« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Hilarity of Newt’s Candidacy.

By: constitutional (Diary)  |  November 27th, 2011 at 10:24 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • barleycorn

    Just a bunch of the same worn out talking points.

    Newt is who he is, we know all about his warts and don’t care enough about them for that to change our position.

    Newt is a conservative and he can beat Obama and those are the two baseline requirements I have.

    We need to elect a conservative president not find someone for you to take home to mother.

    • constitutional

      So, the individual mandate is a talking point?

      I guess it’s one for you too, when you rail against ObamaCare.

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        Using your logic, we have to consider him once a Democrat, always a Democrat. Using your logic, we have no worth candidates and might as well just give up now.

        • constitutional

          Of course, southerners were all Democrats. The Democratic party was a different party, at least for a time in Texas. If you read into it, you’d know he was a conservative Democrat.

          But, no Newt supporter seems ready to admit that supporting a man who supported an individual mandate is hypocrisy unless you support both RomneyCare and ObamaCare.

    • donald_24

      Before you assume that Gingrich can beat Obama, you might want to check out the polling. Obama is polling ahead of Newt in KANSAS.

  • williamjameson

    and focus on Newt and Perry. All the rants I’ve read above lead me to conclude the writer hasn’t provided 10 reasons why we should pay attention to the small stuff.

    Fiscal is what’s important, not the social conservative issues that take the back seat and that are less important and always shall be. Social conservatives/liberals are screwing up the GOP and Dems because none of them have a clue about budgeting, cutting costs nor do they comprehend the magnitude of the unimportant social ramblings that divide them from providing substantive solutions to complex problems.

    Newt or Perry over Romney because Romney has a lousy fiscal track record. Perry has been ridiculed by idiot media and the “socials” who can’t seem to comprehend what is really important “fiscal”. Don’t let the media nor the “socials” affect your thinking when it comes to solving complex problems.

    • constitutional

      It’s clear to me you seem fine with insulting the people of this site: I don’t. I’ve provided legitimate, fiscal reasons not to elect Newt: TARP and the Individual Mandate.

      If those two things aren’t fiscal issues, there probably is little place for you to be complaining about people being ill-informed about fiscal issues.

  • Common_Cents

    Obviously people are looking at Gingrich’s current plan, debate performances, and confidence that he can win and get things done.

    Many are not looking at past baggage as basis of making their decision for the future.

  • David123

    Did you mean it as snarc or sarcasm?

  • constitutional

    there is a bone in my body that believe that sentence wasn’t sarcasm..

  • David123

    for clarifying

  • nathanalbright

    ….and that’s why I think we’ll have yet another trip down the polls for Mr. Gingrich. Debating skills are nice, but it is essential to have integrity.

  • lucasblack

    I don’t want to marry Gingrich and I’ve been around enough politicians to know that a high percentage of them screw around on their wives. I”m more interested in how they do in office and I’m quite happy with Speaker Gingrich’s record in that regard.

  • andystone

    Here’s just the most egregious stuff:

    “while he was cheating on his wife, was trying to impeach Bill Clinton for the very same time”
    Clinton was impeached because of perjury, not adultery, and Newt was not even the principal mover in the process.

    “Newt endorsed the individual mandate just twenty years ago, and still hasn

  • constitutional

    His ethics violations? Or how about the false balanced budget? (there’s tons of articles on both the latter and the former)

    Also, sure some of that might be nice, but surely you cannot disregard his support of TARP and the individual mandate.

    P.S. The latter was during his time in office…..So, therefore…….

  • constitutional

    When a troll comes out to play. I am not rude to you, you won’t be rude to me.

    1) Doesn’t matter. It’s the overall fact that he was denouncing “cheating in office” as well as the perjury.

    2) “and still hasn

  • constitutional

    “If your Barack Obama, twenty years ago, was connected to Bill Ayers would you count that against him

  • Scope

    Newt’s supporters are quick to point out that Gingrich didn’t go after Clinton because of the cheating aspect of Clinton’s behavior, but rather because he perjured himself. When Newt was charged with 84 ethics violations, most were dropped, but the one that stuck, teaching a politically motivated college course while in the House, included perjury charges. Newt lied to the investigating committee, and that perjury was probably more serious than the charge itself, and added to the $300,000 penalty. Don’t they say that the cover-up is usually worse than the crime? I’m sure that his lying, while holding the position as Speaker of the House, was surely a part of why there was a near mutiny against him from those in his own party.

    Another serious charge against Newt, while in the House, was his loud voice against those in Congress who were not paying off their Congressional loans, while he had 22 “kited” checks to pay off his loans, one to the IRS. It appears that Newt likes to point the finger at others for wrongdoing, while participating in the same bad behavior himself. Newt is a “do as I say, not as I do” type of personality. Another example of that was his railing against those that helped Freddie Mac crash, such as Frank and Dodd, while taking $1.6 million in contract payments from the same organization. In one of his books, he promotes increased home ownership for low income borrowers, which was exactly what the Democrats were promoting, and exactly what led to the housing crash in 08. We all know that that was the impetus for TARP, which Newt also supported.

