My Confession

wonkish1

This: “At what point does winning so badly mean willing to risk one?s principles or one?s soul?”

Human beings are flawed creatures. You are voting for imperfect people. If you wanted to be a purest you could say the same thing about any candidate for president.

Voting for option because you think its the best available is not risking your principal’s or soul. You are talking about voting here not being the person. If that quoted statement was even remotely true than you technically couldn’t bring yourself to support a person at any point through the process. And that would mean the general as well.

Again voting for a person doesn’t mean you assume the sins of the people your voting for. To do so would be an argument that you should never vote at all.

sunshinek67

I don’t follow. You vote for the guy that best aligns with your own ideals and philosophies, both professional and personal. If you didn’t have internal criteria in choosing a candidate, then Christians, say, would have no problem electing an atheist to be President. It’s not just a vote, you are electing a candidate that you can trust to govern the way you think that they should. Someone posted somewhere, “trust Gingrich? So did his first 2 wives”. Additionally, his progressive Republican stances, such as his willingness to interject big Government as solutions to solve problems at times gives conservatives pause. His career as an unregistered lobbyist banking hundreds of thousands of dollars is not helpful to make the case that he will be an agent for change. He is not an agent for change. The list is long for why he shouldn’t be conservatives first choice. If I end up having to vote for him, I can be sure that it will be business as usual.

I find myself not only looking at Huntsman as a 2nd choice, but for some reason Bachmann is starting to resonate with me. Well, the silver lining to all of this Newt mania, hopefully a passing fad equal to Hannah Montana, is that he could stop Mitt Romney from the nomination. And remember, that was our ultimate goal at RedState.

http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

Let’s be honest. If I were Calista, I’d be checking the cell phone records and the Tiffany’s bills. But maybe she’s not. Maybe she’s seen such a radical change in Newt since he was the lying, cheating scumbag she was sleeping with while he was still married to W2 that she completely trusts him.

But we don’t have the benefit of living with him 24-7. So we must look at what he does in his public life, which, as it turns out, is bipolar and inconsistent on a number of important conservative issues.

I don’t think this is anything to feel guilty about. When you’ve screwed up as badly as Newt has, there are consequences. As Christians, of course we forgive him. But it takes more than, “I’m sorry, baby, I’ve changed, you have to take me back,’ to rebuild the public trust. You have to earn that and I’m not sure that’s even possible when we don’t know him personally. Again, consequences.

davesinsanantonio

The question we should not be asking is which person would make the best candidate, but rather which person would make the best president.

When all is said and done, which person would you rather have in the White House? The person who would run the best campaign or the person who would serve the needs of the country? Remember, Obummer was a great campaigner!

Merely getting someone into the White House is not enough. We have to have a president who will put the needs of the country above himself, and even above the party. We need someone who will push for good, needed legislation–including repeal of Obummercare, not just “fixing” it. We can then later pass needed health care legislation. We also need a president with the courage to veto (possibly popular) bad legislation. We also need a president who will face our friends and our enemies overseas and say the things that need to be said, and do the things that need to be done, in America’s best interests, not just his own personal prejudices. We need a president who understands how the free market works and remove all regulations that interferes with that. We need someone who will tell us the truth, not just the politically correct, or politically expedient, thing.

We need a president who is strong enough to admit when he is wrong and not just pretend he has never made a mistake, or to admit that his policies aren’t working and find a better solution. We need a president who will appoint officers and judges who love this country, respect and support the Constitution, and will do things to protect individual rights and freedoms, not just build government power.

We need to support the candidate who will make the best president, not just win the election. Winning the election with someone who will not govern as the country needs is, in the end, destructive of what we claim to be fighting for.

wonkish1

Is that you do the best you can with what you got.

Not that you should take on the sins of those you end up vote for. Just because you vote, do business with, befriend, etc. for/with a person that has committed sins in the past whether personally, professionally, or politically doesn’t mean you condone that behavior merely because you engaging in that relationship(of which voting for is a rather minor relationship).

redpenny

fornication and loyality to the constitution are two wildly different ducks.No doubt “The Newt” has thought with the wrong head in the past but so what?I do,indeed, believe in a supreme being but I also believe we should leave our religion at home when we go to vote.Worship who, what or where you wish—I don’t have to hear about it.I can live with Newt or Romney but you know what; Bachmann is the true conservative left standing but the elite Repubs,the Rinos and the media won’t allow her a shot!!!!

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

Dear Reader:

I have been contending with him regarding his defense of The Newt regarding the Individual Mandate ,,, which was full-throated, yesterday, as revealed in this hyperlink…
http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/06/glenns-revealing-interview-with-newt-gingrich-story-and-video/
…and which was coupled with numerous other problematic defenses of quote-clips.

The bottom-line remains, notwithstanding resistance to Perry among “pragmatists,” that Rick is now back to double-digits…while The Newt slays Mitt. On O’Reilly, the metaphor of 2004 [when kerry won after gephart and dean went after each other in Iowa] was cited as predictive…and Paul would not be perceived as the beneficiary [long-term] of what could emerge from the ashes.

If Newt is having a resurgence, why not Perry?

sunshinek67

Not judging Newt’s heart, don’t know him. One of the problems I am having is coming to terms with a Newt Gingrich Presidency, life filled with one scandal after another and then he is rewarded with the highest office in the land. Folks make jokes about college transcripts from Bush & now Perry, yeah, frat boys do not make a wise scholar in late teens-early 20′s. Newt’s transgressions, though, didn’t happen as a raucous young adult. His are more current, not enough time has lapsed as you said to show true change.

I try to keep the personal side out of this equation, hard not to though I’ll admit. Character matters to me. It is his professional life choices that are troublesome to me, problematic to the degree that I don’t see any real change from status quo, just a guy with an R next to his name in the White House. So no, I am not buying into that “any of the GOP candidates are better” mantra. Some of Newt’s ideas are what is wrong with America today.

I see myself having to explain this to my very impressionable teens, ‘again boys, majority of Americans voted for a guy amid controversies and scandal’. That sends out a message to our youth huh?

romansdaughter

Neither of the two top candidates are thrilling to me and I am having the same problem with Newt— he’s a cheat and I think he looks out for himself before all else. It doesn’t look like he has changed that much in that regard…he still thinks a lot of himself. So I can only pray that Rick Perry or another more conservative will win. Except Ron Paul…I won’t go there.

wonkish1

Dr. Bob Rule. Note to Mods This guy has been trolling me for a week(when I did everything to try to let things go myself) so if you want to give a trolling warning to him here I?m quite happy with stopping these postings.

This Is How Dr. Bob Lies To Try To Win A Debate.
Preface: Dr. Bob’s goal is to paint his opponent as a liberal and if he can’t succeed in that he believes that RedStaters are very stupid people who will fall for an untruthful trick. This is how it goes:

1) Ask a question repeatedly like the person he’s talking to is trying to avoid the answer.
Dr. Bob: “Do You Support The Individual Mandate?”

Me: ?In regard to Newt?s support of the Heritage individual mandate back in the 90s I just simply disagree with his statement of support back then.?

Me: ?But to answer your question I didn?t and don?t agree with the Heritage?s proposal in the 90s. I don?t think Newt should have agreed with it.?

Me: ?I have said over and over and over again I don?t agree with the Individual Mandate. I support the end of uninsured treatment to handle charity care. They are completely different positions.?

Me: “I do not agree with an individual mandate. I instead believe in ending the mandate for hospitals to provide healthcare to the insured(only after a few other changes took place). So No, No, No, NO I?m not for the individual mandate.?

He keeps on asking and I keep on answering No!

2) After his argument goes nowhere(and fast) just out of the blue he makes up a “conclusion”(read lie) that states the opposite answer his opponent gave to these repeated questions.
Dr. Bob: “I conclude you support imposition of an Individual Mandate”

3) When the other person points out that he came up with that lie out of the blue he defends himself by accusing the other person of “attacking” him.

4) Since that isn’t working anymore repeat step 1 more times to repeat the cycle of making his opponent looking like a liberal when he or she isn’t.
Dr. Bob: “Do You Support The Individual Mandate?”

ITS AMAZING DR. BOB THINKS THAT REDSTATERS WILL FALL FOR THIS WHICH MEANS HE THINKS *YOU* ARE STUPID!

sunshinek67

-no-text-

wonkish1

Just pointing out that once you go down the road that the quote entailed the only logical solution that you will eventually come to is that you can’t engage in any relationship with anybody that has done behavior you don’t condone.

Again as I said before your principals and soul should have you do the best you can with what you’ve got. Nothing more, nothing less.

nathanalbright

…with Newt and Mittens both there looks like political unfaithfulness. I’d have to say at this point that I plan on happily voting for Perry. If (and I don’t see this happening) Huntsman were to become the nominee, I would also happily vote for him. I could even see myself voting for either Santorum or Bachmann, even though I don’t think either will last beyond Iowa or New Hampshire. But I have a hard time really pulling the lever for either Newt or Romney at this point, given what I know about both of them and their positions. I just don’t think either is a strong enough person on principal.

colleenb

You were behind Rick Perry. Rick Perry still is the best man and I will stick with him and hope he makes it.
You have abandoned him…maybe a bit to soon.
If he should not make it..because many have done what you have done (and I like you) and have decided to sell you souls to one of the biggest Washington insiders ever and not a good one..NEWT.
There is so much more to come out about him..I only hope it is before the nomination if people do get fooled by him!
I get it..we must win.
I have to believe that you can see that Romney is a much better human being and he is just as smart as Newt, if not smarter. Flip flops..Newt has always been a flip flopper and would sell his mother for 50 cents and you know it.
I don’t care what religion he has switched to, in fact, most Catholics are liberals. Not all..MOST. The stats are out there. To me as well, his preference does not matter…all are good.
The left is going to CREAM Newt. There is so much more left to come. Romney…they are very limited.
Please continue to be who you are..stick with Perry till Perry backs down. He is the best the choice. Blowing with the wind is never a good idea, especially when it is a foul wind such as Newt.
Britt Hume is right, in fact he pretty much hits it right all the time. Newt has a lot of problems and he is the one the left wants nominated. Don’t fall for what Pelosi said the other day, that was a ploy. She knows how we feel about her and she KNOWS we would go towards Newt even more because of the comment. Trust me..they want Newt to win the nomination.
Take another look into that mirror……

romansdaughter

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with character. When you go around cheating on your wife or husband and make a habit of it…that shows a lack of character and good judgment. He is smart man but not a wise man. Just looking at his past shows that he basically looks out for himself first. Not my idea of someone that I can respect.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

Yes, it is true that “ou do the best you can with what you got” [a quote akin to Rumsfeld's "you fight a war with the troops you have"].

Yes, it is true that it “doesn?t mean you condone that [venal] behavior merely because you engaging in that relationship.”

But this doesn’t justify the rationalization that ” voting for [a flawed individual] is a rather minor relationship” [that is de-facto created in the process].

*

The THEME of EE’s “confession” is that personal betrayal presages political betrayal…and he’s even prepared to dig-deep into Huntsman to dramatize this observation.]

There is no other way that a “relationship” is formed between the citizen and a political candidate than when the former votes for the latter.

THEREFORE, there is NO PROBLEM with ANYTHING that EE has summarized.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

This exemplifies the covert effects of trying to undermine the thrust of EE’s argument, here, by creating a paper-tiger “ideal” and then promptly puncturing it.

OF COURSE, “Human beings are flawed creatures.”

But this does not provide license to ignore essential-truths…such as the profound problems with The Newt that have been documented to be of RECENT vintage.

burnindaylight

Newt like all of us, is human.We are all plagued by a sinful nature and the Bible tells us all sin is the same in the eyes of God. Newt is not for us to judge, except as a candidate. And it is not our job to punish him for his sins by not voting for him. Newt admits making mistakes in his past. He has been contrite and has sought God’s forgiveness and has corrected his paths. That is all any of us can do!

The Bible is full of stories of horrible characters (start with David and Paul) that God used in mighty ways – after they repented. The sincere repentance is the key. Newt has done this. If God has forgiven him, why wouldn’t we? This election could hinge on the willingness of Christians to forgive as we have been forgiven.

Faith and values are very important to me. When I look at Newt I see a man who has found peace with himself, through God. I have no qualms about his character in the past, because all that is in the past. I see a competent and accomplished leader whose God given talents make him the best equipped to lead our country out of this wilderness. And I won’t reject that because he is human!

As to the individual mandate, Newt did not say he now supports it. He explained how he,The Heritage Foundation and other conservatives explored it as a way to combat Hillarycare in the 90′s, but they ultimately found that it wouldn’t work and abandonded it – in the 90′s!

As to upholding the Constitution. I’d venture to say there are no other founding documents tempting Newt to stray…

romansdaughter

By the way Redpenny that wasn’t fornication that was adultery according to my beliefs. And you should read a post on Rs about Bachmann…she tends to be a bit of a hypocrite.

wonkish1

Business relationships, friendship, dating, fiancee, marriage, etc. it is a minor relationship. The standards for each of these should be higher than who you vote for.

I wouldn’t call it an insignificant relationship just that it its less significant than the ones I just stated. I will admit that there is some subjectivity involved in these determinations though.

wonkish1

Assumes he knows peoples motivations more than they do.

I made my comment purely because its a point that needs to be made. Notice that I said that all of the other assessments that EE wants to make in regards to *whether or not* Newt is a good choice “I Don’t See Any Problem With”. My only issue was with that last comment that if people actually thought that way they wouldn’t be able to vote for *any* of the candidates and that includes Perry, Bachmann, etc.

You don’t assume the sins of those you vote for. You don’t condone their behavior because you vote for them. That is the only point I’m making.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…Wonkish1 promised he would reply to the following query if someone else posed it [and Guzzardi promptly complied]:

?You, on the other hand, would forsake both EMTALA and Hill-Burton: ?stop forcing hospitals to provide care to the uninsured.? The ethics and the legality of your stance place it over-the-edge of reasonableness.?

Yet, he has yet to do so [although I believe he was going to check-in with his sister...who knows hospital-finance...for input].

*

This was but one of the concerns I dragged-out-of-him during a series of e-mail exchanges during the past week. Others related to the need for him to invoke his encyclopedic knowledge of all-things related to The Newt.

He had tried to suggest that The Newt had only endorsed the Individual Mandate in the 1990′s, and then I trotted-out direct quotes from recent books, noting in particular that the forced filing of a “bond” instead of purchasing health insurance [NewtCare] is functionally identical to how the IRS would penalize identical [mis]behavior[?] [ObamaCare].

During the Beck interview, he admitted this…and therefore one could conclude that EE’s prediction [of being inconsistent] has already been corroborated.

Remember, the TEA [Taxed Enough Already] Party Movement has, at its heart, abhorrence whenever Big Government “solutions” are proposed, and this is the essence of all the think-tanks sponsored by The Newt.

There may be a sense of exhaustion that is prompting people to settle-upon The Newt, but we still have a month before Iowa. The 2004-metaphor [which EE also noted recently] could easily lead to Perry’s resurgence.

romansdaughter

I see a man who thinks very highly of himself and still can’t be consistent on a lot of conservative issues. Yes, God forgives us and possibly Newt is sincere, although when he starts yapping about him being the nominee before any vote is cast. The old Newt comes shining through and there is no humility there. I believe there is more conservative candidates that actually would do a better job making smaller government than Newt. Newt is really for big government.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

Wonkish1 clarifies his one disagreement with EE thusly: “if people actually thought that way [coupling search for perfection when it's necessary to recognize "this is the best we have"...paraphrased] they wouldn?t be able to vote for *any* of the candidates.”

This is also a misguided rephrasing of a tangential truism. He is potentially leading the reader to engage in “moral relativism” to justify supporting The Newt [by rationalizing-away faults...which "everyone" harbors].

The bottom-line is that EE has provided a COMPLETELY accurate portrayal [snapshot] of where the true-conservative’s heart/mind probably has alit.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…illustrating tangential-thinking.

OF COURSE the relationship between voter-politician differs from those created in one’s public/private life.

The key, here, is to focus on the parameters affecting the former decision…and EE properly links the degree to which knowledge of private conduct would properly be invoked to project how an individual would behave if provided the public-trust.

rmacgilv

I appreciate the honesty.I think the country is at the crossroads so I will vote for anyone over Obama.I think Newt has the most realistic shot to take him down and at the end of the day that’s what’s most important for me.There is no perfect candidate in this field.Got to play the hand you’re dealt.

snappy101

The resume of Newt Gingrich dictates that he would make a good presidential advisor. That’s the type of jobs he’s held, the types of jobs he’s sought. I don’t even know why we’re entertaining him. He’s not qualified to be President. Debating skill is not a presidential activity. He knows stuff and people inside the beltway. So what? We’re putting too much emphasis on the debates, ideas and promises instead of looking at accomplishments applicable to running something large as indicators of the kind of President they would be. We should also look at their past for character. I’m not holding my nose and voting for another unqualified (McCain) presidential candidate just because he’s not too rotten, just sort of rotten and talks a good game. P.S. Next to Gingrich, Obama looks like Mr Family Man.

wonkish1

Back to saying a lot about nothing again.

wonkish1

Other than the one detailed in the Dr. Bob rule post.

He just keeps on reposting the same stuff when he’s already gotten answers to all of the above.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…was explained yesterday @ a lecture sponsored by Horowitz’s “Freedom Center” @ Philly’s Union League by Andrew Breitbart.

He explained that, immediately after having declared, she hired an expensive consultant [Ed Rollins] who NOT ONLY has dissed her aggressively during the past month, BUT ALSO had immediately cut-off her links with colleagues and advisers who had previously worked with her on myriad issues.

Within the past month, I spoke with a prominent journalist who has provided her quality-input throughout the campaign [which she has properly/promptly honored], so it may be that this portrayal was not completely air-tight…or at-least is justifiably “leaking” @ this time.

And she was calm/focused when we chatted semi-privately @ the ZOA Dinner [as discussed on prior blogs], even as she continues to be a truth-teller [such as when she has aggressively characterized The Newt].

THEREFORE, this is why Guzzardi and I each gave her $180 ["chair" x 10]. And this is why we appreciate her ongoing input!

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

“chair” should be “chai” which is “18″ in Hebrew…meaning “To Life!”

http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

That about sums up where I am. I’m just not sure I’m yet ready to throw my cards on the table.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…the prediction [now amplified yesterday on FNC by Krauthammer] that a damaged Mitt [if he doesn't win NH by double-digits] could FIZZLE [helped-along by The Newt, Paul, and True-Conservatives].

And, concomitantly, if The Newt justifiably falls, there is Perry…notwithstanding the MSM/LSM/ELM chorus that is anointing him [with Politico leading the charge]. We are being told to salivate for a BHO-debate; I say, “Who cares?”

Absent sudden-entry of another True Conservative [remember how my "DeMint Gambit" was shot-down in these parts a month ago?], would either Santorum or Bachmann promise any degree of experience [let alone a set of cogent "deliverables"] as would Perry?

wonkish1

BullS*** is tangential to you Bob.

And Bob disagrees with me and then reiterates what I said already. The important thing here is to make an informed decision that is *most* consistent with your values and reality. For many on here like Bob that means Perry. But just because you pick a candidate doesn’t mean you take on or condone any of the sins they’ve made in the past.

For people like me any of the following suit me just fine: Huntsman, Perry, Newt, and Santorum. And I don’t condone a lot of things some of these guys have done(whether known by me or not). But I’ll do the best I can with what I’ve got.

There is nothing wrong with that point. Assess the candidates don’t take on their sins for yourself.

jiminga

His lovelife has been a sticking point for me from the beginning, not to mention the question of how he became a Catholic after two divorces. And his flip flops have become legend.

But it all boils down to who can get the job done. Who has the skills, guile, and boldness to forge relationships with congressional leaders so as to begin getting things done. Newt’s congressional experience will be invaluable in undoing some of the partisan divide that Obama has cultivated.

Someone else has said Newt is not a nice person. I agree, but we will need a pit bull like Newt in the WH if we are going to save America.

Jon Huntsman? A fiscal conservative and social moderate that hasn’t caught on with voters at all. He just fails to impress, and he’s definitely not a pit bull.

hal2715

No need to bring his character into this. We’re going to be to win this election because people are fed up with his policies, and attacking him personally will just give the media something else to focus on.

bzip

Finally a voice of reason and truth. Erick has said what I have been trying to say.

Though I will somewhat deviate: In spite of Romney being inconsistent, I would rather support Romney over Newt simply because there is a slight hope Romney could actually do the right thing whereas the record, pattern, history of Newt might be somewhat consistent it is usually supporting the wrong things.

In end I truly hope for a Perry rebound and anyone that thinks highly of Perry but doesn’t want to support him because of him not polling well should step back and start standing up for principles rather then polling data.

In the end if Perry can’t make it (I pray he can) would take anyone but Newt at this point, even Jon Huntsman, Bachmann or Santorum but I am sticking with Perry till the end.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…is the confidence that we already know Perry; he won’t have startling revelations lurking in a dark-closet, and he can be depended upon to avoid flip-flopping.

This awareness…particularly compared with awareness of what has transpired among others in the POTUS-GOP field…is a driving-force. Indeed, it is almost uncanny that Perry can be so attractive AND the others can be so inferior, in comparison.

For example, the Iowans who view him as “divisive” are drawing that conclusion COMPLETELY from MSM/LSM/ELM portrayals; this observation also explains the rise/fall of Cainiacs, and it defines the challenge bestowed upon readers/writers who depend upon RS for sustenance.

I asked Breitbart [who was promoting the TPM throughout his speech] where he would blog if he wished to move key-thinkers, and it did not appear that a solitary web-site was in his cross-hairs; he jokingly suggested that he had established a raison-d’?tre for HuffPost.

Thus, EE–who is plugged-in when leading the RS-based hit-parade–is essentially advising that we should apply our personal values-systems when vetting the candidates. This is a “trusim” that is worth disseminating.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…because my goal was to emphasize the importance and applicability of EVERYTHING composed by EE; by k/o’ing your one point of contention, it was easier to validate the totality of his impact.

bzip

The below represents the reasons in part why I can?t support Newt Gingrich (there are loads of documentation to backup these reasons and even much more out there):

Newt has supported the mandate in one form or another for the past 18 years starting with Hillarycare.
Newt has supported global warming in one form or another.
Newt has is the big insider lobbyist who enjoys crony capitalism.
Newt has had ethic violations and his own party voted against him.
Newt has had extra martial affairs and 2 divorces.
Newt own past house colleagues won’t support him and say he won’t be a good President; Peter King and Tom Coburn.
Newt basically stands for big gov’t, progressive ways and it should be clear based on history and a pattern of what he supports, i.e.. Mandate, global warming and even Ken Cuccinelli moderator from the last debate forum sees concerns.

Mandate:
Is Newt Gingrich a Conservative? You decide
http://www.westernjournalism.com/is-newt-gingrich-a-conservative-you-decide/
Gingrich Backs Obamacare’s Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gingrich-health-care-insurance/2011/05/15/id/396426
Newt Gingrich Was For The Individual Mandate Before He Was Against It
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/newt-gingrich-was-for-the-individual-mandate-before-he-was-against-it/
Gingrich (in 2007): Congress Must Impose an Individual Mandate
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/gingrich-individual-mandate-health-care-Congress-2007
Gingrich Supports ‘Variation’ on Obamacare-Type Health Insurance Mandate
http://youtu.be/ThwVp0cwOMA

Global warming:
Interview with: Newt Gingrich
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/gingrich.html
?I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there?s a package there that?s very, very good.? ? Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich talks Climate Change in 2007
http://youtu.be/IYv9yd3_3HA

Death Panels:
Newt’s Health Problems
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/28/newts-health-problems
Across The Country, Some Systems Are Getting It Right (by Newt)
http://views.washingtonpost.com/healthcarerx/panelists/2009/07/right-gingrich.html

Lobbying:
Gingrich Gave Push to Clients, Not Just Ideas
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/us/politics/gingrich-gave-push-to-clients-not-just-ideas.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Newt Gingrich was a lobbyist, plain and simple
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/newt-gingrich-was-lobbyist-plain-and-simple
Newt Gingrich Had Lucrative Health Industry Ties
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/newt-gingrich-hit-on-health-care-flip-flops-think-tank/
Gingrich Said to Be Paid at Least $1.6 Million by Freddie Mac
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-11-16/gingrich-said-to-be-paid-at-least-1-6-million-by-freddie-mac.html
Gingrich made big bucks pushing corporate welfare
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/gingrich-made-big-bucks-pushing-corporate-welfare
Report: Gingrich took money from drug lobby while pushing Bush?s prescription drug bill
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/11/16/report-gingrich-took-money-from-drug-companies-while-pushing-bushs-prescription-drug-bill/

Why Newt Gingrich Will Never Be President
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/why-neevberwt-gingrich-will-never-be-president/248456/
?The House ultimately voted 395-28 to reprimand Gingrich and order him to pay a $300,000 penalty for ethics violations involving contributions and political activity. It was the first and only time in the history of the House that a sitting Speaker had been disciplined for ethical violations.?

“Gingrich Would Be A Terrible Nominee” Congressman Peter King
http://youtu.be/87PX6qLq5c4

Congressman Peter King slams fellow Republican Newt Gingrich
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Congressman-Peter-King-slams-fellow-Republican-Newt-Gingrich-135083798.html

Sen. Tom Coburn Finds Newt Gingrich?s Leadership ?Lacking?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/sen-tom-coburn-finds-newt-gingrichs-leadership-lacking/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/04/gingrichs-leadership-lacking-says-sen-coburn/
Sen. Tom Coburn: I Will Have Difficulty Supporting Newt Gingrich as President
http://youtu.be/4uPkZwRFqxg

Ken Cuccinelli Is Not Satisfied with GOP Candidates’ Answers!
http://youtu.be/B8Jzd-c_ZjU

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…because it smacks of moral relativism.

WE KNOW PERRY IS SQUEAKY-CLEAN ETHICALLY [on a personal level, despite having been in the public-eye for decades].

WE KNOW “THE NEWT” HASN’T BEEN TRUSTWORTHY [on a personal level, recognizing that he has been in the public-eye for decades].

{And, BTW, as discussed in prior postings, Santorum’s confession during the Thanksgiving “Values” Forum of having been a hypocrite regarding abortion betrays the potential application of this revelation to other facets of his political mien. And, BTW, discussion of self-marginalized Huntsman in this regard constitutes a smokescreen, as well.}

So, pray tell, Wonkish1, when you write “I don?t condone a lot of things some of these guys have done,” can you ID any ONE concern in this realm, regarding Perry?

And, when you come-up-dry, share with us the obvious conclusion, namely, that Perry ["(whether known by me or not)"] contrasts vividly with the rest of the pack!

wonkish1

More typing from Dr. Bob that has no meaning.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…and answer the question.

How could you justify a “heartless” decision by a hospital to deny service to the indigent?

[Enquiring minds want to know!]

http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

I was never for Rick Perry. I was not against him, but I was not supporting him. I have largely resigned myself to just calling the candidates as I see them without endorsing anyone or supporting anyone. About the only place I am at is for not Romney.

I very much like Rick Perry and his family. But were I to support any candidate, it’d make my view of the whole field less credible.

wonkish1

There’s always small imperfections. That is the point.

Feel free to make the case that Perry is much *more* clean than whoever you want(which deals with your moral relativism bulls***) and use that to inform peoples decisions. But again nobody condones any of Perry’s past sins by voting for him or any other candidate.

If you want an example for Perry:
I can *easily justify this away* because it was long ago, but Perry working for the Gore campaign is a past political sin I’m not implicitly condoning if I decide to pull the trigger for Perry.

I wont add any others because I don’t want to attack a guy I respect, but I listed that one just illustrate a point.

gunsrus

any Man who has thought about adultery has already committed it. Even Jimmy Carter knew this.
So its all a matter of degree. Most healthy hetro males do this every six seconds especially when there are women around (sorry Hillary).
America re-elected a whore-monger chasing little girls around the oval office. Apparently because no one felt sorry for the upcoming SOS. The average voter really doesn’t care.

Why are republicans only so willing to judge, condemn and ultimately shoot themselves in the feet (use both barrels) only to complain they have no candidate to run.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

Indeed, now that I think of it, Perry has also proven forthright when advising application of ethics – proudly – in the public sphere:

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/new-perry-ad-values-will-air-in-iowa/

wonkish1

Dr. Bob just wants to keep on rehashing a week old discussion of which he had to resort to the things in the Dr. Bob rule because it wasn’t going well.

renl57

We’re all potential sinners and we can all make mistakes. I’ve made a few myself.

The questions are:

1. Do you realize you made a mistake?

2. Do you regret the mistake?

3. Do you ask for forgiveness?

4. Do you resolve never to make that type of mistake again?

In the case of Gingrich’s marital issues, I can’t honestly say that the answers to those questions is “yes.”

It’s one thing for a husband to have a one-night stand, quickly regret it, and never do it again.

It’s another thing for a man to be a serial adulterer, as Gingrich was.

And that gets not only to a question of character, but to a question of maturity. Do we want a President who doesn’t realize what bad mistakes he made and who doesn’t learn from his mistakes? I don’t.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…as to whether my reality-based blogging carries both “meaning” and import, with regard to how True Conservatives should react to the recent surge of The Newt.

renl57

You want Perry? You really think he could beat Obama and do a good job as President?

Then *collaborate* with the liberal media to shoot down Newt.

The Republicans who worked with him know him well. They could feed a few damaging tidbits to the New York Times and wreck Gingrich’s candidacy.

If Gingrich flames out, his supporters could be picked up by Perry.

Politics does make strange bedfellows.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…if the only conduct you can cite is a quarter-century ancient…and must be recognized as reflecting the intent to apply his personal D-party leanings to the most conservative POTUS-candidate.

Puh-LEEEZE!

renl57

AFAIK, Obama is happily married. Nice two kids too.

He’s like Carter: A basically decent fellow who has reached (and perhaps passed) his level of incompetence.

anne17

is that all of his solutions are BIG government solutions working within the systems we already have, not changing them.

denoff51

I know where all the candidates stand on the issues, except Newt. I like Perry and Mitt because I know where they stand. As far as who I will vote for, anyone other than the Fascist Obama.

DAVEGA

This is my first comment here and I first want to say I enjoy reading Erick’s posts. I don’t always agree but I like the fact that he calls them the way he sees them. Keep up the good work, you’re one of the few I read regularly.

Though I commend Erick for being honest, I agree with wonkish1.. we’re not voting on Sainthood here. Our Constitution is being totally ignored! We need fighters.

I mention Ben Franklin because, though he wasn’t elected president, he was brilliant and without his efforts our revolution may very well have failed!

Ben was no saint and sure as heck couldn’t pass a morality test but he was Faithful to the cause!

ps..speaking of confessions, my first choice was Jim DeMint but he’s not running so the field is what it is.. I’m not thrilled but our worst is better than their best.

wonkish1

In your posts Dr. Bob its just repeating the same crap over and over again and acting like the other person hasn’t addressed anything in your posts.

But I’m more than willing to let the reader come to their conclusions about the candidates apparently you don’t.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…because his arguments [and his credibility] resemble those of the stripped-down Emperor.

It consumed considerable energies, but now the opinions expressed by Wonkish1 [whether evading questions such as this one, related to healthcare provision...or whether failing to document The Newt's evolved stances such as those related to healthcare financing] are determined to be constructed on quicksand.

circlegranch

This is a very good post and quite thought provoking, thank you for writing it. I, too, have taken opposition to those here that write things like, “Newt is older and wiser now. He’s reformed and changed his mind.” His nationwide tour with Rev. Sharpton wasn’t that long ago and neither was the ad sitting on the couch w/ Pelosi. For the record, Newt’s attempt to reach across party lines and cross the divide of opposing political thought by tackling education with Rev. Al fell flat. Just take a listen these days to what Sharpton has to say about Mr. Speaker. He is demeaning, insulting and has no use for him now that he’s a contender in this race. Same with Pelosi. She has made threats of telling tales out of school and has done some name-calling of her own. What good did Newt accomplish in wasting his time with either of them? They’ve both turned on him and he, himself, now must backtrack and claim his efforts were silly mistakes. Was he not a mature, seasoned, rational thinker at the time? All three people, pure and simple, used each other for political gain. It had nothing to do with promoting a good idea for America. When Republicans reach across the aisle they get their hand bit. It’s always been that way, yet we keep sending first one candidate after another on this fool’s errand and wonder why we keep getting the same result.

Americans, especially Christians, believe in redemption. We are not programmed morally to hold grudges and wield one’s sins over their heads and never move on with the realization that we, too, fall short of God’s glory. We, too—every single one of us—has a life marred with sin and we all need forgiveness on a daily basis, hourly in some cases such as myself. With that said, there is no indication that Mr. Gingrich will be steadfast in his staunch conservatism simply because he’s enjoying a front row seat now in the Right Wing section.

sunshine, I also appreciate your final thought w/ respect to the personal backgrounds of our candidates because we know that the antics of Mr. Clinton had a huge impact on younger people and what is considered o.k. behavior. I could not defend Herman Cain in the midst of his troubles for this reason. Men and women that enter the national realm of politics must come to that table with a stellar personal record and if they dare try without either making sure all past grievances are successfully resolved or they come forward on Day One and tell the truth, they are not worthy to serve in a position of leadership. We can’t keep electing people to positions of trust and respect that have excess baggage and hidden land mines. Our kids are watching. Are we content to keep putting up people with significant baggage? Gingrich himself talks about how Republicans can’t keep claiming to be the party of compassion and family values if we don’t walk the talk. Aren’t we telling our kids, “Hey, in your younger years, you can sow wild oats, raise all kinds of heck and rack up a really bad personal record. It’s o.k., because when you find your moral footing later in life, you can run for president and simply say you’re sorry, OR, you can deny everything and pass blame for your past on everybody else!” Is that the message we want to send? In Cain’s situation, he still is in denial that he should’ve come clean with us AND his wife. He may well be the most innocent victim ever taking a turn in the barrel of national politics but he KNEW there were issues that could haunt him, yet he ignored them and when they came to light, had a natural expectation that nobody would dare hold him accountable for any of it.

Newt and Romney both have something in common and that is, both have been running for president for 5 years at least. If Hillary had been elected in ’08, both would be running today. If McCain had been elected in ’08, both might well be running today. While Romney has built an empire of Establishment support with donating to Congressional and state campaigns and shoring up support, Newt and his wife have been hard at work laying their ground work, as well. I have no complaint or criticism for the predetermined efforts of either. In Newt’s case, they have made movies about Reagan and founding principles; they’ve written books targeting adults and now a children’s book. They have become very visible in recent years, thanks in large part to Sean Hannity, in terms of trying to present themselves as the credible First Couple. They have made a concerted effort to promote conservatism and Reagan values. They have made alot of public show of their faith and Newt’s conversion to the Catholic faith. They’ve engaged in a very effective and shrewd marketing campaign. The bottom line is, both leaders in today’s polls are men with a vision of themselves as president; a vision both have held for a very long time. For them, its not about fixing America or tackling the problems created by Obama (sorry, RNC, some of us will go ahead and tell the truth about our president) as much as it is about one of them being the next president.

