich's character.
Kerry was unable to spend much time attacking Shrub Bush because the GOP machine kept launching attacks on his character. The "unfit to lead" thing was what sunk him.
Think of this situation in reverse. Romney and Gingrich are both intelligent men. But Romney won't face the wrath of women and minorities that Gingrich will.

Romney is much more mainstream than Gingrich. Newt will not play well to independent voters. Same with Ron Paul.

[jimnyc]

Romney doesn't have the character issues that Gingrich.
You have to remember that the audience watching the GOP debate in SC was hand picked to be favorable to the candidates. Thus their reaction to the question posed about Gingrich's character.
Kerry was unable to spend much time attacking Shrub Bush because the GOP machine kept launching attacks on his character. The "unfit to lead" thing was what sunk him.
Think of this situation in reverse. Romney and Gingrich are both intelligent men. But Romney won't face the wrath of women and minorities that Gingrich will.

Romney is much more mainstream than Gingrich. Newt will not play well to independent voters. Same with Ron Paul.

I don't care about the audience - but after the debates, Gingrich made up about 15 percentage points to get back into the race in SC and then ended up winning by a HUGE margin. That's what good debating will do for you.

[Mr. P]

I only notice the left and the lame stream saying "Only Romney" can beat Obama. Gotta make ya wonder, no?
My money, and the Country's FUTURE, is on Newt. Truth is, they're scared ta death of him!

[krisy]

Romney doesn't have the character issues that Gingrich.
You have to remember that the audience watching the GOP debate in SC was hand picked to be favorable to the candidates. Thus their reaction to the question posed about Gingrich's character.
Kerry was unable to spend much time attacking Shrub Bush because the GOP machine kept launching attacks on his character. The "unfit to lead" thing was what sunk him.
Think of this situation in reverse. Romney and Gingrich are both intelligent men. But Romney won't face the wrath of women and minorities that Gingrich will.

Romney is much more mainstream than Gingrich. Newt will not play well to independent voters. Same with Ron Paul.

According to CNN Saturday night,Newt won with every group except the late teen early 20's group. He lead other candidates with married voters and women. I know this doesn't mean it will be that way everywhere,but was interesting. Florida will be interesting for sure.

I don't know that I am voting for Newt and I think a lot of people want to believe what he has said about being a changed man and a Catholic,practicing those values. I personally was stearing away from him for a while because of the affairs. It bothered me. I felt tho that Saturday night he was sincere about personal pain and screwing up. I think what really pushed him up tho,was the command he took in that debate against the moderator. He came off strong,and unafraid. People want to see an strong authority in the position of President.

[gabosaurus]

I think what really pushed him up tho,was the command he took in that debate against the moderator. He came off strong,and unafraid. People want to see an strong authority in the position of President.

You saw it as "taking command." I saw it as avoiding the question.

[jimnyc]

You saw it as "taking command." I saw it as avoiding the question.

If it was to confirm infidelities, I would agree. If it were to confirm divorce issues, I would agree. But I think what personal happens in a marriage, if within the law of course, shouldn't be something ANY candidate should have to answer about. And let me ask you - do you find it odd that this woman is interviewed about such a shocking claim, and on national TV, just a day before the primary elections?

[OCA]

Gabby, you have stated before that Romney is the only one who could defeat Obama. Can you be more specific and state why it is you feel Gingrich can't beat Obama?

Jimmy, Newt will get torn up in the general election on his past "morality" issues. Just saying that its an easy target.

[revelarts]

Jimmy, Newt will get torn up in the general election on his past "morality" issues. Just saying that its an easy target.

Newt is Fake Conservative, Looks like he's got some here buying his great talk though. I love to here him talk most of the time but his actions speak alot louder. He'll give the country over to the U.N just as fast a Obama both are globalist not nationalist.
But strictly as campaign against Obama I'm not sure how the Left could talk about Newt morals with a starit face while they are are nearly ready promoted sex with animals Gay marriage and looking for the NAMBLA vote. Multiple wives and little fooling around is pretty tame against the lefts supposed sexual "values".

But I just don't get why people are buying the Newt Snowjob AGAIN. fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.. um you won't fool me again.
well no wait a minute,
Iraq has WMDs and is gonna kill us, um.. Iran has WMDs and is gonna kill us ...nevermind

[jimnyc]

Iraq has WMDs and is gonna kill us, um.. Iran has WMDs and is gonna kill us ...nevermind

Kinda like...

The government is going to release money that they can track us with
The IRS will be showing up with AK-47's
The government is involved in a conspiracy with homosexuals and AIDS

[OCA]

Newt is Fake Conservative, Looks like he's got some here buying his great talk though. I love to here him talk most of the time but his actions speak alot louder. He'll give the country over to the U.N just as fast a Obama bith are gloabalist not nationalist.
But strickly as campagmn against Obama I'm not sure how the Left could talk about Newt morals with a starit face while they are are nearly ready promoted sex with animals Gay marriage and looking for the NAMBLA vote. Multiple wives and little fooling around is pretty tame against those the lefts supposed sexual "values".

I just don't get why people are buying the Newt Snowjob AGAIN. fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.. um you won't fool me again.
well no wait a minute,
Iraq has WMDs and is gonna kill us, um.. Iran has WMDs and is gonna kill us ...nevermind

Rev looks like you and I may agree on some things.

This country will never be fixed as long as Dems or Repubs are in control, in fact it maybe too late. With either of those two in charge political payback and gamesmanship will continue with little attention payed to real problems.

Socially............forget it..........we've already flushed the country, its a cesspool.


Kinda like...

The government is going to release money that they can track us with
The IRS will be showing up with AK-47's
The government is involved in a conspiracy with homosexuals and AIDS

Is that how the cops always know i'm speeding?:laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Is that how the cops always know i'm speeding?:laugh2:

That's correct, it's the trackable bills in the "new money" and the IRS is following you with AK47's like Mako sharks! I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried!!

[OCA]

That's correct, it's the trackable bills in the "new money" and the IRS is following you with AK47's like Mako sharks! I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried!!

Let the IRS come, hard to get blood from a turnip, Ak or no AK.

[PostmodernProphet]

Newt said "...I'm not a Washington insider.." among other things this morning.
Does anyone buy that?

??......have you noticed how the Washington insiders do not want him elected?......does that make you think he's a Washington insider?.....


Newt is Fake Conservative

Newt is a fiscal conservative.....given the fact he's the only person alive today who led a Congress that reduced spending, I would say he's the last person you can acuse of being a fake conservative.....