  • andystone

    is that the facts are irrelevant and I’m a troll. Yes, Newt has many problems, but that doesn’t give you license to invent new ones. For an example of an informed criticism, see Scope’s post above.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I think he’s the most conservative with experience and success that can win. That’s all I want. I want the most conservative candidate that can win. Right now, I believe that’s Newt. That can change, and if it does, I’ll change my support. But for now, that’s where I’m at. I still consider myself an undecided voter, but leaning towards Newt.

  • andystone

    we can never get a candidate with any significant experience, since getting things done inevitably also contains mistakes, unintended consequences etc. You have to look at the big picture. If Reagan himself were running in the current atmosphere, he would simply be blasted out of existence with the 1986 amnesty, Iran-Contra etc. etc. etc. And yet he’s been the best president within living memory, and fondly remembered. I don’t think someone like Bachmann, who always says the “pure” things but whose greatest national accomplishment is a law to save the incandescent lightbulb, is preferable to that.

  • constitutional

    Same argument for Mitt.

    It’s not that hard to realize that we can either have four years of a liberal, and try again at a real conservative or we can elect a liberal Republican and face another liberal after that. These people aren’t going to fix the debt–they’re going to increase it.

    It’s as if our principles are eliminated all in the prospect of winning. Were Ron Paul considered the most electable, would you support him and his ridiculous policies?

  • reggie182

    Republicans have become sick to death of nominating candidates who stumble, bumble, and fumble in a debate and in front of the press. Nevermind that it puts a candidate at a disadvantage in a campaign, having good communication and argumentative skills are essential to a successful Presidency should the nominee be elected. It’s also become important to the conservative brand itself that we select leaders who are poised and have a deep understanding of the issues.

  • constitutional

    Because your facts are ignoring the point. First, you ignore the fact that they were both cheating and that shows what kind of man he is. Secondly, you quoted part of my sentence.. not the entire thing. Lastly, I conceded that him being paid by that company was not my main priority in the race.

    Yes, this is informed criticism.. (It might be hard to take your advice on informed criticism when you’re quoting part of my sentence and criticizing it. .)

  • David123

    Technically you are correct that Clinton was impeached for perjury not adultery; however, had Clinton not committed adultery he wouldn’t have committed perjury either. Adultery was Clinton’s underlying offense. So Gingrich and Clinton shared the same underlying fault. And Gingrich appeared to be attacking Clinton for something that Gingrich himself was doing, so Gingrich gets painted as a hypocrite. Gingrich played an important role in the impeachment of Bill Clinton although he was not one of the House prosecutors.

    The MSM loves to run stories on corrupt Republicans. With Gingrich they don’t even have to do any research; the facts are already out there. There is enough truth to the overall charges against Gingrich that they will stick. The MSM has a big microphone.

    Now, I agree that Gingrich’s faults are not as serious as drowning a girl, running a prostitution ring out of your apartment, molesting a Congressional page, or attending a curse-America church for 20 years. However, Gingrich is a Republican, so he doesn’t get a pass on his faults.

    We have three solidly conservative alternatives to Gingrich – Bachman, Perry, and Santorum. They have all lived good moral personal lives. Mitt Romney also has lived a good moral personal life, and he is a conservative by Massachusetts standards.

    Why take a risk on Gingrich when we have three or four good alternatives who are more moral and more electable?

  • wbf

    If Newt Gingrinch is the Tea Party favorite then I want no part of the Tea Party movement. Who is it that is causing his polling numbers to go up? The Tea Party…the party that wants SMALLER government.???

    America will not get smaller government under a president Gingrinch.

    Here is a good article about him: : http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/jack-kerwick/9811-an-honest-look-at-newt-gingrich

    I know the New American website supports Ron Paul nevertheless this article is truthful. While I disagree with Ron Paul on issues he does want a smaller, less intrusive government and he is right about the Fed.

    Newt Gingrinch has the added problem of an inflated ego. He would be insufferable as president. Some republicans like the way he addresses the press and opponents but just wait until he turns with condescension towards them as he most certainly will.

  • reggie182

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/195585-poll-gingrich-opens-up-nine-point-lead-after-union-leader-endorsement

    Apparently Newt is going to be the “non-Romney” everybody is talking about.

    In any case, it’s not going to do anyone who is anti-Obama any favors by constantly trashing either one of them.

    To be blunt, the chances you are going to get Rick Perry at this point are slim and none, and Slim just left town.

  • lucasblack

    Feel it!

  • constitutional

    You’re saying you’re going to ignore the facts and support a guy that supports two huge liberal policies that Barack Obama supports?

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Newt is more conservative than Mitt in any case.

    Newt balanced 4 out of 4 federal budgets.
    Newt was at the helm of the House during budget surpluses.