I have thoughtfully put my support behind Rick Perry in part because he hasn’t been plotting a presidential run for years. He stepped up at the urging of his family and close political friends at a time when America is positioned on the cliff and the ground under Her is shifting quickly; when America desperately needs jobs and energy independence. He stepped up at a time when we have a president and FDA that contemplates putting morning after birth control on pharmacy shelves as if it were aspirin. A headache is a headache, right? Whichever type you get, you should be able to just go find a cure. An underage kid can’t buy cough syrup because they might use too much and get drunk, but it’s going to be o.k. to allow them to destroy a life? In Rick Perry, we have a candidate that signed a law requiring a mother have a sonogram before abortion and he’s not promising to defund Planned Parenthood, he’s already done it. He doesn’t have to hire expert speech writers and wordsmiths to figure out how to spin his prior positions on life so its more digestible for today’s conservative audiences. The story remains the same; no fine tuning required.

As parents and grandparents, we have a moral obligation to stand up and hold our candidates accountable for their moral behavior, past and present, and their positions on the life issue. Just because politics may well be the 2nd oldest profession doesn’t mean we can’t strive to clean it up and aspire to make it a respectable occupation.

TSquared

Call me crazy… But I don’t see getting all that hung up on the guys past marital life. It would would matter more to me if I were selecting a potential spouse. But we are not. We are selecting a President – a politician for Pete’s sake.

Perhaps I look at this through a different lens. I’m old fashion Army. What good is a fine upstanding church going family man (or whatever your criteria is) if he isn’t worth a sh!t in a fight. Instead, I’ll take a wart infested old S.O.B. that can Git-R-Done any day when going into battle. In a way – this is a war. You’re best served going into lead by those who do it well.

Yes I’d even take an atheist if that candidate was the best option on all other counts.

wonkish1

Again I said that I don’t hold it against him. But you don’t acknowledge that(typical Dr. Bob).

But I’m not condoning that past mistake if I decide to vote for him.

Your arguing yourself in circles.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…Perry is the “fighter” you covet [AND he is ethical].

renl57

If Newt’s the GOP candidate, Obama will sweep the female vote. It will be the biggest gender gap in decades.

Newt sounds like a professor. But we already tried a President who sounded like a professor (Obama) and that didn’t work out. I don’t think the public wants a conservative pseudo-intellectual (Newt) to replace a liberal pseudo-intellectual (Obama).

Perry and Romney do have the demeanor of an executive–because both were in fact executives (governors and corporate managers). Being Speaker of the House isn’t the same type of job as running a state or a business.

wonkish1

Dr. Bob Rule. Mods This guy has been trolling me for a week(when I did everything to try to let things go myself) so if you want to give a trolling warning to him here I?m quite happy with stopping these postings.

This Is How Dr. Bob Lies To Try To Win A Debate.
Preface: Dr. Bob’s goal is to paint his opponent as a liberal and if he can’t succeed in that he believes that RedStaters are very stupid people who will fall for an untruthful trick. This is how it goes:

1) Ask a question repeatedly like the person he’s talking to is trying to avoid the answer.
Dr. Bob: “Do You Support The Individual Mandate?”

Me: ?In regard to Newt?s support of the Heritage individual mandate back in the 90s I just simply disagree with his statement of support back then.?

Me: ?But to answer your question I didn?t and don?t agree with the Heritage?s proposal in the 90s. I don?t think Newt should have agreed with it.?

Me: ?I have said over and over and over again I don?t agree with the Individual Mandate. I support the end of uninsured treatment to handle charity care. They are completely different positions.?

Me: “I do not agree with an individual mandate. I instead believe in ending the mandate for hospitals to provide healthcare to the insured(only after a few other changes took place). So No, No, No, NO I?m not for the individual mandate.?

He keeps on asking and I keep on answering No!

2) After his argument goes nowhere(and fast) just out of the blue he makes up a “conclusion”(read lie) that states the opposite answer his opponent gave to these repeated questions.
Dr. Bob: “I conclude you support imposition of an Individual Mandate”

3) When the other person points out that he came up with that lie out of the blue he defends himself by accusing the other person of “attacking” him.

4) Since that isn’t working anymore repeat step 1 more times to repeat the cycle of making his opponent looking like a liberal when he or she isn’t.
Dr. Bob: “Do You Support The Individual Mandate?”

ITS AMAZING DR. BOB THINKS THAT REDSTATERS WILL FALL FOR THIS WHICH MEANS HE THINKS *YOU* ARE STUPID!

hoosierchristian

…what Cheney was to W.

At Newt’s age, I don’t think we have to worry about any JFK-like sexual behavior once in the White House. He’s a far better choice than Obama and substantially better choice than Romney.

That said, he’s NOT a better choice than Perry. Perry has more consistency and more character. Perry has something else that we should look for in candidates and which Newt sorely lacks: humility.

If Rick Perry is elected president the days of “business as usual” would be over. After watching the Contract with America sputter and die with little lasting change to show for it, and having seen ample demonstration of Newt’s technocratic impulse trump conservative values, we cannot honestly say the same of a Gingrich presidency.

The idea that Obama would accept Gingrich’s Lincoln-Douglas style debate challenge or that presidential debates would sway millions of undecided independents towards the GOP next fall just from Newt showing up is a canard, as is the assertion that Obama would destroy Perry in any such debate. Perry’s debate performances have been steadily improving and the first debate with Obama would be roughly ten months away, plenty of time to prepare and hone ones skills. Most importantly, Perry has the TRUTH on his side. Anyone who CREDIBLY espouses conservative principles and keeps the focus on Obama’s record of failure is going to “win” the debates to the extent possible. Rick Perry can do that as easily as Newt.

Perry’s made fewer campaign gaffes and shown better judgment than most of his opponents. He has been humble and self-effacing where others have been petulant and patronizing. These debates have demonstrated people’s character and values as much as their debate skills and Perry has much to recommend him over his opponents here.

Finally, the negatives against Perry are a combination of mountains-out-of-molehills (Gardasil, in-state tuition for the children of illegals Perry wants to deport) or gamesmanship blunders (initial debate errors) which combined are of far less concern than most of his opponents, certainly less so than Newt or Romney.

There is only one candidate who has the consistent conservative record, the demonstrated necessary character and the vision for the kind of hope and change this country really needs and that candidate is Rick Perry.

goodgovernance

The field is so weak the only truly acceptable candidate is Huntsman. Or we go for a brokered convention.

I know a brokered convention sounds unlikely, but how unlikely was it that the field of candidates would be this weak this year? How unlikely has been the rise and fall of the various candidates?

A brokered convention could be just what we need.

cacharlie

We need a candidate and President who will fight for what’s right for America.
I think Perry’s the cream that will rise to the top.

Newt appears to be a fighter but people who make a habit of cheating on marriage are wimps. They want to be told they are right whether they are or not. Newt still appears to me to be totally ego driven.

Perry’s record as a Governor and man and his sense of humor about his debate fumbles all indicate he’s strong enough to be a good president.

It’s beyond me why people forget what a fumbler Obama is off the cuff – with no show of Perry’s graceful humor. As for his being a family man, I see his relationship with his wife pretty much the same as his attachment to Soros.

JSobieski

nt

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

nt

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…when loose-ends dangle.

{BTW, there is a grammatical error in the last sentence, because a plural pronoun is linked to a singular subject; it should read ["let READERS come to their conclusions"] or [''let the reader come to HIS/HER CONCLUSION"].}

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

You tackle the task of citing a “sin” … and you cite conduct that is “ancient.”

So, try to unearth something that is [1]–truly “sinful,” [2]–of relatively recent vintage.

And ‘fess-up [as did EE] if you can’t!

goodgovernance

But when I see the examples of his gaffes, they’re collected over several years. Perry, you can collect four or five gaffes from one debate.

If Biden is a gaffe machine, Perry is a gaffe industrial complex.

And I don’t see any real need to criticize the guy about his family, unless you know something I don’t. Liberal Leftie that Obama might be, he seems not to have had John Edwards style scandals in his personal life, as far as we know with any real degree of evidence.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

The key-conclusion is that Wonkish1 is obfuscating rather than addressing issues of profound consequence.

hoosierchristian

If a man will betray his wife’s trust…if his wedding vows aren’t sacred to him, then he will betray ANYONE’S trust and NO vow is sacred to him.

Newt may have “made his peace” with God, but true remorse is more than an acknowledgement of wrongdoing. You wouldn’t hire a man twice convicted of shoplifting to be your company accountant. It may have occurred a long time ago, he may have been genuinely remorseful and attempted to make compensation for his actions at the time, but hiring such a person, quite separately from forgiving his indiscretions, would be foolishness and an invitation to disaster.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Newt’s intelligence isn’t in question, his wisdom is. The worst thing you can do for a person who has demonstrated a lack of accountability in their personal life is to hand power over to them.

If the guy in the foxhole with you can’t be trusted to have your back, to not abandon you when the chips are down, what difference does it make if it’s Audie Murphy or Beetle Bailey you’re beside?

wonkish1

That may actually be the limit of your utility on here.

bobguzzardi

This is a evolving process.

In my view, Newt is popular for the moment because he is perceived as anti-Mitt and when Mitt’s march is disrupted, others will come forward.

Honestly, Newt Gingrich President? A disaster.

Rick Perry is the only viable conservative. Michele Bachmann has all the right ideas. Let us see if she can build an organization and raise the money.

JSobieski

unless one is voting for evil. A flawed person is distinct from an evil person.

Take money for furthering the pro-abort cause? Yes, that would seem to have a negative impact on your soul.

Vote for a flawed messenger for generally the right reasons? You might regret it, but it is hardly a black mark on one’s soul.

Unless “soul” is taken to mean something in the political world (one’s “political soul”), the word “soul” has a specific meaning and should not be used lightly. Voting for a serial adulterer may not be wise, but I don’t see how it can damage my soul.

I agree with the candidate assessment 100% (I hope for Perry and have been talking up Huntsman).

I disagree and take exception with any purported damage to my soul if Newt becomes the nominee and receives my vote in the general election.

wonkish1

‘Political sin’ refers to things that are sacrosanct to your political views as opposed to religious or moral ones. That is why the qualifier is there.

But again Dr. Bob wants to make himself look childish.

Spartan4Life

Just because someone stays married doesn’t make him a great guy. Not that fond of his wife, either, so maybe they deserve each other.

Obama is an arrogant and manipulative phoney. Those are hardly decent qualities.

Spartan4Life

Just because someone stays married doesn’t make him a great guy. Not that fond of his wife, either, so maybe they deserve each other.

Obama is an arrogant and manipulative phoney. Those are hardly decent qualities.

wonkish1

Dr. Bob.

I would love nothing more than the two of us just dropping the whole week long conversation, but no Dr. Bob prefers to act like a child and bring it up every single morning.

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

that BOTH of you remind us too much of our kids when they won’t stop fighting in the back seat of the car. The only difference here is, we can’t stop the car and deal with it.

mich22

As a woman who has seen the terrible pain and destruction brought on by cheating husbands in my own extended family, I would have a very hard time voting for Newt Gingrich. Forgiveness is between him and the Lord, and his sins are not too big for Jesus (nor are mine, Thank the Lord). However, as far as the electorate goes, it’s not at all about forgiveness, it’s about trust. I am not ashamed to say I don’t trust Newt Gingrich’s character. Character counts a whole lot when it comes to leaders. I, too, am waiting for a comeback for Perry. He’s my guy all the way – good person, good husband, good leader, good conservative. But, if he’s not ready, I’d take Mitt with all of his flaws and his one wife, over Newt with all of his.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

[both in content and delivery]

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

[both in delivery and in content]

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

That is just downright hilarious.

JSobieski

How was Newt’s proposed Medicare reform in the 1990s different than Paul Ryan’s proposed Medicare reform in the 2011?

Both are directional reforms to big government programs in very conservative ways.

How is Newt not proposing “changing them”?

Newt’s primary asset is primarily on this very point—changing (i.e. reforming) big government programs

DAVEGA

I like Perry. I think he’s a good governor in general (though I totally disagree with his position on illegal immigration)..

..But for whatever reason, he’s not ready for prime time when it comes to debates. I doubt he can recover from the damage he’s done to himself?

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

[both in content and in forthrightness]

wonkish1

At the lengths I’ve gone to try to end this crap, but…

I did try everything I could to try to end this peacefully. I at least deserve some credit for that.

Dr. Bob doesn’t even want this to end. It seems he wants this to go on in perpetuity.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

[both in content and in succinctness]

politicalqrm

then I’m right there with you.

If Newt has committed adultery, it’s his God he has to seek forgiveness from. I’m not looking for a pope, (I’m Catholic) I’m looking for a leader. When Newt became a Catholic, believe me the priest who was in charge of his confession didn’t let him skate through.

We’ve all done things that we regret in the past. That doesn’t disqualify us for leadership.

But does Erick realize that he and others that keep bringing this up they are handing the Dems a way to defeat our candidates? Herman Cain for example. There is still no solid evidence that he had an affair or sexually harassed anyone, yet he is out. The Dems know the button they can push with GOP voters and they push it gladly. Just a hint, just a suggestion of sexual misdoing and bam, there’s another candidate out of the race.

Heck, we’re our own worst enemy.

dkbtwo

I haven’t read through all the comments here yet, so maybe someone else made this point.

Dennis Prager has an interesting take on this issue of family fidelity over at National Review. It somewhat addresses Eric’s difficult feelings about the “cheating” issue. One point Mr. Prager makes is that our Creator himself saw fit to back David as King of Israel, even after all that mess he got himself into. In short, we are all flawed creations…not because of a mistake by the Creator, but by our own choices. God could support David as Leader of his people because God KNEW David’s heart was in the right place. Even if David’s “little head” sometimes wasn’t.

This in no way excuses or justifies “cheating” on one’s vow’s. It just acknowledges that even those with a good heart (and good leadership skills) can make poor choices.

For the record, the “cheating” aspect troubles me as well…but I also know that as much as I love my wife, there have been times I’ve come far to close to a poor choice myself, and only escaped by the hand of the Creator.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

Your comment is precisely the perspective argued-in-vain by Wonkish1.

“As to the individual mandate, Newt did not say he now supports it. He explained how he,The Heritage Foundation and other conservatives explored it as a way to combat Hillarycare in the 90?s, but they ultimately found that it wouldn?t work and abandonded it ? in the 90?s!”

Listen to the Beck-Interview, during which he admitted his “bonding”-mandate would equate to the Individual-Mandate.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

Newt and Romney are untrustworthy. But if we don’t want them, then we’ll have to FIGHT against them and FOR someone else.

Listen, those of you who may be on the fence or scared to support Perry: do not act in fear. Imagine what things would look like if everyone put aside their fear of the polls and backed Perry come what may. We have nothing to lose by supporting him. What will it profit us if we support someone we can’t trust for the sake of political expediency?

This should be our race to lose. A candidate of bold colors and staunch convictions would beat Obama. I have serious doubts whether ANOTHER elderly moderate can do that, especially one with 200 lbs. of political and personal baggage.

Rick Perry doesn’t waffle on his convictions. He is a Tea Party conservative. He’s in love with his first and only wife and his two children. He has no ethics violations against him. He may not be the slickest debater but he’s one heck of a speaker–and yet he’s humble and loves God. If we all got behind him now, then we could have the candidate we’ve dreamed of for the past four years.

If we don’t stand by Perry now, I fear we’ll be regretting it in a matter of months. As for me, I’ll support him to the bitter end. Who’s with me?

wonkish1

Newt may have past character and personality issues, but…

**He has practically spent every day of his professional career trying to figure out to privatize or partially privatize government programs, entitlements, etc.**

That is his principal appeal. That and that he knows how to sell himself and legislation.

But some of that is mitigated away by some other issues that he has that aren’t so great.

Every candidate is a mixed bag.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…could be satisfied behaviorally by a guy who advocates a muscular foreign policy…such as Perry.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

[both in consistency and in fervor]

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…because you KNOW RS-rules.

Better you should attempt to puncture this encyclopedic summary of all-things compiled correctly about The Newt.

And if you can’t, then abandon the role of devious-gadfly and join efforts to expose this guy aggressively/immediately.

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

^^—no-text–^^

beee

Where were all the headlines, news crawls, web posts yesterday when Obama said “Its great to be in Texas” when he was in Kansas??????

Now if it was Perry…OMG!!

Case in point: Perry deserves a big second look..He is the conservative in the race with executive experience, conservative record and family values..DO I agree with him 100%??? no, the in state tuition. but otherwise his tax reform, energy policy, straight talk about social security, repeal obamacare all resonate with me…

People are afraid he will not be able to debate Obama…He will kick his butt in a debate because his conservative values and message will shine against the polar opposite policies of what we got now…

Just my opinion…thanks for reading…

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…that the undecided-vote in Iowa [which remains massive] could return to Perry [remember his sudden write-in performance in the straw-poll in August].

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

Is you and Dr. Bob need to agree to disagree and then invoke the Hinz Rule on each other. All on RS would thank y’all at this point.

lizzie

presidential forum at 9:00 am ET. Each candidate gets 30-40 minutes,
Here is the schedule (all times ET):

9:15: Rick Santorum

9:45: Jon Huntsman

10:25: Mitt Romney

12:15: Gov. Christie (keynote)

2:05: Newt Gingrich

2:45: Rick Perry

3:25: Michele Bachmann

Podcasts will be available.

Not clear if this is for C-Span1 which normally covers the House all day, slightly less boring than C-Span2′s coverage of the Senate which is almost always a quorum call with bad background music.
C-Span3 is not widely available, not at all here in rural satellite tv areas – yes, we are STILL WAITING for Obama’s broadband promise!

The questions will not just be about Perry’s zero-based-budgeting for foreign aid and how to fight the DNC smear campaign on that. Will also include questions about Syria, Egypt, Iran, Turkey. And I assume the past week’s Panetta-HClinton-Amb Gutman Israel-bashfest..

Quite possibly the most interesting long format Q&A session that will define each candidate on Arab Spring-to-winter and UN and how each candidate defines American Exceptionalism/uni-polar vs. multi-polar, and how to identify allies and American interests.

Just hope it does not get tangled up in the new Obama Doctrine that ties foreign aid to human rights of LGBT – seems Obama is also offering asylum for homosexuals, which is another sign that Obama really WANTS to make 2012 about the culture wars instead of the economy and his postmodern- transnational-multicultural worldview that is grounded in false moral equivalency.

Here is the official DNC smear:
http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=248328
Gingrich, Romney and Perry must stand by Israel?s foreign
12/06/2011 13:36 By CONGRESSMAN STEVE ROTHMAN
“The idea of starting Israel at zero damages the long-standing bond the two countries share. …”

Here is the best analysis of the Panetta-HClinton-Amb Gutman Israel-bashfest:
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=248256
12 06 2011 Caroline Glick US is no longer Israel’s Ally

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…does not disprove a conceptual observation.

Regardless of what The Newt may have said regarding SS, his books and speeches are replete with “solutions” that entail invoking Big Government.

He is an elitist/statist.

GOPlady

There are 2 things at play here; 1) Erick’s moral dilemna of voting for someone who doesn’t share their own acts of faithfulness, and 2) whether or not a person would be the ‘best’ person to govern the country.

#1 – you might not have personally been unfaithful to your own spouse but are you sinless? Wasn’t the great Ronald Reagan divorced? This is not a yard stick we should be using AT ALL, since we only know what is in the public domain and not what is hidden from us about other candidates. So will the person with no sin step right up and throw the first stone at Newt, and then we can stone all the others with whatever reasons, justifications, sins we announce. And then we can pat ourselves on the back for our high standards while complaining about the chains chafing from another 4 years of Obama.

#2 – ” It’s nice to elect the right people but that isn’t the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.” ~ Milton Friedman No one knows the game better than Newt. No one can manipulate the system better than Newt. And if we make it politically profitable for whoever wins to do the right thing, Newt will be our Ace in the hole because he can help get it done. When I think of Newt Gingrich, I think of the hope and change and excitement of bringing the government back into line. Was he cheating on one of his current wives with another woman? Is it any of my business? I think of how, in Ohio, welfare recipients were leaving the roles and taking training to become skilled at jobs that provided a living wage and dignity. I think of prosperity and the positive feelings of being a part of the American Dream. Will I vote for that? If that is the choice given me, I will, and feel good doing it. And then I will bite my nails to the quick worrying about all the other stuff.

Erick, that you angst says you care. But don’t confuse angst with judgement. We do not have the right to judge.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…about The Newt, absent discussion of his past-peccadilloes.

Intense discourse must not be inhibited by worriment as to how it might be [mis]used thereafter.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

[both in insight and in import]

wonkish1

Apparently Dr. Bob doesn’t want to do that.

Its a pretty safe bet that he will create a post about me or rehash this crap back up, etc. again tomorrow morning. And the morning after that. At least that is what has happened for a week now.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…with Perry in the race.

There won’t need to be a brokered convention, once the True Conservatives join with the TPM and the Evangelicals behind him!

geocon90293

Everybody ought to stow their moralizing in the sock drawer until Obama is beaten . While you nitpick Newt’s past lapses you are doing Obama’s work for him . If this comes down to Newt or Romney , which it probably will , you’d better get over all your remonstrating and vote for him . He may have gotten himself romantically bolluxed up in the past , but he has a unique overview of history which no other candidate has and which is essential to addressing the decline of the United States as a world leader . Gingrich is the only candidate ready to hit the deck running and the only one who can show Obama up in debates on substance . We have had a slew of presidents who had questionable romantic fealties : FDR , Ike , JFK , LBJ . For the most part , these were effective leaders whose prioritization of the National Interest was never compromised by earlier infidelities . Errors of the heart do not trump leadership skills . So…get past the nitpicking and back the strongest candidate , who is probably going to be Newt . For frame of reference , I too still hold out a forlorn hope that Perry makes a comeback . But if he doesn’t , I’ll vote for Newt .

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…as was evinced when the others–except Paul [for idological reasons] and Bachmann [for tactical reasons]–chimed-in favorably regarding 0-based foreign-policy budgeting and the terrorist-dangers posed by a leaky Mexican border.

JSobieski

You perceive Newt as being a creature of Big Government because Newt has over the course of decades been willing to stick his hand in the muck and propose changes.

Who else in the race has said something specific on reforming the EPA?

Who was arguing for the voucherizing of entitlements before Newt?

Who consistently argues for using the power of markets to reform government policies?

There are a lot of ways to crticize Newt that are true and valid. The idea that Newt doesn’t take on SQ big government is NOT one of them.

lizzie

was a deliberate intention to revive the media obsession with Gov. Perry’s ‘oops.

It was NOT a gaffe.

Watch it twice. Obama murmurs to someone ‘we love Kathleen’, meaning HHS Sibelius. Current Kanasa Gov. Brownback already endorsed Gov Perry.

Obama knew exactly what he was doing. He WANTED to get conservative media to pounce on a fake gaffe in order to revive memory of Perry’s almost forgotten “choke”.

Y’all have to understand that Obama is #1 slick Chicago pol who is REALLY most afraid of Rick Perry because Perry can get more women (whatever they are calling security soccer moms), legal Hispanics (overwhelmingly social conservatives), ethnic working class former Reagan democrats (clinging to their guns and religion who never voted for Obama), and a lot of us fiscal Blue Dogs kicked out of the Democratic Party. Perry having once been a fiscal conservative dem is a real asset in getting what is called “the center”.

sunshinek67

I think you missed my point. There is some of Gingrich that is absolutely appealing and gifted, nevertheless, when you take his record, professional AND personal, and reconcile it with Perry, the former woefully falls short.

I haven’t a clue where a man’s heart lies, that is for God to decide. For me, the scripture is clear, for out of a man’s heart come his actions.

“Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.” author unknown

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/285122/righty-bloggers-want-newt-or-perry-dread-paul-and-romney

“Righty Bloggers Want Newt or Perry; Dread Paul and Romney”

[where is King David column? remember, Bathsheba-event occurred AFTER he became king...and he paid dearly for it]

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

[both in passion and in rectitude]

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…the point, here, is to contrast the reaction in the MSM/LSMELM to each event.

Sam Gamgee

Frankly, I am fine with any of the Republican candidates (except Ron Paul). Any would be better than Obama.

But my wife said this morning, “I don’t think I could ever vote for Gingrich in the general election, no matter what.”

For my wife, it’s an intuitive feeling that she can’t trust Gingrich. So, if it ends up being between Gingrich and Romney, my wife and I will be rooting for Mitt.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…if we are to act as responsible citizens.

The totality of the individual must be weighed.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…because he is focusing upon the need to “choose wisely” [remember Indiana Jones?].

You write: “Gingrich is the only candidate ready to hit the deck running and the only one who can show Obama up in debates on substance.”

Critics of The Newt would worry about what direction his sprint would initially take…even if he were to out-debate the world, simultaneously!

JSobieski

Words have meanings that are not infinitely flexible.

Perry has been my number #1 choice since he entered the race. However, I am big believer in criticizing people for what they deserve to be criticized for, and not for what is contrary to the factual record.

Newt is morally flawed. He has a big ego and has exhibited both personal and public behavior that is undisciplined.

All of those things are undoubtedly true.

It is also true that as an ideas guy who feels compelled to express every thought in his head, he spits out some ideas that are stupid and inadvisable.

All true.

The following are also true:
(1) Newt’s tenure as Speaker was represents the period of time in which DC exercised the most restraint in government spending in my lifetime. When was the deficit smaller?
(2) Newt has spent the greater part of 30 years thinking about and arguing for ways to reform government programs to make them more conservative, more market driven, and less big government.

Scope

n/t

avagreen

Allllll the way.

lizzie

was Tennessee Rep Steve Cohen whining on the floor of the House “does he expect us to work at Wal-Mart?”

I can not remember that news-bite, but the comment thread was overwhelmingly variations ‘Great idea. Working at Wal-Mart would teach members of Congress a lot about real life for most of America’

I have been thinking about a sports analogy. Football? We are at the end of the first quarter. Second quarter will be Dec 10-Jan 31. 3rd quarter will be rest of GOP primaries until the convention actually produces a ticket.

If I knew more about rugby “Give blood. Play Rugby”, I would use that sport.

If you like the “not a sprint, but a marathon”, we are in mile 3, with 20 to go.

bzip

That is a silly question. Even Newt is better than Obama.

AceInTX

His Record might be to the right of Romney but he’s spent the primaries trying to outflank Romney in the left. I’d vote Huntsman over Romney…but over noone else.

As for the rest of the article, I am with you 100%. I always said about Clinton, that if Hillary couldn’t trust him…how could the rest of us….Gingrich presents twice the problem. but I’d vote for him over Romney and Huntsman

avagreen

nt

wonkish1

Your making a decision on who fits your principals, goals, etc. most and taking into account what you think of their character. What could I possibly find wrong with that?

My criticism of EE’s post was very, very narrow. It was on the subject of whether or not someone sacrifices their soul or principals when they vote for someone that is been less than perfect or even considerably less than perfect. The only thing that matters when it comes to your soul or principals is that you do the best you can with what you’ve got. That’s it. And all of those benefits and problems of different candidates play into “the doing the best you can” part of that statement.

No matter who I vote for I’m not taking on any of their sins nor condoning them because I will firmly believe that my decision will be the best I can do and that is all that matters when it comes to my principals.

GOPlady

Socialist, marxists, fascists, communists all result in death by the millions. With Obama, we are killing full term babies, even when the mothers are in labor. Is that the moral judgement we should be making?

With Obama, we are destroying Christianity and siding with radical Islam. Is that the moral judgement and totality of actions we must weigh?

Sometimes, to fight a devil you need a scoundrel.

Judging isn’t a ‘right’ Dr. Bob. Maybe wonkish1 is right and you are a troll Dr. Bob. Most of us here at RedState know our rights from our lefts.

cacharlie

was my criticism of the Obama marriage, good governance. Obama appears to me to be a useful pawn of his wife and Soros in playing all the rest of us like pawns too.
I think we should all get behind a candidate who demonstrates self respect and heartfelt regard for family if we want to get our country back on track.

supergirl2911

You twisted EE’s words to suit your argument. The basics being we don’t expect a super hero ( or do we) and its fair to suppose if we had one we woul not recognize one, however you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Newts pass is fair game not for opponents as much as for us to discuss his character and positions and where the two intersect. I don’t buy the personal life is personal.

celador2

When I opend this diary or report I expected a cheerleader for Newt Gingrich downplaying his lack of morality and smashing Romney as a man who can not change and who is dangerously liberal. Erik expressed those views on Romney buy still has trust issues with Gingrich. I do too and have had such doubts on Newt. I doubt he’d get my vote at this point.

When married to Marriane Newt and she were interviewed on marriage. I will never forget how he ended the interview with a comment his marriage was a promise with his wife and Christ. He lied about his relationship with Christ if he was cheating on Mariane at the time. I have never forgotten that interview. Tht moment touched me and is frozen in time. It was a lie, I now think.

Second wife Marriane told one interview, and she gave very few, he cheated on her and gave family values speeches at the same time. She asked him how could he. He replied she should learn to live with it all and there was no one else capable of giving the speeches.

One oft repeated story he now denies is that he told wife one he was leaving her when she was in hospital with cancer. However there is another story that has a Newt zing to it I think is probable.
A paraphrase–She is too old and ugly to be my wife or first lady. And besides she has cancer.

Newt had married a loving stable woman older than himself, had two girls and led a rich , dense productive life in academia sheltered from the Vietnam draft for years. The he moved on.

I make much online music on converted sinners and sing the praise of John Newton the slave ship captain who authored Amazing Grace. I cite Founders like Benjamin Rush, John Adams as examples of how to live in politics, I felt a red flag with Newt instead of rejoicing.

Why, this conversion to Catholicism with his partner in sin has done nothing but irritate me and makes me feel I should share or bear witness to my doubts. Newt gives that conversion and a video on a pope as proof he has changed and implied GOD forgave him, subject closed.

I can not understand why talks with The Rev Mr Jerry Falwell or Jim Dobson did not provide spiritual tools to repent his sins and find salvation. Protestants especially the evangelicals are pretty basic on repent, sinner and find Grace through Christ as savior.

How a man divorced twice can marry in Catholic church is a mystery also. Newt was dating the House staffer in her 20s while Speaker,. He did not preside over the 1999 impeachment of Bill C for Monica an intern. He resigned after losing trust of causus even John Kasich and Bill Paxton.

He married Calista at some point and worked as a lobbyist , founded American Solutions and worked for Fannie and Freedie in Northern Virginia. (He made a lot of money and spent over half a mil for jewelry. Third wife Calista sounds like Michele Obama in pricey tastes! )

2011 Newt returned to GA and declaed himself a condidate for president Newt had his narrative ready of why he was where he was and with whom.

He may be a big picture man, but I want a constitutional conservative president who spends his time on the ennumerated takes specific to the president and not anything more. Leave charter schools to the states,

I prefer Romney to Newt as Romney has character on a personal level and may have changed over time politically. I can trust him in a way I can not trust Newt.

My choices for president are still Bachmann, Paul and Perry. Perry is the strongest on the list but the other two have the true grit of what it takes to hold the line, be humble and advance, all within a context of trust.

Founders had this discussion, does a private life matter in elected officials. Personal character and trust are important. Dr Benjamin Rush said yes.

romansdaughter

I am sick of it too.,,it takes two to make an argument.

andystone

Just because you keep seeing some guy come out of flaming buildings doesn’t mean he’s a pyromaniac, look closer and he may just be a firefighter.

romansdaughter

nt

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…that must be duly exercised in the political realm.

And sometimes, when fighting a devil, you don’t need a scoundrel!

cacharlie

Apparently, according to Obama. What a player! Wasn’t his “fairness” speech yesterday just so . . . transparent?

Come on Conservatives, let’s show ‘em what we’re made of!
Obama doesn’t even know he’s nothing but a useful pawn of his wife and Soros in playing all the rest of us like pawns too.
Sure – anybody but Obama will do – but aren’t we capable of doing better?
Why not get behind a candidate who demonstrates self respect and heartfelt regard for family if we want to get our country back on track.

It looks to me as though Erick has stirred up a whole reasons for us to see that’s Perry.

medicineman

I was a person who at one time was spiritually bankrupt an was a somewhat a serial cheater (I wasn’t married). I had a spiritual conversion and haven’t lived that life since.

I believe Newt’s conversion to becoming a Catholic and the sacrament of reconciliation can change a person (I am Catholic myself). Maybe I am naive….but for someone who has changed, it is an easy jump…

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…and note in-awe the impact of his Texas/American “army” over the Holidays!

wonkish1

Dr. Bob claimed to know my intentions. He isn’t omniscient.

I was very specific in my criticism of one sentence and said that everything else didn’t bother me at all.

And I don’t disagree with anything in your post here so it would appear that you misunderstood me.

Look its a very specific point. I’ll do the best I can. You’ll do the best you can. We aren’t sacrificing our principals or soul because there is something bad in a candidates past. That’s it. Its a very narrow point. Folks are trying to expand it to mean something else(like character doesn’t matter, baggage doesn’t matter, or that I’m saying we shouldn’t evaluate candidates). I’m not expanding it to any of those things. I’m keeping it very narrow. You don’t take on the sins of those you enter into any type of relationship with whether politically, professionally, or personally.

And don’t call a Dr. Bob response fair. The guys got more screws loose than you could possibly imagine. He’s started a feud every morning of the last 7 or 8 days by creating posts that attack and taunt me.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

—[signed] spell-checker!

mjs65

Is Santorum a “birther” that you’ve totally disregarded his consideration….even over the likes of Newt and Mitt?

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…simply doesn’t rise to the level of “sin” [political or otherwise].

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…although we all know that awareness of error can poison future decision-making.

bwsmith

The best thing one can say about liberals is that they defend their own, no matter how flawed their character is.

Conservatives eat their own, no matter how talented. Anyone less than Reagan is cause for flip-flopping.

This is WAR not just for the soul of the country, but for the survival of domestic (and global) capitalism and security. In war, you have to remain focused on the objective of winning. This is not about pretty wax statues in the Hall of Presidents that make us feel good.

All that matters is the following:
a) four candidates (Bachman, Cain, Perry, and Santorum) are not ready to be President due to unreadiness and incompetence,
b) two candidates (Huntsman and Paul) will not be the nominee,
c) Romney cannot be trusted,
d) that leaves the one competent, relatively-conservative candidate that is left (Gingrich).