If Gingrich ran in the general election, the media would find every skeleton in his closet and more. .

do you think there are any left?.....




All any nominee would have to do, is continually point out to the entire country just how much Obama has screwed things up in only 4 years.

the number one campaign slogan this year is going to be "what would Obama do if we gave him four more years, and why the fuck hasn't he done it already!".......

[fj1200]

Newt is a fiscal conservative.....given the fact he's the only person alive today who led a Congress that reduced spending, I would say he's the last person you can acuse of being a fake conservative.....

I'm pretty sure spending was never actually reduced, slowed down spending growth? yes, but not reduced.

[bullypulpit]

Certainly. Gingrich is a liar and a serial adulterer. What makes Newt any more acceptable than, say, John Edwards?
If Gingrich ran in the general election, the media would find every skeleton in his closet and more. Instead of the focus being on what Obama failed to achieve while in office, it would be Gingrich's past.
In addition to Newt's lack of moral integrity, he has favored some of the same health care issues that Obama has.

When Shrub ran against John Kerry, the GOP ran a campaign attacking Kerry's character rather than defending Shrub's performance in office.
The Dems will run the same campaign this year, only dirtier and more vicious. The GOP will spend all their time and resources and defending Newt instead of attacking Obama.

Gingrich...Romney...Santorum...Paul...Regardless of who wins the nomination, the GOP will spend more time and money trying to defend them than in attacking Obama. And watching the GOP eat their own is hugely entertaining. But this is just the natural consequence of insisting on ideological purity. As the ideologues become more and more radical, fewer and fewer can meet their ideological sniff test so they wind up turning on each other. This leads to the collapse of the movement, and the collapse of modern American "conservatism"...actually fascism...is a thing to be gratefully anticipated.

[revelarts]

??......have you noticed how the Washington insiders do not want him elected?......does that make you think he's a Washington insider?.....


Newt is a fiscal conservative.....given the fact he's the only person alive today who led a Congress that reduced spending, I would say he's the last person you can acuse of being a fake conservative.....
I'll give Newt and Clinton credit for balancing the budget they did get that done. Congress worked it and clinton supported it.
and Newt gets his share of the credit. :clap:

But ill post this list again:
On the budget

http://www.westernjournalism.com/is-...ve-you-decide/ (http://www.westernjournalism.com/is-newt-gingrich-a-conservative-you-decide/)

- Continually supported increased federal spending.
- voted in one of the most-pork laden, expensive transportation bill in history
- Big supporter of Foreign Aid — even to Soviets through the Export-Import Bank.
- In one year (1994-1995) Gingrich voted for nearly $45 billion in foreign aid.
- He helped push through Federally-funded loan guarantees to Communist China.
- Voted to give billions of dollars to United Nations “peacekeeping” operations;
- Bailed out savings and loan institutions in 1991. $40B Bank bailout
-03/–/1993 – He was “passionately in favor” of sending $1.6 Billion in foreign aid to Russia.
-04/25/1996 – Voted for the single largest increase on Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion)
-02/13/2011 – He criticized Obama for sending less U.S. taxdollars to Egypt.

this is not fiscal conservatism in my book it's not reducing the size of gov't.


How about American jobs?
-Voted for NAFTA,
-03/15/2011 – Says that NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico.
i hear Ross Perot "Giant sucking sound of awl the merician jobs gowin to Mexico Larry..." and Newt is standing with Clinton saying no this is good.

How about lil things like freedom other conservative stuff?
-09/25/1996 – Introduced H.R. 4170, demanded life-sentence or execution for someone bringing 2 ounces of marijuana across the border.
-04/10/1995 – He supported Federal taxdollars being spent on abortions.
-02/15/2007 – He supported Bush’s proposal for mandatory carbon caps.
-04/17/2008 – Made a commercial with Nancy Pelosi on Climate Change.
-02/15/2011 – His book said that he believes man-made climate-change and advocated creating “a new endowment for conservation and the environment.”
-12/08/2008 – He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.
-11/15/2010 – He defended Romneycare; blamed liberals
- Supported spending $30B for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that shackled gun owners with new restrictions, federalized a number of crimes, and handed the feds police powers that the Constitution reserves to the states.
-04/04/2007 – He says that there should be a clear distinction about what weapons should be reserved for only for the military.
- Chicken Hawk He was a draft-dodger during the Vietnam War, yet pushed aggressive foreign interventionism his entire political career.
- Urged the House to repeal the War Powers Act and give the Presidency more power.
- Urged Clinton to expand military presence in Bosnia.
-11/27/1994 – He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.
-11/29/2006 – He said that free speech should be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. Wants to stop terrorists from using the internet. Called for a “serious debate about the 1st Amendment.”
-10/22/1991 – He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police Corps.


That's doesn't spell conservative or smaller gov't to me very much at all but maybe all that IS conservative now a days with rank and file republicans.


Gingrich...Romney...Santorum...Paul...Regardless of who wins the nomination, the GOP will spend more time and money trying to defend them than in attacking Obama. And watching the GOP eat their own is hugely entertaining. But this is just the natural consequence of insisting on ideological purity. As the ideologues become more and more radical, fewer and fewer can meet their ideological sniff test so they wind up turning on each other. This leads to the collapse of the movement, and the collapse of modern American "conservatism"...actually fascism...is a thing to be gratefully anticipated.

And Obama Smart Bombing so secret threats and women and children , in Countries that haven't declared war on us. And Killing Americans without trial, or Claiming the right to Jail people indefinitely without trail is some how NOT facist when a democrat does it. Gab you need to wake up.

[fj1200]

... modern American "conservatism"...actually fascism...

Well that's extremely ignorant.

[PostmodernProphet]

That's doesn't spell conservative or smaller gov't to me very much at all but maybe all that IS conservative now a days with rank and file republicans.

works for me....balanced against everything he has done, and taking into consideration 90% of that is spin, I can live with it.....

[revelarts]

works for me....balanced against everything he has done, and taking into consideration 90% of that is spin, I can live with it.....

real votes, real political support and real verbal support are spin?

I don't think so.

[fj1200]

^Many of those words aren't his, therefore spin.

He supported NAFTA... RP supports free trade... Do you want to pick and choose what's conservatism?

[revelarts]

^Many of those words aren't his, therefore spin.
...

Such as

[fj1200]

Such as

Read the characterizations, those words could be spin, taken out of context, not inclusive of the whole story, and be misconstrued based on someone else's definition of conservatism.