    It appears to me that Newt’s past experience shows there’s a good chance he’ll fix it. Hit proposed policies show it to me also (more so than Perry).

    As for your statement about Ron Paul, you’ll notice I didn’t choose most electable, but rather most conservative that can win. My principles don’t mean anything if I lose. Besides, I don’t see myself compromising my principles by voting for Newt Gingrich. Perhaps you do, but maybe that’s because we see the role of religion and government differently.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Yes, Newt supported an individual mandate back in the day. Newt clearly doesn’t support Obamacare and is in fact running against it. So are you confused, or are you just going to continue to lie about him?

  • reggie182

    I am saying just what I said. Please reread it. I’ll put it in briefer terms.

    The majority of the Republican electorate has wisely resolved themselves against nominating a candidate who is inarticulate and appears out of his/her depth. This party hasn’t nominated a good speaker since Reagan.

    As for the two policies you mention, Newt no longer supports any type of individual mandate, and certainly not Obamacare. His position on global warming is a relatively conservative one as well. Look for his debate with John Kerry online about the subject.

  • constitutional

    I’m not going to sit here and argue for you tit for tat. The fact of the matter is that supporting it at anytime is not conservative. It’s sort of like George H.W. Bush supporting tax increases when he was president, and now we say that he no longer supports what he did support, so we shouldn’t hold it against him. I don’t care if he stopped supporting it a year after, two years after or twelve years after. He supported it.

    Why is it that I can’t seem to get an answer to my question of why you would support a candidate that supported the individual mandate before it was ObamaCare? The individual mandate is a mandate that is wrong and unconstitutional–yet he supported it. He supported the damn thing when you and I both know it is not conservative, but extremely socialist. So why then, should I support a candidate who at least at one time supported a socialist policy without completely redesigning his beliefs? He supported this policy being “one of the smarted people in the room” and supported TARP “being one of the smarted people in the room.”

    I would appreciate that you consider supporting socialism at one point, most certainly should be considered all the way around. It’s different from him being ill-informed or anything of the sorts, because he was informed.

  • constitutional

    If Barack Obama, tomorrow, did not change anything about his political positions and merely said “okay, I don’t support the individual mandate” would we no longer hold that against him?

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    At 7% he can’t beat Newt or Mitt. He’s not improving, week after week. The only reason I don’t completely discount him yet is he still has a lot of money.

    The way I see it it’s coming down to Newt or Mitt. I think Newt is much better, and I think he can beat Obama. I don’t think Mitt will, and I’m not convinced Perry can either.

    I want to beat Obama.. I think Newt has the best chance to do that, and he’s more conservative than Obama. I want the most conservative President possible. That’s why I think at this point Newt is the right choice.

    So, what that means is, you can throw out all the arguments against Newt that you want. You can show me where he was once this or once that. You can show me over and over how someone else is better. To me it’s not going to matter, because I don’t think they can win anyway, so who cares if they’re better.

    I think a lot of people agree with me right now, and that’s why so many are supporting Newt.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    …well, you can’t.

  • Common_Cents

    I’d say his Newtmentum will now impact Romney and become more permanent support w/ time getting short. Many people are resolving issues and seeing Gingrich as the best option to beat Obama.

    His alinskying of Obama by challenging him to debates and letting him have a teleprompter is HUGE. People want to see obama beat badly and take a good beat down in the debates. they want to see that forked tongue snake oil salesman exposed for the teleprompter fraud he is. Period.

    Gingrich’s single best draw right now? If he keeps alinskying obama and ridiculing him in public about debates. Voters NEED that confidence in a candidate and they are willing to overlook much old baggage.

    The candi-bots here at RS are taking their eyes off the ultimate goal of beating obama, instead bashing others that aren’t seeing the light about their candidate. The rest of the voters are looking at who can best beat Obama.

  • federalfarmer1

    Or a perrybot or romney, and should not be take seriously on anything. Go back to kos.

    And why don’t you explain how newts balanced budgets, worked out with a democratic president, are less authentication Perrys, which seemed to lead to bigger and bigger deficits. Oh, and Perry was in TEXAS where it should be a lot easier to balance the budget.

  • federalfarmer1

    The socialistic single payer schemes floated by dems. Same with pawlenty and other repubs. But stupid populist trolls looking to impose impossible purity tests can’t be bothered with things like context.

  • nathanalbright

    ….as the last time I checked you did not have moderation privileges. Newt’s ethics violation, which led a $300,000 fine that he had to pay with borrowed money from Bob Dole is entirely relevant to Newt’s ethics and character and fitness as a potential President. Just because you don’t like what it says does not mean you have the right to insult others for bringing up such truths.

  • jackbenimble

    There was a day when that was practically a mantra for conservatives.

    Newt has plenty of character but it is mainly the kind that we used to strongly disapprove of but apparently that is now no the case for large numbers of us.