Once Obamacare is repealed, once the nearly $16 trillion debt starts getting paid off, then we can preach about putting a man in office that is a “positive role model”.

If we had scrutinized the allied commanders the way we scrutinize our Presidential candidates, we would never have stormed Normandy on D-Day. It’s time for conservatives to get a sense of priorities, shut up with the dreaming about “none of the above” and go to war behind the best choice in the field.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…when I point-out the gross-deficiencies in the postings provided by Wonkish1.

znjs

Personally I think the idea of having a “fighter” is overrated – I want a leader. Not that it wouldn’t be ideal to have a fighter leader – someone who can fight for his ideas in a way to inspires others to follow him, but Newt isn’t that type. He drives people away. I don’t see that fixing the problems we are facing. And I worry that that fighting spirit of his will be used against us as often as for us. There’s one thing that is clear about Newt – he will do what he wants to do, regardless of oaths he has made or what other people say. He is absolutely certain he’s the smartest man in the room, why should he listen to anyone else? And his arrogance when justifying his broken word – ‘I loved my country so much I cheated on my sick wife’, ‘She brought me to Jesus by ignoring and helping me violate my sacred oath I took before him’. That irritates me as much as the cheating itself does.

Note that I am not saying Romney is a leader. But I think with the right Congress and pressure from the people he could be forced into being a decent President. He isn’t my first choice, but I could live with him..

annie54

one-on-one flustered Romney more than even Bret Baier did. “Scholors” like Mitt, Newt and even Bumma have been taught that a fellow who speaks in that manner isn’t on their level. One-on-one, it flusters them because Perry won’t back down. He says what he believes period.

romansdaughter

nt.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…but Wonkish1 is responsible for answering distilled-queries if he is to maintain credibility.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

[both in brevity and wit]

wonkish1

What needs to happen
louisianapatriette Wednesday, December 7th at 7:54AM EST (link)
Is you and Dr. Bob need to agree to disagree and then invoke the Hinz Rule on each other. All on RS would thank y?all at this point.

?Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.??Winston Churchill

Formerly known as ?changeforrickperry?

55555 Change
Scope (Diary) Wednesday, December 7th at 8:19AM EST (link)
n/t

5×5, Change.
avagreen Wednesday, December 7th at 8:23AM EST (link)
nt

55555 Change
romansdaughter Wednesday, December 7th at 8:37AM EST (link)
nt

celador2

When Newt Gingrich stepped into the public arena to run for office his trustworthness became an issue for me. How he leads his life and where his life has led him guides me on how he will behave if elected.

A vote for president, head of state, head of government and CIC is a personal vote.

He says he has repented his sinful behavior, and for all I know he has. I do not trust him much at this point, though.

Gingrich is still a grand, big picture man who is not concerned with ennumerated tasks of a president but sees himself more a Naploleon type IMO.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

it will then be easier to respond…in a few hours, however…

celador2

When Newt Gingrich stepped into the public arena to run for office his trustworthness became an issue for me. How he leads his life and where his life has led him guides me on how he will behave if elected.

A vote for president, head of state, head of government and CIC is a personal vote.

He says he has repented his sinful behavior, and for all I know he has. I do not trust him much at this point, though.

Gingrich is still a grand, big picture man who is not concerned with ennumerated tasks of a president but sees himself more a Naploleon type IMO.

celador2

When Newt Gingrich stepped into the public arena to run for office his trustworthness became an issue for me. How he leads his life and where his life has led him guides me on how he will behave if elected.

A vote for president, head of state, head of government and CIC is a personal vote.

He says he has repented his sinful behavior, and for all I know he has. I do not trust him much at this point, though.

Gingrich is still a grand, big picture man who is not concerned with ennumerated tasks of a president but sees himself more a Naploleon type IMO.

wonkish1

A) Then you don’t concur.
and

B) Will you just stop this crap and agree to a Hinz rule against each other? Or do you not want to oblige your fellow RSers?

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…because on RS, it’s assumed we will support the POTUS-GOP nominee!

[and, assuredly, you know that policy]

Kyle-MI

Newt has a better conservative record, but I have serious questions about his leadership ability.

Mitt has a better record of leadership, but I have serious questions about his commitment to conservative policy.

Perry is still at the top of my list. Of all the problems of all the candidates, IMHO a bad first impression is the easiest to overcome.

Any of these guys would be a better President than Obama. Any of them can beat Obama.

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

We’re all hoping some intervention happens soon because you’re taking over much of the bandwidth on this site with your incessant bickering.

Please, grow up.

dandolo

for me. It is quite simple, even apart from his infidelity issues he fails the test of “do you trust him to do the right thing?” for me.
He has been all over the map on so many things. Add to that the fact that he is a creature of Washington and has been for thirty plus years.
Focusing on the infidelity sort of mars the issue and in a way aids Newt, by allowing us to judge at that point and then stop, saying, “oh, maybe he has changed” and we forget that just three years ago he was sitting on the couch pimping for climate change.

http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

Erick wrote: “I don?t view it as a conversion when one moves from one Christian denomination to another. But still . . . ”

Frequently, a major switch like this signals a move from “non-believer who happens to sit in church” to “believer.” We see this all the time in reverse in the Evangelical churches, with people moving from “nominal Catholic” to “genuine Protestant believer.” If you’re familiar with the life of Mr. GK Chesterton, you probably know that he was only nominally a believer at all before he switched from the Methodist to the Catholic church.

This seems to be the case with Mr. Gingrich, who appears now, after a conversion about 10 years ago, to be taking his marriage vows seriously.

I’m not certain that I would be able to support Gingrich’s candidacy if he had not apparently undergone this conversion. However, whether converted or unconverted, Gingrich is the best thinker in the Republican party, and any candidate would be wise to include him in his cabinet.

windwaker24

That’s actually, in my opinion, is one of the most disgusting things about them. I’m an Independent who tends to favor Republicans because of their focus on character and their ability to call out wrongdoing. I loved that about them. This primary has certain changed my perception and has greatly disappointed me…

geoph

Though we are told many seemingly contradictory statements in Scripture, I tend to fall back on a handful of themes: Hate the sin, but love the sinner; we are to forgive 70 times seven times; judge not least ye be judged; beware the wolf in sheep’s clothing; we can judge a tree by it’s fruit; and give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s, and give to God that which is God’s.

We are all sinners, and all sin is equal in God’s eyes. Jesus forgave Peter his doubt (while walking on the water) and his Renouncement of their very friendship (in the garden on what became Good Friday). I seek not to paint Newt as the Apostle Peter, but rather to focus on examples of “trust” of a sinner.

In short, don’t worry excessively on this decision. Rather I encourage you to pray for Grace and Enlightenment, that your efforts in politics fall firmly in line with God’s Will, and that the Lord take a hand to help us restore our Nation to one that proudly loves Him, and to one that He can proudly love.

lizzie

at 9:15 am, just after their repeat of Obama in Kansas. on mute, but wonder if he is using Biden’s Wizard of Oz metaphor…

bzip

Perry TV Ad: I Can Defend Faith from Obama?s ?War on Religion”
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/12/06/perry-tv-ad-i-can-defend-faith-obama-s-war-religion
http://youtu.be/0PAJNntoRgA

mich22

Gingrich to be our President as He anointed David to be King of Israel, than I’d submit to his omniscience. Until then, we the people have a choice to make, and wise people look at the person’s past to see how they’d act in the future. Thus, the consequences of sins. which are not erased just because a person seeks forgiveness. Newt may have repented and have a changed heart (I hope he did!!), but it’d be unwise in my opinion to give him the highest job in the land, based on his past performance (both in terms of fidelity to his marriage vows and also in his commitment to ethical choices while in gov’t and outside of gov’t).

http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

Newt Gingrich led the most dramatic progress for conservative principles in my lifetime, producing more genuine progress in his first 100 days as House Speaker than the entire stable of conservative Congressmen and Senators have been able to accomplish in the decades since. There is no man alive who has done more for conservatism in government than Newt Gingrich.

If that is not enough for you, then I’m not sure that any candidate can meet your standard of purity under any circumstances.

You can cite instances where he’s allowed himself to be photoed with some Democrat because he takes genuine steps to form alliances with non-conservative groups. He does that because he knows that that’s how things get done in politics. And before you cry “compromiser!” please recall that that is also how Ronald Reagan got things done — by forming alliances with the right wing of the Democratic party. Whether you like it or not, nothing gets through Congress without enough votes to require broad support; the system was designed that way deliberately.

Gingrich has spent the last 10 years publicly touting ideas in every area of policy where a super-majority of voters (greater than 2/3) have indicated support; they may not all fit the conservative agenda, but they will all pass Congress, and if he succeeds, the virulently dangerous 20% on the far left will become a footnote. That’s a result worth working toward.

Change Jar Conservative

Aside from Mitch Daniels (obligatory reference there), Perry has the best small government instincts.

Consider an unforeseen situation regarding how to solve a domestic issue during the middle of 2014. Gingrich’s gut will tell him that he can figure it out and the federal government can make it work. Perry’s instincts seem like they will be to get the federal government out of it.

Scope

One of the things you bring up that I hadn’t thought of is the fact that Newt has been preparing to run for the presidency for the last several years. He did consider running in 08, but said he didn’t have the support behind him to throw his hat in the ring. He said that to Hannity on the radio. So yes, he has been preparing for 2012 for quite a while, as you said mostly with trying to clean up his image.

Interesting side note, Ann Romney was just interviewed on Fox. She said that Mitt was reluctant to run this year, but that it was her that pushed him to do it because the country needs him. Sound familiar? I don’t think anyone is unaware that Mitt never stopped running since his 08 campaign. So is she just as willing as him to say anything for him to get elected? Hadn’t she also said at one time that if people don’t vote for Mitt they are stupid?

Back to your excellent post Circle, and Paula and Sunshine, there is much to be said for voting for your values, principles and beliefs. Newt has the reputation of being the man with ideas, and the attention span of a one year old. One of his past colleagues in the House recently said that Newt would come up with an idea in the morning, and by the end of the day, if not at lunch time, he had already changed his mind and was going in a different direction with different ideas. It seems that Newt had the same ideas with his marriages. It was a good idea at the time when he married each of his wives, but obviously grew bored with the first two, and moved on to his next new and exciting idea. Remember his excuse for cheating on wife two. He cared about the country so much, and was working so hard that he allowed himself to get caught up with a staffer, or some such thing. Hogwash. He had no core values to restrain himself from taking what he wanted and at the time he wanted it. One of the biggest arguments against Newt is that he has a huge ego, and thinks he is smarter than anyone else, and above anyone else. I doubt that Newt ever feels what restrains many from wandering, or wrongdoing, guilt. I was in a conversation with the wife of a psychiatrist that I worked with at one time, and she said “Many people have larceny in the back of their minds, but what stops many from committing larceny is the fear of getting caught.” Apparently Newt feels that he can participate in whatever wrongdoing he chooses, and believes that he is smart enough and clever enough to talk his way out of any consequences when he gets caught. Newt has displayed just that in his very recent interviews when he is asked about his support for non-conservative positions. He puts on his professor hat, gets out his thesaurus, and proceeds to try to talk over the audience, hoping that no one notices that his words are meaningless. Thankfully the Atty’s Gen. in the last debate saw right through him, and called him on it.

For those that say Newt’s transgressions were a long time ago, and that he has grown up since then and changed, most of Newt’s worst non-conservative jaunts were on display when he was in his 60′s for gosh sakes. He’s now 70. As they say, if you are not a liberal when you are in your twenties, you have no heart, but, if you are not a conservative by the time you are 40, you have no brains. Unfortunately some people never grow up and learn. It has been my experience that when you get to your fifties and sixties, you pretty much become “set in your ways.”

Appropriately I just saw Rick Perry’s ad about faith in America, and that he would stop the religious attacks on the faithful in this country. I believe him.

celador2

Newt is the center of his universe and he has always lacked that humilty that is built on a community with GOD or some power as center.Not being the center is what helps us stay grounded and have perspepctive. HIS grand ideas and ego dominate Newt’s drive for power. His confidence is hot air so many times!

Verbal jibes and combat do not a fighter make. Leaders must set an example and move ahead with trust or consent of the team and people.

He did not lead well as Speaker and could not win reelection as Speaker ’99. In part over the cheating but poor caucus policy also is my read on his failed , short tenure as Speaker.

Reps John Kasich and Bill Paxton got the balanced budget and did more on taxes than Gingrich ever came close to doing. His big shot style did him in.

I still hold out hope Bachmann, Paul and Perry will survive the Romney-Newt choices. They have the constituional conservative outlook I want in a president and they are whole people in private. They would linit not only government but teh expanded role of presidency into states authority like education.

Maybe at the summer convention 2012 the three will unite around Perry for example and then other delegates after round one, can switch to nominate Perry.

Don’t give up this early and assume the choice is Romney or Newt!
No one has voted yet.

Change Jar Conservative

You complain about conservatives eating their own and then go ahead and throw them all under the bus?

I think that any of Perry, Huntsman, Gingrich and Romney are ready and able to beat Obama.

mrmises

Look at the substance rather than the style. You recognize that Mr. Huntsman’s record is conservative. His policy proposals are conservative. Am I missing something?

In order to win the general election, you must attract independents. It is unwise to throw rhetorical bombs at the other side. That proves nothing, but it is flashy politics.

Hunstman’s record and proposals are conservative. Americans are drawn to this message because it reflects our heritage and makes our nation strong. Mr. Hunstman’s is a conservative, and his message will attract independents to conservative principles. Extreme rhetoric and conservative ego stroking should not be necessary. We always say that the Republicans are the party of substance. We should look at the substance.

He is the magnet that will draw Americans back to conservatism.

bjames

I like Perry but don’t think he can earn my support back, unfortunately not to do with any of his positions. It would be nice if the end result of losing an electing wasn?t installing a president hell-bent on destroying the country as we know it, but those are the stakes.

Like Erick, I too am warming up to the idea of Huntsman only by process of elimination, even though he?s about as exciting as warm milk. If he hadn?t shot himself in the foot by throwing conservatives under the bus early with that AGW claptrap, he?d probably be in better standing right now. On the other hand, Newt threw conservatives and Paul Ryan under the bus early in the campaign, and look at where he sits. So, maybe he just needs time.

If this Trump debate turns out to be a debacle, all of those participating candidates will have egg on their face and maybe the landscape of the race will change once again. This race isn’t over by a long shot.

annie54

So it shall be done.

JSobieski

I wanted to confirm that you added “in the primary” in your intentions since the words were not added in the actual comment.

A lot of people seem to be literally saying that due to Newt’s moral failings, he can’t get their vote. I hope most of those people mean what you say you mean.

bwsmith

… unfortunately, the Constitution is the law of the land, and there are no restrictions on character beyond what 51% of the people are willing to put up with.

The Constitution gives the people what they deserve, and 51% of the American people regularly do not concern themselves with character when voting.

Democracy is over once people realize that they can “vote themselves money” by electing statist liberals. That’s the Machiavellian political reality we face every election season.

celador2

Any sinner who repents is a blessing to us all! Praise the Lord!

What is so short and flawed in Protestanism that Newt could not see the light and repent his sins? Was Newt not a Baptist who sought help from the Rev Jerry Falwell?

Millions do repent and are some born again all the time. I want to make it clear that Protestanism does have tools to repent, find forgiveness and seek salvation through Christ. Newt chose not to use them earlier.

gunslingr45

No the real problem with BOTH of them is they are liberals at heart. Signing on for health care bills and gun laws that only affect law abiding citizens. And that’s just for starters.
We had better start pushing for Perry hard! He may have a couple of things on his record but as more and more comes to light on these wishy-washy so called Republicans, He is clearly the best Conservative choice.

“For those who have fought for it freedom has a sweet taste the protected will never know”

JSobieski

You aren’t going to convince Dr. Bob

Continuing to engage on this issue will just hurt your ability to convince others, and you have a lot to offer.

P.S. The phrase “individual mandate” has joined the elite category of terms which is headed by the term “amnesty” and “establishment” as sufficiently elastic terms that are so elastic, they cease to have a meaningful meaning.

Common_Cents

Then the choice is easy. Gingrich will be the most likely to beat Obama. We cannot take a risk on anyone else.

Who doesn’t wish Gingrich had a more pristine past? Who wish they themselves had a better past? I’ll leave Gingrich’s past up between him and God.

sunshinek67

To a much lesser degree can I put trust in a Gingrich Presidency. 30-60 second soundbites & Mensa knowledge means nothing to me if it doesn’t equate to adequate leadership, and it shouldn’t to you either, cancels out the whole articulation theory, of which fails to incite confidence when actions are unstable or inconsistent with conservative principles. That’s what this whole Gingrich lovefest fad is about, his ability to debate and as Sheryl commented on HotAir have this “wrestlemania” moment with Obama on stage.

Again, there should be an internal criteria for all voters that we just want the best GOP nominee with the MOST CONSISTENT RECORD. There is no argument as to which candidate between these two has this.

bzip

Okay, you are right. I should specify “primary”. I was wrong in not being clear, usually I try very hard to be but wasn’t in this case.

bwsmith

… I’m a Perry supporter (he has my vote if his name is on the ballot in NC), and before he was in the race, I was a Bachmann supporter.

Bachmann threw herself under the bus. Her job was to demonstrate that she was not prone to hyperbolic rhetoric that does in most House candidates who run. She failed, and isn’t getting a second chance.

Perry had this nomination wrapped up. His job was to demonstrate that he was ready for the next level when the lights were turned on. He repeatedly soiled himself in the debates, and unlike Bachmann, was given 7th, 8th, 9th chances. Now he’s putting out ads espousing the likability of candidates who forget things. That may work when running for dogcatcher, but it’s the kiss of death for a Presidential candidate. As much as I want a President Perry, he has repeatedly thrown himself under the bus.

(Cain was always a one-trick candidate with the tax code and Santorum lives under the bus.)

Newt will be the nominee because he’s the only candidate with the basic political competence to survive the triple-attacks of his opponents, the news media, and his own base. I don’t like it, but too much is at stake in this election. It’s time to cut our losses and make sure that Obama is out in 2012.

http://tbrickert.wordpress.com tbrickert

Will I support Newt Gingrich. Furthermore, I would, most likely, leave The Republican party if he is the nominee. I have no desire to be a member of a party that would have him as its standard bearer.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

and drop it. Otherwise you’re both being stubborn as two mules.

wonkish1

I came to the conclusion about an hour ago that I’ve succeeded in showing him for what he is.

The plan is to just ignore from here on out.

nancysabet

He is up a few points. This primary is different than the previous ones. It’ll be a very long one and I really do believe people eventually see the elephant in the room , a giant 3 term successful governor of second largest state, and will vote for him.
Rick Perry is the real deal, don’t give up Eric, Perry has time and money as well as real message.

nancysabet

He is up a few points. This primary is different than the previous ones. It’ll be a very long one and I really do believe people eventually see the elephant in the room , a giant 3 term successful governor of second largest state, and will vote for him.
Rick Perry is the real deal, don’t give up Eric, Perry has time and money as well as real message.

JSobieski

Given the heat of current discussions, I think the clarifications are beneficial for everyone . . . and have the positive impact of cooling the tone.

I think it is important for everyone to remember that we are all on the same side and we want substantially similar things. The issue is tactics and strategies, not goals. Acknowledgment of those commonalities makes it easier on all of us.

wbb1950

You may be a Churchill expert–I do not pretend to be. But he had his problems–disasters along the way during world war I. And that led to a decade when he was out of power–the so called Wilderness Years. During that period of time he read, wrote and reflected. Meanwhile, England in general and his party in particular went through cloud cuckoo land and pretended the problems were not problems, they could be papered over and a single scrap of paper guaranteed peace in our time. The author of those words–a Romneysque sort of fellow did take the precaution of carrying around an umbrella in the event of rain. But it was only in that sense that he was prepared.

I am not saying Gingrich is Churchill. All I am suggesting is there is such a thing as the man, the moment and the message. And that the threats we are facing on all fronts have an eerie resemblance to what we faced in World War II in terms of their existential ramifications. I am referring to a broader range of threats than just military, and to a nation which is ill prepared for the dark days that lie ahead. Your own analysis of our economic situation should lead you to the same conclusion. That being the case, we need a turn aound artist, rather than a tender of the flock.

I had dinner Monday night with someone whose views I respect. He is a student of history, a former floor trader a former Vice President with one of the largest Wall Street investment banks and he knows the left like few people I know. He lived through a communist revolution and as Dr Johnson observed nothing so fixates the mind as the imminent prospect of being hanged. He gave me his unvarnished assessment of the three candidates–Obama, Romney and Gingrich. He regards Obama as a clear and present danger to every American, so we did not dwell long on that subject. We could easily stipulate to the fact that Obama is a deadly cancer that has menastasized through the body politic so we moved on quickly to the remaining two.

His view of Romney was somewhat jaded. He said the very thing that the establishment Republicans like about the man he dislikes. He sees him as both weak and easily pushed around. He will look out for the elite interests and labor in their vinyard not ours. He also worries about the Mormon thing. He has studied their religion, and calls it bad science fiction–the notion that every Mormon has his own personal planet, that Judas (or Satan) was the brother of Christ etc. The church exerts great control over its followers and in certain venues those who are not of the faith are at a great disadvantage. The irony is that this has also produced a model citizenry at the very time when the social software of our country is debased by Hollywood and the denizons of big media. On a personal level he believes Romney is a decent guy, but worries about the impact of the Church elders etc. In sum, he believes Romney would be a good leader in more stable times, but not not now–not when everything is falling apart. He is General McClellan when what we need is General Grant.

His view of Gingrich is different. He prefers Gingrich but not without some reservations. He sees Gingrich as a great man who is capable of real leadership, and he believes that is what we will need. Contrary to Morris’s assessment, he believes we will not achieve the 60 votes which the next president will need in the Senate, and whatever margin of victory we do achieve will be imperilled by the presence of RINOS like the senators from Maine, Massachusetts and Alaska. Therefore we will need a strong leader like Gingrich to get the job done. He worries that Newt has a taste for the purple, more so than other leaders at that level. Also, he can be tough on people, but that is not necessarily a flaw when people stand in the way of what needs to be done for their own self serving reasons. Thus, in the balance he things he is the best man for the job—the right man at the right moment with the right message. A message which eschews the platitudes you get form Obama and Romney and talks about solutions. Finally his ability to shut down Pelosi on her recent threat and hold big media in check in the debates could be outcome determinative.

There is another point to be mentioned here too. The Washington establishment had pretty much settled on Romney as the candidate. He is a status quo guy–not a reformer. He will not upset the cozy lucrative relationships that exist today in elite circles. He is good for them in that respect. But the country itself is not of that view. Their lives have become increasingly at risk. There has been a significant shift of white professionals away from Obama–and they were a core constituency for him in 2008–due to the dire state of the economy. There has been some shift in the Hispanics as well. Romney is a status quo guy. He cannot tap into that. Gingrich can.

Vaughn Harold

you can’t trust to accomplish your number one priority, cut spending. Neither Romney nor Newt can be trusted to control congress. The next POTUS has to be someone with character to lead and neither of these candidates have the right character to lead this nation away from spending.

Would either be better than Obama, yes.

Should conservatives support them in the general, yes.

Should conservatives support them in the primaries, NO.

annie54

n/t

loganyung

Erick … Newt’s failings are public. Others, maybe less so. Maybe Romney and Huntsman have personal failings that have yet to come to light. Case in point, Herman Cain, who seemed like a very upstanding individual. Regardless of the infidelity charges, he, at least, paid money to a women without his wife’s knowledge. That’s pretty bad. So, does potentially being in the dark make you feel more comfortable in voting for them? Not all the candidates have had the full exam that Newt has had, not even Romney.

nancysabet

and he is Rick Perry. Why settle for less when we have the best .

bzip

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/07/hot-air-snap-survey-results-2/

Perhaps Perry is getting a good strong second look, keep the faith.
Perry 2012

JSobieski

Kobayashi Maru scenarios in the past. I know you understand the importance of efficient resource allocation.

You have a lot to offer, and conservatives hate to see waste.

irishgirl

Wish we had a “Like” button…Well put, Circle

Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

If you’re simply trying to remove Barack Obama from the Whitehouse, and hope to regroup and double down the search for the perfect conservative candidate in the next two election cycles and find the candidate that can thread the needle, run the gauntlet, and receive the mantle of both Elijah and Reagan… then by all means… keep hope alive and just look for the person you believe is most likely to unseat Obama and support them like a candi-bot.

Or… you choose someone that best represents you and you damn the consequences, damn the arguments of electability, and ask yourself who best represents you, your ideals, your beliefs, and embraces the conservatism that you desire to see in the Whitehouse…

Since there is a potential path to victory for any GOP nominee this round, even though no candidate has a straight march to the Whitehouse… you ought to weigh this decision like this…

Would you rather win/lose with the conservative candidate, or win/lose with the candidate that’s a centrist in wrapped in conservative speak?

We need to stop trying to ‘fix’ our candidates, or try to mold them to a nostalgic mold that’s over 31 years old… and is reviewed with rose-colored glasses…

It’s time for consolidation around the most conservative candidate, that can win.

I happen to believe that’s Rick Perry, but that’s just like my opinion man.

Scope

about who they currently support. When you see Newt, Romney and Ron Paul at the top of the Iowa polls, that is fantastic news. Twenty some days until the Iowa cauci is a lifetime in politics. The huge Perry PAC that was set up shortly before Perry got in, and who reportedly has raised over $55 million, is now running ads in Iowa and SC on Perry’s behalf. Hopefully they will buy ad time on Fox, and start running them often. That seems to be the only way Perry will get much face time on Fox. For the last week or so, Bachmann seems to be filling the frequently warmed seat that Cain once had on Fox. Perry will be on with Wolfe Blitzer today in the 4 PM hour.

septembergurl

nt

nancysabet

I am with you 100%

irishgirl

I’ll vote for whoever in the general, but until our nominee has been determined, I’m sticking with Perry to the bitter end.

eddiethegeek

His conversion to Catholicism is significant – he has presumably been to the Sacrament of Confession and has been absolved of his sins. He does not deny his sins.

Nothing against Baptists, but in a faith that believes that “once saved, always saved,” then no conduct can get you damned. In the Catholic faith, his adultery would be objectively seen as a mortal sin, and if one dies in a state of mortal sin, one damns oneself to hell, regardless of whether one has once professed belief.

There have been no indications of continued infidelity since his marriage to Callista or his conversion to Catholicism.

As we are all sinners in need of Christ’s redemption, I am willing to forgive Newt of his past transgressions, because I have to believe Our Lord already has!

eddiethegeek

His conversion to Catholicism is significant – he has presumably been to the Sacrament of Confession and has been absolved of his sins. He does not deny his sins.

Nothing against Baptists, but in a faith that believes that “once saved, always saved,” then no conduct can get you damned. In the Catholic faith, his adultery would be objectively seen as a mortal sin, and if one dies in a state of mortal sin, one damns oneself to hell, regardless of whether one has once professed belief.

There have been no indications of continued infidelity since his marriage to Callista or his conversion to Catholicism.

As we are all sinners in need of Christ’s redemption, I am willing to forgive Newt of his past transgressions, because I have to believe Our Lord already has!

annie54

of disrespect shown to me as Newt has shown to his wives, his mistresses and the people with whom he has worked.

He’s not a leader. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. stated that very clearly to Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday.

NO to Gingrich.

monhar

Bob will never convince Wonk of his position nor will Wonk relinguish he podium. I give EE a heart felt thanks for his open hearted discussion of his feelings. It is difficult to compromise with oneself over anothers shortcomings. We have to accdept that all of us are flawed and in this political process try to chose the one with the least smell to their actions. I for one, would be overjoyed if we could just get Perry to grow to the position of the front runner. He possesses all the qualities and morals that I hold dear. I wouldnt have to hold my nose again when I voice in the general this time. If any of you have an avenue into the Perry campaign, give some advise and encouragement that there are more of us out her that want him, its just that he has to defeat the press and the ones that dont hold the morals as a high standard. Pray for Perry as I have been. Thanks for the space to vent!!

JSobieski

Not saying that Newt is otherwise anything like Churchill, but in terms of how the public viewed them, there are some similarities.

Churchill had his financial issues as well, which led him to be a prolific history writer.

Churchill was also an ideas guy (see a Gallipoli Campaign begining with the word G), which means he was dead wrong on occassion.

Of course Churchill was also a devoted husband and had shown personal bravery in dealing with physical danger. Nor had YouTube been invented yet.

josephmn

individual mandate: “requirement…either health insurance or…a bond ”

glowbull warming: “a green conservatism”, “reduce carbon looting of the atmosphere”

ethanol subsidies

entitlement issues

“rightwing social engineering”

I do not support Newt because he is a statist who undercut our party in the critical budget/debt limit crisis.

I got knocked off the judgement seat with that “…he who is without sin cast the first stone” thing, so I’ll refrain from comment on Newts personal failings.

Scope

and use of the word “guilt.” That seems to be one emotion that has never entered Newt’s psyche. As someone said, Newt has a free roaming mind, and comes up with idea after idea, unrestrained from the restrictions of any core principles. I will add, and unrestrained from the controlling emotion of “guilt.”

bzip

Can we at least say that Newt isn’t doing to well at running a campaign (makes you wonder how he would do at running the country)

Gingrich struggles with state deadlines for filing
May not make ballot in Ohio
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/6/gingrich-struggles-on-state-deadlines-for-filing/?page=all#pagebreak

hls87

You’ve backed yourself into an indefensible corner. Erick’s point was the obvious one embedded in the ancient saying “lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.” Just as Democrats couldn’t vote for a scumbag like Clinton without partaking in his disgrace, Republicans cannot choose to be led by the likes of Newt Gingrich without degrading themselves.

It isn’t that Gingrich is flawed; everyone is flawed and has been ever since that unfortunate day in the garden with the apple and the serpent. The problem is that Gingrich, like Clinton, is a scumbag. In politics as in every other aspect of life, you are what you associate with.

One essenial task for the Republican Party is to rebuild the moral infrastructure that a free society depends on. That will be hard work under the best of circumstances. It will be impossible with a leader like Gingrich who is a perfect poster child for cultural decay. He personifies the moral failings of his generation and, for that reason alone, he’s disqualified from serious consideration as a presidential candidates.

You apparently can’t see that, but I have very little doubt that voters in the Republican primaries can and will.

nativetexan41

And in my voting for a candidate I want someone that holds my values because I would feel certain that the policies they put in place would reflect those values.
I am supporting Gov. Perry , he has those values that are important to me. Family values, lives them. Not ashamed of his Christian faith. Pro-Life, Pro Marriage between a man and woman. Supports strong military. Plus he has executive experience , in the second largest state of the US.
I pray that Iowans and others will get behind him and give him the win.
Perry 2012!!

ChicaGOP

That wasn’t a reducto ad absurdum argument you descirbed. It was a straw man. Best to know your fallacies before you trot out the Latin.

4suramcan

is not the qualification for being a president. Common sense and a passion for the United States of America, along with good moral ethic, is what I look for in a candidate. Mr Perry seems to have it. After praying to GOD for some time now about it, my pick is Rick Perry.

deVere

He is a big government man.
He abandoned a sick spouse in a particularly callous fashion ( I don’t believe his daughter’s story).
He is the only Speaker in US history to be forced to resign due to ethical charges against him,, and now he says the record against him should remain sealed; typical Gingrich chutzpah.
He took a million$ from a taxpayer-supported company for, he says, “doing nothing”.
People who worked with and for him warn us against him.. For Tom Coburn to speak out is a most unusual red flag.

Ben Franklin invited one and only wife Deborah Read Franklin to accompany him to Europe. She refused due to fear of the sea, and Ben may have had an affair or two in her absence during the many years they were separated.

DNA evidence shows that some member of the Jefferson clan fathered one of Sally Heming’s children. There is really no evidence that it was Thomas Jefferson, and his attitude of unconcerned amusement at the time James Callender made his original charges strongly suggest to me that it was not TJ.

nancysabet

In the almost 3 years since he’s been in office, I have never seen President Obama debate. That goes for 8 years of George Bush, too. Why are we picking a President based on a skill only required of a candidate?

ChicaGOP

… and that just worked out like a dream, didn’t it? I’m prepared to give anyone this side of Forrest Gump the benefit of the doubt when it comes to running a slick campaign.

Wait, strike that. I’d take Gump, too.

JSobieski

Seriously Doc, if you think that you spelling over the past few days was error free you may want to think again.

You would be a far more effective advocate for your position if you came across a bit less petty. The one common flaw that you share with Wonk (and that I share with both of you), is the inability to stop the pointless argument.

The only purpose to winning an argument here at RS is to persuade. If in pursuit of winning you make persuastion impossible, you aren’t really accomplishing anything.

Just some friendly advice, undoubtedly worth very little in the scheme of things.

johnt

and sharing your mortal conflicts with us.
But don’t you think it’s time to stop advertising your angst, toning down the battle inside your noble soul, reminding us losers of God, [is He a registered voter? ], drop the Hamlet crap, and toning down the criticism that for sure leftist scum eat up, and BTW, will be happy to use. I’m sure they appreciate your efforts.
Enough Erik, really. Alright, you are a superior being, you and God converse, you walk on water, anything else?
It helps to remember the Thing in the WH, and just what the real stakes are, if you can stop concentrating on your self & your nobility.

medicineman

Wasn’t meant to be a nock vs Protestanism…seems certian demoninations work for certian people…..happens both ways…

Point being that people do change..usually through pain…I understand someone who may not have had that spiritual bottom and thru the healing of Jesus, have actually changed. I can believe the moral transgressions that Newt has had in his life can be behind him, since as of today, they are behind me…

kliff

how would we ever know if Obama is faithful or not? The media is going to tell us? He could be giving Kennedy, Johnson & Clinton a race for their money and nothing but the sound of crickets chirping from the media. However, men who marry women who can kick their ass tend to be faithful.

avagreen

Is he already losing interest?