And I already gave an example. I'm for NAFTA/free trade; am I not conservative?

[Thunderknuckles]

You saw it as "taking command." I saw it as avoiding the question.
It was actually both and I viewed it as positive from both sides. Newt took strong command in his response and he was right not to address the question.
What I think you are missing here is the fact that the question was not about his infidelity. That question was raised years ago and rightly so. Newt owned up to it and apologized. This question was about private words exchanged between him and his wife at the time and that is off limits and no one's business but the Gingrich's. The fact that his ex-wife would even publicly reveal an alleged private exchange shows her for the bitter person that she is and Newt is right to call the entire ordeal "tawdry" and "inappropriate". South Carolinians agreed. Many in the rest of the nation seem to agree as well. Look at the latest polling since the S.C. debate. Newt gained enormous ground and it stems from that opening exchange between him and John King. We should also note that Marianne Gingrich has already dropped off of the radar. Further evidence that people don't want to hear about it.

[revelarts]

Read the characterizations, those words could be spin, taken out of context, not inclusive of the whole story, and be misconstrued based on someone else's definition of conservatism.

And I already gave an example. I'm for NAFTA/free trade; am I not conservative?

Is anybody going to read it if i go through each point and show that each is indeed Gingriche's position
and 2 that they are not conservative positions.

do i want to take the time if you and others have failed to look at the details for yourself to see if they are in fact true but have already assumed that " those words COULD BE spin" and "90%" unnamed and unexamined is Spin becuase on it faces appears that it's NOT conservative as you understand it either.
I don't think i will.
If you want to vote for him You and PMP should be honest enough to find out if the list is true don't you think.

[fj1200]

Is anybody going to read it if i go through each point and show that each is indeed Gingriche's position
and 2 that they are not conservative positions.

do i want to take the time if you and others have failed to look at the details for yourself to see if they are in fact true but have already assumed that " those words COULD BE spin" and "90%" unnamed and unexamined is Spin becuase on it faces appears that it's NOT conservative as you understand it either.
I don't think i will.
If you want to vote for him You and PMP should be honest enough to find out if the list is true don't you think.

Does that mean we need to accept your view of conservatism? I would be surprised if you've examined that 90% but the point is that you could cherry-pick any elected officials 20 years of voting and find issues that you don't agree with and could spin in a way that would prove that someone is not conservative; maybe not Ron Paul but he's a bit wack-a-doodle. Also, he may have voted for X in a particular bill that is not conservative but overall the bill may have been a conservative win which is what I mean by taking out of context or by not telling the whole story.

I could probably take your entire list and point out how the characterization could be conservative positions... so you first. ;)

[OCA]

works for me....balanced against everything he has done, and taking into consideration 90% of that is spin, I can live with it.....

You think conservatives running as conservatives but governing as moderates or liberals is spin? Hell its been going on since Reagan.

[LuvRPgrl]

(1) Why would the "Party of Moral Values" embrace a candidate with no moral values?

(2) Would would a party whose sole purpose is to defeat Obama in 2012 nominate a candidate who has zero chance to defeating Obama?
better question, why do you care?

Ill bet you are one of those who hate it when people judge you, and then you go and make such judgements yourself.

[revelarts]

^Many of those words aren't his, therefore spin.

He supported NAFTA... RP supports free trade... Do you want to pick and choose what's conservatism?


Does that mean we need to accept your view of conservatism? I would be surprised if you've examined that 90% but the point is that you could cherry-pick any elected officials 20 years of voting and find issues that you don't agree with and could spin in a way that would prove that someone is not conservative; maybe not Ron Paul but he's a bit wack-a-doodle. Also, he may have voted for X in a particular bill that is not conservative but overall the bill may have been a conservative win which is what I mean by taking out of context or by not telling the whole story.

I could probably take your entire list and point out how the characterization could be conservative positions... so you first. ;)
ok i'm 1st,

If your dismissing out of hand 90% of the points as Spin YOU and PMP think the items are NOT conservative either. so lets not even debate that.
NAFTA "north American free trade agreement." Well some might call it free market but this is one place where i get off the bus it it is. becuase i do think that tariffs and national trade controls are constitutional And if handled well, as china and other countries have, make a nation's economy stronger. Free trade sure but across boarders so that it kills good jobs and biz opputunities in the U.S.. If that's conservative I'm not conservative in that area.
people consider me pretty radical on civil liberties but I'm not a radical full on "free market" workers be danged believer. The market will work it out is what they said before the S&Ls failed.

And the other sid of NAFTA is it's kumbaya we are the world aspect. It's a planned step toward a north american union and has been called such by those that want that. And Gingrich happens to be one of those.
"... in the wake of the passage of NAFTA, globalist Republican Insider Henry Kissinger heard bragging here, there, and everywhere, that the man most responsible for giving us NAFTA was none other than Newt Gingrich."
Nafta was an anti national sovereignty stripping tool. Folks are looking forward to a north American biz rules, (Already proposed) and finally full on North American legal system.
so no I don't think its conservative in any real sense.

But Fiscal Conservative Newt OK
According to the latest Medicare trustees report (https://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2011.pdf) (p. 146), the unfunded liability of Medicare Part D is $16.1 trillion.
In 2003, Gingrich stumped hard for President George W. Bush's prescription drug bill, which has added about $17 trillion to Medicare's unfunded liabilities. "Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill," Newt urged. in the article linked below
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2423/how-newt-gingrich-added-16-trillion-national-debt
Spin?

And in his 2008 book Real Change, he endorsed an individual mandate for health insurance.
Spin?

he voted YEA to the creation of the Department of Education, which is unconstitutional and cost money, but do fiscal conservatives count that money.
Spin?

he voted YEA for 1.2 billion for UN peacekeeping

"Newt Gingrich who said Sunday he thinks all Americans should be required to buy health insurance, too. And furthermore, he’s opposed to Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal to privatize Medicare for Americans below age 55 and labeled it “radical.” At least the former House speaker is consistent. He said much the same thing back in the early 1990s when he thought Americans should be required to buy health insurance just as they must buy car insurance to drive. Back then it was actually a Republican idea.
As fast as Republicans are running away from Mr. Ryan’s reforms, we might yet see other candidates hop on the insurance mandate, the central tenant of President Obama’s health care reforms, too. As Mr. Gingrich explained, those who are uncomfortable with the insurance mandate had better come up with an alternative that’s just as effective.
Good luck with that.
--Peter Jensen
UPDATE: Looks like we spoke too soon. Newt is out with a video (http://youtu.be/i01NWHX4Ez8) repudiating (or maybe refudiating) his earlier comments on Meet the Press."
Baltimore sun
who's Spinning?