Common_Cents

I am tired of having to slog through techno type, [brackets], and supras. I was thinking he must have a lot of stock in Toyota.

eldstenorge

There is still the commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” And then, there is John Adams as well, who is talking about the Constitution said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Those who commit adultery are not moral. Period. End of story. This nation was established as a nation with Christian principles at its foundation. Romney is no worse than most of the other candidates, myself believing that Santorum and Bachmann are the two who are consistently conservative and have stood up for us. However, Romney is probably third. Why, because he is moral, because he has admitted his mistakes and moves on from there. Because, despite what those who just plain hate him say, he will repeal Obamacare, he has said he will be conservative. We trusted Ronald Reagan and elected him, despite his record as a New Deal Democrat and having campaigned for FDR. Then, we trusted him as President after his two terms as Governor of California, where he supported abortion, where he gave us the biggest tax increase in the history of the state, up to that point, where he supported very liberal programs. Yet, we still supported him and he became the President we needed. Still did not get all done we needed done, but he moved everything in the right direction. You say, I would support Romney, a moral person, over Gingrich, an immoral person. Unbelievable. And, it is not that we cannot and should not forgive Gingrich. We all should do that as I do not see how we stand worthy of the atonement, the Savior’s forgiveness if we cannot show forgiveness to others. But, that does not mean I have to vote for him for President either, and I will not do so. On top of this, there are many issues, greenhouse gases, he horrible attack on Paul Ryan and his plan for try to get this nation on a sound financial basis, etc. And, Dede Scozzafawa? Wow! That is something which really shows his colors which has resulted in a Republican District being in Democrat hands. A person who withdrew at the last minute, knowing she would lose, and then endorsed the Democrat in that race. Wow! And, that is better than Romney? And, Huntsman is not even worth talking about. He should be Obama’s running mate. Then he could accomplish his aims of supporting Global Warming, etc., which he stood up with Gov. Schwarzzenegger and Gov. Sweitzer of Montana, a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat, in supporting. Unfortunately, he is not like his father, a good man who has done so much for those in need. I have sat in the same room with him, just three of us present. This man is totally caught up in himself, totally arrogant. Very rude. He thinks he knows everything. We already have such a person in the White House.

hls87

Unless he runs on a minor party ticket. He is a preposterous candidate and preposterous candidates lose, regardless of polls taken in early December. There is no more point in pondering whether to vote for Newt in the general than there is in pondering whether to vote for Harold Stassen. Neither one will be on the ticket.

hls87

Unless he runs on a minor party ticket. He is a preposterous candidate and preposterous candidates lose, regardless of polls taken in early December. There is no more point in pondering whether to vote for Newt in the general than there is in pondering whether to vote for Harold Stassen. Neither one will be on the ticket.

4suramcan

high five to ya dude

wonkish1

Anything I’m saying. And you keep on turning into a candidate argument.

At least you could do me the favor of actually addressing what I’m saying and leaving the candidates out of it because my point was irrespective of the candidates.

To many people think that every single thing is about who you support. Well if that summarizes your existence here on RedState knock yourself out, but it doesn’t summarize mine(even if I had a specific candidate I was supporting).

Common_Cents

NOT. Establishment insiders have leagues of attorneys and 10′s of millions of dollars. He hasn’t been running for six years like Romney.

Scope

to please stop the very tiring exchanges between you and Wonkish. I think everyone here is very tired of looking at the “recent comments” column and seeing both of your names taking up all of the air and space here at RS. It is getting very old.

I have enjoyed reading your informative posts, and seeing the perspective you bring to the issues. I’m sure many would agree. However you should know by now that you will never accomplish anything with asking questions of someone who has no intention of engaging in a constructive conversation about particular issues. Let it go please. Be the bigger man and realize that while your intentions are worthy, they are falling on deaf ears. Please concentrate on adding your information and perspectives for those that choose to read them.

wonkish1

So you actually understand my argument then? Because your entire post is about things I wasn’t even talking about. And I’m supposed to “hang it up”? Maybe get a clue, maybe?

*****I guess I’m to assume your a Perry only supporter right? Am I to assume that if you vote for him you condone every mistake he’s ever made? Or is it your position that any of his mistakes, sins, etc. are understandable and expected because all people are flawed? Please answer these last 2 questions!***

benko

“isn?t doing to well at running a campaign (makes you wonder how he would do at running the country)”

This is why I wonder how well Perry would do even if he could get elected. I do like him.

Romney is phony and grossly so. He is not electible (polls agree).

Newt comes across as articulate and has come across well in the debates from the beginning. Perhaps he has changed. I don’t see any alternatives and one can hope he really has changed.

benko

“isn?t doing to well at running a campaign (makes you wonder how he would do at running the country)”

This is why I wonder how well Perry would do even if he could get elected. I do like him.

Romney is phony and grossly so. He is not electible (polls agree).

Newt comes across as articulate and has come across well in the debates from the beginning. Perhaps he has changed. I don’t see any alternatives and one can hope he really has changed.

westcoastpatriette

would violate his conscience.

I predict Newt will crash soon and so he should.

To me, the very fact that Newt would be expecting the party whose base consists of a huge percentage of people who value morality to pick him shows he has not truly humbled himself in repentance. His arrogance knows no bounds.

Nominating him would make a mockery out of social conservatives and undermine the very principles that we are trying to preserve.

His conscious must be permanently seared. His feigned humility is just that and we would be stupid to risk putting him in the White House.

And throwing up King David and Ronald Reagan as comparable to Newt is a sloppy comparison.

This is yet one more test from God. Are we going to compromise one more time and be duped by a man with no scruples? A vote for Newt would be stupidity personified.

Good for you, Erick, for admitting that you have grave concerns about ignoring the warning signs your conscience is giving you. It is very frustrating to me how people justify ignoring these warnings and try to convince others to do the same.

znjs

And honestly I believe he has the better case. Like many have said we lose the women vote if Newt is the candidate, along with anyone else who finds a two time two-timer unacceptable. Most polls also have Romney doing better head to head with Obama. (To be fair the most recent Rasmussen Reports poll did have Newt ahead, but at one point in Oct it had Cain beating Obama by the same amount. Once the attacks start on Newt full-force you can expect that number to swing back in Obama favor).

conservativemusician

Or I fear that the decision will be made for you very soon by one of the mods. In my opinion, they are all exercising enormous restraint by allowing this to continue on for as long as they have. At this point, it really doesn’t matter who is right or wrong because you both are behaving childishly, so please take the hint from others who are telling you the same thing and simply drop it. If you really want to air things out, then I suggest you get each other’s e-mail address and resolve it in private.

Respectfully,

conservativemusician

wonkish1

Every morning Dr. Bob started this up. I had some fun frustrating him when he did the last couple days. I’m now going to ignore him.

carver1961

to be wise in the ways of the world without becoming “of the world.”
To not vote for someone whose christian commitment is not as strong as you might like it to be would be to NEVER vote for anyone.

I try to vote for someone who knows that when their time on earth is done, they will be judged for their deeds. People who believe that have a built-in regulator (usually) that guards the rest of us from their excesses.

I agree that there is a lot to think about when choosing one of these two men, but keep this in mind: the goal is to rid our nation of Obama. I agree with you that either of them will be a better choice. This is, I believe, “being wise in the ways of the world.”

TSquared

Speaking of past Army experiences. One of my best friends in the service cheated on his wife and they separated. After being apart for a couple of years they got back together. Six months later my friend was cheating on her again. Now if you knew his wife, you would know that she played a small part in that outcome. Still it was mostly his doing…

Now what’s that say about my friend? Well going by some here it would say that my friend wasn’t worth spit. But I got to tell you – there isn’t anybody I’ve ever come across that I’ve trusted more. I would have trusted this this guy with anything – to include my life. Some might ask – and what about your girlfriend? Yup that too. He had a funny code. Friend’s girlfriends/spouses were off limits. If he didn’t know you then that was another mater.

My friend was also one of the best I ever saw or worked with in our profession. Dedicated to the mission and an absolute professional. He inspired everybody that worked with him – to include me – to be better at what we did.

Yes my friend was flawed. But on most counts he was a damn good man and I was proud to call him my friend.

It’s been several years since I’ve seen my friend. Last time we spoke he talked about how he had grown up and had been in a loving relationship with the same women for many years. I could see the difference in the man he was that day vs. the wild child of his youth.

Warts and all – I would still trust my friend with just about anything.

Now when you talk about getting down in that foxhole. The part you miss is that you don’t generally get a choice about who that other guy is going to be. It’s a funny thing about the military. You get thrown in together with all kinds of folks from various backgrounds, personality types, parts of the country etc… You work daily with guys/gals you would have never had anything to do with under normal circumstances. It surprises how your learn to accept flaws in others that you would initially consider as disqualifies in even the most rudimentary of associations – to eventually finding yourself calling these folks your buddies. Buddies that you would give your life for. So what’s my point here…? Often you have to go with the hand that you’re dealt. It might not be – at first glance – the best cards, but then again it might surprise you what you can do with them. You got 7 candidates left standing on that stage. That’s it. You best pick the one that’s best suited for the task at hand and not waste time spinning your wheels to find the one that’s most suitable for projecting your idealistic notions on.

One last note. I’ve been with a women for the last 8 years. She has been divorced twice. I’d like to say that she had poor taste in men until she met me. But that wouldn’t be fair to her first husband – who is a fine man. Yes my girl has had some marital issues in the past, but she is one of the most decent individuals that I’ve ever met. So forgive me if I don’t put too much stock in judging people solely on how well they’ve navigated through aspects of their personal lives.

hls87

Gingrich has spent his entire career looking for ways to sell progressive policies to conservatives. That’s what his championship of the individuald mandate was all about. Ditto the AGW nonsense. Ditto his advocacy for Fannie and Freddie. He has never advocated or participated in a downsizing of government. The federal government’s growth curve was unaffected by the ’94 “revolution.” There’s no reason to believe that a Gingrich presidency would be any more transfrormational than his speakership. His term as Speaker was disappointing. A Gingrich administration would be catastrophic.

Since Harding/Coolidge the conservative movement hasn’t even tried to make any headway against the progressive current in Washington. Reagan deserves credit for winning the Cold War (or putting us in a position to do so), but even he didn’t do much to battle Leviathan. Tax cuts are nice, but ultimately beside the point. What really matters is restricting the scope of governent, limiting it’s ends as a way to limit its means. Conservatives gave up on that a long time ago. They joined the progressive mainstream. Nobody has been more a part of that mainstream than Newt Gingrich.

Now we are at an historical pivot point. Conservatives need to be far more ambitious than they have dared to be for nearly a century or the country is going down. Nothing in Gingrich career suggests that he might be equal to the moment.

Gingrich is an off-the-rack beltway hack who has never given any indication that he can imagine a seriously limited federal government, let alone help to engineer one. He’s a non-starter.

tricianc

Circlegranch, you brought up excellent points on how long Newt has been running for the Presidency and how long Newt & Callista have been laying the groundwork for the run.

It brings to mind something that has been nagging at me. Although it may be cynical I had to wonder, and now I consider it a significant possibility, that Newt’s switch to Catholicism was political. That he knows a Catholic will get many more votes and much more support in the General election than a Southern Baptist. Callista is a lifelong Catholic (and I cringe when I say or write that). Her participation in a 6 year affair with a married man shows me she doesn’t espouse Catholic, nor even Christian sacred ideology either. But my point with this is she had an affair with Newt for 6 yrs and was married to him for 8 before he converted? Why the change now? Obviously she wasn’t very convincing in all those years or dare I say, Newt came to an epiphany…not one of God but one of Politics.

tricianc

Circlegranch, you brought up excellent points on how long Newt has been running for the Presidency and how long Newt & Callista have been laying the groundwork for the run.

It brings to mind something that has been nagging at me. Although it may be cynical I had to wonder, and now I consider it a significant possibility, that Newt’s switch to Catholicism was political. That he knows a Catholic will get many more votes and much more support in the General election than a Southern Baptist. Callista is a lifelong Catholic (and I cringe when I say or write that). Her participation in a 6 year affair with a married man shows me she doesn’t espouse Catholic, nor even Christian sacred ideology either. But my point with this is she had an affair with Newt for 6 yrs and was married to him for 8 before he converted? Why the change now? Obviously she wasn’t very convincing in all those years or dare I say, Newt came to an epiphany…not one of God but one of Politics.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

and watched it THREE times–count ‘em, THREE–with my family. It made me feel like crying. You can say one thing: even if Perry doesn’t get the nomination (and I believe, hope, and pray he will) he has gained enormous respect from people like me. We admire Christians who stand up unabashedly for their faith.

“And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God . . .” (Luke 12:8)

omegamale

How do you think the swing voters that aren’t predisposed to look the other way that actually decide elections are going to respond to Gingrich’s past?

Here’s a test, tell any woman about Newt’s marriages/affairs and how he’s married to the home-wrecking intern nearly half his age that he had an affair with and see how they respond. And I honestly think we’ve only scratched the surface, wanna bet there are no more “Ginger Whites” in Newt’s past that haven’t come forward yet?

All the Democrats have to do is turn off about 1-2% of women voters, and Obama gets reelected. I could easily see 10-20% of female Republicans not showing up because they’re so disgusted with Newt. And you’re willing to throw the election away on a “conservative” that pushed the individual mandate, global warming nonsense, amnesty, etc.

A Gingrich nomination = Obama’s reelection

texabama

I’ve determined that their new strategy is just to ignore him, rather than continue insulting him. Lately when they talk about the candidates they conveniently forget to mention his name. Just yesterday I was watching a segment where they were talking about political ads. It was all about Gingrich, Romney and Paul. Forget that Perry has had some of the best political ads out there. No mention of them and certainly no free viewing. The press is just loving this Newt Nonsense. It’s giving them so many avenues in which to speculate.

Common_Cents

Coburn is just sour grapes in terms of Gingrich.

I don’t believe any head to head polls w/ Obama, whether it shows Gingrich or Romney doing better against obama. Why? our primary w/ candidates blasting each other is not like the general, where we are consolidated and focusing on Obama.

At this point, if any of our candidates are even close in a head to head against obama is a good sign.

We need a fighter against the media and obama.

Romney=McCain=Pawlenty as it comes to being tough. They come across as fake.

We need the qualities in alinskying the media/left like Rudy, Christie, Trump. Gingrich has that ability. Romney does not.

The left will throw a Billion$$ in slime at ANY of our candidates, made up or not. So I look at who is best to counter that. I

dandolo

and that is part of the problem. Newt spews out ideas as easily as he breathes. Many horrible, some just bad and some good.

But he has supported an individual mandate,TARP, prescription drug benefit, cap and trade/global warming (not just sitting on the couch, but pushed for legislation).

He seems to be – at his core – wedded to the idea that conservative sounding big government is okay.

Note also: We have had only one divorced president.

vaaztx

Please don’t conflate massive ego with intelligence. Newt keeps telling everyone that he’s the smartest guy in the room, yet what has he done to show he’s actually smart? Being condescending to people does not mean one is intelligent. Cheating on your wife while leading an impeachment on a President for, essentially, cheating on his wife neither shows raw intelligence nor moral intelligence.

texabama

At this point there’s too much bad blood for either of you to make a reasonable comment about the other. I, for one, wish you’d both agree to overlook the other’s comments and leave it at that. You are both intelligent people who make good points and I appreciate what you both contribute when it’s not in response to the other’s comments. This is just my opinion, but maybe others feel the same and you might want to take it into consideration.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…because of the intent to “reduce” to the point of “absurdity” the argument that was being attacked.

In the process, Wonkish1 has indeed created straw-men; here, it wasn’t so much a “misrepresentation of an opponent’s position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man], as it was an excessive [mis]portrayal.

wonkish1

Aren’t getting my comment here and why I said it.

Everything in EE’s post was I think worthy comments, questions, concerns, etc. I’m not making a comment on who anybody should vote for. I recognize a lot of these problems with Newt myself and some of them a reason why I’m not sold on Newt.

But I do have a problem with that outgoing sentence. I will not take on the sins, mistakes, etc. of someone I vote for. I will only say that I did the best I could given the circumstances.

This is an important distinction and this is true regardless of who I pick as my candidate and stretches way back into the past and stretches far out in the future. I’m not making this comment on behalf of any candidate.

The only point is that we do the best we can and I’m not “selling out my principals or soul” when I cast a vote for the best option available. There is no way I’m going to agree to that level of purity standard and neither should you. Because if you did agree with that standard then you already sold your principals and soul last cycle, the cycle before that, the cycle before that, etc. You would essentially be calling yourself a sell out at the same time you thought you were doing the right thing.

You do not take on the sins of those you vote for. You do not condone the sins of those you vote for. That is an important distinction.

texabama

See my post above.

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

wonkish1

What your talking about!

But since your a candibot I’m wondering if I should even waste the time.

Common_Cents

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

1. Do you place any credibility in an individual who feels hospitals should be empowered to refuse to treat the indigent emergently?

2. Do you defend The Newt when he states that he supports a variation of the Individual Mandate?

GINGRICH: I am for people, individuals, exactly like automobile insurance, individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance, and I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals on a sliding scale a government subsidy so it will ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

GLENN: Okay. That?s 1993. Here is May 2011.

GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I?ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable.

VOICE: That is the individual mandate, is it not?

GINGRICH: It?s a variation on it.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/06/transcript-of-newt-gingrich-interview/

sunshinek67

“voting for a person doesn?t mean you assume the sins of the people your voting for”, I said that there should be internal criteria for choosing a candidate for President. It has absolutely nothing to do with assuming candidate’s “sins” or “transgressions” if I give them my vote, your inference is baseless and off the mark. It has everything to do with reconciling a man’s record with his own soundbites, or with their own actions; which will show you in Gingrich’s case, he has offered nuanced positions on issues that are absolutely out of alignment with Tea Party platform ideals. Stop saying that this is some sort of war with the soul over choosing a candidate, or whatever you’re saying. You, my friend, like to spin~

texabama

And what, after all, is intelligence? To me it’s the ability to accurately take in information and use it to complete tasks and solve problems. Gingrich seems to fall short based on my definition. He seems to have created as many problems as he’s solved.

sunshinek67

rather my sarcastic Mensa reference was for illustrative purposes.

texabama

n/t

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…but I do not forget the past.

This carries implications when one recalls support Wonkish1 received – for example, from JSob – and, thus, fleshing-out these concerns yields secondary-gain when others can be “outed” in the process.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…regardless of whether it’s “reductio-ad-absurdum” [Lingua Latina] or straw-man [American English].

“All EE is saying…is give ethics a chance!” [Reminiscent of a Beatles line.]

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

I have seen that cartoon before and I love it. Good job.

sunshinek67

notext

tricianc

If we say he’s changed, then his past record on votes and advocacy on various big government programs and policies can be discounted? All his problems, stances and bad decisions regarding economic and social issues, etc. go away? No! He just knows how to articulate the conservative perspective or the compassionate side to the issue.It’s still Big Government just with a more convincing viewpoint and a Big Government at a slower pace. Maybe, at a slower pace…

Take his recent remarks on children working. People applauded it. It sounds wonderful. I believe children learn from watching role models and from learning they will have to work to get what they need and to be successful. But what’s missing from the discussion and is the true point is that it’s NOT Government’s job to teach children, or anyone ethics or responsibility. It’s another program and another intrusion into our lives. This is just one example where Newt believes Government is the answer.

Since Erick is talking social, personal, and religious ideology and actions here, let’s take those, as well. Take Newt’s advocacy and record on taxpayer funded stem cell research, abortion and partial birth abortion. Can they be discounted? NO. These are not just moments in time; they are lifelong held beliefs. But what’s more telling is his views haven’t changed at all. He’s still in direct conflict with the Catholic principles and philosophy in that Newt is still for the three exceptions to abortion. He also wouldn’t sign the Right to Life pledge. Not to mention his very recent remark that life doesn’t begin at conception, that it begins at successful implantation. Then the very next week, all of a sudden, he now switches and says it does begin at conception.

This shows me a man who will react in accordance to political expediency. It also shows he doesn’t live up to the ideals and vow he promised to keep in Catholicism.

Newt’s changed religions as many times as he has changed wives (He was Lutheran, then Baptist, and now Catholic) . What are his true beliefs? Obviously, they are not Catholic views…so why be a Catholic? I can only hypothesize it’s another for political motives move.

Rick Perry is Rick Perry. You may not agree with everything he believes, and I dont, but he’s never changed. He believes wholeheartedly in what he believes and he doesn’t just talk about it. He fights for it. Meanwhile in this election season, Romney, Newt, and now Huntsman have switched back and forth, shifting to the right and then to the left based on the political winds or the audience they’re speaking to.

As I always say: Tell me who you are. Tell me your beliefs. Don’t pander. Don’t obsfucate. Don’t lie. As an American, a strict believer in the Constitution, a conservative, a Catholic, and a voter, I deserve the truth. Let me decide whether I can accept it.

sunshinek67

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…is falsely assumed to include “Individual Mandate.”

This is a specific characterization of a political posture that is reprehensible to Constitutional Conservatives.

Notwithstanding the intent to blur its import, it stands as testimony to the elitism/statism of The Newt.

It’s worth repeating…

GINGRICH: I am for people, individuals, exactly like automobile insurance, individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance, and I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals on a sliding scale a government subsidy so it will ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

GLENN: Okay. That?s 1993. Here is May 2011.

GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I?ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable.

VOICE: That is the individual mandate, is it not?

GINGRICH: It?s a variation on it.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/06/transcript-of-newt-gingrich-interview/

*

cheetah2

I have to vote my conscience and leave the rest up to God. If all Christians in the country would do that Perry would be winning. He is a sincere and joyful Christian and the joyful husband of one wife.

His plans would do our country a world of good. And just as important, he has proven that the things he says and does are based on sincerely held principles that do not change.

It is tempting to go with Gingrich because he is scrappy and articulate and may turn out to be a good fighter, but I could never trust his principles. He continually proves he is not to be trusted. His flip flop on when life begins happened just the other day. How can he be a man of principle when he is guilty of shenanigans like that?

ok I am trying to embed his latest campaign video. Hope it works.

Once we have a nominee, I will be behind whoever it is 100%, but we are not there yet.

hls87

I understood your argument, such as it was, pefectly. You apparently can’t grasp mine.

In general, your defense of Gingrich is embarrassing on all counts. Ideologically as well as morally he’s a nonstarter. The only good thing that can be said about him is that he isn’t Obama, and that’s true of every Republican (as well as most Democrats). There is no conservative case to be made for Newt’s candidacy on any dimension. He’s a joke, and a hackneyed one at that. Just stop. You’re beclowning yourself as thoroughly as the Cain diehards recently did.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…for referencing my assertions.

groverc

Mr. Erickson, you had a good point on Huntsman and your instincts were correct — so don’t blow it now.
I have two problems with Huntsman:
1) He makes my skin crawl, including the fact he seems to think he’s the most clever quipper since Johnny Carson: hence, I don’t trust him;
2) I think he would make sufficient numbers of moderate-voter Americans’ skin crawl to lose the general election to Obama.
As for Newt, he’s just wired weird. I can’t see him decreasing the power of the Presidency, or for that matter the Congress, as he inserts his bright ideas into every aspect of our lives.
I too hope for the resurgence of Rick Perry. Well, what I really hope for is Jim DeMint throwing his hat in, and sweeping the primaries with write-in votes.

hls87

Both are stupid and irrelevant to this discussion.

cheetah2

Perry’s latest campaign video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA&feature=g-all

texas214

he was loveable rogue, Now that he is at 35% he has quickly become an unbearable blow-hard. He is taking credit for anything positive that has ever happened in Washington over the past 30 years and completely ignoring any of the crazy positions he has taken.

This is the Newt none of his collegues from that era can stand or are willing to support.

texas214

he was loveable rogue, Now that he is at 35% he has quickly become an unbearable blow-hard. He is taking credit for anything positive that has ever happened in Washington over the past 30 years and completely ignoring any of the crazy positions he has taken.

This is the Newt none of his collegues from that era can stand or are willing to support.

texabama

It’s so despairing to realize that the three candidates leading out of the remaining seven are at the absolute bottom of my list. And they’re all tied for this position!

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…is evinced when the identifier of an outlandish assertion is equated with the author thereof.

Wonkish1 would have hospitals empowered to refuse to provide emergent care to the indigent.

I called him on this–ethically and legally–as no one else did.

Wonkish1 claims The Newt doesn’t support the Individual Mandate, an assertion that was contradicted yesterday c/o Glenn Beck.

I called him on this–seeking documentation of when he had allegedly switched his position–as no one else did.

Now, he attacks EE for failing to recognize humanity’s infallibility, attempting to mute an effort to apply awareness of personality to the presumed credibility of public pronouncements.

I called him on this–demonstrating the danger of such tangential analysis–as others have also done.

@ CC, JSob, et al.:

Don’t shoot the messenger!

wonkish1

That you don’t even realize that it isn’t a defense of Newt. That is how clueless you are.

I’m not taking on any of Perry’s sins or mistakes if I end up voting Perry. Same for Santorum. Same for Huntsman. And same for Newt.

And I sure as hell didn’t take on any bull$*** from McCain when I cast that vote 3 years ago and came home for some heavy drinking afterward.

Maybe you see your votes as you taking on and condoning all of the behaviors of the people you ‘pull the lever’ for, but I sure as hell wont. And if I actually did have to condone McCains past behavior to vote for him I wouldn’t have. There is no way I could defend him.

So next time get a clue and understand why someone is making an argument.

Instead of assuming everybody is a candibot troll like you that has infested this site since the campaign cycle began. Not everybody is summed up on here entirely by their candidate and not everybody makes every single argument with a candidate in mind. But apparently that is true for you.

sunshinek67

“Next week, we will have an exciting feature in which commenters at Hot Air and our sister site Townhall will vote for their favorite choice in the Republican presidential nomination race. We want to have as many people able to participate as possible, and so we want to get people registered to vote now.”

Hope to see RS Perry supporters over there!

APA Guy

I’m beginning to think that I’m reading a transcript of Archie Bunker and the Meathead…only neither of you are funny in the least.

This childish display is embarassing the site. Please let it go and move on.

Common_Cents

I think a little more of women in general, able to make their own intelligent decision.

Go ahead, tell that woman about Gingrich’s past, Then tell her how many lives Obama has ruined already.

The choice is clear.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…then you resemble the ostrich.

The goal of blogging is to allow essential truths to emerge.

Weigh in on the two distilled-points, and then you will recognize how very wrong the postures are that Wonkish1 has espoused:

*

Wonkish1 promised he would reply to the following query if someone else posed it [and Guzzardi promptly complied]:

?You, on the other hand, would forsake both EMTALA and Hill-Burton: ?stop forcing hospitals to provide care to the uninsured.? The ethics and the legality of your stance place it over-the-edge of reasonableness.?

Yet, he has yet to do so [although I believe he was going to check-in with his sister...who knows hospital-finance...for input].

*

GINGRICH: I am for people, individuals, exactly like automobile insurance, individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance, and I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals on a sliding scale a government subsidy so it will ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

GLENN: Okay. That?s 1993. Here is May 2011.

GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I?ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable.

VOICE: That is the individual mandate, is it not?

GINGRICH: It?s a variation on it.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/06/transcript-of-newt-gingrich-interview/

*

Basically, my motivation is to expose hypocrisy, whether it is exhibited by a politician or by someone who tries to rationalize-it-away on his behalf.

windwaker24

Feels great to finally be able to participate instead of just reading comments!

1bunny

You have put into words what I have been feeling and why I have chosen Rick Perry to support as he embodies all that you mentioned that we need in a candidate. Thank you for putting in to words my heartfelt beliefs of what we need for America. Kudos to you.

texabama

I also thought there was no chance people would vote for someone with socialist ideologies and terrorist associates, but I was proven wrong.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…and the source is in RS:

“The Emergency Hinz Rule??? entails a suggestion that other bloggers “completely ignore” against “attempts to smackdown the verbal terrorists in our midst.”

http://www.stage.rs.eaglepub.com/nighttwister/2008/09/03/invoking-the-emergency-hinz-rule/

I would hope that we can remain issues-focused, around here.

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

All I see is your’s and wonkish’s name taking up half the comments.

Nobody’s reading your comments anymore (I didn’t read this one either beyond the title), and nobody cares. You’ve made yourself irrelevant. You asked the readers to decide. We have. It’s time for you to, as they say, shut your pie hole, and move on.

4suramcan

But it also says “by their fruits, ye shall know them”. So with that in mind, we have the responsibility to make decisions on our leaders based on their fruits, or their actions, or their way of life.

texabama

I don’t see him as someone who wants to dismantle or downsize anything. He might want to redirect it or give it a new name, but he truly believes that government is needed to solve our problems.

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

I’ve had it with both of you. I will not read nor reply to either of you until this idiocy stops. If it doesn’t soon, I’ll probably stay away from RedState too for awhile. I’ve really had it, and clearly, I’m not alone.

supergirl2911

He is accurately addressing your generalizations. The no one is perfect so whomever is ok is not true. It is where I think meet is leading listeners, although indirectly. I think back to obama’s associations. McCain believed like you in a similar way, not an issue. Not worth mentioning. He a good man. What if anything did we learn from that? His past reflected the core of who he is how he thinks how he solves problem and who he considers mentor and guide.

floydius

I cannot, in good conscience, vote for anyone except Ron Paul.

In my mind, there are two voter philosophies One says, “I’ll vote for the lesser of two evils, even if I disagree with and seriously distrust the lesser evil.” The other says, “I’ll vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may.”

For a long time now, true conservatives have chosen the lesser of two evils by supporting Republican leadership, no matter where it may lead. Most will agree with George Washington’s assessment that political parties are ultimately bad for us. Nevertheless, in the face of unabashed socialist views, they will support big-government philosophies that are at least thinly-veiled.

We’ve arrived at a point in time where your remarks ring true: the two front-runners in the supposedly “conservative” party are Newt and Mitt??? Clearly we’ve gone wrong somewhere, but we don’t know how to right the ship.

In the end, we will have to face up to the fact that neither party represents the interests of true conservatives, and we’ll have to start voting issue-by-issue as opposed to accepting these inevitably mixed bags. Maybe at that point, we’ll find we don’t have to peg everyone as a ‘liberal’ or a ‘conservative’, and that we can garner support for the issues most important to us without kisisng the ring of the almighty party.

floydius

I cannot, in good conscience, vote for anyone except Ron Paul.

In my mind, there are two voter philosophies One says, “I’ll vote for the lesser of two evils, even if I disagree with and seriously distrust the lesser evil.” The other says, “I’ll vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may.”

For a long time now, true conservatives have chosen the lesser of two evils by supporting Republican leadership, no matter where it may lead. Most will agree with George Washington’s assessment that political parties are ultimately bad for us. Nevertheless, in the face of unabashed socialist views, they will support big-government philosophies that are at least thinly-veiled.

We’ve arrived at a point in time where your remarks ring true: the two front-runners in the supposedly “conservative” party are Newt and Mitt??? Clearly we’ve gone wrong somewhere, but we don’t know how to right the ship.

In the end, we will have to face up to the fact that neither party represents the interests of true conservatives, and we’ll have to start voting issue-by-issue as opposed to accepting these inevitably mixed bags. Maybe at that point, we’ll find we don’t have to peg everyone as a ‘liberal’ or a ‘conservative’, and that we can garner support for the issues most important to us without kisisng the ring of the almighty party.

Joshua Persons

This is false: “Most healthy hetro males do this every six seconds especially when there are women around …” I pray no one’s using this as an excuse for a depraved thought life.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…as was evidenced yesterday by Glenn Beck:

GINGRICH: I am for people, individuals, exactly like automobile insurance, individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance, and I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals on a sliding scale a government subsidy so it will ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

GLENN: Okay. That?s 1993. Here is May 2011.

GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I?ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable.

VOICE: That is the individual mandate, is it not?

GINGRICH: It?s a variation on it.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/06/transcript-of-newt-gingrich-interview/

wonkish1

I have ignored him for the last couple hours. And even before then I never instigated anything.

Don’t take this out on me. I’m not the one that just Trolled you!

cbartlett

One additional point – we need fundamental change in our federal government. And I mean serious change from the way things have been done for decades. Perry is the ONLY one who will fight for real change in the big government philosophy way of doing everything. Newt & Mitt are Progressives. Period. Yes – they are a more conservative version of Progressive, but neither of them will fight to get rid of big federal government. Perry may not be able to get rid of all entitlements because we have developed a huge population of very dependent people, but at least he will fight to get it back to the states where we, the people, can get a better handle on reforming it. When rogue federal agencies are making all of the rules and Congess just goes along with it – there is no hope for real change. Perry is the only one that is not part of that rat race and has no real reason to keep an even keel in Washington (unlike those other two). I’m with EE – If Perry can’t get traction, I might even take another look at Huntsman over those other two. We need a fighter – PLEASE!

BTW – does anyone know what Perry’s “negatives” are? I keep hearing that the polls keep saying his problem is not that he might not be able to gain support numbers, it’s because his negatives are so high. Are people still holding his so-called “illegal immigration” stance against him? Is it too much “Bush-like”? What can we do to counter this?

cheetah2

Finally I will be able to comment.

Joshua Persons

Stepping away from Newt for the moment: as far as trust goes it’s not just forgive and forget, but the other extreme of never trust again is also wrong. You need to provide a repentant, remorseful person with opportunities to rebuild a trust which has been lost — from small responsibilities to larger ones over time.

If you think someone who has shoplifted twice is untrustworthy for all time, then you must believe Darrell Issa, a car thief in his youth, is completely incapable of performing his duties as Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

carolynr

Well…Doc Bob and Wonkish…let’s get simple here. We know that Newtie is adulterous….we know that he has been for a mandate and we know that he is for a bond of some type for healthcare, i.e., he will essentially support Obamacare…which is…in essence a tax…not a healthcare bill. We know that he is not self-disciplined and that he has a tendency to talk over people’s heads to impress them as a wordsmith…without saying anything. These are facts.

WILLARD…Well, he laid the groundwork for Obamacare (a tax). His state was 47th out of 50th in job creation. The economy is “his wheelhouse” and yet…I don’t think those voters at OWS will see him that way, i.e., Bain Capital. He has been flying under the radar because he does not like to take a position…something similar to Obama with making his mind up. He has been running for office for 20 years…and has one ONLY ONE position…Governor of Taxachusettes. His Morman religion he refuses to speak of and that is prickly to Evangelicals.

Then we have Perry. His faults…well, he wanted Gardasil (opt out and all) and the checks and balances did that in. In-state tuition…OK…the legislature wants payers rather than takers…he is not for amnesty. The last…he isn’t a good debater. The rest of his record is what everyone wants. He just can’t debate as well as WILLARD (bad record) and Newtie (tainted record). Otherwise…this is what the TPM was about…this is what center right America is about.

So…the story of the Pigs. It’s the debt, morality, lack of jobs, over regulation and radical Islam rolled into one….that is our Big, Bad Wolf in a nutshell.

Guess who has the House of Straw….it’s Newtie….lot’s of ideas…in fact…Newtie played like the one of the two pigs…never organizing in Iowa, his staff quitting because of lack of consistency and over-buying (hint there) at Tiffanys…not to mention a cruise during the campaign cycle. He would swoop in and defeat them all, the other two pigs because…he is sooooo smart. He’s even nominated himself!

Then there is WOODEN WILLARD who decided that wood was a better house. But…WILLARD…like the first pig, Newtie, did not use too much wisdom when building his house. In fact, Newtie and WILLARD…both laughed at the third pig…the one building his house out of brick. WILLARD constructed his house very carefully…he stayed under the radar, never taking stance. He spent $100K getting rid of the computer records that helped write Romneycare. He didn’t do too many TV interviews and when he did, complained that they were too aggressive. WILLARD even went West to spread lies about the third pig….Perry.