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.xpd?year=1994&person=404587


(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.xpd?year=1994&person=404587)

[Abbey Marie]

...
Socially............forget it..........we've already flushed the country, its a cesspool.

Agree 100%

[OCA]

Here is the problem: Republicans, such as this year's field, like to run and talk tough conservatism because its red meat that garners votes but once elected to office their tune suddenly changes and at best they are moderates. They know that most voters are stupid and won't check their records and will eat up some crap about being anti-abortion(hint hint........abortion is here for good) or pro gun or some other cliche, they will vote them in and then the big shift to the middle comes because it takes balls to govern conservatively.

Think Romney is a conservative? Check his record. Think Newt is a conservative especially fiscally? Check his record........etc. etc. etc.

Actually I correct myself, the field does include this year 1 guy right of Limbaugh.........Santorum, but he's fucking batshit crazy!

[fj1200]

ok i'm 1st,

If your dismissing out of hand 90% of the points as Spin YOU and PMP think the items are NOT conservative either. so lets not even debate that.

I didn't say that. I recognize the realities of being in Congress and voting for bills whether you agree with the whole thing or not.


NAFTA "north American free trade agreement." ... Free trade sure but across boarders so that it kills good jobs and biz opputunities in the U.S.. If that's conservative I'm not conservative in that area.
people consider me pretty radical on civil liberties but I'm not a radical full on "free market" workers be danged believer. The market will work it out is what they said before the S&Ls failed.

Free trade doesn't do that. It allows countries to focus on the goods where they have a competitive advantage. China has cheap labor, the American consumer should benefit from that. The US has the most efficient capital markets and (one of) the most productive labor force in the world, we should benefit from that. Innovation is born in the US, we should benefit from that. The problem of course is government regulations and tax policies that destroy those advantages but it's not free trade that causes national issues (even if there is some displacement).


And the other sid of NAFTA is it's kumbaya we are the world aspect. It's a planned step toward a north american union and has been called such by those that want that. And Gingrich happens to be one of those.

:facepalm99:


But Fiscal Conservative Newt OK
According to the latest Medicare trustees report (https://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2011.pdf) (p. 146), ...
Spin?

And in his 2008 book Real Change, he endorsed an individual mandate for health insurance.
Spin?

he voted YEA to the creation of the Department of Education, which is unconstitutional and cost money, but do fiscal conservatives count that money.
Spin?

he voted YEA for 1.2 billion for UN peacekeeping

Nobodies perfect. ;)


"Newt Gingrich who said Sunday he thinks all Americans should be required to buy health insurance, too. ...
As Mr. Gingrich explained, those who are uncomfortable with the insurance mandate had better come up with an alternative that’s just as effective.
Good luck with that.
--Peter Jensen

He's right about that.


UPDATE: Looks like we spoke too soon. Newt is out with a video (http://youtu.be/i01NWHX4Ez8) repudiating (or maybe refudiating) his earlier comments on Meet the Press."
Baltimore sun
who's Spinning?

One who expects perfection.

[krisy]

You saw it as "taking command." I saw it as avoiding the question.

I have read a couple of comments that said he avoided the question and after thinking about it,I don't think he did avoid the question.

I remember it was a broad question like "what are your feelings about your ex's interview?" or " do you wish to comment on the ex's interview?"

He said her claim was false and that they didn't happen. He also said they offered friends up to ABC and they didn't want to talk to them. This was after ass whipping John King about asking that kind of question first in a presidential debate. He then adressed personal pain.

This is how my husband and I remember it.

Here is a link with a clip of the debate on it. Although most of it is ripping into John King, he does state that the allegation his ex made was false.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/newt-gingrich-rips-john-kingcnn-for-opening-debate-with-‘open-marriage’-question/ (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/newt-gingrich-rips-john-kingcnn-for-opening-debate-with-%E2%80%98open-marriage%E2%80%99-question/)

Sorry I didn't put just the video,I don't know how to do that.

[SassyLady]

I have read a couple of comments that said he avoided the question and after thinking about it,I don't think he did avoid the question.

I remember it was a broad question like "what are your feelings about your ex's interview?" or " do you wish to comment on the ex's interview?"

He said her claim was false and that they didn't happen. He also said they offered friends up to ABC and they didn't want to talk to them. This was after ass whipping John King about asking that kind of question first in a presidential debate. He then adressed personal pain.

This is how my husband and I remember it.

In case you'd like to listen to him again.....

http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-torches-john-king-for-starting-debate-with-ex-wife-question/

[bullypulpit]

Well that's extremely ignorant.

No,it's true.

[revelarts]

I didn't say that. I recognize the realities of being in Congress and voting for bills whether you agree with the whole thing or not.
the bad bill made him dood it, over and over, you hope. cmon FJ


Free trade doesn't do that. It allows countries to focus on the goods where they have a competitive advantage. China has cheap labor, the American consumer should benefit from that. The US has the most efficient capital markets and (one of) the most productive labor force in the world, we should benefit from that. Innovation is born in the US, we should benefit from that. The problem of course is government regulations and tax policies that destroy those advantages but it's not free trade that causes national issues (even if there is some displacement).

Free trade didn't stop child labor in the U.S.. Free Trade does not solve all problems. Some few Gov't regs and oversite help from time.






:facepalm99:
do some reading FJ, the Canadian papers talk more more openly about.



Nobodies perfect. ;)



He's right about that.



One who expects perfection.

But many have already tossed any moral conservatism overboard to vote for Gingrich. And no one expects any old Constitution to bother Newt, TSA, NSA phone company , jailing and killing citizens willy nilly, that still ON. So the Fiscal bit is all that he's got left and I've pointed out just a few BIG problems with that record here and you say "he's not perfect."
:facepalm99:
And I've just gotten started. How much imperfection are we willing to bear to get someone who just "sounds" conservative in one area to run against Obama.

[gabosaurus]

Simple fact: Dems don't fear Gingrich. If Newt is nominated, the media will tear him apart. The Obama campaign won't have to raise a finger.
Want to know how the public feels? Read this:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/gingrich-fate-rises-does-obama-133152405.html

[Abbey Marie]

In case you'd like to listen to him again.....

http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-torches-john-king-for-starting-debate-with-ex-wife-question/

Thanks, Sassy. I missed the opening of the debate. Wow.

[PostmodernProphet]

real votes, real political support and real verbal support are spin?

I don't think so.

you overlooked the unreal interpretation.....



If you want to vote for him You and PMP should be honest enough to find out if the list is true don't you think.

I'm already satisfied I could vote for either Gingrich or Romney......I have to admit I have one serious concern with Paul......he has stated it was a mistake for the US to get involved in the war against Hitler.....what is he going to do if another Hitler shows up during his administration?.......


Hell its been going on since Reagan.

interesting you should bring that up.....I was fine with Reagan......


If Newt is nominated, the media will tear him apart.

you may not have noticed, but they've been trying that since the early 90s......it hasn't worked yet.....

[fj1200]

No,it's true.

False.

[revelarts]

part 3 of an interesting article on Gingrich to say the least,

http://www.themoralliberal.com/2010/01/30/gingrich-toffler-and-gore-a-peculiar-trio-steve-farrell/


. ...On November 11, 1994, still bubbling and cocksure over the Republican takeover of both houses of Congress, his coming coronation as speaker of the House, and his anointing as king of the Republican Revolution, Congressman Newt Gingrich couldn’t resist taking advantage of the moment to put in a free plug for something he so devoutly believed in.
“The core of our Contract” and the solution for those “trying to figure out how to put me in a box,” he said, could be found in a book by futurist Alvin Toffler called “The Third Way,” to which he added, “I am a conservative futurist.” (1)
Quite a confession!
Futurism, as already alluded to, is one and the same with the Third Way or Third Wave, but for brevity’s sake Webster’s Dictionary gives us another take on Mr. Gingrich’s confession:
“Futurism: Study of, and interest in, forecasting or anticipating the future, or theorizing on how to impose controls on events.” (2) (emphasis added)
Or to put it another way, futurism is a head-in-the-clouds political philosophy complete with theories and forecasts which envisions the use of force to insure that those theories and forecasts come to pass.
I’m sure my Republican friends won’t like this: but it would not be a stretch on futurism to sum it up thus: communism with economic vision. That is certainly how the futurists of the Third Way describe it. If so, what, then, is a conservative futurist? Well, if Mr. Gingrich was being honest about his agenda (which became the agenda of the Party), it is individually: a post-1994 Republican; and in policy: The Contract With America, the go-along, get-along policies of a party that for the next six years caved under Clinton. It is, also, the faith-based subsidies, public-private partnerships, fast-track hopes, and the bipartisan spirit of the 2000-2008 Compassionate Conservative movement;—the latter movement having its start in the already in place proposals, legislation, and underlying principles of the Gingrich inspired Contract With America.
As fictitious as this may have sounded to the average pre-Tea Party party partisan who presumes his party is as conservative as the talk show hosts who promote it, confirmation of it all comes in spades as we consider the sincerity and depth of Gingrich’s relationship with the same center/left of center Third Wave/Third Way that pummeled our country under Clinton and Gore.
Gingrich revealed to Congress: “For a long time, I have been friends with Alvin and Heidi Toffler, the authors of ‘Future Shock’ and ‘The Third Wave.’ (3)
“I first began working with the Tofflers in the early 1970s on a concept called anticipatory democracy. I was then a young assistant professor at West Georgia State College, and I was fascinated with the intersection of history and the future, which is the essence of politics and government at its best.
“For twenty years we [who's we?] have worked to develop a future-conscious politics and popular understanding that would make it easier for America to make the transition from the Second Wave civilization [the one our Founders gave us] – which is clearly dying – to the emerging, but in many ways undefined, Third Wave civilization [Alvin Toffler's Centrist Utopia].
<center> </center>
“The process has been more frustrating and the progress much slower than I would have guessed two decades ago. Yet despite the frustrations, the development of a Third Wave political and governmental system is so central to the future of freedom and the future of America that it must be undertaken.” (4)
So central, so critical indeed, that Mr. Gingrich put the book on a recommended reading list for members of Congress and all Americans. And mind you, he wouldn’t let go of it. In speech after speech and press conference after press conference Gingrich referred to “The Third Wave” as “the seminal work of our time.” (5)
For those who hadn’t read it or who knew nothing about the Third Way/ Third Wave (he used both names) Gingrich delivered a few extra hints of where the Third Way was taking him....

...
By 1984 Gingrich’s influence in the Third Way movement was so far to the left that it brought on kudos from the likes of New Age “philosopher” Mark Satin.

Mr. Satin is certainly no ordinary American. In his “New Age Politics” (1978), a guide to New Age political thought, he called for planetary governance, a system of world taxation (on resource use), an increased transfer of wealth from rich to poor countries (international communism), and complete military disarmament. He rounded this ode to Marxism out by stating, in no uncertain terms, his hostility for the nuclear family, traditional marriage, and heterosexual society. (10)
So what did such a one as this think of “conservative” Newt Gingrich? In the February 27, 1984, issue of “New Options,” Satin singled out Newt Gingrich as a top “decentralist/globally responsible” congressman (11) – not the kind of praise any true conservative would want on his resume. As for the odd phrase, “decentralist/globally responsible” congressmen, this is the kind of interesting paradox that fits the fishy decentralism of the Third Way, a decentralism that seeks to move power not just down to the local level [where under the Constitution most political power belongs], but oddly up to the international level (which is fully at odds with America’s War for Independence, the Founding Generations vigorous objections to permanent and entangling alliances, and so far beyond their greatest fears concerning centralized power that it is off the charts crazy!).....



do you know what the third wave is? is it conservative? it's a question. Will you find out or just assume the best. Other candidates mention guiding lights & principals as well, it's important to get some idea where they are coming from don't you think?


---------
other random comentary

http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh121.htm

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13896
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13861

[jimnyc]

Other candidates mention guiding lights & principals as well, it's important to get some idea where they are coming from don't you think?

Funny how when some say the same about Ron Paul, you claim the issue has been discussed enough (for you I assume) and you won't discuss any further. Face facts though... both Gingrich and Romney would have a better chance in the general election than Paul. Secondly, it doesn't matter, as RP is done already.

[jimnyc]

REAL news here, on the best "news" site around! Fred Thompson endorses:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OBSSwEpPxOQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And Thompson again, with Herman Cain, discussing Newt's comments and the MSM:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jO1QPN3OusM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

There, I addressed the topic at hand enough and I no longer will engage the same questions again. :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[revelarts]

Funny how when some say the same about Ron Paul, you claim the issue has been discussed enough (for you I assume) and you won't discuss any further. Face facts though... both Gingrich and Romney would have a better chance in the general election than Paul. Secondly, it doesn't matter, as RP is done already.