Meanwhile, while Newtie was confusing people with rhetoric and WILLARD was trying to hide what and who he really is…with a smile, of course, Rick was building his house of brick. Yup…a jobs program, a tax program, a wrecking ball for the wolf. He was keeping his head down. Yes, it is true…the first two piggies did speak better…but…of the wolf…they saw no threat.

So…when the wolf comes a callin…folks…whose house do you want to hide in? It’s just that simple. The best laid plans are the ones that start with a good foundation. Newtie and WILLARD…where are your foundations? Newtie’s is in the inside the beltway crowd and WILLARD’S is in MONEY. If we follow the storyline, when the wolf came…their houses blew away. Again…It’s just that simple.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…is the courage to propose a “solution” that mandates a decrease in governmental influence.

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

Stick with it, and everyone will see it that way.

APA Guy

…then you not only resemble the fool, you define him.

APA Guy

…then you not only resemble the fool, you define him.

supergirl2911

Especially with my husband although I am getting better.

texabama

I’m an Army brat, served myself and am the spouse of a retired military member so I know what you say is true. On the other hand when you do have the choice of who your associates are you can and should choose those who will best work with you. Many commanders are able to and do ask for subordinates they worked with in the past and don’t just accept those who are assigned to them. In that respect we do have some choices in this election and don’t have to accept Gingrich. I’m not enamored of his personal life, but I have to tell you it’s his professional life that has me the most concerned. His ties to Fannie and Freddie, the healthcare lobbying, AGW “mistake” and Scozzafava incident are all recent and troubling.

cbartlett

nt

wonkish1

Right now that there is a large and growing list of people that are trying to get me and Dr. Bob to Hinz rule each other. I have for the last couple hours. And prior to that many of those comments were designed to frustrate Dr. Bob into shutting up and to stop annoying me and *the rest of RedState*.

And then what I’m telling you is ***that you completely misunderstand my post***. This: “he no one is perfect so whomever is ok is not true.” is not even remotely in any way shape or form close to what my argument is. Its 10000 miles away from it. If you can’t even get remotely close to the argument someone made than you should probably stop go back and read it and contemplate what I actually meant by it because you are way, way off.

And McCain screwed over more GOP legislation and actually was more of a key instrument in passing a lot of liberal legislation than probably any republican of the last two decades. So don’t tell me that “McCain believed like me”.

omegamale

The people that decide elections usually vote for the candidate, not the Party or a particular ideology (otherwise they wouldn’t be independent or swing voters)

So if you run a candidate that people loathe personally, they’re not going to vote for him, even if he has great debating skills. Women in general are especially turned off by serial infidelity, and so should social conservatives if they are serious about the importance of family values.

Even Erick Erickson said in a previous anecdote that his wife despises Newt Gingrich to the point she wouldn’t allow his book to be displayed in their house. If that’s how a conservative woman reacts, how do you think a moderate “soccer mom” is going to vote?

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=90a1ba2c-1d3e-4037-83da-6fbbfaa9b23d&url=what_does_adultery_tell_us_about_character

You write, “our Creator himself saw fit to back David as King of Israel, even after all that mess he got himself into.”

He wrote, “God Himself…apparently thought that King David deserved to remain king — and even have the Messiah descend from him — despite a particularly ugly form of adultery.”

Therefore, this is a distinction-with-a-difference; The Newt hasn’t been elected.

bzip

This is brilliant, just fabulous. It clearly defines each of the 3 candidates to a tee.

I love this story and how it really is so true. Thanks so much carolynr. I sure hope it may open the door for some to see the light and see that Perry is really our answer.

gekster

.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…but he didn’t really reply precisely to the first question [posed by a friend of mine from Bucks County, Richard Gans] who asked him how he would DISMANTLE Big Government.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…with this shift in rhetoric.

Repair_Man_Jack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05ro6fcj6Ek&feature=player_embedded

It may be a hurdle for The E-VIL Nuke Gin-Grinch to overcome, but if that’s the ONLY issue a woman is willing to consider, than she had probably already decided to vote for The O and just needed some handy rhetorical hat-rack.

supergirl2911

I cant speak for others but I don’t think it is a flaw at all. I thought most people or at least many people wee democrats when they were younger the younger being a relative term hence the saying when you’re young…. When you’re old…. I was a democrat though maybe not registered.

1bunny

nt

texabama

Loved how you expressed the Lincoln-Douglas debate challenge of Gingrich to Obama. It’s a delicious fantasy, but that’s all it is. In the next six months we will be knee-deep in so many other issues, that the idea of watching some meaningless debate will be just that—meaningless. People seem to be oblivious to the fact that Europe and the Middle East are at the point of eruption. One, financially and the other politically and possibly militarily.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

this may be his ultimate goal, but a far better choice among potential/past senators from my state, the commonwealth of pennsylvania…would be

[drum-roll]

TOOMEY!

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

As I recall, he has had lackluster debates initially and the “oops” moment thereafter…sandwiched by good performances and followed by excellent ones.

supergirl2911

I was thinking bad com

supergirl2911

I was thinking bad comPany corrupts good morals

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…but not POTUS!

4suramcan

What he said made me swell up inside, because its the truth. Faith, it is the backbone of our nation and we need to regain it. Mr Perry is a Christian and I believe like me, he is a two fisted one.

texabama

He just seems to set off my “don’t trust” meter. I look for the logical policy points, but also come back to that gut feeling.

clowngirl

Erick, Have you watched any of the various occasions where Newt has talked about his faith and his regrets? I’m assuming you probably have but will try and put a list together for you.

To me he sounds genuinely repentant, pained by his prior sins and sincere in his faith. I don’t know that his converting to Catholicism makes any difference one way or the other — but what is relevant is that Newt seems to have made his faith a much bigger part of his life. He reported drives back to Georgia on Sundays so his wife can sing in the church choir. So, although he is a sinner, I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to think of Newt as amoral.

The article by his daughter debunking the “forced his dying wife to sign the divorce papers” story is telling. Not for the content itself, but because it shows something that his daughter from that first marriage was able to forgive him and defend him.

On some level: If she can forgive him? Can’t we?

That isn’t to say that you have to support Gingrich over Perry. I see no problem with you supporting Perry and actively promoting Perry — but I also don’t think it is our job, as humans, to punish Newt Gingrich for his sins by denying him the nomination.

Even King David was guilty of adultery (and murder) but God left him in power and he still served God in many ways as King of Israel.

With regard to Gingrich vs. Romney — there have been more than one article recently talking about the Romney campaign openly talking about having his wife talk about their long and happy marriage as a way of taking a swipe at Gingrich.

Don’t get me wrong — I think it would’ve been a good idea to bring his wife and sons around for interviews as much as possible to humanize Romney – but smugly gloating about his fidelity and using his stable family life as a weapon is rather revolting.

Especially because — despite his apparent fidelity (and I see no reason to doubt it) Romney does not otherwise come across as straightforward, trustworthy, respectful, or particularly honest.

Despite the fact he doesn’t drink, never cheated, and teaches Sunday school, he doesn’t seem the more moral candidate.

Perry, on the other hand, does seem like a genuinely good guy. Honest, trustworthy, a man of faith and humility.

He just needs to step up his debating quite a bit and show he’s serious about winning the Presidency.

.

1rationalmind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDqeeKcu5EM&feature=related

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…of potential anti-Alinsky forces?

JSobieski

I think it is not contrary to conservatism to say that a person capable of arranging their own affairs should do so.

I think it is also consistent with conservatism to say that no person should be compelled to provide a service for which they are not paid.

In the context of automobile insurance, people seem to be ok with the mandatory auto insurance for 2 reasons: (1) its state level and (2) people have the option of not buying a car.

I am no defender of Mitt Romney, but his program was at the state level. That leaves (2)-providing options with the patient.

Patients have the option of not seeking medical care. That option of dubious value in many contexts. That leaves conservatives facing a litany of unacceptable outcomes:

(1) embrace of free ridership by those who purposely refrain from obtaining insurance

(2) placing burdens on hospitals/providers to either cost shift onto innocent/responsible parties or be legally compelled to provide a service for free

Neither (1) nor (2) is “conservative”. What is your solution to this scenario? I asked you this question several days ago, but did not receive an answer. I am curious as to your answer.

Dr. Bob you support the obligation of hospitals to treat whomever comes into the emergency room. This is currently both a legal requirement and an ethical requirement as you correctly point out. I know you don’t support a change in the law based on your previous coments.

Does the patient have an obligation to pay the bill?

Would you support a law that made medical debts non-dischargeable in bankruptcy if the person was purposely uninsured?

Would you support a law that made it easier for hospitals to recover money from patients who purposely avoided having health care insurance? Abbreviated proceedings, loser pays winners attorney expenses, etc.

Would you support a law that allowed hospitals to turn away patients for non-emergency treatment if the patient didn’t have insurance or some type of established escrow account for health services?

Since government created the problem of the free rider in health care, doesn’t mitigation of the problem require some government action?

I don’t support the individual mandate as narrowly defined, but the free rider problem is a problem. As you well know, a lot of hospitals barely make it by and all hospitals engage in cost shifting through their basic pricing mechanisms.

Is it a conservative position to say that free riding and cost shifting are good things? Unavoidable things?

My objection with your use of the individual mandate is when the insinuation is made that the Obamacare madate (must buy insurance) is somehow equivalent to the Heritage Mandate of (must have insurance or post a bond to receive care).

It is the “equivalent” point that I object to. There is a continuum between Obamacare and screw the hospitals with their collection issues. My concern is that the individual mandate label will be used to characterize virtually any solution that places responsibility on the individual to financially manage their own affairs.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…because its subject to excess…subjectivity.

Note the switch from Mitt to The Newt, as evidence.

Let’s focus on SUBSTANCE!

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

[cute]

wonkish1

You’re still not getting it are you? And I think your having this problem because your looking at the whole conversation from the perspective of the candidates and its clouding your ability to just take it straight forward.

Are you or are you not going to take on or condone the sins, mistakes, etc. of all of the candidates you’ve ever voted for and will vote for in the future? Don’t read into that. Don’t assign some ulterior meaning. I mean exactly what I say. Its a very, very, very narrow topic without much context in the race at all. But it certainly means that I don’t condone a lot of things W. did and sure as he!! doesn’t mean that I condone many of things McCain has done.

Are you starting to get it now or are you still lost?

acat

would be to allow hospital emergency rooms to gather biometric data (fingerprints, DNA) for everyone who visits, with the data deleted once the bill is paid.

If the bill isn’t paid, then .. run the prints against the existing criminal databases and add a charge of fraud or theft to the list and let the cops handle it.

So. Free care is still available, but it now comes with a choice – pay (or work out a billing schedule/wage garnishment) or face criminal proceedings.

Hospitals and physician groups and others (churches, bowling leagues, whatever) would have the option of paying (or forgiving) debts as happens today.

Mew

gwbramhall

Dear Night Twister

Nice job with the cartoon, right on point. How does this site let
itself become a cat fight between two who have very little of
importance to say. As for Newt and his various non-conservative
possitions, it is a real eye opener for me, but this moral stuff is
just too much. Please, we are all sinners and he’s got his in spades.
I am starting to give Huntsman a rethink, but by the time my state
comes up in the primary process, I think it might all be over. However
I am on record that the Republican convention will be wide open
and maybe a Hutsman, if he lasts that long, can be a compromise
candidate we can all settle on. In the debates he seemed more that
reasonable and he’s got a lovely and lively family.

deVere

I am shocked by the reasoning of people who call themselves “conservatives” and say they support a man like Newt.

texabama

I comment very rarely over there because there are many commenters who go for the jugular in their personal attacks on each other. I think it is very important to keep a civil tongue when commenting and to basically use the same criteria you would use if you were actually sitting across from the person and had to look them in the eye. Too many people think they can be totally obnoxious just because they’ll never actually meet that person.

JSobieski

However I do think you are on the right track in terms of creating a process by which providers can avail themselves of a collection process that is unique.

I do think some kind of abbreviated process to get to garnishment is a good idea. I draw the line at treating patients who can’t pay as burglars since its more a recklessness than a purposeful bad behavior. I don’t want to redefine fraud so that it captures bad decisions.

Scope

To my knowledge, I have never seen any argument between members allowed to go on for days, now weeks. I have often seen a moderator break up this kind of thing within an hour or two, when both are asked to stop and move along.

Please make this stop. NightTwister has the right idea. There are other websites to read, and to actually get something out of rather than having to click through long strings of two fighting children that adds nothing to any discussion. Aren’t there more important things to focus on than this constant snipping and insults fired back and forth that clearly is a distraction from the important issues.

romansdaughter

My Dad laughed himself silly when TP started lining up with Newt and said to me, I thought TP were for small government…what are they supporting a big government guy for? Newt in no way can you say is a small government guy. I don’t trust Newt ( he thinks he is so smart and can pull the wool over anyone’s eye). So nope in the primaries I am voting for Rick Perry.

wonkish1

Criminality for not paying debts.

The bill is a debt. And I don’t know if I want to start going down the road of criminal proceedings to people not paying particular debts.

supergirl2911

And although we hear it’s the economy stupid valued voters don’t want to be marginalized in the choice of a candidate.

cheetah2

wonkish1

Or what are you talking about?

I haven’t addressed Dr. Bob in over 3 hours.

windwaker24

Your writing is amazing!

wonkish1

Consistently will come to the exact same response without even reading each others posts.

Great minds think alike.

cheetah2

I love it.

http://www.keadleforcongress.com vickistg

if they’ll cheat with you, they’ll cheat on you. That pretty much sums up my thoughts on Speaker Gingrich. He has some great ideas and some great qualities, but his negatives are just too big for me to ignore. A cheater is a cheater. Does that mean that someone that cheated on his/her spouse is completely untrustworthy? Not if it’s an aberration in their character, but in his case, it’s a pattern. I don’t trust him. Plain and simple. Would he be better than Mitt? I’m really not sure. I’m leaning toward Perry and praying that Santorum picks up steam. And this is what a primary is all about, folks. We get to be picky now. Once it’s decided, we have to hold our nose and vote for our nominee. Until then, I say be as choosy as you want for whatever reasons are important to you. It’s one of the few freedoms we have left.

hls87

Your defense of Gingrich is embarrassing. There’s no conservaive case to be made for Speaker Newt. In fact there’s no case to be made for him from any poltical perspective. He’s a preposterous human being and a preposterous candidate. He is fated to crash and burn long before the GOP chooses a nominee.

Just give it a rest. After the repulsive defense of Herman Cain, conservatives are more than sufficiently beclowned. You’re making a bad situation worse.

http://www.thepurpleheart.com/recipient/RecipientDetails.aspx?wid=7f39cbbe-5213-4983-9702-50132a1c73 rsmith7042

Newt has sought forgiveness through confession – both public and private. That had to be brutal. As an evangelical Christian, I figure if he has God’s forgiveness he can have mine. Beating Obama is all that matters. Evangelicals who stay home over Romney’s Mormonism or Gingrich’s indiscretions from twenty years ago are fools. They will hand this over to Obama. Stop looking for a saint. This type of attitude just drove Cain from the race. (Although he handled it terribly) We do not need a saint to be president. We need to oust Obama and fix the economy. My problem with Romney is that he reminds me too much of Bush 41, an aristocrat form a prominent political family, a preppy moderate from the northeast, an ivy leaguer, a manager not a leader, who will tinker around the edges with government. If he were a mechanic he would keep repairing the engine, replacing little gadgets and gaskets here and there, when what he really needs to do is rebuild the engine completely. Look at his bizarre 59 point economic plan. He does nothing of consequence to income tax, entitlement elimination, Social Security, etc. The establishment likes him because they know that under Mitt it will be business as usual in the beltway and Mitt will not makes any waves that prevent beltway bandits and pols in their pocket from making more money through crony capitalism, and losing any hold on power. I think the Dems want Romney to run because if he beats Obama, they can live with him too. Newt is an outsider from the inside. He balanced the budget 4 years in a row, enacted the only entitlement reform since FDR ? welfare reform, Got the Balanced Budget Amendment passed in the house (it lost in the senate.) He also impeached Bill Clinton for lying under oath about adultery, not for adultery. He stated that if the President is allowed to commit perjury, what other crimes will he be allowed to commit without consequences? Clinton was disbarred by the US Supreme Court and the State Bar of Arkansas. Gingrich, when asked under oath in was honest about his indiscretions. With Cain out, I am voting for Newt.
Follow me on Twitter at RussSmith2

onemovoter

In my research on each of the candidates, there were two things that stood out about Bachmann that turned me off from her.

First was her penchant to shade the truth or outright lie about something. I can see maybe a honest slip up about something, but when you do it more often than not, then it’s a habit.

Bachmann’s initial staff she had when she was first elected to the US House, said that Bachmann demanded a face to face meeting with the Joint Chief of Staff of the military. They told her that wouldn’t be possible and no US congressman, especially a freshman can demand such a meeting. She then mentioned a few months later back in her home district, that she met with the Joint Chief on several issues she had. This is just one of many examples I found.

The other thing I found of Bachmann was her temperament in running whatever she was in charge of. Many of the little stories I found of her, from local news to her congressional office, show that she is someone that has to be in control and dictate how things will be without taking in all sides.

This type of personality tends to lead to making more mistakes than normal when in an executive position. Reagan was a good leader, because he learned to let people who normally disagreed to argue in front of him, while he listened and formulated his decision. Once he decided, everyone else got behind him.

These two things disqualifies Bachmann to me for President. Her present position is just fine and hope she stays there.

westcoastpatriette

and stop mandating free care for anything to anyone.

Let the market work, let health care providers use their own judgment in how they choose to provide or deny care to the indigent.

In the same vein, we will begin to see providers open free clinics or volunteer their time as they see fit.

The more government tries to play the great conscience of America and force the private sector to provide services for free, the more everyone starts sounding like tyrants–ie., “You must pay your fair share toward the mess we have created.” And it is infuriating.

wonkish1

What leads to bigger cuts in government spending, medium sized cuts in the existing structures of governments or the restructuring of government programs through privatization or partial privatization?

And if you want an example: What cuts future SS liabilities more private accounts in social security or cuts in benefits, raising the retirement age, etc.?

Lets start there!

JSobieski

Please note use of the word “or” in the quote from Gingrich.

we ought to have some requirement to either

have health insurance [option 1]

or you post a bond [option 2]

or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable. [option 3]

Agree or disagree, but if Newt’s definition of “individual mandate” means having option 1, 2, OR 3 and Obamacare’s definition involves only option 1, it is intellectual dishonest to suggest/imply that Newt’s “individual mandate” is equivalent to Obamacare’s “individual mandate”

Conservatives should focus their attention on ways to focus on option 3 even if we disagree with options 1 and 2.We need to transition from a big government third party health care focus to a individual authority/responsibility health care focus.

Like him or not, Newt really paved the way to bring Milton Friedman into the public debate in DC when it comes to healthcare.

Being conservative means that we support individual responsibility and contract law as a key foundation of that responsibility.

wonkish1

Abolishing Medicare, Medicaid, the corporate health deduction, the state and federal Regs, etc.

So is the answer to just leave these things to their own devices and watch everything blow up because its either eliminate them all or do nothing?

Of course not you have to begin a process of transferring all of these things over to the private market. You can’t fix it all in one bill. It takes time to do it.

After killing ObamaCare…Voucherization, HSA expansion, reducing regs, etc. are the next steps forward.

JSobieski

Government spending is over 50% of the health care market.

Even Ron Paul admits you can’t just shut that down in the short term. Even DeMint is committed to fulfilling the promises made to seniors. Even Dr. Bob is against changing the law requiring emergency room care. Even Bachmann won’t even endorse the far more modest Ryan plan without an aseterisk.

If ending the government role in healthcare is your criteria, you must find all the candidates and all politicians to be unacceptable.

So what I am saying is your political coalition is a coalition of 1 person, you. If we call fragment into coalitions of 1, Obama and leftists win.

So lets focus on what is immediately achievable.

Transition to individual accounts at least makes a subsequent transition to what you want, possible (at least in theory). It provides a common path that we can achieve before splintering into a million pieces (kind of like how repealing Roe is a comon path we can achieve before the pro-life movement splinters into a million pieces).

cbartlett

I said this earlier – Mitt and Newt are both the conservative version of Progressives who think the federal government can solve the problems. We need fundamental change away from big federal government and Perry is the only one willing to fight to do that. He will at least get it back to the states where ordinary people might have a chance to make the changes. Mitt & Newt are too invested in Washington politics as usual – they will end up pandering. The MSM – including Fox – is Perry’s worst enemy. Not only do they marginalize him at every opportunity, they outright ignore him as a “serious” candidate most of the time. We, unfortunately, have a huge voting population who are ignorant and uneducated. They depend completely on sound bytes and I’m afraid it is going to be an uphill battle for Perry with the media.

jrfromdallas

Santorum- His whole candidacy has been based on family values. That’s fine but he has not done enough to show what his Presidency would do to make this a better country besides repealing Roe vs. Wade and Don’t ask Don’t tell.
Romney- What day is it and where is he speaking and I will tell you how he feels about an issue.
Gingrich- Co-Sponsored over 400 bills with Nancy Peloso. Isn’t that enough? But he also took money from Freddie Mac while saying Frank and Dodd should be arrested (I agree) for their failure to stop the housing bubble. He also fails the moral test with me for cheating on his wife with his current wife. Like Ross Perot once said. If your wife can’t trust you then how can I?
Bachmann- She jumped the shark with me when she claimed that Gardasil caused mental retardation. If they created a vaccine for Cancer/Aids would she be against that as well? Congress members don’t do well in Presidential elections for a reason. I don’t believe she has enough substance.
Paul- His foreign policy is just dangerous and no sane person can feel that his views are aligned with the majority of Conservatives.
Huntsman- Intelligent guy, but his view on global warming is not in line with my view and his inability to get about 1% nationally doesn’t give me the warm and fuzzy feeling that I should get.
Perry- He is my guy because he has the conservative record to back up everything he says. His book was well written and presented a strong view on what’s wrong with Washington. His debate performances in the beginning were equivalent to be thrown in the Lions Den with everyone including the moderators ganging up on him. He had not yet put together his policies and relied too much on his record but now that he has his Energy/Foreign Policy/Job plan I feel like he should be the nominee. We need to all get behind him and present him as our choice for the Republican nomination.

jrfromdallas

Santorum- His whole candidacy has been based on family values. That’s fine but he has not done enough to show what his Presidency would do to make this a better country besides repealing Roe vs. Wade and Don’t ask Don’t tell.
Romney- What day is it and where is he speaking and I will tell you how he feels about an issue.
Gingrich- Co-Sponsored over 400 bills with Nancy Peloso. Isn’t that enough? But he also took money from Freddie Mac while saying Frank and Dodd should be arrested (I agree) for their failure to stop the housing bubble. He also fails the moral test with me for cheating on his wife with his current wife. Like Ross Perot once said. If your wife can’t trust you then how can I?
Bachmann- She jumped the shark with me when she claimed that Gardasil caused mental retardation. If they created a vaccine for Cancer/Aids would she be against that as well? Congress members don’t do well in Presidential elections for a reason. I don’t believe she has enough substance.
Paul- His foreign policy is just dangerous and no sane person can feel that his views are aligned with the majority of Conservatives.
Huntsman- Intelligent guy, but his view on global warming is not in line with my view and his inability to get about 1% nationally doesn’t give me the warm and fuzzy feeling that I should get.
Perry- He is my guy because he has the conservative record to back up everything he says. His book was well written and presented a strong view on what’s wrong with Washington. His debate performances in the beginning were equivalent to be thrown in the Lions Den with everyone including the moderators ganging up on him. He had not yet put together his policies and relied too much on his record but now that he has his Energy/Foreign Policy/Job plan I feel like he should be the nominee. We need to all get behind him and present him as our choice for the Republican nomination.

parkfairfax

You cannot have a productive chicken without it being born.

I agree with everything you said about the better president.

However, if the best candidate loses in the election, then are left with the worst candidate (Obama).

We ideally need everything you spelled out. First, we need to win.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

Now Scope and wonkish1, PLEASE don’t get into an argument. Please please please PLEASE.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

Ingenious, even. If you don’t have a blog then you really need one, or better yet, make this into a diary we can tweet!

tngal

?Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is.” – yoda

Newt knows everything. Just ask him. Plus he’s got that whole “force” thing going on.

theobnoxiousamerican

Perry won’t win. And it’s not for my lack of wanting him to that I’m saying it. America 2012 is too stupid to elect someone on policy and achievements alone. This is the same electorate that voted in Obama after all.

center77

character matter, Meets lack character. Now Huntsman just flip flops on the science of global warming today, so I’m thinking against him again. To be honest, until Perry got in I was leaning huntsman, it was because of his record, but since he has run to the left, and I think he is selling out his true principles. I like him, he is my second choice, but I’ll take Perry because he is everything a good president should be. We would be happy with him. While gov. Perry defended Intelligent design, which is really awesome. His record speaks for itself, and it will against Obama.

septembergurl

to be explored, as Erick is doing.

To me it is a question of character. We have three candidates who have executive records and a variety of experiences that make them qualified for the Presidency — Huntsman, Romney and Perry. They are also men who married woman they met in high school and formed rock-solid marriages, with fiercely loyal, supportive wives and loving families. They are three ambitious, successful men who have moved among the highest circles of power in our country.

Yet it’s obvious they derive their greatest satisfaction and pride in the success of their marriages and in their family life. Does this matter? I think it does. It means they are grounded in something that is the basic organizing structure of our civilization. It means they take their vows seriously, respect their wives, and do their best to serve as an example to their children.

In other words, they exemplify the kind of high standards we have a right to expect from our leaders, in whom we place trust and power. I think it’s fair to measure people by this standard. And by this standard, Gingrich comes up short. Not for the divorces, but as erick says for the adultery. To choose between romney, who is politically unreliable, and Gingrich would thus be hard for me. Between Gingrich and Obama, not a hard choice! But not one I welcome making.

Now, on the subject of candidates’ families, let me leave you with a question:

Which of our current candidates (including ex-candidates) has family members (I’m thinking of children) in the US military?

The answer will surprise you.

cbartlett

Great story/analogy! Just wish more of the country could see things like this!!

center77

to beat Obama. Not one female u know will vote for him, and they are all independents that care little about ideology, but care for their nation. Meets bad new, and necks interview proves that.

center77

but it does not change the fact many in the middle will hold him to accountable. His positions are as bad as Romneys, Newt will not fight the mandate, its one of his things. We do not need Roosevelt, we need something new, a person who will take Washington on. Perry has done a lot better in the debate format. He should be our nominee.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

There’s a lot of positive Perry articles out there that should give you some encouragement. Here are two for starters:

Steve Forbes: “Perry Has A Chance To Move Up”
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/perry-gingrich-forbes/2011/12/07/id/420176

Bryan Fischer: Perry is Starting His Comeback in Iowa
www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147514525

Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

You presuming that women are ‘one issue robots’ because they reject a candidate on a single issue… on the contrary, it only takes one reason to not vote for someone, whereas to vote for someone requires accepting the candidate for the good, the bad, and the ugly… Clearly if someone doesn’t vote for Gingrich it only means there was at least one “something” that was unacceptable or not preferable in the candidate.

What is clear, is the choice, currently, is not between Newt and Obama…not yet, not until Newt wins the nomination…

When there are other candidates for GOP nominee, then the point being made here is quite legitimate. Regardless of the analysis regarding whether or not Gingrich’s nomination = Obama’s re-election is accurate.

For anecdotal review, my wife is a virtuous, kind woman, that considers herself a classical feminist, not a feminazi (her words not mine)… I often ask her questions without revealing names but discuss situations only with her… as she’s never tuned into news/radio and could care less about politics… she typically votes the Republican ticket in most races.

When I gave her generic information about Gingrich’s wife/cheating situation, and emphasized that he’s been converted to Catholicism and maintained his current marriage for nearly 10 years, and seems to have reformed that personal flaw in his life as best can be done… the question was posed to her… “Would you vote for this unnamed candidate in the primary if he was the best candidate to beat Barack Obama in the general and turn the country around?”… her answer: No, because I wouldn’t be able to trust someone that violated a relationship of trust twice to be my president, even if he’s cleaned up his act… temptation to breach trust will always be a weakness for him.”

When asking her the follow up: Would you vote for him in the general if he won the nomination anyway? Her answer: If I had to yes, but I wouldn’t like it. Then I asked “Why?” and the answer was: Because we couldn’t do much worse than Obama who has also breached the trust of the people…

take it or leave it… its something that Gingrich fair or not will have to convince enough people that is isn’t something he struggles with… and while he’s making that argument… he’ll be distracted with the “you’re a big government Republican” discussions… and “you’ve seem to been on all sides of the issues”….

I don’t think people ought to discount Gingrich due to his personal life issues… but at this time… I find Rick Perry to be preferable for a lot of reasons (based on policy and record) that have nothing to do with personal life comparisons…but that’s just me.

bwsmith

- terrible performances in the debates
- his “drunken” speech in New Hampshire
- forgetting the DofE
- “n-rock”
- “21 voting age” and voting date
- opponents of funding for illegals’ education “don’t have a heart”

acat

If someone were to steal a picnic table from a public park, it’s theft. If someone were to rope off a public garden for a wedding without a permit, it’s theft. If someone were to demand that a public employee of the parks department mow his lawn, that’s theft. A taking from the common for the individual.

I recognize that medical care is inherently different, but the way I see it playing out is that very few would actually go to jail. The point of this proposal is to recognize that, by mandating that the E.R. provide care regardless of ability to pay, the government has turned private individuals and private resources (doctors, nurses, medical equipment and supplies) into a public resources, a “common” and therefore the government has a role to fill in protecting this “common”. Seems to me that the best approach is to use existing laws.

Those who can and willl pay, of course, would continue to do so.

Those who could pay but currently do not would have a much better reason (criminal record, garnished wages, seized tax return) to pay up front.

Those who can’t pay remain at the mercy of charity, just as they are now, and ever shall remain. Such is life.

The first problem – the tragedy for this common – is that an increasing percentage from the first group are drifting down into the second group because misuse of the E.R. is seen as “victimless” .. By holding them responsible, we reduce the strain on the charitable part.

The second problem is the number of illegals who abuse the E.R. In this case, I’m assuming there’s a percentage who can pay – likley in cash – but who do not. With the specter of biometric data gathering for those who do not set up a payment plan, perhaps more will opt to pay.

We don’t have to shift much out of this second group to put E.R.s back on a stable footing, after all.

Mew

theobnoxiousamerican

It really doesn’t matter how encouraged I feel. Remember what happened with Palin? It will make what they do to Perry look kind in comparison.

westcoastpatriette

and did not mean that there would not have to be a transition period. Duh.

Just trying to amplify that big gov ideas morph into tyrannical solutions and the only way out is to head toward free market, private nonprofit avenues to handle social services. And its doable but would require a change in mindset and constant reminders that we do not need the government to tell us how to handle personal problems in our communities. Much less mandate taxpayers to pay for their grandiose philanthropic endeavors. It’s unconstitutional and soft socialism–and not conservative at all.

acat

See, once the government turned a private hospital into a public resource, the line between the two gets a bit more blurry….

Mew

wonkish1

Seems like another one to add to the list of those running off.

cacharlie

Nice work, change jar!

center77

after the left wing media hounded him for saying both sides have a argument to make. Now I understand that no one is going to be perfect, but two major problems with him doing this. First is energy is needed and will be part of any true recovery; that’s a major issue, second is that any candidate that runs to the center just because the media hits them is weak. They are not showing a willingness to fight for their principles. That makes Huntsman seem weak, and I think independents are not going to follow weak. They want a leader. Sledge hammering Washington sounds real nice too me.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

He will give the media a run for their money. Like izoneguy said earlier, he’ll go for Obama’s jugular and smile while he’s doing it–and the conservative TPM people won’t give a ding-a-ling what the MSM says.

JSobieski

Ideas that Newt has been advocating for decades.

omegamale

Of course only silly and stupid women care about morality and traditional family values. And Newt blasting Clinton over Monica Lewinsky while he was having his own affair? It doesn’t matter because Newt has an (R) next to his name.

The Republican Party will have ZERO credibility as the party of social conservatives and traditional values if it nominates Newt.

wonkish1

But today a hospital is a private entity. Its not the government with its taxing authority.

People don’t go to jail for defaulting on other private debts like mortgages, car loans, credit cards, utility bills, cable and internet bills, etc.

This would be the first serious departure involving jail for debtors. Would you expand it to student loan debt? That is truly government credit and could end up seeing a lot of people in jail for not paying student loan debt in the future given current circumstances.

Honestly I think you may have found something more politically unpalatable then just ending treatment for the uninsured and ineligible(for existing programs).

logicalpositivist

Newt Gingrich is a flawed messenger. To conservatives, his message has always been, “I’m not perfect, but I stand up for taxpayers, for moms and dads, for the soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen, and for everyone else who wants to make America better.”

But to the rest of the electorate, Newt’s message is, “I want to suppress the expansion of gay rights because gay people are immoral. I want to criminalize abortion because it’s immoral. But I’m a hypocrite because I’m opposed to other people’s immoral behavior while I’m asking you to condone or at least ignore my own immoral behavior.”

And then, to add insult to injury, the man as the gall to suggest that laws prohibiting child labor are contributing to poverty.

Newt Gingrich is pathologically insane. He is, by his own admission, arrogant, egotistical, and inconsistent (that’s another word for “flip-flopper” for those of you watching at home).

I volunteer to be the first on the “Anyone but Gingrich” bandwagon. Who is with me?

JSobieski

Nobody goes to jail for patent infringement, or failing to pay a bill.

Nobody issues a bill to the person who steals a picnic table. If something is billed, it would seem to me to be a civil matter under contract law (or even tort law —fraud is a tort as well as a crime) rather than a crime under criminal law.

Providers willingly provide the services. Patients are invoiced, and are contractually responsible.

Maybe the key issue is that medical services are not property, they are services.So there is no analogy to the park bench.

If a client doesn’t pay me for legal services, my remedy is to file a lawsuit in civil court for breach of contract. No police officer is going to pursue the free loading client for any kind of crime.Not sure why medical services should be treated differently.

One aspect of libertarianism that is well grounded in conservatism, is the believe that civil law (contract and tort) are the proper remedy for a lot of ills.

wonkish1

With proposals to do that and start that transition to the private sector he is labeled a “Big Government Type” even though it means lowering government spending and shrinking government through partial privatization.

logicalpositivist

I’ll admit that Dr. Sklaroff’s behavior has been boorish. Persistent even.

But this kind of behavior has been tolerated when people like gekster and acat do it. Some of the moderators are just as immature and boorish. (They know who they are.)

Why shouldn’t we let Dr. Sklaroff carry on with his immature behavior?

irishgirl

Substance over style……

wonkish1

You technically are not a thief when you default on a credit card or mortgage. And the same is true of a medical bill.

JSobieski

The IRS doesn’t put people in jail for mere non-payment of debt. The IRS puts people in jail for certain specific aspects of bad conduct. Put another way, there are civil penalties under tax law and criminal penalties under tax law.

The IRS has civil penalties as well as criminal penalties, and civil penalties don’t become criminal penalties solely on the basis of non-payment. That is not how the system works. Mere non-payment isn’t a crime, and will not result in jail time.

In most cases, the IRS garnishes wages, places liens on property, or garnishes bank accounts.The IRS is very good at collecting money

Blatant refusal to file (not merely opportunistic accounting)
Fraud schemes that involve filing false returns for non-existent people to get undeserved refunds.

logicalpositivist

He is a hypocrite in so many ways.

He voted to create the Department of Education.

He kited 22 checks from the House bank then went after both Republicans and Democrats who did the same thing.

He is a “warmer” (climate change fanatic).

He supported the individual mandate for healthcare.

He supported taxpayer funding of abortions.

He was Speaker during the impeachment hearings of President Clinton even while he maintained a sexual relationship with his then-mistress (now his third wife, Callista). Although I can distinguish between a man who cheats on his wife and then lies about it under oath and a man who simply cheats on his wife, Joe Sixpack cannot distinguish the two.

Please don’t nominate Gingrich. It would be a huge, fat-headed mistake.

ericksontales

Your comments on Newt sound an awful lot like a social conservative. If you are how can you justify being against someone who has been true and faithful to his one and only wife for 42 years? He stood by her side through serious health issues and has treated her like a queen.

Newt has been a consistent liar, manipulator, adulterer, ethics violater, politician, etc… He is the ULTIMATE Washington insider. Newts entire campaign from the beginning was about self promoting and building his brand. Newt is only up in the polls because Bachman, Perry, and Cain are down.

Romney is the only serious candidate. He is the only one that has been vetted for the past several years by the Obama Campaign machine and they still have not been able to sink him. As soon as any of these other candidates go up against the Obama Campaign Machine you can rest assured they will be obliterated, especially Newt with his history.

I don’t see how you can look in the mirror and vote for Newt over Romney. That makes no sense. Romney will run the presidency as a conservative and get the country back on track. While he has not always been a true conservative he has the spine to switch positions and make things right.

logicalpositivist

Let it go on.

Neither wonkish1 nor his/her detractors have broken the rules. At least, no more than what has been tolerated here in the past.

Let the free market of ideas run its course. If someone drops an f-bomb or goes racial, then that person can and should be banned.

jadegiles25

perry the ebst candiate of all reublicna group-running for res; he ahs experince-leadership and vision. well-qualify.SENATOR COBURN SAID YESTERDAY POLOICOT.COM NEW) COBURN SAID GINGRICH LACK OF LEADERSHIP[WHEN HE WAS IN WASHIGNTON A SA SPEAKER HE RESIGNED HE WAS MEAN THEN TO PRES. BIL CLINTON ;NOW OF THEM WE LIKE; ONLY RICK PERRY-A DOER NOT A DBATER.
rick perry was born under the chinese zodiac sign; a natural brn leader-warm-hearted-brave-courageous-respectful-principled man-honest-loyal faithful honorable.he mean what he say.perry born under the tiger year-he bring luck to this country. i predict this. before i predict also that if americna peole choose obama over hilalry?this is what happen udner obamas watch -ad, a fialure pres.union leader- complaim about obama not help enough to them and even white american peopel and black. now the uin back again oabma manage to mesmerize the peoel again and AFSCME UNION. OMG THIS COUTRY IS GOING TO BE DESTROYED MORE UNDER OBAMA ADM.
GINGRICH HAS LOTS OF WIVES PLUS HE SNOT THAT GOOD. LOTS OF SKELETON IN THE CLOSET AS PILOSE EMPHASIZE(SMILE)
IF PERRY CANNOT BE NIMENATED?I WONT VOTE-(PHSYCHIC LADY COMMENT)

onemovoter

I really value Erick’s honest stance of the race, even when it’s bad news for someone I support. You cannot get better if you never face your weaknesses.

Erick has been the only honest voice that I have been listening to for this year. We’ve seen the criticisms of other on air and on TV persons who really show a bias that isn’t honest.

I have no problem with someone who has a bias towards someone as long as they are honest about all of the candidates in their strengths and weaknesses. Erick has been honest about all of the candidates in naming their stances and contradictions.

For those flaming Erick for any negatives towards your favorite candidate, you should be thanking him. It is to bring out weaknesses now so that it won’t be exploited by Obama and his cronies.

Thank you Erick for all that you do.

wonkish1

Stop reading stuff into my post that isn’t there.

There is nothing about my comment that is even specific to this race. I would say the exact same thing going back since I started voting and actually even farther back(if we were talking about looking with hindsight).

Your principals and soul should mean you do the best you can with what you’ve got(regardless of your choice), not that you should have to condone every sin, mistake, etc. they’ve made in the past.

logicalpositivist

Although that may not damage your soul, it reveals where your values are.

Newt’s message to Americans may seem to be “work hard and you can succeed in America”.

But look how Newt has succeeded: (1) he married his math teacher right out of high school, (2) he ran for Congress and lost twice by running to the left of his Democrat opponent (he ran on an environmentalist platform and lost twice), (3) he kited 22 checks using the House bank and then went after Republicans and Democrats who did the same thing, (4) he was so abusive to fellow Republicans that Tom Delay, Dick Armey, Tom Coburn, and others were prepared to oust him when he finally agreed to step aside, (5) he has not been faithful to his family, his church, or his party.

The man cannot be our nominee. He is a Washington insider who has made a career out of flip-flopping on everything.

logicalpositivist

Beer: the cause of and solution to all of life’s little problems.

theobnoxiousamerican

Thus far, he has not demonstrated it. And in about 5 weeks, the nomination will be all but sewn up. Not much room to right the ship.

Again, don’t get me wrong. Policy wise, I think Perry is the best candidate. And I like him personally, and enjoy his ads. And he carries, which to me is a major plus.

In the mind of our simpler countrymen, Perry reminds them too much of Bush. And these simpletons (the media calls them independents), they need to vote for someone who reinforces their own view of themselves that they are smart. Hence, the candidate needs to be able to debate and show up Obama. Newt would be the best at this, and I think Romney would do well. Perry would simply get destroyed.

federalfarmer1

Being ignored by the media is the best thing for Perry.

I’m finding huntsman moving into my number two spot ahead of Perry. I think he would be very difficult for Obama to run against and not much that I can find that the media would attack him with. It’s reassuring to see him start to try to appeal to conservatives more by raising the east anglia emails and questioning the accuracy of some of the global warming science.

I’m starting to also wonder how Newt will wear over the course of the campaign. He’s great in small doses, but its tiring to keep up with him when he’s in the news every day.

streiff

I don’t see the “hypocrisy” anywhere as I don’t really agree with your description of the House Bank scandal.

In the final analysis we all know this and a lot of us, like Erick, have made the prudential judgment that Newt is a better candidate than Romney and if he loses he will not hurt us down ballot the way Romney will.

logicalpositivist

Now wait. Before you ban me. I realize that both Perry and George W. Bush are smarter men than I. Dan Quayle is also a smarter man than I. And Sarah Palin is wiser than anyone in the media suspects.

But the message that Joe Sixpack already understands about Rick Perry is that he is a great fool. No amount of intelligent quotes can reverse that perception. Just ask any of the above-listed politicians.

If you want to complain that Perry was sabotaged by the media in a way that Hillary and Obama never were, fine. You’ve come to the right place.

But once the media has done it’s damage, you can’t reverse it. The polls show that the media has destroyed Perry the exact same way it destroyed Quayle and Palin and the same way it tried to destroy both President Bush’s.

There is no antidote for media poison yet.

theone3434

a man who cheats on his wife while she is sick in the hospital undergoing cancer treatments…AND has his children ask his wife if it’s ok for him to talk to her about wanting a divorce IMMEDIATELY after surgery to help remove said cancer.

The man is disgusting.

logicalpositivist

Polls and soundbytes have proven that.

Have the media been fair to him? No.

But Perry knew that they would not be fair to him.

Does Gingrich expect the media to be fair to him? I hope not.

wonkish1

That has been debunked so many times. In many different ways as well.

logicalpositivist

He was a Perry-bot from the beginning. He created a save-haven where Perry-bots could say whatever they wanted and no one could criticize Perry.

As it turned out, RS is far less powerful among Republicans than Erick thought.

Now, Erick, in a last-ditch attempt to stop Romney from proving how impotent RS is at swaying conservative opinion, is supporting Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich? Newt is the most liberal of all candidate according to George Will.

If you can’t stand flip-floppers, you should stay the hell away from Newt. He is the original flip-flopper.

theobnoxiousamerican

Given today’s stark differences between statists and those of us fighting for this great nation, all of your points were very clear. However, voting in favor of a Dept of Ed in the late 70s, the landscape was quite different. The left wasn’t completely beholden to socialism and central management. Same can be said for many of the points you’ve raised. He’s still more conservative than Romney.

benko

end of story.

logicalpositivist

He was a check-kiter.

He’s a traitor to his family and a flip-flopper.

Any candidate but Gingrich at this point. I’ll even sign up with Perry, although I think that Perry’s flaws are almost as bad as Newt’s.

JSobieski

Dr Bob:

You keep repeating the same text without reading it carefully.

Newt’s version of the “individual mandate” is an option of 3 choices: (1) insurance; (2) bond; OR (3) someway you indicate that you are going to be held accountable.

Give the “OR” and option 3, I don’t see the “individual mandate” as being some horific thing.

I know you wont respond to this, but I think it is important to actually read the language you are quoting.

streiff

most governors experience the big-fish-small-pond syndrome where the executive branch controls virtually all the full time government. Governors, especially long serving ones, can forget what it is like to have an opponent actually go after you.

I think Perry’s response to the Tardasil attack and other stuff shows he is not used to being hammered. Newt’s virtue is that he’s been a professional lightning rod since 1989 when he became Minority Whip.

logicalpositivist

I cut Newt loose years ago. I decided that his flaws make him unpalatable to me.

Everyone has made some small mistakes in life. Newt has made huge mistakes.

He said that sitting on the loveseat with Nancy Pelosi and talking about how she and him were going to end global warming together was the biggest mistake of his life.

He has made much, much bigger mistakes than that.

Cheating on his first two wives was a much bigger mistake.

Kiting 22 checks on the House bank account was a much bigger mistake. That same mistake cost many Republicans and Democrats their jobs. And Newt was the one leading the charge.

Newt is a total hypocrite. Don’t go near him. He’s radioactive. Worse than Cain.

gekster

He puts alot of thought into the articles he posts,
He articulates his thoughts very well.

Something you don’t do.

(on a side note, you still havn’t shown where I have bashed Romney, and only posted facts about him)

logicalpositivist

In the primaries, Newt can shrug off attacks and respond the right way.

In the general election, his “lightning rod” status will cap his support at 45%.

I don’t know how many elections you’ve participated in, but a candidate who can’t get above 45% in a two-man race is a dead man walking.

If Gary Johnson runs as a libertarian, then Newt’s support probably drops to 38%.

There is no way Newt can beat Obama. Bet me.

JSobieski

but his inability to persuade the public hurt his Presidency, the conservative movement, and the country generally.

I support Perry as well, but I wish he was a better communicator.

hitthedeck

Why does he remind me of a straight Barney Franks? I know Newt is a very intelligent man and probably knows more about politics than any man in Washington and Newts knowledge on American history is awesome. He would bury Obama in a political debate and I have never seen a teleprompter in front of Newt. He has all the qualities and knowledge to be the President of the United States but I see something missing and I will try to explain. I will use my own words of description and say that Newt does not have Leadership Masculinity! A leader has that certain trait that makes a statement with a force that is final and unchallengeable. In history that trait could be recognized in great generals and presidents that had an Iron will and were loved and respected by the people.
We only have two popular candidates in the GOP field. Newt and Romney are taking the lead. I don?t trust Romney for the simple reason that I don?t trust a man that talks that fast. It is a trait of a salesman and I don?t want a salesman for a President. I was hoping that the Republican Party could bring the party into the 21st Century by putting a younger man in the public eye that represents the future for the younger men and women that are the majority of the population. The young people of today are not looking for a grandfather of the nation but they are looking for a Brother or an Uncle that can lead them into the future. Young Republican Representatives like Col. Allen West or Mark Rubio and Governors Christie of New Jersey and Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.
These young Republicans are smart and when they speak the words are listened to and remembered. They have Leadership Masculinity and as far as I am concerned it should be Newt and Mitt who should be selected for Vice Presidents as advisors or cabinet members. The way things are going I can only pray that one of the people I spoke about will enter the race and cause a surge in Republican support. I guess I should have mentioned Bright eyes Bachmann to keep me from looking like a macho pig but every time she gives a speech she always says she is a tax attorney and the word attorney turns me off.
I want to see a landslide for Obama?s defeat but with Newt and Mitt it is going to be to dam close to call. Another four years with Obama will cause me to die in vane.

logicalpositivist

Because all of the mods here were shamelessly promoting everything that Rick Perry did.

All of his bright, sunny TV ads got posted here.

Rick Perry supporters were kind of acting like digital brown-shirts if you’ll pardon the expression.

And no one could attack Perry here. He became a sacred cow.

Now that he is basically gone, I see the elites here (you, Streiff, Neil, etc.) all backing Newt. Tacitly or not, you’re all clearly in Newt’s corner.

Why Newt over Romney? You can’t say it’s Romney’s flip-flops. Newt has even more flip-flops. Do you really think that Romney will fight the left? He loves the left. He has always been more willing to cave in to the left than to fight it. Just ask Bill Clinton.

The worst part is: Newt is a hypocrite. He wants you to stick to a high standard while he holds himself to a low standard.

I can’t support Newt.

wonkish1

There was nothing in my post that you commented about that is even about Newt.

That is how much of a partisan troll hack you are. You turn posts that don’t involve a candidate into them because that’s all your good for here.

AceInTX

There is a quandry, Yes his record is more conservative than Romneys…I acknowledge that…which brings me to the hole you created by mentioning rehtorical Bombs.

Huntsman has been lobbing “Rehtorical Bombs” in the direction of the conservative base throughout the primaries in a bid to outflank Romney on the left as I stated above, which leaves me with a question that goes straight to the heart of his integrity.

Said question is this; “Am I to believe his record which is unarguably more conservative than Romneys or am I to believe he intends to govern in a way that is antagonisttic and unacceptable to the conservative base he’s been throwing rehtorical poop at for the last year or so?”

Put more to the point,…is his record a lie and was he forced to govern more to the right based on politics and the legislature he was saddled with…and if faced with a leftist Dem Legislature in Washington can I expect him to govern more to the left…or is the alternative correct…that he really is conservative…and he’s synically lying now in order to appeal to the center left crowd in the establishment in order to curry favor with them.

In both cases…it is Huntsman who has put himself in a position where, no matter how he governs as Potus if elected…he will prove himself a liar on one side or the other.

The final nail in the coffin for me is the so called “Objective Press” who have been singing his praises since he announced…THAT sets off HUGE alarm bells ringing and red lights flashing

I’ll pass on Huntsman unless he proves the only alternative to Romney…and I might have to flip a coin as to how I’ll vote…though I would lean toward Huntsman.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

We’ll agree to disagree for now and we’ll talk again on this in a few weeks. I do ask, though, that you continue to support him unless/until he drops out. If you would like him to be President, then go the whole hog for him. He won’t go anywhere if people who believe in his message don’t act on it.

I hope and pray Perry exceeds everyone’s expectations. Stranger things have happened, after all.

logicalpositivist

I’m sick of it.

When Erick is for Perry, then all the fluffers come out and say “Go Perry!”

Then Erick switches to Gingrich and all the fluffers come out and say “Go Gingrich!”

If this site were for conservatives only, then Gingrich would be as welcome as ants at a picnic.

Gingrich has been quite open about the fact that he wants to stop global warming.

He has been quite open about the fact that he supported an individual mandate for health care.

I’m sick of Newt and I wish that he would just retire and let America elect someone else as president.

logicalpositivist

And I don’t trust Gingrich.

cheetah2

and you called his bluff and he still chose not to answer. He has a right to do that.
This argument is boring me.

hls87

except reducing the size and scope of government. Until we decide to restrict the ends we expect government to pursue, government will continue to grow out of control. As long as we ask the government to insure perpetual prosperity, secure our retirement, guarantee our healthcare, see to it that we are well-nourished, well-educated and comfortably housed, government will get ever bigger, more intrusive and more expensive. This is what Newt has never understood and still doesn’t.

It doesn’t matter how you structure a government program designed to achieve a utopian end. It will always result in more government spending. It doesn’t matter, for example, how Fannie and Freddie are run. Any institution the government sets up to help people buy homes they can’t afford will cost taxpayers dearly, both in cash and liberty.

Newt has never met a utopian governmental goal he didn’t like. He’s been an enthusiastic part of the utopian, progressive project his entire life. He has proposed tinkering with the structures FDR and LBJ put in place, but the tinkering is pointless.

Gingrich a major part of the problem that threatens to destroy us. He will never be part of the solution.

tricianc

How conveniently political. Right before running for President.

logicalpositivist

#1: Reagan didn’t cheat on his first wife, Jane Wyman, or on his second wife, Nancy Reagan. Don’t compare Newt to Ronnie. There is no comparison.

#2: Newt has only manipulated the system to put himself into power. He has betrayed the trust of conservatives by shacking up with Nancy Pelosi over global warming and with Freddie Mac for cold, hard cash.

I like Romney’s TV ads better than Newt’s ads but they only play Newt’s ads on this site. Why is that?

Repair_Man_Jack

A ?fluffer? is the person on a pornographic film shoot who makes sure that the male lead has an erection, and can thus ?perform? at the appropriate moments. Remember Boogie Nights? Remember the fat little tub-o?-lard brilliantly played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman? The one who had a secret homosexual crush on Mark Wahlberg?s porn-star character? That?s a fluffer. – HT:Gonzalo Lira.

logicalpositivist

Get over what? The fact that he’s a creep? The fact that he’s as bad as Bill Clinton?

Guess what, Newt? I’m not over it.

If Newt were the only Republican running, I’d vote for Newt. But he’s not, so I won’t.

streiff

1. Gary Johnson is a horse’s ass. No way he out polls Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan.

2. My first vote was for Jimmy Carter.

3. Gingrich may not win but he’ll poll better than McCain.

4. Other than name calling (If Perry is a “fool” but has been elected Governor of Texas 3 times what does that make you?) and bold assertions without basis in fact or logic I don’t see why I’d want to give your validity by betting you.

logicalpositivist

I’m for Romney over Newt. I’d like for Huntsman to get the nomination but it just doesn’t look that it’s going to happen.

Newt is unacceptable to me.

theobnoxiousamerican

I pray you’re right as well, and agree with the sentiments in your sig

acat

The government has created a mess by putting its’ thumb on the scale. As usual.

1) Hospitals are no longer a purely private entity. They have the choice of closing, or of providing free care to the public.

2) Because of (1), hospitals should be entitled to similar debt collection to public entities including but not limited to the IRS, municipalities, and public utilities.

One does not go to jail for not paying the mechanic, but one does lose ones’ home or have ones’ wages garnished for not paying the income or property tax.

This leaves the E.R.s open to all, but reduces the abuse of the common by adding a reasonable penalty.

Like I said above, few will go to jail, none will be turned away, enough will pay that cost-shifting will be reduced.

Not many would go to jail, those who do would be under criminal law anyway – giving false information with the intent to avoid paying is still fraud, of the criminal sort, no?

Mew

Jewels

I don’t trust Newt. His first instincts have always been fairly skeezy, espousing conservative beliefs but really looking out for his own interests behind the scenes.

This is exactly what a serial cheater does. He tells his wife how much he loves her, he knows how to apologize and charm when he messes up, but in the end, he’s always looking out for himself.

I can’t support a man like that. Sorry. If that makes me a Mitt supporter, then ok. I’m a Romney supporter.

cheetah2

which is the right way for you to be. As a Perry supporter, I have appreciated that you have been fair to him. I think many are confusing fairness with partiality.

JSobieski

Otherwise, what you are proposing is consistent what I agree with—giving enhanced collection powers to fight free riders.

There is a distinction between civil cases and criminal cases at the iRS just as there is anywhere else. Healthcare should not tear down the wall between the two.

A civil judgment in tax court does not become a criminal sentence because it isn’t paid.

I like the idea of healthcare collections being handled in an IRS-type manner.

So I think we do agree, but only if you agree that non-payment doesn’t result in criminal penalties.

tricianc

When Newt went to see the Pope in person, he was married to his second wife. He also took his mistress who was in a separate room close by. He had been having the affair for several years by then.

This not only speaks of Newt, it also speaks of Callista’s character as well. She is a lifelong Catholic.

In answer to how he could marry his 3rd wife in a Catholic church. Did he? I don’t know how as he didn’t convert until 2 years ago.

But one thing that is appalling is that Newt asked the Catholic diocese to annul his marriage to his 2nd wife for the reason that he was her second marriage. The hypocrisy is that it was HIS 2nd marriage too. His 2nd wife was shocked and hurt, saying after all he did to her and their marriage, he wanted to make it like it never happened.

tnguy

But I don’t trust him to hold the highest office in the land.

His adultery shows a weakness that should make any voter leery of him, but his stance on a bushel barrel of issues over the years makes him unacceptable, to a lot of people.

His positions on numerous issues, especially in recent years, show that he’s more of the same of what we’ve had. He was made rich by the current political system, he isn’t going to begin dismantling it.

I think we’re at a breaking point in our country. I don’t think people realize the depths of our financial problems, not just with debt, but unfunded medicare, SS, and state benefit systems,. gov’t spending as a whole.

We need dramatic change quick. I think the only candidates who offer anything like that are Paul and Perry. Paul is simply unacceptable in so many ways, so that leaves me no one but Perry.

I will continue to hope and pray for his comeback, but I believe the die has already been cast in this primary.

septembergurl

I’ll answer my own question.

Jon Huntsman has two sons. They are both midshipmen at the Naval Academy in Annapolis and are beginning a lifelong commitment to the defense of our country.

All the more impressive since these young men are very wealthy — their father is a millionaire and their grandfather a billionnaire several times over. They could be expected to want to lead the lives of comfort and safety their money would buy. But they don’t. Instead they want to serve.

Quite a reflection on their parents’ values, I would say.

wonkish1

Me that you don’t have a clue as to how reducing government spending and scope happens.

I ask you how to best achieve that goal and your answer back is to just restate the goal without answering the specific question. Wow dumb!!!!!!

So you think that private accounts in social security are a bad idea? You do realize they completely eliminate the future government liability associated with the individuals that switch right? That means that in 40 years there ***is next to zero social security*** on the government balance sheet and in 20 years social security has shrunk as a percentage of Gov. spending by a large degree.

Same is true of converting Medicare payroll into private HSA accounts.

But maybe we should just use HLS’s assumption that since restructuring these programs using privatization doesn’t “shrink government” that he believes that the government is as efficient as the private sector.

Or maybe we should believe that you can actually ban Social Security, Medicaid, etc. tomorrow. Like its politically feasible.

So please HLS why don’t you actually explain to me how your going to get reductions in government size and spending. I would love to hear it because apparently you just want to talk about the goal of doing that without any specifics…..I’m waiting.

septembergurl

It involves
1. Drilling
2. Fracking
3. More drilling

Also regulatory reform, pipelines, ending all energy subsidies, exploiting natural gas, etc. No green nonsense.

It’s readily available.

tricianc

You are incorrect that Newt converted 10 years ago. He converted in 2009.

wonkish1

Talking about here is just really aggressive civil law standards which is fine, but once your talking criminal I get iffy when we’re talking debt.

Common_Cents

But since we have to win elections, communication is critical.

Communication is critical for a President as well. Presidents greatest weapon? For good or harm? His communication.

To say it isn’t critical is just naive.

acat

I’m not a lawyer, I don’t play one on T.V. or elsewhere, and I am satisfied to accept your statement of the law as accurate.

I do think that, at some point, a serial abuser needs to be charged criminally. This would be a corner case, though – someone who can pay but doesn’t, so excluding the homeless or destitute, and who has made a habit of not paying. Again, I think this can be handled under criminal fraud, with the biometric data used to prove the pattern, but .. just a layman.

Mew

JSobieski

All of them have embraced the concept of individual accounts to reform entitlements.

I think you are the person being utopian.Your solution is politically impossible. Even Ron Paul doesn’t think it is possible to just cancel Medicare and SS.

Do you want to do something about big government or merely criticize every attempt at the reform?

No candidate supports what you want, so I presume that you will not be voting in 2012?

acat

I?m not a lawyer, I don?t play one on T.V. or elsewhere, and I am satisfied to accept J. Sobieski’s statement of the law as accurate.

I do think that, at some point, a serial abuser needs to be charged criminally. This would be a corner case, though ? someone who can pay but doesn?t, so excluding the homeless or destitute, and who has made a habit of not paying. Again, I think this can be handled under criminal fraud, with the biometric data used to prove the pattern, but .. just a layman.

Mew

Common_Cents

now how is he going to do anything grand beside reform govt and cut spending?

Starve a cold? How bout starve the government. Not a bad plan for starters.

Common_Cents

nt

JSobieski

Bachmann puts an asterisk in her support of Paul Ryan’s very timid Medicare reforms because it might “hurt seniors”

But Bachmann pounds her chest, stomps her feet, and proudly proclaims that she has a titanium spine and will not vote to increase the debt ceiling by even 1 penny.

How do you reconcile the two Bachmann’s—she doesn’t have to because she never proposes anything and she is never responsible for anything.

Bachmann never accomplishes anything, and she doesn’t even have the decency to get out of the way of the people who are trying to move the ball. Yet there are many people who prefer Bachmann.

P.S. I once had a similar argument with a Pence supporter. I like Pence, but the Pence supporter was convinced that Pence’s “private accounts” were more private than Ryan’s “private accounts” because Paul Ryan voted for TARP and was less conservative than Pence. People take their general impression and project it into specific policy arguments.

donald_24

So what about everyone in the 10% bracket? Do they get a tax increase?

sunshinek67

no more text~

wonkish1

With a bill that laid out aggressive civil and contract law standards in regards to healthcare debt and a criminal provision for a serial abuser assuming…

That the first few cases that are filed are civil cases before a criminal case can even be filed.

I would agree that the difference between a serial healthcare abuser and a mortgage shotgunner(google it–shotgunn*ing*) is pretty narrow. So I’d say that I’m okay with a serial healthcare abuser being labeled as fraud as long as its civil law up until that point.

wonkish1

Its practically the same proposal Perry released about 2-3 weeks afterward(except 15 vs. 20).

Repair_Man_Jack

you’ll have no choice but to relect Barack Obama. But then again, given much of your posting history, that wouldn’t come as too much of a shocker, now would it?

JSobieski

LOL

Common_Cents

http://www.newt.org/news/lets-bump-plans-comparison-gingrich-and-perrys-flat-tax-plans

wonkish1

An ‘individual mandate’ would be unbelievably absurd.

I mean if you got that point than you might as well just say that student loan debt has an ‘individual mandate’ because its non dischargable in bankruptcy.

donald_24

So if the flat tax proposal is optional, that means those in the upper brackets will see their rate fall from 35% to 15%, but those in the lower brackets, like 10%, will see no tax cut at all. Is that a correct assumption?

swampgator

And I know I will be blown off this site – it is my first time here – I understand how you feel — I like Gingrich, however, I will be voting for Romney in the primary and then we will see what happens!

And, I will vote for the chosen Republican — I can’t stand Obama!

Repair_Man_Jack

The worst thing America ever did for the poor was selling them the line that Govt = Santa Claus.

donald_24

So class warfare is ok? If that is the case, then you have now taken class warfare off the table and can’t use it against Obama.

wonkish1

Because your just increasing the degree that EITC pays out a refund at the end beyond your initial liability.

So knock yourself out and make that argument, but come on now!

acat

for a criminal case.

Note, ironically, that the criminal – should jail time be involved – would receive free health care.

Mew

JSobieski

Newt: “we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable.”

Newt’s “individual mandate” is defined as a requirement of one of the following three options:
(1) health insurance
(2) bond
(3) some way for the individual to indicate that they are going to be held accountable.

Insurance? No
Bond? No
Signed EZ collection form subject the patient to enhanced collection techniques? Yes

Newt should have rejected the charactrerization as an “individual mandate”

Common_Cents

Gingrich keeps the child tax credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the deduction for purchasing health insurance. Though their marginal tax rate might be higher under the Gingrich plan ?15 percent is higher than what many lower-income Americans currently pay ? their effective rate could be lower once those additional credits and deductions are applied, particularly for families with children.

?Low-income families might be better off under Gingrich plan, particularly if they have a number of kids. Single people might not be,? says Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center

Repair_Man_Jack

No. Class warfare is the opiate of the postmodern masses. Making them pay even less for government will making them even more prone to Class Warfare. Once you kick someone off the tax rolls, every dime of government cheese they receive is out of somebody else’s pocket. People see no budget line when the vendor hands it out for free.

acat

It’s simply allowing a service provider to preemptively block the – you rejected the word theft, how about taking under false pretenses? – of their service.

The only caveat I’d offer is that there’s an option 4 – “charity / pro bono” that must be legally recognized as existing. That is, someone who says up front “I have no way to pay for this, the EZ Collection folk won’t get anywhere because I have nothing, I throw myself upon the mercy of the doctors and hospital.”

The system has always allowed for this, I see no reason why it should be removed, but .. it should be verified. (Reagan’s mantra)

Mew

JSobieski

Newt agrees that a three option approach in which the 3rd option could consist of signing up for “enhanced collection techniques” could be characterized as an “individual mandate”.

As a lawyer, I should narrowed in on that language earlier than I did. It does reinforce the conclusion however that just as “amnesty” means different things to different people, so to does the “individual mandate”.

GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I?ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable.

VOICE: That is the individual mandate, is it not?

GINGRICH: It?s a variation on it.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/06/transcript-of-newt-gingrich-interview/

JSobieski

In terms of option 4, that is hard to arrange in advance.

If a person has nothing, you can’t collect from them. In fact, under collection laws, you can’t garnish anything from someone’s wages when they work 30 hours or less at minimum wage.

This gets to the whole jail issue.

So if I understand you correctly, a person who is up front about pleading poverty wouldn’t have to fill out the option 3 form. But what if they are lying?

Seems to me that you have to require them to fill out the option 3 form, and give the hospital a chance to confirm that the person can’t pay. The limits on garnishments would still apply, so in that case, the person essentially receives free care.

Given the possibility of lying, I think the option 3 form is still required. It can include an explanation of the situation that you describe however.

goodgovernance

The Obama team’s holding their fire for the general. Why would you waste the good stuff early, when no one’s paying attention? Nope, you wait until the general’s in full swing, and hammer your opponent with the best stuff you’ve got after the conventions, during the debates, maybe even save the spiciest attacks for an October surprise.

So to argue Romney is the best candidate because Obama hasn’t taken him down yet is illogical. Obama hasn’t even really started to try, and already Mitt is having trouble with the flip-flopping charges. If the McCain team was able to come up hundreds of pages of oppo on Romney in 2008, it’s reasonable to think that the Dems now have an even thicker file now.

Go Huntsman!

swampgator

there is only one problem. Perhaps the reason we end up with people we really don’t want to vote for is because these young, smart Republicans, who we would like to vote for, are not interested in the “mud slinging that goes with running for the highest job in the land. Perhaps it’s best if they serve as VP under a senior statesman and learn the terrors of being FIRST MAN!

The vetting process against Republican candidates is a really nasty adventure by the MSM and Democrats as a whole. Funny, they certainly didn’t see fit to vetting Obama.

As I have stated, I like Gingrich for all the reason you’ve stated, however, with all his brillance, knowledge, debating prowess, etc. I don’t see a “Statesman”. And I will agree that at times Romney does put his speeches on speed dial, however, to me, he is more of a statesman than Gingrich. And, I like his business background.

This election should be about getting the economy moving again, jobs. and a return to good old American ingeniuty. Somehow, I see that in Romney and I don’t see that in the other candidates…but, then, I might be missing something.

wonkish1

They just get immediately enrolled into Medicaid at the hospital if he isn’t already.

If they aren’t that poor than your talking about payment plan and if they default then wage garnishment.

snowshooze

Just flipping it over.
Obama is Taboo.

tomatin

Even if you are voting for the lesser of two evils in your mind if the lesser evil prevails it’s still better for the country.

Now I don’t think Newt is as evil as you or other people say.

Yes he cheated on two wives but he did marry the woman he fell in love with after all. In other words he made them more “honest woman” in a classical sense. We are simply not going to find people with Victorian values anymore.

So what he supported the Republican agenda in the 2000′s even some things I didn’t like. He was just being loyal to his party. New found big government, high deficit supporting Bush, Cheney, DeLay and Rove were the problem s back then not Newt. I think Newt does have a solid record when he had the chance to push the conservative agenda on his own recognizance and he did so effectively.

That’s why I choose him over Romney by a long shot. If Huntsman or Perry do rise I will consider those options but this is how it stands now.

center77

Huntsman is showing me weakness in the face if liberal smears. He would seem like he is trying to be the Bush conservative.

goodgovernance

are you saying we need to elect our own Obama?

I want to defeat the guy, but I’m not so obsessed with him I think we need to become him, or his opposite doppelganger.

And actually, Obama WAS vetted by Hillary. She warned the country that he wasn’t ready, but the country didn’t listen.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…you are cordially invited to continue to partake.

aesthete

“One essenial task for the Republican Party is to rebuild the moral infrastructure that a free society depends on.”

How would they go about that task, exactly?

JSobieski

Anyone want to write their Congressman with it?

I was going to suggest either writing Paul Ryan or Newt.

center77

because you can say you are against something, but how you act when the media attacks is important and huntsman is acting scared.

JSobieski

Problem is that the Republican voters fell for the ruse.

Shame on him, or shame on us?

aesthete

of the Daniels conversations circulated around similar points.

bzip

Rick Perry is on Wolf B. show (CNN) right now. Boy, he sounds good and talking really good. He has made good points on the border, religion, Israel, Iran, etc. He is giving a great interview right now.

tomatin

One point I have not seen brought up is why didn’t other possibly stronger GOP candidates enter this years race. I can only come to the conclusion that it was political expediency. They know that incumbents are difficult to defeat, especially a media darlings like Obama and they know if they lose they only have one shot. Considering the fate of the country if the GOP loses this year that is a spineless cynical decision. What about putting country first instead of your political fortunes.