Point to any books that Ron Paul says everyone should read and not items he renounces and sure I'll go along with that Jim. Ron paul claims ludwig von Mises as 1 of his major influences concerning economic policies and ideas on liberty. http://mises.org/
is there a problem with that that you know of.
You got a problem with any other peoples books Ron Paul has promoted as a must read?

[LuvRPgrl]

Simple fact: Dems don't fear Gingrich. If Newt is nominated, the media will tear him apart. The Obama campaign won't have to raise a finger.
Want to know how the public feels? Read this:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/gingrich-fate-rises-does-obama-133152405.html


ahhaha, you take that stuff seriously??

You know the writer does have a phd?

AND, according to it, neither romney nor gingrich can beat obama, so why would you give a shit

any sources that, right now, puts obama as winning the election isnt worth the toilet paper I wipe my ass with.

which explains why your twisted brain puts out so much shit.

[jimnyc]

Point to any books that Ron Paul says everyone should read and not items he renounces and sure I'll go along with that Jim. Ron paul claims ludwig von Mises as 1 of his major influences concerning economic policies and ideas on liberty. http://mises.org/
is there a problem with that that you know of.
You got a problem with any other peoples books Ron Paul has promoted as a must read?

#1 - I didn't say jack shit about "books", so I don't understand your line of questioning

#2 - Ron Paul promoted his own newsletters FOR PROFIT, and I have a serious problem with the content of no less than 50 of them that he profited off of.

[LuvRPgrl]

Simple fact: Dems don't fear Gingrich. If Newt is nominated, the media will tear him apart. The Obama campaign won't have to raise a finger.
Want to know how the public feels? Read this:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/gingrich-fate-rises-does-obama-133152405.html
frankly, Im astounded how egotistical elitist liberal facists can believe their opinions are facts.

So, did you actually poll each and every dem on the topic?

and even so, only about what, 1/3 or so identify as dems,

and even alot who do are very borderline.

Its typical of loony lefties to think their opinion is fact, they know whats best for others, but in reality those hypocritical piggish power hungry incompassionate doo doo brains dont have a clue what is going on in the real world.

the proof is projects like they initiated in San Francisco where their intention was to help the homeless, and all they did was destroy the city by getting thousands of homeless to flock to SF, BECAUSE THEY REALLY DONT KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEMS OF THE HOMELESS ARE, THEY ARE CLUELESS, they just want to hand out something to the homeless and pat them on the end, "there you go dear mr homeless man, oh, now I feel so good about myself cuz I have given from my heart to these poor slobs", THEY DONT KNOW WHAT MOTIVATES A TYPICAL AMERICAN, they think they know as they sit up in their ivory towers and read books and become phd's and spew hatred, lies and vile at anyone who disagrees.

They have groups that dont have the ability to see through their crap, or dont care.

Homos are more concerned about marriage than the economy
feminists are more concerned about women getting jobs at the same rate, actually higher rate, than men, than the avg american getting a job
Blacks are more concerned about collecting welfare than finding out the libs actually look down on minorities and offer welfare because they dont even truly believe blacks can take care of themselves.

teacher unions are more concerned about maintaining their monopoly and dont care about kids getting a real education

enviormentalists could give a rats ass about anything as long as the three fingered tree frog sloth fish arent endangered.

WHO ARE THE ONES WHO REALLY DO STAND UP FOR ALL AMERICANS, OUR US MARINES, ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVY PERSONELL
AND GUESS WHO THEY OVERWHELMINGLY STAND UP FOR, AND GUESS WHO IS NOW CUTTING BACK BY A TRILLION DOLLARS ON THEIR FUNDING.

[revelarts]

#1 - I didn't say jack shit about "books", so I don't understand your line of questioning



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by revelarts http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=521220#post521220) "...Other candidates mention guiding lights (in the form of Alvin Tofler and his book which Gingrich promotes in the above quote) & principals as well, it's important to get some idea where they are coming from don't you think?"




Funny how when some say the same about Ron Paul, you claim the issue has been discussed enough (for you I assume) and you won't discuss any further. ...

I hope you understand now. do you have any problems with any ideas Ron Pauls calls foundational or have appeared in any books he says are a must read along side of the constitution as Gingrirch has said the 3rd wave should be?

no? I didn't think so.

[jimnyc]

I hope you understand now. do you have any problems with any ideas Ron Pauls calls foundational or have appeared in any books he says are a must read along side of the constitution as Gingrirch has said the 3rd wave should be?

no? I didn't think so.

I never once addressed what you are speaking of. I addressed your comment - it's important to get some idea where they are coming from don't you think?

You think it's important to get an idea where the candidates are coming from - and I think the same about Ron Paul, but you bailed on that as you didn't find it necessary to discuss further. I find that odd.

I also find it odd that Ron Paul promotes HIS OWN newsletters which he's made millions off of, and no less than 50 of them, over years, carry incendiary comments - but that's not an issue to you. You're intellectually dishonest when you want to rant and rave about one candidate and completely ignore the shortcomings of another.

[jimnyc]

What Gingrich "promotes" to what Ron Paul promotes:

Read through the whole page if you can hold your nose long enough - http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html

[revelarts]

... You're intellectually dishonest when you want to rant and rave about one candidate and completely ignore the shortcomings of another.

This from the guy that says something like "his names are on the newsletters thats all I need to know.".
there nothing else to see, completly ignoring everything and anything that's conflicts with the idea.
jim sorry your in no position to try to correct me here. But if you've got some good news on the 3rd wave or Gingrinch that makes it and him seem "conservative" I'll take a look. Will you do the same with Paul?

[jimnyc]

This from the guy that says something like "his names are on the newsletters thats all I need to know.".
there nothing else to see, completly ignoring everything and anything that's conflicts with the idea.
jim sorry your in no position to try to correct me here. But if you've got some good news on the 3rd wave or Gingrinch that makes it and him seem "conservative" I'll take a look. Will you do the same with Paul?

SHOW ME where I stated that all I need to know is that his names are on the newsletters and that's all I need to know - or are you LYING AGAIN?

[jimnyc]

And Rev, I don't see where I "corrected" you. You said something about knowing where the candidates are coming from, I pointed out that you had no interest in doing so with Ron Paul. You pointed out Gingrich promoting a book, I pointed out Ron Paul promoting his own newsletters, that he didn't know about of course, and made millions off of them, and the content, I assure you, is more incendiary than anything Gingrich is/has promoted.

[revelarts]

SHOW ME where I stated that all I need to know is that his names are on the newsletters and that's all I need to know - or are you LYING AGAIN?



Ron Paul signed his name at the bottom of newsletters that were racist in content. They were on his letterhead. He refuses to state specifically who wrote them. He refuses to acknowledge how much money he made off of these racist letters.

That's about all I need to know about the man, his racist views & his honesty.

Thats all i need to know... quote Jim NYC
I'm not lying

[jimnyc]

This from the guy that says something like "his names are on the newsletters thats all I need to know.".


Thats all i need to know... quote Jim NYC
I'm not lying


Ron Paul signed his name at the bottom of newsletters that were racist in content. They were on his letterhead. He refuses to state specifically who wrote them. He refuses to acknowledge how much money he made off of these racist letters.

Sounds to me like there are at least 4 things there that would need to be cleared up, which Ron Paul refuses to do, NOT just "his signature is on them and that's all I need to know".

So again, you mis-quote and lie simply to make your post seem better. Tsk Tsk

I find it hilarious that you would accuse me of a one liner, then post something different and claim it as proof that I only said the one thing, when what I REALLY wrote, which you quoted, is different. THANK YOU for proving my point about intellectual dishonesty! :laugh2:


This from the guy that says something like "his names are on the newsletters thats all I need to know."

What I actually wrote:


Ron Paul signed his name at the bottom of newsletters that were racist in content. They were on his letterhead. He refuses to state specifically who wrote them. He refuses to acknowledge how much money he made off of these racist letters.

That's about all I need to know about the man, his racist views & his honesty.


Can anyone, with any amount of honesty, state that my intent with the second quote was to imply that "Ron Paul signed the newsletters and that's all I need to know"? I know many of you don't want to publicly embarrass another, so you can rep me if you know damn well what I mean about "intellectual dishonesty" and the games people play with words here instead of actual debate! :coffee:

[ConHog]

What I actually wrote:



Can anyone, with any amount of honesty, state that my intent with the second quote was to imply that "Ron Paul signed the newsletters and that's all I need to know"? I know many of you don't want to publicly embarrass another, so you can rep me if you know damn well what I mean about "intellectual dishonesty" and the games people play with words here instead of actual debate! :coffee:

Really? I thought that was the idea, embarrass the other person for having their opinion. :coffee:

[jimnyc]

Really? I thought that was the idea, embarrass the other person for having their opinion. :coffee:

Well, that is fun, but I know people aren't going to want to tell Rev he is wrong, FOR AGAIN, mis-quoting people and stretching what other people ACTUALLY say/type. He likes to misquote and make the person he is "debating" appear to look foolish by quoting things that were really never said. He's done this, to me alone, AT LEAST 10 times. If I am going to quote someone, I do my best to ACTUALLY QUOTE THEIR POST IN QUESTION, rather than just making it up on the fly and in a manner that will make me look better instead of addressing the truth/facts.

[jimnyc]

Thanks for the rep!! I guess I'm not the only one who has an issue with those who are intellectually dishonest. :coffee:

[fj1200]

... and you say "he's not perfect."
:facepalm99:
And I've just gotten started. How much imperfection are we willing to bear to get someone who just "sounds" conservative in one area to run against Obama.

Since it's a bit difficult to respond by the way you posted I'll start here. Who said he was perfect? He's not, he's got issues. Romney isn't, he's got issues. Same Santorum, same triply so with RP so who are we left with? I believe Newt to be the most intelligent man running for president, either party, and has read and investigated more new ideas than you and me put together have ever read. Good ideas can come from anywhere and from many different perspectives. Did he read and admire The Third Wave? Apparently. Do I think he will seek to institute policy based on that book? No. The bottom line is that I don't expect miracles from the POTUS. Do I think he will be able to dramatically alter the shape of the country just because he's elected? No way and especially not in the manner that you seem to expect from RP. Jim is right about you and RP, your expectations for perfection from Newt/Mitt are not held in the same level that you hold for RP. I don't expect miracles from whomever is POTUS I hope a Republican Congress will hold the line like they did in the 90's and like they didn't do in the '00's. We won't get back to constitutional ideas without Congress.

And free trade? It's good and derives from man's right to liberty. You apparently are for liberty except when you think government needs to step in and do some regulating. You're as much rev wave as Gingrich is Third Wave. It's disingenuous to criticize Newt for thinking about new ideas when you want to institute your own ideas.

[revelarts]

ok i'm 1st,

If your dismissing out of hand 90% of the points as Spin YOU and PMP think the items are NOT conservative either. so lets not even debate that.

....
But Fiscal Conservative Newt OK
According to the latest Medicare trustees report (https://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2011.pdf) (p. 146), the unfunded liability of Medicare Part D is $16.1 trillion.
In 2003, Gingrich stumped hard for President George W. Bush's prescription drug bill, which has added about $17 trillion to Medicare's unfunded liabilities. "Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill," Newt urged. in the article linked below
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2423/how-newt-gingrich-added-16-trillion-national-debt
....

And in his 2008 book Real Change, he endorsed an individual mandate for health insurance.
....

he voted YEA to the creation of the Department of Education, which is unconstitutional and cost money, but do fiscal conservatives count that money.
....

he voted YEA for 1.2 billion for UN peacekeeping
....
"Newt Gingrich who said Sunday he thinks all Americans should be required to buy health insurance, too. And furthermore, he’s opposed to Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal to privatize Medicare for Americans below age 55 and labeled it “radical.” .....
UPDATE: Looks like we spoke too soon. Newt is out with a video (http://youtu.be/i01NWHX4Ez8) repudiating (or maybe refudiating) his earlier comments on Meet the Press."
Baltimore sun

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.xpd?year=1994&person=404587

(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.xpd?year=1994&person=404587)

To all of the above the part of your response was , "no ones perfect". to the prior post with even more non conservative items listed I was told it was probably spin and that PMP ASSUMED he had to vote for those and you, i believe, said that over 20 years your going find some bad votes. And Finally he's good enough. Now comes an attack on my support of Ron PAul. do i bring up Gingrinch, or Romney when I'm attacked from all sides about Ron Paul supposed faults? I'm just asking for real answers as to why he's assumed to be conservative in the face of a large part of his voting record, the policies which it appears he supports and even campaigning against candidates that are known to be more conservative than rivals on R tickets around the country. ( i'd post a Glen Beck Video talking about 1 case of such NY, but trust me ). And promoting a book that's globalist and socialist in nature.

these are legitimate beefs, about Newt, not off the wall tabloid concerns, it seems to me if you really support him you could give me some reasons why i should not be concerned about what I can see in this part of his record.

I was happy when he 1st went into office in the 90s and had great hopes for the the contract with america but they followed though on little and it wasn't all Clintons fault. they had enough to override if they need too if i remember right but they didn't even try on a lot of issues.

I was dissillusioned with him then and i see no reason why i should believe his talk this time around. If you have good reasons why i should trust him AGAIN please tell me.

At this point neither you or PMP are making a case FOR Newt or honestly factually mollifying any of my points. your just blowing smoke.



Since it's a bit difficult to respond by the way you posted

"But many have already tossed any moral conservatism overboard to vote for Gingrich.
Its true right? not spin just a fact. he's not pro life and not pro traditional family. And no one expects any old Constitution to bother Newt, TSA, NSA phone company , jailing and killing citizens willy nilly, that still ON.This is true as well right? He likes the new powers. not spin. So the Fiscal bit is all that he's got left and I've pointed out just a few BIG problems with that record here and you say "he's not perfect."True again.


I'll start here. Who said he was perfect?
You said he's not perfect, don't you start, sheesh.
He's not, he's got issues. Romney isn't, he's got issues. Same Santorum, same triply so with RP
triple right. Name the issues I'll respond directly.
so who are we left with? I believe Newt to be the most intelligent man running for president, either party,
That may be true, but an intelligent guy whose a globalist and not really conservative is not what the republican party much less the country needs is it?
and has read and investigated more new ideas than you and me put together have ever read. Good ideas can come from anywhere and from many different perspectives.
Agreed
Did he read and admire The Third Wave? Apparently.
Not just read but asked that every member of the party read it, thinks it a guiding light into the future.
Do I think he will seek to institute policy based on that book? No.
Based on what?
The bottom line is that I don't expect miracles from the POTUS.
I dont either
Do I think he will be able to dramatically alter the shape of the country just because he's elected? No way...
I don't need that level of action to be for a candidate either, I'd just like to have some real confidences that he's honestly moving in a conservative way on most issues.
....and especially not in the manner that you seem to expect from RP.
Here we go with the Ron Paul hit, I'm not sure what i seems to expect, everyone else seems to assume a whole lot.

Jim is right about you and RP,
JIM!?! JIMNYC!?! Your killing me FJ, noooo buddy.

...your expectations for perfection from Newt/Mitt are not held in the same level that you hold for RP.
I've pointed out real issues with Newt, That if Spin should be easily refuted this is what the primaries are about I thought testing the candidates. How's that looking for perfection? what did say about Romney?
I don't expect miracles from whomever is POTUS I hope a Republican Congress will hold the line like they did in the 90's and like they didn't do in the '00's. We won't get back to constitutional ideas without Congress.
They barely held a line in the 90's, but the congress needs to be on board with the constitutional changes it'd be nice if the prez could push a bit.

And free trade? It's good and derives from man's right to liberty.
Agreed
You apparently are for liberty except when you think government needs to step in and do some regulating.
Yep, when there's fraud or monopoly
You're as much rev wave as Gingrich is Third Wave.
I'd be happy to compare my ideas with the 3rd wave and see which ones are more socialist and globalist.
It's disingenuous to criticize Newt for thinking about new ideas when you want to institute your own ideas.
how is it disingenuous? I don't have a problem with NEW ideas, it's the content of the ideas. We all have a right to criticize the content of any ideas it seems to me.

[gabosaurus]

A vote for Newt is a vote for Obama. Simple as that.

[jimnyc]

Jim is right about you and RP,
JIM!?! JIMNYC!?! Your killing me FJ, noooo buddy.

I had to copy/paste this into a new post as no one can quote you properly when you post in the manner you do. If you put something within the quote of the person you quoted, it will not show up when the next person quotes you. Not to mention, it's extremely hard to decipher what you are responding to and what is FJ's words, since the words appear in HIS quote, after all.

Anyway, just wanted to answer to the portion I copied. And I only wanted to say - HAHA! :coffee:

[LuvRPgrl]

Newt to be the most intelligent man running for president, either party, and has read and investigated more new ideas than you and me put together have ever read. Good ideas can come from anywhere and from many different perspectives. Did he read and admire The Third Wave? Apparently. Do I think he will seek to institute policy based on that book? I don't expect miracles from whomever is POTUS I hope a Republican Congress will hold the line like they did in the 90's and like they didn't do in the '00's. We won't get back to constitutional ideas without Congress.

And free trade? It's good and derives from man's right to liberty. You apparently are for liberty except when you think government needs to step in and do some regulating. You're as much rev wave as Gingrich is Third Wave. It's disingenuous to criticize Newt for thinking about new ideas when you want to institute your own ideas.

I got a new idea, how bout we use some of our old ideas that were working before, and we gave abandoned in the name of "new ideas"?

[Gunny]

(1) Why would the "Party of Moral Values" embrace a candidate with no moral values?

(2) Would would a party whose sole purpose is to defeat Obama in 2012 nominate a candidate who has zero chance to defeating Obama?

You want to spread your leftist poison elsewhere? I'm voting for ANYONE on the R ticket. Period. It isn;t about voting "for". It's about voting "against". Obama, and anyone that thinks like his communist ass is destroying this country, and mocking the Costitution as they do it. The inherent evil to the Constitution is it allows people like you to vote.

[gabosaurus]

You want to spread your leftist poison elsewhere? I'm voting for ANYONE on the R ticket. Period. It isn;t about voting "for". It's about voting "against". Obama, and anyone that thinks like his communist ass is destroying this country, and mocking the Costitution as they do it. The inherent evil to the Constitution is it allows people like you to vote.

http://www.angryblacklady.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/republican-lies.jpg

[gabosaurus]

I'm voting for ANYONE on the R ticket.

http://recruitmentdad.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/sheep.jpg

[ConHog]

http://recruitmentdad.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/sheep.jpg

You trying to turn Gunny on?


:laugh2::dance::coffee:

[fj1200]

I got a new idea, how bout we use some of our old ideas that were working before, and we gave abandoned in the name of "new ideas"?

Excellent idea, not to many people remember the 20's though.