We all know the names Daniels, Barbour, Perdue etc…

JSobieski

Anyone specifically chartered with the responsibility for rebuilding the moral infrastructure of our free society needs to have absolutely no abilty to tax the public or spend tax dollars. Otherwise, this goal will be corrupted with Big Government.

snowshooze

Obama hasn’t been vetted.
And I don’t think Romney is cut out for the job.
McCain refused to even make a peep, it was possibly his strategy to remain above the fray, but it came across as gutless.
Even Sarah couldn’t save him… gosh. That is bleak, indeed.
So far as vetting Romney, well… that is problematic.
You can’t vet his solid stance on the issues.
So what else are you supposed to look at?
His hair I guess.
Hey… does his dog still ride around on the roof?

tomatin

nt nt nt

goodgovernance

…the more serious candidates didn’t want to get in because 1) Obama still showed amazing popularity despite the bad economy (this is a few months back, I know his numbers are in the tank now, finally). 2) Because temperamentally, they didn’t think they could really echo the anger the tea party was expressing. 3) Romney has such huge financial resources and built up infrastructure over four years, they didn’t want to try to beat that.

tomatin

nt ntnt nt

snowshooze

But that is another story… and it was intra party stuff.

ericksontales

I’m not the biggest fan of Perry. In fact, I am totally sold that Romney is our best candidate to put forward and to get this country turned back around. However, anybody that has counted Perry out is foolish. Perry is still very much in this thing. Once everyone gets a few grim reminders of the Newt we have come to loathe over the past few decades people will be looking for the Newt alternative. That leaves Bachman and Perry. Bachman doesn’t have the infrastructure or money to gain the momentum she needs when the opportunity arises. Perry is ready and waiting and will hit hard when he sees the opening.

For you Perry supporters… You shouldn’t count him out. Perry can still upset this entire process. I hate to say it as a Romney supporter but its a simple fact. I would much rather see Perry be our nominee than Newt. I simply can’t stomach Newt, his corrupt politics, or his childish arrogance. Newt is not someone that should be representing the republican party or the American people.

romansdaughter

Rick Perry all the way!

bzip

I don’t know, I know I am biased but I try very hard to be honest with myself and I can’t help but feel: Rick Perry is the ideal candidate in all senses of the word. The only problem is he isn’t great at debating and in all honesty Perry has also improved in that area. I also refuse to turn my back on a perfect candidate and my principles simply because he isn’t the greatest debater,

I also think no matter who the candidate is, the most perfect one – if they got into the race late they too would have had some set backs – it isn’t easy making up for lost time,

Okay, I am biased.

JSobieski

Lets just chant “hold the line” and I am sure our problems will go away. Politics is just a matter of toughness, and nothing else.

My plan for success:

Abolish all entitlements now in December 2011*
Reduce all non-defense spending to pre New Deal levels.
Implement 5% GDP military spending on an annual basis.

*Only if I can avoid putting seniors at risk

Since I had some free time, here is a plant for beating the Green Bay Packers:

Intercept the first pass and return it for a touchdown.
Intercept the second pass and return it for a touchdown.
Keep repeating until they stop passing.
When they run the ball, cause the runner to fumble . .. and run the ball back for a touchdown.

Oh, and world hunger?
Two part plan:
(1) Grow enough food
(2) Distribute such that nobody starves

Any other problems anyone wants me to solve this evening?

acat

option 3 must require the gathering of biometric data. (fingerprints, DNA sample).

If you can prove you have insurance or sufficient resources you don’t have to provide either.

If you know you can’t pay, you still fill out the form. The point to recognizing option 4, or perhaps 3b, is to allow a third party to assume the debt.

It can be set up ahead of time, by the way – a friends’ church paid for the delivery and care of one of their members’ children. As in, the church took up a separate collection, negotiated the fees with the hospital, and paid by check. Acted as insurer, if you ask me….

Mew

ericksontales

Authentic or not he is the only one with the skill sets to turn the country back around. We have to stop playing politics and put someone in that has the executive experience needed to make business savvy decisions. Romney is the guy that can do this.

snowshooze

But that one debate, I thought he and Mitt were on the edge of a fistfight right on stage.
Possibly, everyone does better when they aren’t on a game show.
A conversation is necessary for a good debate, and that Huckabee one was very good.

acat

and I’ll print it and snail-mail it to mine, cc Newt.

My guy is an (R), so he may listen. Heck, I’ll even cc Mark Kirk. (I see no point in cc’ing Dick Durbin.

Mew

tomatin

Prove Newt is a liberal at heart when he effected the biggest reduction in the Federal deficit and government when he was speaker.

donald_24

What is wrong with cutting the lowest bracket from 10% to 7%? Or 5%? That is not welfare. Why should only the top rates see reductions?

JSobieski

I suspect you will be considered RINO squish should you ever choose to run for office.

PS I am not necessarily agreeing with the biometric stuff, but I do think discussions about these ideas are good to have.

ericksontales

You are partially right. Axelrod and company haven’t unleashed fully yet on Romney however they have been poking at him with sticks since the last presidential election hoping to bury him in the primaries. They would love to see him go down now before Romney gets the opportunity to draw distinct contrasts in their experience and ability to lead. Axelrod and cronies have been hands off with everyone else? Why do you think that is? Come on your smart… BINGO because Romney is the only one that can beat Obama in the general.

tomatin

And that turned out great.

donald_24

Does that mean I am gong to get a Gingrich tax increase?

goodgovernance

When Romney’s state was 48th in job creation? When his health care plan actually caused people to pay more for insurance?

Where is the proof that he can govern as a effective conservative?

logicalpositivist

Newt has said that he disagreed with that characterization of the conversation but that is the characterization that his ex-wife gave it.

Newt wanted a divorce. His wife was in the hospital. He went in to see her with a yellow pad listing some points regarding custody, support, and division of property. He wanted her to sign it while she was in the hospital and, according to Jackie Bettley “kind of out of it”.

Here’s the truth from factcheck.org:

“Divorce Story Origins

The story of the hospital visit started with a lengthy and unflattering profile of Gingrich that was published in Mother Jones magazine in 1984. Author David Osborne reported an anecdote from Gingrich?s former press secretary, Lee Howell, who said that Gingrich wanted his wife to sign off on a written list of divorce terms while she was recovering from surgery. Howell said Battley was ?still sort of out of it? at the time.

Mother Jones, Nov. 1, 1984: Jackie had undergone surgery for cancer of the uterus during the 1978 campaign, a fact Gingrich was not loath to use in conversations or speeches that year. After the separation in 1980, she had to be operated on again, to remove another tumor.

While she was still in the hospital, according to Howell, ?Newt came up there with his yellow legal pad, and he had a list of things on how the divorce was going to be handled. He wanted her to sign it. She was still recovering from surgery, still sort of out of it, and he comes in with a yellow sheet of paper, handwritten, and wants her to sign it.?

Others later embellished that account, some claiming that Gingrich served his former wife divorce papers, and that she was dying of cancer. But there is no support for the idea that papers were served, or that Battley?s condition was life-threatening at the time.

In a 1985 story, the Washington Post quoted Battley as saying that Gingrich had visited her in the hospital, and that he wanted to discuss terms of a divorce during a visit in which their two daughters were also present.”

Does this sound presidential?

pj2012

“But, if a man cannot be faithful to his vows made before God related to his marriage, how can he be faithful to the constitution he swears to God to uphold?” – Erick E

Well that’s the point isn’t it… he can’t be trusted to be faithful because he’s proven that he’s capable of trampling his oath, be it marriage or to uphold the constitution… their is no difference. It’s a question of character… and trustworthiness is high on my list of character traits I’d like my president to possess.

I don’t see why this is so hard for some people to understand. I guess I’ve lived long enough to see that most people cannot change their true nature. I think Newts true nature is all about Newt… and always will be.

goodgovernance

nt

ericksontales

bzip – It’s ok to be bias if you can make a logical argument for your bias. I agree with you that Perry would make a good president. He would be a thousand times better than Obama. This election will require the Democrat or Republican to win over the ever growing number of independent voters. I honestly don’t think that Perry can do that. Its unfortunate but probably true. One more reason why Romney is my guy.

logicalpositivist

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_gingrich:

“Gingrich himself was among the 450 members of the House who had engaged in check kiting; he had overdrafts on twenty-two checks, including a $9,463 check to the Internal Revenue Service in 1990.”

This was the issue that Newt and his Gang of Seven used to bring Congress back under Republican control for the first time since January of 1955.

Newt’s hands were not clean in the House bank scandal.

Hypocrite.

Going after Clinton for lying about infidelity while secretly playing the role of adulterer is rank hypocrisy. You may see the distinction but most voters will not.

ericksontales

They are not running because they are not prepared. Why? They are either weak, lack principle, inexperienced, or don’t have the backbone to fight when the odds are stacked against them.. You can keep all of your so-called ideal candidates. If they are not man enough or woman enough to put themselves on the line then they don’t deserve the presidency. I’d be opposed to letting anybody slip through in a convention that hasn’t gone through this vetting process. It’s completely necessary for holding the highest office in the land.

logicalpositivist

And I don’t blame you.

Newt. Can’t. Win.

Repeat that until you understand it.

tomatin

He is the most consistent conservative.

I just think other candidates like Barbour are just as conservative as Perry and are more polished for lack of a better term.

Actually if the GOP does blow it in 2012 and I think we can because of the dissension in the ranks we are seeing here for the two leading contenders. Then Perry would be a favorite in 2016.

wonkish1

Understand how our tax code works(and your probably deliberately missed the post below).

When you earn that low amount of income your tax liability is almost all wiped out by your standard deductions, exemptions, etc.

Then you get an EITC, child tax credits, etc. that officially wipe out the any remaining tax liability and then produce a refund that is a net payout from the government instead of a net pay in to the government.

So by asking that those rates decrease your just asking for welfare not a tax cut. Now your fine to ask for that, but at least be honest to what your asking for. Don’t claim its a tax cut when they have negative to zero liability today.

1bunny

the c-span video has a glitch that cuts off at the 13 min mark (or it did earlier) hopefully they get it fixed. I am enclosing the link, maybe it will work later. He speaks about 45 min.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PerryRema

tomatin

in a very similar manner. I was just trying to make a point. I don’t disagree with you at all. I’m not even saying I want these guys to run if they don’t have the spine to do it now.

hitthedeck

Swampgator -My Grandfather told me years ago that when a man gets elected and becomes a politician he will most likely be corrupted without even knowing it. You may be right about a young politician getting experience before taking on a higher office but I might remind that they are less likely to have bad baggage or anything in their closet that their opponents can use against them. Newt is a pro when it comes to political defense. It showed when the Wicked Witch of Frisco threatened him with exposing twenty year old records of a closed door investigation that are unlawful to open. Newt was bullet fast on challenging her with a counter threat that left her with tight lips. Today?s new polls has gave Newt a new handle (Rocket man) and I will be wondering how long he can remain in the clouds before someone shoots him down. We can always tell who the Dems fear the most by watching the liberal leaning media. I am sure they have more shouvel ready dirt to dish out. I am still looking for a dark horse to show up and cause a stampede for independents and republicans to ride all the way to the Whitehouse.

tomatin

I give Perry a great deal of credit for running now. I know he was busy being governor and understand why he didn’t come out so polished. So if it does turn out that he runs again if need be that’s a big feather in his cap for me.

westcoastpatriette

have worked out all the details–except one. Option 3 must include a price list itemizing the costs of the various procedures the attending physician will charge the patient before they are seen or commit to anything. There must be transparency so that the potential patient is not kept in the dark regarding actual costs throughout the process. They cannot be expected to blindly commit to pay for whatever the doctor decides to do, eh?

logicalpositivist

In the line that begins: “Do you really think…”

In my haste, I committed one of the two classic blunders. The first, is never get involved in a land-war in the east…

tomatin

really tainted this field and may have even kept other good contenders out. I hate any candidate, except for an incumbent, running as the “inevitable” candidate. We should have a free and open competition for the nominee, just like we should have a free and open economy.

pj2012

; )

romansdaughter

I just love it! I am so proud of Rick Perry for standing on his christian principles,

pj2012

I missed it… ; (

wonkish1

Indisputable: She divorced him not the other way around
Indisputable: The separation occurred several months prior to the hospital visit and the issues of the small amount benign cancer
Indisputable: The cancerous area was tiny and this was a minor issue. The reports that it was serious were a joke
Indisputable: She is still alive. So when a report uses the word “deathbed” they are full of it.
Indisputable: Newt didn’t ‘serve divorce’ papers to his wife
Indisputable: Newt and the kids came to the hospital to let the kids visit with their mom

The only issue that is currently under dispute is whether or not a discussion or argument ensued at the hospital about the divorce(of which they were already separated). Newt says no. Daughter says no. Wife said yes 20 years ago and made it sound like Newt was trying to be a D*ck. Then a few years later she ‘corrects’ the story and says that it was just brought up, but nothing happened. Then for almost 20 years she refuses to talk to the media about it.

And Howell changed his story after the fact about the legal pad, and from my understanding he wasn’t even there. It was heresay.

Yeah I think that’s pretty well smashed as a story..

bri283

…. is their race. That’s it. Period.

Newt, different story. But Romney, that’s the only thing. And we all know it. Romney is a progressive, Obama-esqe politician. And the thing is, he isn’t even fooling anyone! We all know it. Makes me so flaming mad….. oh well…

Bri

romansdaughter

Great verse..our family too admires Christians that stand up for their faith.

hal2715

I don’t have much of a dog in this fight, but it’s probably not a good idea to try to trivialize his wife’s cancer. Even if it was “tiny,” cancer’s no “joke.”

donald_24

But Romney has too fool people into thinking he is a Conservative. He is running for office for Petes sake.

1bunny

great article at American Spectator on Newt and his debate prowess

Quote: “Such seems to be the impression driving the Gingrich boomlet in the Republican presidential contest — as if, by virtue of his supposed debating ability, Gingrich will be the man most likely to defeat Barack Obama next fall.

It’s a myth, on multiple levels, as we shall see…

First, Gingrich isn’t all that good one on one. Clinton made mincemeat of him. Michele Bachmann rocked him on his heels with the mildest of assaults on amnesty. And his own former wife (number two) says he loses his cool when tweaked about personal things ”

read the rest at:
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/07/the-fallacy-of-the-master-deba/

This is just one of the things that scares me about Newt. Elected on the basis he will thrash Obama in a debate but I just don’t see it happening. I can’t trust he will lead this country in the right direction (smaller government for one). He did help Carter start the Dept of Education and look what that has gotten us.

logicalpositivist

You are 100% against Mitt Romney. You gave Perry, Cain, and now Gingrich a chance but you just don’t see Romney as being close enough to where you are politically.

I can assure you that Romney is less likely to disappoint you than Gingrich. And Romney, unlike Gingrich, can beat Obama.

Add one more state to the states where Romney does better than Gingrich against Obama: Colorado.

If Romney is the nominee, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Hampshire, and Colorado are in play.

If Gingrich is the nominee, you can pretty much score all of these states for Obama.

Please don’t give Gingrich any more love than he gives himself.

logicalpositivist

Newt might make a good political advisor for Romney.

But Newt is not a good medium for our message.

Newt’s name alone arouses repulsion in so many people I know, not least of which are independent-minded women that we will need in 2012.

Newt has very, very little support among hispanics, Asians, and blacks.

He is outright hated by so many groups.

In Colorado, Obama beats Newt 2 to 1 among independent voters.

We cannot go with Newt. He is a non-starter.

logicalpositivist

Actions speak louder than words.

bri283

Honestly, who is fooled by Romney? Everyone I know admits that he is a democrat and progressive at heart. He hasn’t fooled anyone.

Bri

logicalpositivist

But you still can’t say that thoughts are the same as actions.

Thinking about a fabulous night with the T-mobile girl is far better than having a secret mistress on the side.

Ask any woman about this.

logicalpositivist

Calling someone a candibot is just silly.

If you’re not an anti-bot, I don’t know what one is.

logicalpositivist

A 15% flat tax would raise the taxes of a lot of working people.

Can you clarify his position a little? Or point me to a website where I can read about Newt’s grand strategy myself?

wonkish1

First of all, I’m quite content with Perry, Newt, Santorum, and Hunstman.

Second of all, what the he!! is an “anti-bot”? Because if its someone that doesn’t like candi-bots here then count me in.

logicalpositivist

You may think that Newt’s new priest didn’t let him skate through confession. But what if Newt lied during confession?

What if he was thinking about his first wife when the priest was talking to him?

The Dems already have a book on how to beat Newt Gingrich. They could draft a strategy in 5 minutes.

Voters, for better or worse, understand sex scandals.

They didn’t understand Watergate until years after it was over (most of them still don’t). But they do understand that a married man isn’t supposed to have sex with anyone but his wife.

Herman Cain would have been a horrible candidate. He was not smart. He was not living a life that a Christian disciple would be proud of. He simply repeated 9-9-9 all day long and hoped that no one would ever ask him a hard question. Herman! You’re running for president! You’re not going to get “chicken or beef” questions all day long.

wonkish1

She had a minor benign tumor(if I remember correctly I think in a weird place like her shoulder or something). She went in for 1 surgery and it was dealt with.

And I didn’t call it a joke. I called the **reports** that act like it was serious jokes. That’s a key distinction. For many years the BS story on the net was that she was on “her deathbead”.

Even a mild benign cancerous area is something that you scoff at, but the notion media acting like she was severely ill is patently absurd. She was quite healthy at the time actually.

wonkish1

15% optional flat tax doesn’t raise taxes on anyone.

texasref

Where is the Bachmann blurb?

I’m not necessarily a Bachmann supporter, but I am open to all three alternatives you mentioned and wanted your take.

Certainly Newt > Mitt

acat

And one that’s (relatively) simple to add.

Mew

logicalpositivist

“Rockefeller died on January 26, 1979, at age 70 from a heart attack. An initial report had incorrectly stated that he was at his office at Rockefeller Center working on a book about his art collection, and a security guard found him slumped over his desk. However, the report was soon corrected to state that Rockefeller actually had the fatal heart attack in another office he owned in a townhouse at 13 West 54th Street in the presence of Megan Marshack, an aide. There was some speculation in the press regarding the possibility of an intimate relationship between Rockefeller and Marshack. For example, long-time Rockefeller aide Joe Persico said in the PBS documentary about the Rockefeller family ‘It became known that he had been alone with a young woman who worked for him, in undeniably intimate circumstances, and in the course of that evening had died from a heart attack.’”

So if Rockefeller can shtupp his 26-year-old mistress when he’s 70 (and have a heart attack in the process), what makes you think Gingrich can’t find a new mistress once he gets back to Washington, the land of mistresses and sex-scandals?

BTW, I’m not sure exactly what old Nelson was doing when he had his heart attack, but I’m pretty sure that’s the way I want to go.

logicalpositivist

We will choose our next president. He will not be anointed from on high.

acat

Keep in mind, I can remember which departments I’d like to get rid of.

Transportation – most of which is going to the States or the DoD.
Energy – most of which is going to just be junked.
FEMA – some of whom ought to be doing time.
– the former CDC parts go to the DoD.
– Flood insurance component gets sold to the private sector, with a trust fund calculated based on 50% of claims for 5 years.
– TSA gets privatized with standards and training by DoD
– and a mandate to hire lots of former jarheads…

Mew

logicalpositivist

Read about what Romney did as governor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney

Once you’ve read all of it, come back here and try to argue that he’s not tough enough to be president.

It was Newt Gingrich who caved in to Bill Clinton’s budget demands in 1995, not Newt.

Newt may be tough on his wives, but he’s not tough on the left. Just ask Nancy Pelosi, his couch-mate.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

In The Newt’s own words:

VOICE: That is the individual mandate, is it not?

GINGRICH: It?s a variation on it.

logicalpositivist

with yard signs or bumper-stickers. Ever.

His name is a dirty word in our house and I don’t want my wife to think that I can support a sleezeball who throws women under buses.

But I will vote for him if he should somehow survive the nomination process.

Please don’t let this happen.

Got that, moderators?

logicalpositivist

The more Iowans support Perry, the less likely we end up with Gingrich as our nominee, a result that I really can’t support.

logicalpositivist

Then what?

Can you honestly tell me that you’d back Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney?

Newt Gingrich?

If so, you’re an Obama fan. Because Newt can’t beat Obama. I could show you the polls in Michigan, New Hampshire, Florida, Colorado, and other states that show this.

But you’re a smart guy. You can find these polls yourself. : )

Please consider backing Mitt. If Huntsman can’t find first gear, and it looks like he can’t, then Mitt should be our second choice. Perry is only acceptable to me if I have to choose between him and Newt. Which I don’t.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…because it is intuitive that the endorser doesn’t automatically co-adopt the entirety of the endorsee.

But the key-point, here, is that this is a truism and that it should not be used to justify endorsing The Newt, simply by asserting “everyone has sinned.”

Do you get “this”?

acat

No legacy.

No reduction in size of government.

No improvement in the size or power of the State GOP.

Run out of office. (forced to not run for re-election)

Got himself overruled. Repeatedly.

(Know why he has such great hair? It’s not real. Underneath, he’s got the worst case of athlete’s scalp you ever saw.)

The really sad part is he can’t even handle an interview with the friendly Fox News guys while Rick “idiot” Perry is off talking to Jon Stewart.

Tell me again why Willard’s all that and a bag of chips, I must have missed something….

Mew

texasref

If you really think Gingrich (or any other Republican candidate) is capped at 45% support in the general against THIS sorry excuse for a president in THIS sorry excuse for an economy, then you have another think coming.

Screw your stupid silly foolish line about “Newt Can’t Win.” I am undecided, but I am darn sure ANY of our guys, even Mr. Paul, could wipe Obama off the political map in 2012.

That does NOT mean we should put up Mittens. Please no.

logicalpositivist

he should get baptized in every church.

I’ve heard of people who actually do this. Cost: very low. Potential reward: infinitely high.

Go for it, Newt! The clock is ticking!

logicalpositivist

Polls in Colorado, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, and other states agree with this statement.

Show me one poll that shows either Perry or Gingrich polling better than Romney in a swing state (Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico).

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…lives-on in the blogosphere because it reinforces an image of The Newt.

logicalpositivist

I’m well aware of the fact that short-sighted Republicans in many states are now trending toward Gingrich despite the fact that Gingrich will never be president.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…YESTERDAY he promoted the Individual Mandate, which is anathema to the TEA Party Movement! [among others, such as Constitutional Conservatives]

acat

And any support for Romney would be grudging, not exuberant. Of course, I can fake exuberance….

Excitement matters – especially when it comes to coattails. If we have a good set of coattails in 2012, we can win far, far more than just the White House.

Mew

explodinghead

I read Hot Air a lot, and they really have a huge anti-Perry bias. It would have been great to be able to actually refute some of the outrageous posts against Perry, but the ol’ work thing got in the way again. Maybe next time there’s an open registration period I’ll actually be home and get to register. Hope y’all can put out some positive vibes for Perry at Hot Air, there are a couple of ladies who have been fighting the good fight over there all alone for a long time. (gopher girl and annoying little twerp). Keep the faith.

pj2012

That’s if he accepts… what a pandering panda… and he promises to move the Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on day one with an executive order… Well… this is what I don’t like about Newt… he makes bold statements and promises just to get the effect he wants.

People are so gullible… why?

logicalpositivist

It’s an admission that Erick’s two “candidates du jour” (Perry and Cain) have both failed.

Erick now must either support the candidate that he set out to stop (Romney) or give Obama the easiest election of his life by supporting Gingrich.

Erick has shown just how deep the animosity between him and Romney is.

This is not pretty.

donald_24

Obama, with the exception of Jon Huntsman.

So go ahead Gingrich supporters, keep pretending that Gingrich will win because he will “destroy” Obama in the debate… as if debates decide elections.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…and that is to KO Mitt.

acat

This far out, head to head polling vs. the sitting POTUS is useless.

Obama has yet to begin hitting at Romney, but it’s coming and it will be intense.

Worse, Willard has ZERO life experience to help him deal with it.

Mew

logicalpositivist

Is this a candidate you want to run against Obama? The creepy one?

Don’t do this Common Cents. You know that it makes no sense to support Mr. Creepy.

determinedconservative

Unless you want to support Romney.

GOP made it clear to voters that they will only accept Romney or Gingrich as the nominee. So we’ve got to pick the proverbial lesser of two evils. And I’m warming to the idea of Newt anyway (as you say, Erik, he fights).

I’m pretty sure Reagan cheated on his first wife too…

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

A POTUS can both function as a CEO and as a motivator/leader; indeed, many fiscal decisions would/could be tethered to ethical prioritization.

logicalpositivist

If Christians in this country would vote their conscience, Mitt Romney would be the nominee.

Mitt Romney has shown that he has good character. Rick Perry seems like a nice guy. But he is not ready for a nation-wide race with reporters hanging on every word.

Bush survived that process in 2000. And, to the credit of Utah voters, most of which are Latter-day Saints, Bush won the state of Utah in a landslide.

Now, it is time for evangelical voters to consider voting for a Christian who doesn’t go to the same church that they do, but shares their values.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…when he claims he’d oppose ObamaCare, while still adhering to the Individual Mandate.

donald_24

us a preview of his attacks against Obama with that 4 minute commercial the DNC made highlighting his flip flopping.

If Romney is the nominee, the next phase in the playbook will be to make Romney’s record at Bain Capital a political liability.

kowalski

I’ve had enough of people bashing each other’s candidate. My decision is that I’d rather defeat Barack Obama than lose the election and therefore I encourage whoever becomes our nominee to fight like hell. I’ll be behind them, because the attacks are coming.

This is going to be the toughest and meanest and most brutal election in modern American history. Ramesh made good points, other people made good points about Romney. Whoever people decide upon between them is fine with me. I’ll be there to help clean up the battlefield and hopefully help carry us to victory in 2012.

God bless us all and in our hearts and minds let’s try to have cognizance of the legitimate criticisms of others, and grant each other forgiveness and wish each other courage and fortitude.

logicalpositivist

Newt would hurt our cause. A lot. Give Obama 4 more years to finish off the economy and the military.

windwaker24

What’s with the bad grammar and misspellings?

logicalpositivist

Newt has lied to everyone at this point.

I do not trust him.

kowalski

To both of these men:

“Listen carefully to what your most thoughtful detractors have raised as evidence you should not be the nominee. Be humble about their criticism and try to take it to heart and be responsive to it. Use their misgivings as the basis for doing something better, for forging a new bond of real trust. Take the criticisms to heart and consider them carefully and with respect for where your respective detractors were coming from. And resist the urge to use them reflexively against each other.”

Amen.

logicalpositivist

Gingrich and the others could have jumped in at any time.

If you are for free and open contests, then you should have no objection to a candidate like Romney jumping in early to give the voters a chance to find out about his record.

septembergurl

Debate Hysteria, the insistence that the ability to debate Obama trumps everything else. This is the reason we have romney and Gingrich as our main contenders: because they are seen as successful debaters.

As Quin Hillyer points out in this excellent piece, this is a delusion, because elections are not won or lost at debates. They are marginal. Meanwhile good candidates like Perry and Huntsman, with excellent records, conservative policies, and exemplary private lives are marginalized because they have not been seen as effective in debates.

logicalpositivist

First, how is race a “political relevant difference”?

It is not relevant at all. Not to me, at least.

Second, Romney is pro-life. Obama is pro-choice. Is that a difference to you.

Third, Romney is against gay marriage. Obama is for it.

Is that relevant to you?

Fourth, Romney is for cutting taxes. Obama is for raising them.

Is that relevant to you?

I could go on all day but I won’t.

This hate Romney stuff is not helpful. Gingrich is the worst candidate this year. George Will says that he is the most liberal candidate.

Wiseman

When I compare Newt and Mitt, I can’t see how anyone believes Newt will be a better option in the general election. Newt has a HUGE target rich past for Obama to attack repeatedly. The group that Newt would have the biggest problem with is WOMEN, women of all color! Just ask your wives! When I see all the love for Newt over a very talented and capable family man like Romney, the only thing that I can think of is that people are against Romney from getting the nomination because they are afraid of the Mormon religion!

logicalpositivist

You guys keep going on and on about that.

The Democrats investigated all of this stuff in 1998, when they were looking for any conservative president that they could claim had extra-marital affairs.

To Ronnie’s credit, they couldn’t lay a glove on him.

Newt would be a train-wreck candidate like McCain.

Romney is the best of the remaining candidates.

Scope

From the medical dictionary benign means non-cancerous, malignant means cancerous with respect to tumors. There is no such thing as a benign cancerous tumor. Cancer is cancer no matter how treatable it is. Just the word, in any diagnosis, scares the heck out of anyone.

logicalpositivist

Off of RS, Romney is often referred to as “the Mormon candidate”.

Everyone knows that he’s Mormon. Yet Erick refuses to believe that Mitt’s religion is the reason that some people will never like him.

In the real world, there is such a thing as bias. And bias can work against people because of race, gender, religious affiliation, party affiliation, ideology, etc.

To say that there has been no bias against Romney on this site would be a lie.

To attribute at least some of that bias to Romney’s religion would be fair.

aesthete

I did read something about how we are going to somehow “rebuild the moral fabric” through political fiat, as if a moral fabric in disrepair were as easy to fix as a pothole on the I-10.

As a regular churchgoer and proud Christian, I would prefer that politicians quit interloping in what is a very complex problem more in need of pastors and other members of voluntary society, than of the sort of people drawn to political office.

aesthete

I am probably more radical than most, in that my ideal involves having no entitlements for the elderly at all, and a spartan safety net, if any at all. However, I realize that this is not possible: ideals are good for political philosophy and should inform political activism, but having them dominate political activism to the point where one cannot outline intermediate steps without being called a traitor is unhelpful. As Donald Rumsfeld said in a different context, we go to war with the army we have, not the one we wish it to be.

I absolutely understand that invocation of the words “nuance” and “complexity” to absolve politicians’ misdeeds is part of the summa theologica of the craven and callow in our party — David Brooks and Frum are particularly prone to using and falling for this gambit. However, when someone is, in fact, explaining actual complexities and how they might be resolved in a conservative fashion, it is worth it to listen — especially if the plan might be feasible.

Scope

those supporting other candidates screamed bloody murder because how dare the media make it a race between only Romney and Perry. Now the media is trying to make it a two man race between Romney and Gingrich. I’d bet that some of those same people criticizing the two man Perry Romney race are now claiming it really really is a two man race now. Too too funny.

It’s especially funny when in every estate there really isn’t any very strong support for any of the candidates. This is a race where anyone can still capture the nomination, and it most likely won’t be Newt or Mitt, especially when both of them will get more than a bloody nose out of it all. This isn’t a boxing match just waiting to see who has less blood on them.

kowalski

I don’t know whether Erick “refuses” to believe that or not, but it’s a good point.

The fact is that to a lot of mainline Christians in America, Mormonism is a sect. Oh, heck, I’m a Roman Catholic so let’s put it bluntly: It *IS* a sect. There’s just no getting around it. To a lot of people that’s enough reason not to vote for Romney. You have a lot of people who write websites this one and convince people that Mormons are wearing secret underwear, getting women pregnant for life, and secretly in league with Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan, that there inhabitants on the Moon and the Sun, and all kinds of other things.

And frankly, I’m sure some of that is true! Also, in the American Public that’s enough to get a lot of potential voters freaked out.

Then there are the more highbrow denunciations of Mormonism, many of which are doctrinally quite good and very credible. But if you want to appeal to Red Meat people, you’ve got to tell them that Mormons wear special underwear and they believe there are residents of Earth on the Sun. So, you know, if you base your vote for the Presidency on whether or not the nominee is a mainline Christian I guess you’re just stuck with worrying you’ll go to Hell for voting for Romney.

And for a lot of people, that’s enough. Quite a pickle.

cbartlett

A lot of those really great young guys haven’t had the time (politically, I mean) to shore up lots of bucks to back a campaign. It’s a shame that it comes down to that. Really don’t think our founding fathers could have ever thought that it would be a problem in the “process”. I also find it very disappointing that we “allow” the media and whoever else those “powers” are to decide who our candidate is after only 2 or 3 state primaries – and they are not even really big states!! It seems like a very small percentage of the electoral votes that happen to fall in those first few weeks determine what is available for the rest of the country. By SuperTuesday last time around, McCain was our only choice – blah! I am seriously afraid that my vote won’t even count at all….

snowshooze

They actually are making some fun little stabs as you say, but they are trying to control to the best of their ability the primary outcome.
And they have to come up against a beatable target.
Romney is duck soup. They should endorse him right now…

azrally

But why aren’t the hospitals and Doctors devising the methods to recieve compensation for the emergency service? Why are they not done “pro bono”( or say, for a minimum tax credit)? The reason there must be an individual mandate (I say personal responsibility), or a reduction in service to those who cannot show the ability to pay, is that the rest of society should not be forced to pay for the services provided to the individual who will not take care of themselves. The massive uncollected medical bills of the uninsured most certainly result in higher costs for everyone in both medical care and insurance. Here in the southwest border region, hospitals are closing due to the inability to collect fees. . .

snowshooze

But they would have actually better chances there.
I personally believe that ANY candidate we put out there in the general has a better than even chance. Some better than others, but if we line up in the General, it is done short of some landmine.
And this is why we should take our BEST shot.
We don’t have to worry so much about winning this time, we have to worry about what we are stuck with.

Christian_Reppie

You have just very eloquently put into words just exactly what I have been wrestling with.

That has been one of the reasons I have been hoping that Rick Perry would come on stronger and one of the reason I have said that at this point I don’t know if I will pull the lever for Newt, and yes I know that means a vote for Obama. Quite a conundrom huh?

I think Newt can be a live grenade, that could explode at any time.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…because all this back-and-forth is never going to reverse traditionl

Indeed, this biometric stuff is precisely why a lot of people are wary of the electronic medical records that BHO has promoted; remember “privacy”?

So, let’s recognize that Hill-Burton and EMTALA are engrained [stare decisis] and hospitals are required to provide charity-care, period.

Furthermore, please, let’s appreciate the concept of continuity-of-care, in that the first episode of an uncompensated ER-visit would likely trigger a Medicaid application [or, if the patient has wealth, the strong-nudge to buy a policy].

Thereafter, it’s simply a business-decision [no "debtor prison"] and the individual is NOT penalized for NOT having purchased a policy ahead-of-time.

Until/unless the McCarran-Ferguson Act has been repealed, insurers will enjoy broad federal antitrust exemptions, and such plans as ObamaCare, RomneyCare and NewtCare would inevitably enhance such inappropriate/unjustified empowerment.

So, let’s chill…and no congress-person is going to touch this volatile issue, lest he/she be labeled insensitive to the most basic of societal needs/desires. Yes, there is unlimited demand but limited supply, but forcing people to buy a service is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

This business that Conservatives can be twisted into mandating the individual exert duties, this is anti-Libertarian. If you’all want to rid the government of involvement in your lives, then don’t sic any enforcement entity on its citizenry.

[http://painintheenglish.com/case/402]

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…the providers are [and have been, for decades] powerless when Big Government has imposed Big Solutions.

I don’t bill Medicaid because [1]–the claims are constantly rejected, and [2]–the payments are minuscule.

If the “doctor fix” isn’t passed by year’e end, many physicians will adopt a comparable attitude towards Medicare patients…decrementing access-to-care.

You can claim “personal responsibility” should exist to your heart’s content, but can you find anything in Article I Section 8 that empowers Congress to force people to buy a private service?

BTW, the problem with border-state hospitals relates to illegal-aliens, in particular.

mrmises

What “rhetorical bombs” has Huntsman thrown at conservatives?

Also, I want to clarify a point. There is a big difference between messaging and message. Messaging is how you frame your positions and communicate them to the public. Message includes the diagnosis of our nation’s problems and the prescriptions to cure those ills. One’s accomplishments and record help voters assess the competence, values, preparedness, and believability of the proposals. Record also provides a glimpse into governing ability and how one confronts challenges unanticipated during a campaign.

A candidate’s substance, which should be the basis of a rational voter’s decision, consists of message and record. Messaging, by its definition, is style. Unfortunately, style points often make a difference (e.g., Yes We Can!). As informed voters, we ought not be distracted by messaging. What counts is message.

When elected, we hold candidates to their promises. Promises are the policy proposals and leadership style the candidate campaigned on. We don’t judge our Presidents on how much they hate a certain sector of our population or how earnestly they express alliance with a different group. A President should get things done and unite the country. How he packages that message is largely irrelevant (though I would argue the ability to accomplish stated goals without unnecessarily alienating large swaths of the population is desirable).

The tone of a campaign does not necessarily the goals of a candidate. Mr. Huntsman promises conservative accomplishments. Mr. Hunstman’s record is conservative. Success, from a rational perspective, for a Huntsman presidency is conservative accomplishment. Let us not forget that civility is foundational for a system of government such as our. We must not rely on attacks to distinguish ourselves from our political opponents. In the end, we all live in the same nation under the same rules. Divisiveness for the sake of exciting politics or a perverted sense of loyalty to the base is a bad thing for our county.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…as the D’s learned in 2010!

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

[Certainly, not The Newt!]

acat

I’m wondering what happens after….

Once Mitt’s cloak of inevitability is shredded, does Newt go on as standard-bearer?

Mew

deVere

he also didn’t divorce her. She divorced him.. Reagan was her third and longest marriage. She said that she resented his interest in politics: “Politics built a barrier between us. I tried to make his interests mine, but finally there was nothing to sustain our marriage.”

Jane Wyman divorced her 4 husbands 5 times (the last husband twice). Jane was also a Republican, who said that she voted for her ex-husband Ronnie several times, and also attended his funeral.

acat

Seriously, there’s no way Romney can overcome this, not in the age of #OWS.

It’s not fair, it’s not right, it’s not “The American Way” .. but it is today’s political climate.

Romney was the better choice in 2008, he is not the better choice in 2012.

MEw

westcoastpatriette

It is getting tiresome hearing people compare Reagan to Newt in order to minimized the difference between the two and make Newt’s transgressions seem trivial.

Reagan was never an adulterer and as you say, he did not even file for the divorce so there is no comparison to Newt.

pj2012

see… this is what happens when you pander with bold statements like Newt did today…

“The clause that spares Newt is ?for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy.? As TPM reported, Bolton will not indicate if he would accept such a position, nor has he even endorsed a candidate.

Law professor Rick Hasen, author of the Election Law Blog agrees in a post at his blog: ?I read this [clause] as requiring proof Gingrich said he would appoint Bolton for the purpose of getting Bolton?s support. More likely, Gingrich made the promise to gain support from voters.?

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/no-newt-is-not-going-to-jail-for-bolton-comment.php

acat

The government has created the problem by mandating E.R.s provide care regardless of payment.

The simplest but least politically viable option is to remove that mandate.

As that’s not going to happen, and as the government still has a responsibility to clean up its’ mess, the alternative is to step up enforcement.

Biometric data would be required with an opt-out for demonstrated ability to pay. Don’t want to submit it? Get insurance. That’s not “mandating” biometrics.

Further, hospitals deal in “biometric” material every day – the last time I was admitted, the vampires (phlebotomists) visited me every day and every night. I would bet cold cash that there were enough bits of me in the lab to get a DNA sample. Fingerprints are another story, of course, but .. again, only required by someone who is not willing to prove ability to pay up front.

Finally, if I’m understanding you correctly, you’re arguing that hospitals are still private .. so it’s not a government matter at all! (see, that libertarian knife cuts both ways, Doctor)

Mew

JSobieski

Gingrich’s 2011 quote on Glenn Beck’s show makes clear that his “variation” of an “individual mandate” is comprised of THREE OPTIONS the third option of which is “you indicate you are going to be held accountable” Please note that the word “OR” appears two times in connecting three possible ways to satisfy what Newt calls a “variation” of an “individual mandate”

Your inability to read your own frequently cited quote shows that you are either incapable or unwilling to actully give a fair reading to what is being said.

You should be embarassed either way.

______________________________________________

GLENN: Okay. That?s 1993. Here is May 2011.

GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I?ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable.

VOICE: That is the individual mandate, is it not?

GINGRICH: It?s a variation on it.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/06/transcript-of-newt-gingrich-interview/

nathanalbright

….and thanks for sharing it.

azrally

Can there be found authorization for the Federal government to force people to purchase any product or service. Nor should it have as much control over the economy through the improper impostion of “The Interstate Commerce Clause” since the early 1940′s.
Also, I would note, that I don’t understand the rationale for forcing society as a whole to be responsible for the health care of individuals. “Promote the General Welfare” in my opinion does not dictate such activity for an individual. Hence, we are left with the option of health care providers making the decisions as to who they will care for, and in what manner they will receive recompense. I for one would be happy to see the removal of Medicare and Medicaid. There are others in this huge line of comment who have come to similar conclusions as to the onus being on the care providers to collect their payment, and the government only being involved in the preparation of statutes to allow the “forceful” collection of fees. I would go further that under the 10th amendment, these statutes should be on the State level. . .

bzip

Republican Candidates Court Jewish GOP Organization:

Good Speech by Rick Perry today.

Introduction of Perry starts at: 41:30 and the Rick Perry starts at: 44:00 in the video:

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Republican-Candidates-Court-Jewish-GOP/10737426061/

Common_Cents

“BLITZER: If there were somebody else that got the Republican nomination — I know you think that is unlikely, but let’s say Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney got it. Would you consider being a running mate?

PERRY: Why would leave being governor of the state of Texas to be vice president?

BLITZER: You’re just in next line to be president of the United States?

PERRY: — very powerful statement about that. Being vice president is not worth a bucket of warm spit.”

Ouch, you’d think Perry would be a little more patriotic and diplomatic in his answer. Arrogance not good. Came across as sour grapes.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

then sure, being vice president ain’t worth a bucket of warm spit. Come on, it was funny.

By the way, I was told that making comments about electrocuting Mexican illegals was a joke, too, and I was ordered to lighten up and give the comedian–er, I mean candidate–some slack. That game plays both ways.

samanthasmith7896

Because only people with withdrawal symptoms would say something this idiotic.

Common_Cents

Just what he needs, saying he’s too good to serve the country as VP.

snowshooze

I would have said…
Sure, I will take the pay for that… call if I am needed, I will be in Texas..
I gotta go watch this. That is too funny.

Scope

He said that the role of the VP is nothing more than a government representative who attends funerals for foreign dignataries in far away places. The VP rolls have changed over the years. Just look at Biden, and there is your proof. I’m still unclear just what role he has played in the Obama presidency, but he has assumed the role of a warm bucket of spit, or as most know him the gaffe machine. Please consider the source with CC comments, if there is nothing wrong with Perry’s positions, he is the first to find some, over, and over, and over, and then some more.

windwaker24

I was hoping he would go back to Texas if he doesn’t win the nomination. I agree with him wholeheartedly. Do you honestly see Newt or Romney valuing anything their VP says? Both are legends in their own mind.

JSobieski

Perry was NOT being disrespectful, unpatriotic, or undiplomatic.

gekster

it is to make Obama look smart.
A job he does well.

JSobieski

http://hnn.us/articles/53402.html

snowshooze

I was searching youtube and CNN for the interview.
No luck. Thanks!

Scope

with your Newt shill and Perry shrill posts it’s pathetic. Why ever would anyone accept the VP position in a Romney or Gingrich administration when the job he has is so much more important than being a pansy for either of those administrations? I’m quite sure that Perry would never consider the two liberal republicans as any where near what policies would get this country back on track, nor should he consider serving in their administrations. The Governor of Texas, a much larger role for anyone is far more important than being a funeral attender, or someone on training wheels for the next presidency. Perry has already so far surpassed that role it is an insult to even consider it.

txpat

John Nance Garner
Who seems to be as colorful as Perry.

jimmyg

He said he was 2nd in the Hot Gas poll in the CNN interview. . Who says he could not compete with Biden as a gaffe machine. He would make a great vice president, and at the same time keep the late night comics busy.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/07/rick-perry-on-cnn-im-second-in-the-hot-gas-reader-poll-you-know/

pttx333

make everyone around him look brilliant. Lordy, what a goofball.

How’ve you been, gek? I’m still trying to get back up to my old self and am getting there. Hope you and yours had a wonderful Thanksgiving!

Mom

windwaker24

That VPs are just not that valuable to some Presidents. I’ve never heard of the guy…

avagreen

You never answered my questions last time.

Are you a Ron Paul supporter, and other questions>>>>>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/04/rick-perrys-second-time-at-bat/#comment-146666

Are you even a guy? :-0

snowshooze

Thanks,
Mark

JSobieski

He opposed FDR’s third term and ran against him the primary.

He lost, and swore to never cross the Potamic river again, which he didn’t

He also burned all of his papers, so no historian had any incentive to write about him because there was a lack of information.

He was from Texas.

kipling

Perry was simply quoting John Nance Garner who was one of the VPs under FDR.

Perry is also 100% correct, which I guess makes Garner 100% correct as well. The VP has as much power and influence as the President will allow. Who would want to be a conservative VP under a moderate (read liberal or at least big government conservative) like Romney or Newt. Who would like to go out and defend those guys on a daily basis.

gekster

we needed another short bus rider to fill our quota.

pttx333

Just like Perry is very quick-witted, funny, prone to Texas-isms (as am I LOL) – just an all-around good guy. All Perry was doing was quoting the same sentiment as old John Nance.

snowshooze

Maybe people just do not pick up on what he is saying. Or he is just being ignored to obscurity…
But he makes huge splashes, and I do not understand why there isn’t more attention being paid.

znjs

I might be in the minority here, but I don’t care if gays serve openly – generally it’s been little more then an open secret who is gay or not anyhow, and somehow the military hasn’t stopped functioning. It’s not the govt’s job to legislate morality.

But even if that’s the minority position here, it’s not in most places. If Perry wins the nomination expect to see ads that just repeat the ‘there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military’ over and over again. The last poll I saw (taken about the time it was repealed) had about 62% of Independents pro gays being able to openly serve in the military. Now with the policy gone and no major disruptions because of it you can expect that number to go higher. This ad will be seen as an attack on people who serve in the military who happen to be gay. Not really sure attacking military personal is the way to go if you’re running for President. Even on youtube the like/dislike is at 1775 / 74754 – and it should mostly be people who are open to Perry as a candidate who are checking out his youtube page.

pttx333

a gaffe – he said that on purpose! He is a very funny guy … wish a lot of others could see it. He truly does have a great sense of humor, and uses it regularly.

snowshooze

But I’d be awful busy. So many fish…so much hunting to do…
I don’t know. Maybe we could put Air zForce II on floats, so I could sit on them while fishing…
Biden is a jester. Cheney actually had some input. Gore is as good as he ever was…Mondale?? Dole? ( Not completely awful ) Ford, did the job.

Common_Cents

But I did post the full transcript links in another post of the Gingrich and Perry interviews today on Situation room.

Wish they’d post the entire interviews.

snowshooze

I found the scraps too. I would rather see the whole thing as context can easily be lost, and if there is some running pushback in an interview, one might miss it.

snowshooze

But Biden seriously came through.
And he is doing an awesome job of it.

Common_Cents

The I am Christian part is great. I don’t see how the gays in the military is the top priority for Iowa voters. What happened to jobs jobs jobs? He seems to be getting away from that.

This will only serve to rally obama’s lefty gltb base, who have been down on obama for not catering to them.

dajeeps

And is open to public shaping of them. That is what he has been about for the last several years, getting folks together from all walks of life to discuss the issues and come up with practical market solutions. When American Solutions first came on line, it was open to anyone. I even had a few of my ideas posted up there. It was a free market of ides. This is one of the many reasons I am excited that he is doing so well this late in the game.

I see Romney as being far too egotistical, elitist, and wedded to his own ideas to accept feedback from anyone but those whom he selects, for whatever reason he selects them. In my opinion he would be more of an obstacle that a solution to the huge issues we have, and am keeping my fingers crossed that we don’t end up having to deal with him. It would be an immense amount of work to keep on top of him.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…because I was living @ 303 E 71st [fellowship @ MSKCC].

He was in a townhouse that connected with another building where he had his office, and the above-account is precisely correct.

It was generally assumed he had “died in the saddle.”

jimmyg

comments follow the link to Hot Air and read the comments. Gov. Perry’s has got them rolling in the aisles.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

the news-coverage of this event was good on FNC

windwaker24

If he did it on purpose, that was pretty funny and sneaky! BTW how are you doing?

pttx333

there – I know full well what they write. And that is why I say that Perry meant to say exactly what he said. So, to me it is funny … and I would guess to you, it isn’t. If so … then we’re even.

pttx333

there – I know full well what they write. And that is why I say that Perry meant to say exactly what he said. So, to me it is funny … and I would guess to you, it isn’t. If so … then we’re even.

windwaker24

nt

snowshooze

And I don’t want my guy crossing the isle without a gun or a knife, because we are taking scalp.
Winning isnn’t everything. It is the only thing.

http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

I may yet vote for Gingrich, but I’m just not comfortable doing so.

snowshooze

ha.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…such as opposition to enhanced interrogation “because it would be bad for America’s worldwide image.”

runner12

1.) His infidelity. Not one time, but two times he cheated on those he was married to. To me this shows a character issue.

2). His ego. We already have a man in the WH with a clinical form of narcissism and he has wrecked our country and ignored the American public. Newt would be far better than Obama, but would Washington really get fixed under his Presidency?

3.) Some of his neo-progressive positions such as global warming, support of Medicare D, etc. I find myself wondering which Newt I would get if he were President. Is he interested in drastically reducing the size and scope of the federal government?

For these reasons, Perry is still the person I support. I hope that he can make a resurgence because I believe thar he would do the best job of governing this country.

pttx333

little more recovery time yet. Thanks for asking.

Sure, sweetie, Perry did that on purpose – Hot Air has been after him with all of the long knives and claws extended. So I suppose you would have to pretty much know that to see that he meant it as a slam to Hot Air – he just called it Hot Gas. I thought then and think now that it was hilarious! Just his subtle dig at them by not dignifying them with their proper name.

And rightfully so! Read my conversation with jimmyg above – obviously, he is a Hot Air fan, and I’m not. The commentors there, for the most part, are not very nice and pretty crude a lot of the time – so I just don’t go there. Why would I subject myself to all of that foul language there?

So, yeah, Perry was just picking up some red meat they have thrown at him and threw it straight back – in spades.

superpatriot

Botttom line, folks, is that this country’s in a mess. The debt is skyrocketing and job market is in a crisis.

We need a candidate who can clearly and intelligently point out these deficiencies in Obama and provide a realistic alternative.

Of the 3 remaining big candidates,(Romney, Gingrich, and Perry), it seems that Gingrich would be the best bet to explain to the american people in debates, ads, and other mechanisms how to remedy the situations.

Sure, one can’t forget Gingrich’s past and cheating and stuff. But I still think he’s the best we have right now.
And if people find him so unelectable, why is leading in every major poll right now??

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…early debates ONLY were problematic, except for DoE freeze
…wasn’t “drunk” and riled the crowd
…n-rock is leftie-creation
…21 voting-age referred to his past, and voting date was “2012″

that you included n-rock reflects your proclivity to attack inappropriately

avagreen

Perry is a grassroots candidate and it’s up to us to spread the word. On every forum that’s available.

I’ve already noticed a difference in the way his supporters and lurkers on this site are answering and fighting back against some of swill that’s been put out about him.

(Even one of our good posters here dropped in to say he was spending the majority of his time posting on other forums.)

They are posting correct facts/ apologetics (such as the fence, Gardisil, Feds not helping with keeping the border closed and leaving Texas and other border states to fight their own battles) to correct the lies/smears being put out.

On to the forums!
Perry 2012

pennsylvaniafarmer

I don’t know Dr. Bob’s motives, but I know he’s pedantic. I think we can all agree on that.

I think Wonkish’s problem is that his initial comment was not clear. I think his bottom line, though, is that voting for Newt Gingrich does not necessarily risk one’s principles and sure as heck doesn’t risk one’s soul. I agree with him.

The president is an instrument for creating a better America. We should select our candidate based on his ability to achieve that goal. Character is important to the degree it impacts ability to reach that goal, but not independent of that.

For instance, if you were somehow certain that Rick Santorum – by all accounts an excellent man – would be a terrible president, could you support him? Of course not. Sound character would not be enough. Nor should a mediocre character prevent you from supporting a Gingrich if you think he’d be a good president. The real moral question is what is best for 375 million Americans and who is best to lead us there. Erick doesn’t really address that more important question.

avagreen

and watching the words fly across the screen.

It’s cold outside (below zero wind chill last night), and he’s got a cold, so he’s spending the winter in my office.

Sylvester sez “Hello” (mew).

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

[for starters]

snowshooze

Thry write an entire environmental impact statement to each other..
my eyes glaze over…
Look, a 30 page Resume will kill every chance you ever had of getting hired.
I just do not have the lifespan to commit to it.
Ok guys, you have your mission.

clowngirl

he’s acknowledged he was wrong to ever support a mandate and is — like every candidate – committed to dismantling Obamacare.

You’re welcome to support Perry. I missed the last debate – was he much improved?

JSobieski

his language was quite clear.

http://www.redstate.com/jsobieski/2011/12/07/the-presidential-primaries-circular-firing-squads-and-dictionary-abuse/

center77

I agree with this statement “The president is an instrument for creating a better America.” I disagree with this statement “Character is important to the degree it impacts ability to reach that goal, but not independent of that.”

Unless I am not getting what you are getting at, then I think this will make my position clear. Character affects every issue, and if character is a issue for a candidate then it is a problem for governing. I have not read this whole thread, and I have know Idea who Wonkish1 supports, but I know this, Erik’s post was dead on, and to think that Newt is going to get the middle to trust him when he cant get conservatives who have every reason to be happy somebody is beating Mitt Romeny, then there is going to be trouble for the party as a whole. I watched the glen beck interview, and it was bad, GLen got Newt so worked up that Newt was kissing his behind by the end of the interview.

The problem with Newt is that he is barley better than Romney as a conservetive,a nd he come with lots of questions. Yes we all know his past, but none of us know what he has really being doing since then. I have no real reason to believe Newt does not have 3 other women hiding in hotels all over the county. I think it is unlikley, but it is not as unlikley as say that happening to Perry. Perry is not winning in the polls, but its not tie to give up. There are a lot of people coming to Iowa for the strike force, I willbe there and Ive beentalking with a lot of others that are doing the same thing.

Its time to stop playing around conservatives, we cannot run Newt, it would be the worst thing we could do. We will lose a lot of respect that we gained back from the middle because they will know we pick the insider that has all the baggage.

JSobieski

http://www.redstate.com/jsobieski/2011/12/07/the-presidential-primaries-circular-firing-squads-and-dictionary-abuse/

snowshooze

Newt, Mitt and Obama are on the same page.
Government will fix it.
Perry is from the other side.
Government can’t fix anything. Fire them.
I like Pery better.

JSobieski

Or amnesty vs. in-state tuition?

At 10,000 feet, everything looks like at ant.

So you say “everything looks like an ant”

I expected more from someone at RS at 11:52pm.

Should candidates keep all statements to 4 words or less?

Taxes bad.
Spending bad.
Business good.

Perry is my first choice, but if you are going to condemn Newt for something, at least be accurate about it.

windwaker24

Some Independents can’t vote in the primary (I’m lucky I live in an open primary state), so they have to wait for the nominee to have their say. Some may accept, others may reject. Nothing you can do about that. So the question is can Newt hold the conservative base, while appealing to Independents, ordinary people who just don’t care about politics, and some Democrats?

JSobieski

Parsing words is what Democrats said about Paul Ryan’s plan to reform Medicare when explained that nobody 55 or older would be impacted

Parsing words is what Democrats said about W’s plan to reform SS when he explained that only people who wanted a private account would be taking 5% of the money into a private account

Parsing words is what Democrats said about accelerated depreciation for energy exploration under the tax code

Parsing words is a recipe for DC elites for pulling the wool over the eyes of the public.

How about we actually look at the words, the details, etc.?

If we don’t look at the details, every debate on budgets will be the following:

R: We need to cut spending it isn’t sustainable
D: Your cuts are too draconian

So we either get into the muck and make crap happen, or we avoiding “parsing words” or “looking at numbers” and march along with short little slogans and while the country goes to hell.

If you aren’t willing to get into the muck, at least support the people who do.

Who cares about facts when we just operate in generalities all the time? I mean, its not like the country is at risk or anything.

We need more public debates that stay at a very simply 4 word sentence level. Anything else is just out of line.

clowngirl

You asked:

“1. Do you place any credibility in an individual who feels hospitals should be empowered to refuse to treat the indigent emergently?” &

“2. Do you defend The Newt when he states that he supports a variation of the Individual Mandate?”

from the context of the rest of your comment, I gather that you think the acceptable response to both questions is no.

To personally answer your questions:

1. do I think hospitals should be allowed to refuse emergency care to people who are unable or unwilling to pay for it (or whose ability to pay cannot be determined at that time without endangering the patient) I suppose that depends on how you define “emergent care”. If a person comes in whose life is in immediate danger, no, I don’t think they should be empowered to refuse treatment. I do think they should, however, be take whatever reasonable measures are necessary to collect payment later.

However, I understand that some hospitals ( or other medical facilities) make a practice of gouging patients who don’t carry insurance — presumably to force people into buying it. I do think such a practice is wrong and should be illegal.

#2. do I support Newt saying he thinks people need to be held accountable for either carrying insurance or being willing to pay their own medical bills? Yes, of course. why don’t you?

If you have hospitals unable to refuse “emergent” care – and people not required to take any responsibility for paying for their care, what incentive is there to 1) carry insurance or 2) pay your medical bills aside from doing the right thing (which wouldn’t be enough to ensure wide spread compliance)

I submit that most people who don’t carry health insurance ( I’ve opted not to carry it from time to time) aren’t looking to be a burden to the government in the case of catastrophic illness — it’s just that they live in an area where the market has been artificially limited and the only health insurance available is priced far higher than their actual risk level would justify (due to some form of community rating, and because their state does not allow the purchase of insurance that carries a high deductible and only covers catastrophe)

So — while I object strongly to the individual mandate that goes along with Obamacare ( not only because of the argument that government shouldn’t be forcing people to purchase a product or service – but also because the products or services available would be limited by government who would also get to arbitrarily set the price ) I don’t have a problem with expecting people to pay their own bills.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…and I found a double-clip from a year ago…
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-8-2010/rick-perry-pt–1
…which was fun-viewing; Rick was quite animated.

[In fact, his presentation resembles that infamous Friday-p.m. when people thought he had been intoxicated.]

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…are available from this hyperlinked-page.

cheetah2

gay rights are being promoted while Christian religious expression is being stifled.

bri283

Race is politically relevant, but it may not be to you. Abortion is politically relevant to you, though it may not be to everyone.

Romney is not pro life. He is pro saying he is pro life now to get the nomination, he will do nothing to support pro life policies of any import at all, and he did not in the past.

Romney will do nothing about gay marriage or gays in the military, it is just talk now.

Romney is NOT for cutting taxes at all. He is for raising them and forcing you to buy his healthcare or pay more taxes.

NO ONE is buying this poop. Romney is a white Obama. Only other difference, Obama isn’t lying to the GOP right now hoping to get nominated. He already did his lying and got elected.

Bri

cheetah2

Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are not equal in their plans for America, their records, or their experience.

BTW, I would have no problem voting for a Mormon if I thought he was the best choice.

dandolo

Cute, but Reagan did not seek the divorce and he did not have Newts many problems. Reagan was a singularly great man of great character. Newt is not.

Check out Ann Coulter’s most recent column concerning Newt. If Obama’s past affiliations are fair game I am sure Newt’s are as well.

I would never vote for Romney and I like him better than Newt after researching Newt over the past week. He is a great debater but I cannot trust him.

snowshooze

That is what the State decides what they want out of the Residents for State college tuition.
So.. the Federal Government decides who is a Resident. They will not deport.
Your argument on that one has consumed more of my time than it is worth. Already.

snowshooze

In short of that, just what amnesty is it you might be speaking of?

JSobieski

Different levels of government.

Different responsibilities.

Federal government makes federal laws and issues federal regulations.

State government makes state laws and issues state regulations.

Local government makes local laws.

The Federal government has no say in what standards Michigan, Texas, California, or any other state uses to determine in state status

But why should a conservative website concern itself with distinctions such as federal government vs. state government.

Just words and stuff!

Don’t waste any more of your time.

snowshooze

You are about ten thousand posts behind.
Drop a line if you catch up.

acat

What’s a government lawyer cost the taxpayers per year?
What’s the support staff for that lawyer cost?

Let’s assume, for grins, that a lawyer costs $250,000 per year. That’s including salary, family health plan, dental benefits, life insurance, and – oh yes – income tax. Even government employees pay income tax.

Let’s assume, for grins, that the two clerks and one receptionist (shared) round the cost up to $400,000 per year. They’re probably represented by ACSFME, y’know.

I don’t have the figures for Texas handy, but out-of-state tuition for a community college is something like $200 per credit hour, in-state is closer to $80.

Based on these assumptions, which I believe to be on the low side, the savings of keeping one government lawyer (and staff) from being tied up defending the State in a suit over denying in-state tuition – regardless of whether the State wins or the illegal wins and the State must pay damages – covers the in-state discount for over 3000 credit hours per year.

You ask me, Perry’s a shrewd businessman.

Mew

snowshooze

But in-State tuition for in-State residents is a worn out issue.
I expect to have to be challenged on Guardasill next.
The horse that was kicked to glue… arises..
Alongside in-State tuition.
We should leave something for the children to play with.

determinedconservative

is that they don’t allow non-members in their temples, including at weddings. So if your son or daughter meets a Mormon girl and converts but you don’t, you won’t get to see your flesh and blood walk down the aisle. If they are going to exclude the rest of us, why shouldn’t we exclude them from being president of all of us?

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

How abut I exclude you from this site?

Seriously people, 1960 wants its stupid religion arguments back.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Temples are serious matters to believers.

tomatin

But haven’t many presidents been part of exclusive organizations of some kind? I don’t think it disqualified them.

bzip

Common Cents – you are Idiot!

You have the nerve to talk about “Arrogance” why don’t you ask your Messiah Newt about his “Arrogance”. So Newt was responsible for Romney’s wealth and Newt will be the nominee according to Newt.

You sure have your head up your rear end.

znjs

And it will be seen that way by 3/4th (and climbing) of the people in this country who think gays should be able to openly serve. Replace gay with any other group

There’s something wrong in this country when women can serve openly in the military…
There’s something wrong in this country when blacks can serve openly in the military…

Hear how noxious that sounds? It sounds that same way to most people when leaving the gay in there. If he wants to complain about the war on religion, fine. Personally as a Christian I think it’s overblown by those who think freedom of religion = freedom from criticism, and most of his complaints pre-date Obama anyhow. Also I’m voting for a President, not a Pope. But if that’s what he wants to run on fine. And it’s his choice to run on shoving courageous gay men and women who just want to serve our country back into the closet. But if I’m Obama I’m hoping he runs that ad over and over again. It’s not a good look.

nhbuckeye

What Gingrich did to his wives was bad, not unforgivable, but he has yet to be repentant.

The true issue with Gingrich is that he is a Progressive. He may have conservative values, but in the end he looks at government as a solution to problems. He is a pragmatist. While what he says sounds good, he will be willing to squander freedom and personal responsibility for things like oil subsidies. I personally don’t care about subsidies for oil in particular, I care about subsidies as a whole. There should not be ANY. The Left complains about supporting oil only because oil doesn’t fit into their utopian ideal. Controlling the market is their idea of social justice and plain old common sense. I look at controlling the market as foolish to the core and fueled by greed – whether from the Left or the Right.

Gingrich isn’t any different from George W. Bush, John McCain, or Mit Romney. They are all progressives. They all look at government as the answer to problems, and they are willing to sacrifice freedom over pragmatism. Don’t vote for any of them!

clowngirl

I too have trouble understanding why rsklaroff is ignoring these distinctions.

It seems very conservative, to me, to expect people to be responsible for their own medical bills. The only problem I have with it at all under the current system is that, in many states, there aren’t enough options for health insurance.

In NY for example, last I heard, you still can’t buy catastrophe insurance and insurance rates are often inflated due to some form of community rating — so, by providing no alternative options, insurance companies (with the help of government regulations) try to pressure people to purchase more insurance than they actually need.

Also, while on the subject — I don’t really even see why health insurance needs to cover routine care and minor ailments. Car insurance doesn’t pay for oil changes – it’s reserved for relatively major, high cost damage.

ericksontales

Wiseman – You are exactly right! As a Romney supporter this is probably the most frustrating aspect of this ongoing circus. The obvious choice that is prepared and can beat Obama is right in front of everyone’s face. Romney is the only one that can win. I’ve concluded that at some level this Mormonism thing is the hurdle that people are having a hard time with. All I have to say is…

WAKE UP PEOPLE! Stop being so ignorant and bigoted. He’s not going to try and convert anyone over to Mormonism. It’s not a cult. Mormonism is rooted in a classic American story. It’s a small piece of our nations history and millions of its people. It’s a family centered religion that promotes peace and kindness. For those of you anti-Mormons get over yourselves and do the right thing.

Romney will be the nominee and is the only one that can fight Obama through till the end.

acat

when I was a kid, the playground equipment was rusty and had sharp edges, and we learned not to touch them…we learned how high we could swing, and that “bailing out” at the top could get an arm broken… the garden hose doubled as a water fountain… the street lights were our cue to go home for dinner …

I guess I won’t go ahead and demolish Gardasil then. That’s a nice rusty slide for some kid.

Mew

DAVEGA

I assume you mean a good showing in the debates ‘is not the qualification for being a president.’ .. you and I and a lot of folks may agree on that but a candidate still has to survive the media-meat-grinder..handle the pressure well..do they not?

cheetah2

if you think he would ever attack our soldiers whether gay or straight. Only time will tell whether the ad hurts or helps Perry.

Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

Let me answer you straight…

If Perry were to drop out at this point… I’d likely start the “Draft Mike Pence” campaign.

For me, It would really take a lincoln-douglas style debate between Mitt and Newt candidates to prove to me that they have major differences in philosophy and approach… I’d have to hear them clearly explain without using talking point, their philosophy on the individual mandate… and when and how it applies (Newt’s losing this battle after the Glenn Beck interview)…

I think Romney may be the more sincere between the two candidates as I believe that he will do what he says he will do…
However, I think Newt would be the better debater against Obama… I think he’d gut Obama in a debate and set liberals back 20 years on their argument cycle.

But debates are one thing, and governing is another… We’re not electing a debater in Chief… I want a President.

Since I supported Mitt Romney in 2008… I may be a little biased against him now… because I’ve raised my expectations a whole lot since then… and I believe I’ve become MORE conservative not less.

If Perry were to drop out or for some reason or became untenable…

I’d certainly take the prescriptive advice I gave to Erick, and attempt to weigh all of the declared candidates… and determine which one best represented me… and if I found myself wanting…

I’d likely start the campaign to draft Mike Pence.

But somehow… your language regarding

“Newt Gingrich?
If so, you?re an Obama fan”

I suppose you were hoping to paint the picture that a non-endorsement of Mitt given the inevitability of either Newt or Mitt… wherin…I *ought to pick* Mitt… suggests you weren’t interested in an honest answer…just one you could argue

Common_Cents

really?

They are meaningless.

avagreen

Obviously, you don’t know Perry.

And, Mitt is acceptable only to me if I have to choose between him and no one, and because Mitt is the only dodger standing. We’ll just go to the hell in a hand basket more slowly IMO.

1bunny

global warming, government solutions, communism, socialism, marxism, amnesty, healthcare mandates.

I want a president who believes in God, real freedom, America is good, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, right to life, capitalism. This is why Rick Perry is my choice as he embodies all of the above. There is no second choice for me. He has it all and is what this counrty needs to make it great again. He gets it. It being what this country was founded on and what it embodies.

bzip

I couldn’t have said it better, You nicely wrote down my feelings. Thanks you very saying it.

I am at a total loss as to why others can’t see this but the doors will open and the eyes will see in do time as I keep my faith in Perry.

center77

if being a good debater means having ready made one liners and historic facts to use then Obama is almost as good as Newt, no Obama is not dumb, but debate will not matter. It was not the debates that got Obama the win last time, it was the fact that Obama was running as the anti-Bush, which made everyone think it was time to allow the Democrats to have a shot. We have a chance to show that our way is better, but not if we run someone who is the very think we promised the voters we would not be in 2010. The voters gave us a chance, and they know Obama has stopped us, but they will not trust us if we run the very thing Washington is plagued with.

Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

The points you make are perfectly well and fine… and I don’t disagree with them on any particular matter…

But I stand by my comment… I do think Newt would gut Obama in a debate… and the reason why is Newt is capable of moving the goal posts better than anyone else in politics today… be it Democrat/Republican or anything else… He’s better than most of the wiliest MSM spin doctors…

But until we get to see this, it’s all speculative. And it really doesn’t matter… as I clearly pointed out in my previous statement, that I wouldn’t automatically endorse or support either Newt or Mitt in the absence of Perry… and unlike everything else in this discussion… that is a fact that is neither speculative, or hypothetical.

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL