Newt, we know you too well

I have a friend who says she will never, ever vote for Newt Gingrich because of the way he treated his former wives. Newt’s marital complications were an issue long before he declared his candidacy, and they will remain an issue as long as he’s in the public eye. Marital complications did not hurt Bill Clinton, whose glib tongue, winning personality, and political skills papered over personal failings. Newt has none of those gifts, but what he has is a quick, card-file mind and the ability to articulate what’s in it.
That, and only that, is why he was able to jack up his campaign from dead-in-the-water to major player. Conservatives pine for Reagan reincarnate, who can speak clearly and forcefully what they’ve always believed. Newt’s performance last Monday (debate round No. 16) was stellar: I loved his exchange with Juan Williams on the value of work and his two-word summary of Andrew Jackson’s policy toward America’s enemies (“Kill them”). South Carolinians were so impressed they came to the next debate three days later ready to swoon. The wild cheers that accompanied Newt’s counterattack on the media indicated that his growing ranks of fans were ready to overlook his infidelities, and his big win on Saturday in the South Carolina primary proved it. But frustration with the media shouldn’t blind us to the candidate’s very real weaknesses. Tearing into “despicable” behavior is a classic technique for diverting attention from your own despicable behavior. Remember who else was good at that? Bill Clinton.
“Mr. Speaker” is no longer Gingrich’s former title; it’s the place he’s carved out on the Republican stage. The trouble is that Mr. Speaker doesn’t know when to stop speaking, and the nomination process will grow to a point when he will embarrass us as much as he does us proud. Newt is very smart, though perhaps not as smart as he thinks he is. He’s been instrumental in Republican policy, though perhaps not as instrumental as he claims. The volatility and grandiosity that Rick Santorum noted in the last debate is often painfully apparent, indicating another way that the Mr. Speaker is like Bill Clinton: It’s hard to tell what’s really at the center of Newt Gingrich, besides Newt Gingrich.
The greatest weakness of our electoral system is that the skills needed to win an election are not necessarily the skills needed to govern. The brilliance that maneuvered Newt Gingrich into the position of speaker of the House failed him when he actually tried to use that power. His term as speaker is a muddled record, ending with his resignation in 1998. Some people learn from their mistakes. But Newt’s frequent missteps—his on-again, off-again attacks on Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital (that came close to an attack on capitalism itself) and his grandiloquent claims that he has the nomination locked up—should all be warning signs. He’s running for president of the United States, not president of the debate club.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top173 Comments to “Newt, we know you too well”
The greatest weakness of our electoral system is that the skills needed to win an election are not necessarily the skills needed to govern.
******Amen.
Report comment to moderator
If you can’t manage your house well, how will you manage your country well. I will not vote for Gingrich.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy pulled the quote I would have; that is it in a nutshell. What a nightmare if Gingrinch wins the nomination.
Report comment to moderator
What these results show me is the heart of the United States is ever more turning dark. We blindly embrace those that speak well and tickle our ego. Knowledge is exalted and wisdom trashed.
Report comment to moderator
Actually if conservatives really pine for a new Reagan, Gingrich might be the right person — after all they were both divorced at least once. It remains to be seen if Gingrich will endorse higher taxes to equal the Reagan tax rate.
Report comment to moderator
Re this post, that pretty much sums it up.
Report comment to moderator
The link below is a lengthy, but worthwhile, read from a pastor who knows Newt personally. He doesn’t defend all of Newt’s actions, but he does articulately, and thoughtfully, explain why he supports him.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2822096/posts
Report comment to moderator
The greatest weakness of our electoral system is that the skills needed to win an election are not necessarily the skills needed to govern.
The greatest weakness of our electoral system is that the ethics needed to win an election are diametrically opposed to the ethics needed to govern.
You need millions of dollars to win even the smallest election. Nobody contributes a lot of money without expecting or exacting a favor in return. Therefore you either have to lie now or perform the favor later. Neither is consistent with Democracy.
The only way to avoid this is make it a whole lot cheaper to run. Public financing, a constitutional amendment to overrule Citizens United and limit campaign time.
Report comment to moderator
We know you very well, Newt: You ran the ship of state aground and then ordered dinner for you and your mistress. Then you ‘fell’ into the lifeboat of Freddie Mac.
Giving the oval office to Gingrich is like putting Schettino back at the helm of a cruise ship. Then we passengers will really know we are in the midst of the judgements of God.
“I am the nominee.” Yeah, right, Newt.
You are indeed,if the American people are the sort of fools that can’t see you for the fool this hasty bit of speech makes you out to be.
Report comment to moderator
I want to say, Calm down. Newt Gingrich is not, NOT getting the votes to ultimately win the GOP nomination. He is getting the support of voters who understand that he best articulates conservative principles in the campaign against Obama!
He’s just our current-day messenger standing up with facts and logic against the failed Leftist argumentative tactics of the Democrat party in pushing their Obama puppet on us again.
Haven’t all the primaries so far all been open? The results may be different when they require party registration. What a novel approach!
In the meantime, Newt is giving liberals a phony run for their money as they’re so perplexed as their insults can’t see any further than ginning up their hysterical promo-rating for TV.
YOu know, one wonders how so many of the media can seriously sell out to such corruption.
Stop, already, with, “The government is broken.” What a lazy media meme. Who “broke” it? Really? When? What is so new in this century?
We’re giving the so-called news media too much influence over our opinions. That unelectd, unaccountable Fourth Estate wants the ultimate power in society and culture over whomever is elected. And it is using ther newest so-called Social Media to do it.
Report comment to moderator
“Newt has none of those gifts, but what he has is a quick, card-file mind and the ability to articulate what’s in it.”
Which is what probably got him in trouble with his wives. I’m going to go out on a (pretty strong) limb here and say he probably kept speaking when he shoulda been listening. In the short run, women don’t so much want answers to their complaints (and certainly not a rebuttal no matter how true and well articulated), they just want to be heard and feelings acknowledged… And if the complaint is that they are not heard and acknowledged… well, it’s self-perpetuating. QED.
Report comment to moderator
In debates, though, this ability serves him quite well. I loved the shellacking he gave that liberal idiot that started out one of the debates with the hearsay question, which Newt pulverized immediately, then when that scoundrelly weasel tried to backpedal out of it, Newt grabbed him by the scruff of his neck and rubbed his nose in it…
Bout dang time…
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “…after all they were both divorced at least once.”
It is ignorant and unfair to lump all divorced people together for self-righteous judgment. The circumstances of Reagan’s divorce were not like those of Gingrich’s divorces. Reagan was faithful to his first wife and did not seek the divorce at all. It hurt him terribly. Gingrich, however, has claimed a conversion to faith since his admitted sins, but he is still no Ronald Reagan. I think we all realize that.
As for me, I am for Rick Santorum.
Also, beyond all spins and statistical twists in in the full picture, Regan profoundly lowered the tax rates.
Report comment to moderator
Who should we elect? Someone who knows how to treat a lady or someone who can articulate the right direction for America?
Listening to Christians bash anyone but the front runner is a lot like watching Samuel run down the line of David’s brothers. He passed up all the handsome, appealing ones and chose the least likely candidate of all.
If you are behind enemy lines would you rather have a commando who has been in the trenches for years or someone who uses a napkin properly? If you are in court facing ominous charges, would you rather have an honest lawyer or one who can give you your life back?
On the Democratic side, the more disgusting and vile and corrupt you are, the more likely you will be elected in perpetuity. They will build monuments in your honor and name their children after you.
Republicans prefer family men who are handsome and smell good. What we always end up with is a big spending liberal who can’t run a country, but at least he looks good. I’ll take the least appealing candidate who can lead over the one with the whitest sepulcher any day.
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t made my opinions too secret. If my choices are a three-way between Obama, Romney & Gingrich I can’t imagine myself doing anything other than voting for Obama. If Gingrich actually secures the nomination (something I don’t believe would happen), I’d hope that the majority of my fellow Christians would vote with me. There would really be no better way to say we are serious about strong families than to reject a man who treated his own with so much calculated ill-will. That is, frankly, a message that America’s young men need to receive, that they cannot aspire to the highest places in life if they treat others (and God) so remorselessly.
But South Carolina was a disaster for our democracy. Well, not really a disaster, but a unique and isolated low point for sure. A quick aside on why I won’t vote for Romney:
I think Romney would be a terrible, shiftless-chicken of a President. And where’s the difference? Wall Street talked Bush into the stimulus, they will talk Romney into similar endeavors. Obama kept Bush’s man at the Fed and under Romney he could enjoy another 8 years there. I don’t see any real reason why
Timothy Geithner would polish up his resume either. There is literally no basis to the claim that Obama is marching us to socialism; except for his poorly understood healthcare reform made up of Republican ideas from the 1990’s. And what exactly is Romney going to do about that?! It was Romney’s plan first!
Why would you want to vote for Romney and get the exact same economic plan, while trading in Barack Obama’s international respect and foreign policy successes for Romney’s war-hawk rhetoric and robotic behavior? He’s gaffe machine, and I don’t think he could make through a 5 min press conference with a foreign head of state. If we elect Romney, Angela Merkel won’t be sitting next to the U.S. at any international functions!
But….(and this is where I stop bashing Romney)…an election between Romney and Obama would not be a circus. And I think that everyone, left and right and center, would like to see and election year that didn’t make us more cynical, more suspicious, and more nasty about our government and it’s processes. With Newt cynicism, suspicion & nastiness is the only option we’ll have.
Report comment to moderator
“Who should we elect? Someone who knows how to treat a lady or someone who can articulate the right direction for America?”
You cannot have B without A, end of story for me!
Report comment to moderator
Jane Wyman initiated the divorce against Reagan. Never once did Jane Wyman (who as you recall starred in a night-time soap opera called “Falcon Crest” while RR was in the WH) ever say anything bad about Reagan.
There are many veterans (including me) who find Newt acceptable; this president we got now really lowered the qualification bar. But others will tell you they hold Speaker G in contempt for getting married as a teen to avoid Viet Nam. He’s no better than Dick “I had other priorities” Cheney.
Newt seems adept at grandiose plans, and big talk is all well and good but as Barack OBama confirms to one and all, merely being one of several legislators cannot be compared to the pressure-cooker proving ground of being a Gov or mayor. Is this a man who can identify a good team and then delegate cabinet level jobs?
I hope you will ea read the comments to Dreher’s picture below:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2012/01/22/gingrich-family-values/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=gingrich-family-values
Report comment to moderator
Romney is desperate. He’s about to pay Marianne Gingrich to go on national TV and say bad things about Romney.
And how long before the debate hosts realize all their gotcha efforts only propel Newt higher in the polls?
Report comment to moderator
America’s young men do not need to be taught from political winners in government. They need teaching from the ground up and that wisdom exists all around – not just at the top. The top needs advisers from the grass roots.
Report comment to moderator
Roncat, at 7, I am grateful for that link to the email from Rev Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Wesley in San Diego. He makes an excellent case for Gingrich being a man of ideas who fully understands the main threats to America, namely radical Islam, radical secularism, and vast overspending. He, also, knowing Gingrich closely, is convinced of his sincere repentance for past grave sins.
It’s important in this crucial elections to keep our minds open. Garlow’s email convinced me that Gingich is by far the best candidate in this election. Heretofore, I favored Santorum, followed by Romney and Gingrich.
My only concern is that the liberal media could succeed in devastating Gingrich, as they did Bush and Cheney. Gingrich’s favorability ratings nationally are already quite low. Once the media finds out that Gingrich is a serious Christian concerned about radical secularism and Islam they will make a concerted attempt to crucify him.
Nevertheless, based on the Rev. Garlow’s email, as well as prior knowledge of him, Gingrich is now my man. This may sound rather impulsive but so be it.
Report comment to moderator
No candidate is 100%. Newt did some very wonderful things for the Republican party in the 90’s including giving us the first majority in 40 years. The Republican establishment would like nothing more than piling on this man so that Christians vote for Santorum and the election goes to Romney.
Obama is likely to win the general election again because there are so many people getting entitlements that unless a clear vision is shared with people as to why handouts lead to destruction, it will be more of the same. Newt has to be the guy. Newt’s rise is not so much “pro-Newt” as it is “Please, we have to have somebody debate the teleprompter president that can make him and his ideas look silly.”
Many Christians believe a candidate has to be 100% Christian in their policies and this is not true. People change and until proven otherwise, we should grant forgiveness to Newt as he says he embraces his faith now. Compare Newt and the policies he will pursue against Barack Obama and it is clear, as a Christian, I have to vote for Newt. We cannot have four more years of Barack Obama. Almost every policy he endorses is the oppositive of the free will God grants us. Taking money from one person to hand out to another person in the name of Jesus is not biblical. We do need someone, like Reagan, who is a communicator. Othwrwise we are left with a moderate republican or a democrat–both of which I would argue are about the same. When the media is totally corrupt and so many people know nothing except what the media tells them, we’ve got to vote for somebody who can draw clear lines of distinction.
Report comment to moderator
Xion:
The issue is not so trivial as knowing how to treat a lady or to use a napkin properly. The issue is a critical lack of integrity, a demonstrated penchant for the utter hypocrisy that can say one thing while living something else entirely (and in more areas than just his marriage), a pompous grandiosity that demonstrates a self-serving and self-important mind.
Character matters, remember?
(I mean, would you elect Jabba the Hutt if Frank Luntz gave him the right talking points?)
Wow. That’s unfair.
Report comment to moderator
“Who should we elect? Someone who knows how to treat a lady or someone who can articulate the right direction for America?”
You cannot have B without A, end of story for me! ”
Redwal, a rare moment of agreement between us!
I’d put it a little differently, though not disagreeing in spirit:
We need someone who not only can articulate the right direction for America, but can be trusted to implement that even when something shiny comes along and distracts him.
How anyone can believe that a guy who can’t keep his marriage vows should be entrusted to keep his constitutional oath while wielding the tremendous power of the presidency leaves me entirely mystified. And by “can’t keep his marriage vows” we’re not talking about a slip or an indiscretion or a momentary fall to temptation, but more like using his marriage license for toilet paper. He clearly had zero respect for his vows, on multiple occasions.
A man’s character does not switch into different modes depending on his job — he’s stuck with it. Sure, it can be changed, but I’d at the very least need evidence beyond verbal affirmations that his character has changed, before I’d want that character in the White House.
Frankly I don’t like his “direction for America,” either, but that’s another subject. I don’t even need to go there because of the above.
Report comment to moderator
Saw, didn’t find much value in the link about Gingrich, but you did lead me inadvertently to this article about Dickens: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/hard-times-again/.
It’s wonderful. Everyone should read it. The authors central point is that we need to learn from Dickens’ moral ambiguity to temper our urge to demand the right answer to all things immediately. The human condition will not allow for it.
I also think a fair comparison can be made between Romney and Charles Trevelyan in this quote: “During the Irish famine, liberals like Charles Trevelyan—at the time to the left of the political spectrum—argued that to provide any form of relief to the starving was to encourage the very habits and practices, to say nothing of the overpopulation, that caused the famine in the first place. An abstract truth, as they believed it to be, overrode all considerations of humanity. True compassion consisted of letting events take their course.”
Romney’s remarks that the best solution to the housing crisis is to let the foreclosures run their cours, and his dispassionate, lecture-like handling of the Bane scrutiny is going to bite him hard!
Report comment to moderator
Sails, @20, because of your comment, “I am grateful for that link to the email from Rev Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Wesley in San Diego. He makes an excellent case for Gingrich being a man of ideas who fully understands the main threats to America, namely radical Islam, radical secularism, and vast overspending. He, also, knowing Gingrich closely, is convinced of his sincere repentance for past grave sins,” I am reposting that link.
Praying that more might read it and become convinced, as you and I have, of the same. You’re correct…we must keep our minds open during such a crucial election!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2822096/posts
Report comment to moderator
This.
Nothing to add, it’s just so good it’s worth reading again.
Report comment to moderator
Sails (20): Garlow’s email convinced me that Gingich is by far the best candidate in this election.
Frank: Have you seen the 30-min. YouTube The Real Newt Gingrich? Not a word there about his (ahem) “sexual peccadillos,” but lots of info about his novel (esp. for a professed “conservative”) views of the US Constitution.
I’d like to know your thoughts.
Report comment to moderator
“Family Values: Using daughters from your first wife to convince everyone that your second wife is lying about your third wife.”
Report comment to moderator
#15 Redwal “If my choices are a three-way between Obama, Romney & Gingrich I can’t imagine myself doing anything other than voting for Obama. If Gingrich actually secures the nomination (something I don’t believe would happen), I’d hope that the majority of my fellow Christians would vote with me.”
Which is less moral: getting divorced or destroying the economy?
America is NOT a Christian nation. Who we elect has very little to do with Christianity other than honoring religious freedom. It has to do with economics, energy, foreign policy, nation defense, commerce, infrastructure and so on.
Obama is a socialist. Not wanting to elect a socialist has nothing to do with my faith. It has to do with not wanting to watch America go bankrupt. It has to do with liberty and prosperity. Obama is anti-liberty and anti-prosperity.
Faith is about the individual. It is about one’s heart and one’s relationship to God and others. It is not about sewer systems or hydroelectric plants.
People who want to use government to impose moral legislation, whether it means eating right or wearing your seatbelt or the kind of lightbulbs you use or what you do in your bedroom or redistribution of wealth, it all leads to a loss of freedom and ultimately to tyranny and economic ruin. I would prefer to elect someone for their stance on national issues rather than what he does sexually.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, that link took me to an Andree Seu thread. Could you give me another?
Report comment to moderator
This article makes some good points. However…
We are not electing a perfect person.
I am appalled by the former treatment of his wives, yes. Okay, so Newt doesn’t have the most humble ego. I, too, am suspect of someone running the country who doesn’t know how to run his own family (that is a very fair argument, and one aptly applied to Clinton). Again, however…
Has he changed or not? He claims to have changed, and as far as I know, based on his current life’s direction, that SEEMS to be the case. Do we believe, as Christians, that people can change, or do we not? And this man is not coming to our church seeking a leadership position shortly after marital infidelity… he is seeking a POLITICAL position. This is different. Do we think he has the chops to turn the country around, or not?
How can we not apply this same argument to Mitt Romney, who has blatantly supported abortion and same-sex marriage? Again, the question applies: Has he changed or not? I don’t see the change from Romney’s positions, which he will implement in the executive office of our country. Should this not give us some kind of concern???
Christian brothers and sisters, you are precious, but I don’t understand why we will not vote for someone who doesn’t claim to be perfect (in spite of the ego), and who has shown a life of change?! Do we want our country to turn around or not? Are we going to abstain from voting from someone whose PAST actions are despicable to us and therefore end up with President Obama for another four years?
Please reconsider. And thanks for letting me vent.
I hope I didn’t cause undue offense, and forgive any errors on my part.
Report comment to moderator
WorldReader, I agree – and more: Moses, David, Paul, Peter.
God does not wait for us to make ourselves perfect.
Report comment to moderator
Romney is desperate. He’s about to pay Marianne Gingrich to go on national TV and say bad things about Romney.
Wouldn’t that be self-destructive?
Report comment to moderator
WorldReader, you humbly make an EXCELLENT point. Couldn’t have stated it any better!
Report comment to moderator
World Reader, that article by a pastor was very good, and credibly makes the claim that Gingrich has changed. OK, let’s say he has. His whole public career was apparently before his change of heart (if indeed he had one). So what do we know about him? We can’t judge him on his past (bad) record, because he’s now different, and we can’t judge him on a recent (good) record, because he doesn’t have one. I’m still left saying no, we can do better than electing a man only on “trusting” that he has changed and will do a good job today. I don’t have that much trust in a human being, that I will vote for him in spite of past bad behavior with no good behavior to show instead.
Report comment to moderator
Roncat: Thank you for the link! I read (most) of it, and I found it to be very eloquently, honestly, and humbly written. I am indebted to you for sharing, and I will refer my husband to it.
Cheryl: Thank you for sharing, too. You state your position clearly, and you defend it intelligently. I remember you from other comments, and I always appreciate your sweet humility.
However, if I may, please let me share a couple of things:
1. You seem a bit skeptical about any sincere change, and based on your observations of him, this is fair. Surely we should not trust one man’s opinion of someone we haven’t met or of whom we are not convinced of change (i.e: the article link written by Pastor Garlow). However, the pastor sounds a sincere men of God who is in earnest of Gingrich’s sincere change. I would not want people to hold my sincere repentance and faith so shallowly and skeptically, if I might be brutally honest. Please know that I do not mean this in a nasty way toward you.
2. May I sincerely ask for whom you will vote?
3. If Gingrich is the nominee, may I ask this: Will you abstain? And… why? My personal OPINION is that this would be devastating error and an exceptionally unwise thing to do, for our country.
Thanks for listening and considering what I’ve shared.
Report comment to moderator
#8 Arcadia “The only way to avoid this is make it a whole lot cheaper to run. Public financing, a constitutional amendment to overrule Citizens United and limit campaign time.”
Putting big government in charge of elections will only assure that we will get more big government. And since big government is what the Democratic party is all about, only the Democratic message will ever be heard.
Look at public funding today. Is supports causes which are overwhelming to the left, because more government is a left-wing cause. Obama doesn’t say he will empower the individual, but asks individuals to empower Washington. NPR is essentially the media wing of the Democratic party. Public causes are overwhelmingly Democratic causes and independent corporations are treated like the enemy.
Citizens United and the McCain-Fiengold Act both silenced capitalism and free market ideas. The only corporations that would be allowed to speak would be huge media corporations, almost all of them in the tank for the Democratic party.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner 17 – Newt seems adept at grandiose plans, and big talk is all well and good but as Barack OBama confirms to one and all, merely being one of several legislators cannot be compared to the pressure-cooker proving ground of being a Gov or mayor. Is this a man who can identify a good team and then delegate cabinet level jobs?
I agree with you, completely. My not-yet-30 daughter has the answer. A simple Constitutional Amendment, adding a qualification for President:
“The President shall have served as Governor of one of the States for at least 4 years.”
This would relieve us of those who have never had a “real job” in politics, including the Congressional debating club members. It would probably also produce a higher level of Governors; earning their entry into the Presidential sweepstakes.
PS – The “at least 4 years” is the Sarah Palin clause.
Report comment to moderator
Sails (30): Frank, that link took me to an Andree Seu thread. Could you give me another?
Frank: Let’s try it again: The Real Newt Gingrich
Report comment to moderator
I’m with Cheryl on this one. I will not vote for Newt if he is the nominee. I will vote for a third party candidate or skip that race and vote the rest of the ballot.
Report comment to moderator
God gives us government to live under. The government He gave Americans is the US Constitution. I’m going to vote for the candidate (I haven’t decided which one yet) who will govern most closely to the US Constitution.
There are two decisions I have to make about each candidate:
1. Is the candidate accurately representing his true views and how he will govern when he is elected to office?
2. Are the candidate’s views constitutional?
If I believe the answer is “yes” to both of them, then the candidate is a contender. If I find more than one candidate that meets both criteria, the one with the best character wins.
If it’s a mixed bag, then I’m forced to prioritize the most important issues to me and pick the candidate who has the most constitutional views on those issues.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl and Grace, I admire you very much for abiding by your convictions may others do the same.
—–
I’m never ashamed to follow Christ, but sometimes I feel a bit ashamed to be in the group called “American evangelicals.”
Report comment to moderator
Graced, do you know what it is about Gingrich’s recent record, mentioned by Cheryl, that you don’t like? Although I don’t care for all his actions, I think he articulates the best politically conservative case against Obama and the DNC.
Report comment to moderator
Homeschool Mom, Ron Paul is the only candidate who actually wants to follow the Constition and who actually votes that way every time.
Report comment to moderator
And now I think I should be done with all this until November.
Report comment to moderator
Re “Newt has changed”:
Seriously? Define changed? Seems to me that a man who sinned when he was given power and influence should demonstrate change (for not only his public sincerity but also for God) by not seeking more power and more influence.
The oft cited quote about how he dumped Marianne, was that she was too homely or whatever to appeal to the public as a potential First Lady, that “Callista will make me President” quote. (How ironic that Callista is generally not likable; people think she’s a cheaper, tackier Cindy McCain.)
Public office, and the power that goes with it, is Newt’s “right hand,” and he should cut it off and sin no more. You can’t claim that he has changed when he seems to be in pursuit of the same sinful ambition. Having ditched his wife for the woman he thought would make a prettier campaign accessory, he seems not so much “changed” as following the original plan.
And even if I’m being too harsh with Newt, what spiritual counselor would honestly advise a man who is known to have difficulties with marriage and monogamy to seek such an office where his marriage will have to endure amazing strain?! Even if I thought well of Newt (I do not), I’d vote against him because it seems to be in HIS best interest.
Report comment to moderator
World Reader,
Fair questions. First off, I haven’t decided for sure whom I’ll vote for in the primary. I was leaning toward Cain, with a possibility of Paul; now I’m leaning toward Paul, with a possibility of Santorum. I have some reservations about Paul, his age being a big one, and I don’t yet know enough about Santorum.
I married (for the first time, age 44) three months ago, and my husband is a Paul supporter. What he’ll do in the general election if any of the other men wins, we haven’t discussed. I think he’s apt to vote third party (based on his having done so in the past). He will not demand I vote the same way he does (we’ve discussed it, and he wants me to vote what seems right to me). But his decisions will “weigh” in my decision-making, and I’m fairly sure he would not want me to vote for Gingrich, in addition to my own strong reservations. (He would not forbid it, I don’t think, but I’d happily vote for someone else instead, if he does. I might end up feeling strongly enough in favor of Santorum to vote for him even if my husband voted third party. Neither Gingrich nor Romney would get that kind of support for me; Gingrich I’d vote for only if my husband ends up saying, “I’ve researched him, and it looks like he really is a different man now, with the record to prove it, and I’ll vote for him.” As of right now, I’m saying no, I won’t vote for him, and I’d need to see a very good reason to do so.)
And no, I am not saying a person cannot change. I am saying that if what I have seen in him is bad, then hearing “he has changed” is not enough to vote for him for the highest office in the land. It’s like taking in a student for a heavy academic load based on grades of C’s and D’s and someone’s “word for it” that he’d apply himself if he were a student today. We need more than that from a president. It’s not only his egregious marital record that stands against him, in my eyes (though that is the part that is disqualifying him to me); it is that his record isn’t positive in any way, either. The other negatives of his record and character may well have been repented of, too–but that is just too much of a “gamble” as far as I’m concerned. (”For security reasons, I can’t show you my resume for the last 20 years, but it’s good, and I’ll be a good employee.” “Um, sorry. I really do need to see some real evidence of that.”)
So that’s my bottom line: I’m strongly opposed to Newt Gingrich, with his negatives not being balanced out by positives (positive talk, but no positive record to back it up) and the fairly strong sense my husband is opposed just as strongly. If I’m wrong about my husband’s stance AND I see reason to reconsider, I’ll reconsider. I think the chance of both of those happening to be quite remote, and what I have seen of him so far is a “no.”
Report comment to moderator
#28 – Frank, you do not know that Gingrich is “using” his daughters one bit. They are free and independent human beings who can and do speak for themselves. And you are free to disagree with them. But you know know the motives or tactics at play. Frank, judge what you know, not what you don’t know.
Report comment to moderator
* But you don’t know the motives or tactics at play. Frank, judge what you know, not what you don’t know.
Report comment to moderator
Redwal, that is part of my hunch too. Even if he has repented, do we know that he can handle the temptations? If I were his wife, I don’t think I’d want him to run. We couldn’t trust Clinton with the Oval Office; can we trust this man? Repentance includes change, not just words; and we just don’t have a “record” we can look at to see any evidence we need.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl and Redwal have articulated many of my concerns well.
Additionally, I’m extremely troubled by the treatment of his first ex and kids (she’s actually the one that he said wouldn’t make a good first lady, when he divorced her for Marianne) and what concerns me about his record NOW is that despite the court documents indicating she did not want the divorce, until recently his website held to his claim that she, not he, sought the divorce. (maybe it still does, but I couldn’t find it today)
When I look at the most deeply flawed people in Scripture, I see a humility and a willingness to own their sin and failures after their repentance. Newt talks repentance, but fails to line up his version of his personal history with the facts even today. That’s all from a personal standpoint.
From a national security standpoint, just imagine the risks of a president conducting an affair, trying to keep it secret, and then having a foreign power find out and use it to attempt to blackmail. The Clinton saga didn’t hit that point, but we saw how bad that got. There is even more at stake internationally now, in my opinion.
Report comment to moderator
I know the shallow form of debates we have to suffer through are partly to blame. I know the media is more interested in sound bites than in depth reporting, but here are my issues.
All quotes are cut and pasted from RP’s official site:
“Far from defeating the enemy, our current policies provide incentive for more to take up arms against us.”
He has a lot of explaining to do on this one. A lot. Many people see this as blaming the victim of terrorism. He better get really detailed and specific with his examples. I’m listening.
“* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.”
This is assuming this a realistic option. Which constitutional means? How exactly? What exactly is his definition of an act of war? How is the Constitution applicable to terrorists?
“* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.”
History will be hard to refute on this one. It is very common for nations suffering economic destruction after a war to resort to some form of communism or socialism that open the door for tyrants who have a tendency to try to take over their neighbors. China-Mao. Germany-Hitler. Russia-Stalin. I’m willing to hear him out on this because we can’t be the world’s policemen, but he has to argue that removing troops will not result in attacks in those areas as soon as we leave.
He’ll have to argue that a war completely formulated from the beginning to the end is even possible. Some examples of this happening in history would be required. He would have to give real life examples of possibilities here, not make theoretical statements. I’m listening.
“Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.”
This assumes that things never change in war ravaged countries over time. It assumes a level of foresight that many will wonder can even exist in the real world at all. If so, he needs to articulate it clearly and in detail. It also assumes that never staying in a region post-war is appropriate. Again, examples, details, and specifics are mandatory to convince voters.
“* Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.”
My husband has a 20+ career in writing computer software for the US, Israeli, and Italian militaries. 21st century innovation requires huge amounts of research and development-this is tremendously expensive in the beginning. Producing military machinery is very expensive too. RP will have to explain how investing in new technology compares in actual costs (blood and treasure) to maintaining current technologies before he convinces people.
Report comment to moderator
You chose a good man, Cheryl.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, thanks for taking the time to answer the questions. I appreciate it.
Report comment to moderator
Newt, we know you too well
Actually, I don’t think I know Newt Gingrich much at all. I do know a few things about his public record and ideology though. I also know a few personal accusations against him that trouble me. I know he is claiming conversion to afaith in God and has admitted “mistakes.” Perhaps that sounds weak to some (it does to me) but I am just listing what I know here.
I also know is that he gained a huge amount of respect by his debate performances.
Beyond that, I don’t know him too well.
Report comment to moderator
Newt has taken credit for lots of things. Balancing budgets, conservative governing, creating jobs, etc. Never once has he helped in lowering the national debt. In fact, even since Reagan became president in 1981, the national debt has INCREASED every year. Newt isn’t the only guilty party. This from TreasuryDirect.gov
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 907,701,000,000.00
Since 1950 only Truman in 1953 and Eisenhower in 1956 and 1957 actually presided over a year (Ike 2 yrs.) when the debt was lower than the previous year.
Is there a candidate that has done anything to solve this problem?
Report comment to moderator
Homeschool Mom 41 and 52 – Wow, you are schooling us! Me at least.
Report comment to moderator
Leo 56, would that have had anything to do with cutting down on military war costs?
Report comment to moderator
Russ Limbaugh in a seven minute video does a fine job of explaining Newt’s popularity in South Carolina. He argues basically that conservatives in the country have a deep yearning for a spokesman who will stand up to a radical liberal president and national media and do so with passion as well as clarity.
This video along with Pastor Jim Garlow’s lengthy e mail linked to above make a strong case for Gingrich, notwithstanding the serious errors he has made over the years.
Report comment to moderator
Homeschool Mom in AZ (41): 2. Are the candidate’s views constitutional?
Frank: An important Q.
I hope you’ll view the 30-min. YouTube, The Real Newt Gingrich, and let us know whether you consider Newt’s views — indeed, his very actions as a US congressman — to be constitutional.
(BTW, we moved from Phoenix to Spokane in 2008 — what part of the state do you live in?)
Report comment to moderator
Did ya know that there was a depression in 1921-1922? That Warren G. Harding solved the problem by raising interest rates, cutting the stimulus, and balancing the federal budget? Higher interest rates are already predicted.
Report comment to moderator
Leo: the debt most likely decreased in inflation-adjusted terms from 1999 to 2000. If you look at debt as a percentage of GDP then I’m sure we could find some other years where it decreased.
Report comment to moderator
Why are you all so certain it’s going to be Newtie who wins the nomination?
Report comment to moderator
Not all of us. (Write that down and date it.)
Report comment to moderator
I still think Romney wins. Though, given the last week, I could see it going the other way.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, I watched that John Birch Society video on Gingrich. What it does is take some of Gingrich’s centrist votes and claims that they follow the Marxist Communist Party line.
The truth about Gingrich is that he was key in developing The Contract for America and successfully put together a largely conservative Congress in the mid to late nineties that succeeded among other things in pushing through welfare reform and managed to balance four federal budgets. He did make some mistakes in those years, though on balance he was the most successful conservative Republican since Reagan.
I simply don’t buy that John Birch Society fellow’s badly flawed analysis.
I’m looking for an effective conservative president who can articulate his views with passion and clarity. Gingrich is by far the best of the present Republican candidates. Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, or Chris Christie would likely have been better, though they are out of the picture.
Report comment to moderator
Sails, I agree that Newtie (as NJL hilariously referred to him) is the best of the remaining candidates, although he was not my first choice of the contenders. Personally, I’m still holding onto impossible dreams for Huckabee to be the nominee.
Some have said that they would vote for a third party candidate before voting for Gingrich. I respect the principles that lead them to this decision, although I strongly disagree, for a few reasons:
1. It will virtually secure Obama’s re-election.
2. It simply won’t “make the statement” that one voting this way may wish to make, with the best of intentions.
3. Even if the Republican candidate is someone whom voting for will likely be as appealing as eating a sawdust sandwich (for me, that would be Romney), it will at LEAST have the chance of getting President Obama out of there imminently. It will also mean that someone who may be a VP candidate (Rubio, for instance, or Jindal or Paul) COULD influence the presidential nominee positively, and lead to true change in the forthcoming years, with a simply astounding nominee in 2016, for example.
Those are just my thoughts.
Report comment to moderator
Ooops… I meant to say “a simply astounding nominee in 2020,” since 2016 would likely mean the same Republican nominee in the event of a victory.
Report comment to moderator
Need a good laugh? (Who doesn’t …)
Check out Doug Wilson’s Caption Contest!
CAVEAT: Don’t read the entries (comments) while drinking! (Or eating!)
Report comment to moderator
Louise @58 – Sure could be a factor. But since the Korean War era, the debt has increased every year in spite of getting out of Vietnam, and Iraq I.
BuddyGlass @62 – Perhaps your correct. But at the rate we’re going does that make us feel any better? Are we even heading in the right direction?
Report comment to moderator
We just finished celebrating Martin Luther King Jr’s Day in our nation. I do see him as a non-violent hero of civil rights. But, like Gingrich, he was an adulterer and severely so. As a “reverend”, this made him a hypocrit too. But he did make a positive contribution and I say that even though his politics were not mine.
It is possible to have very imperfect heroes.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps your correct. But at the rate we’re going does that make us feel any better? Are we even heading in the right direction?
No, we’re not heading in the right direction. We’re collecting record low levels of revenue, we’re not yet recovered from a significant recession, we’re spending money on Afghanistan, we’re spending too much on non-Afghanistan defense, and we have no credible plan in place to control the projected growth in the cost of Medicare and Medicaid.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, are you willing to include Clinton in your list of flawed heroes?
At the time, did you support him and say that his behavior made no difference to his ability to lead?
—–
For the record, I do not care what the religion of the President is. He or she can be a Buddhist, or even a Muslim, for all I care. My point is not that I oppose Gingrich because he is Roman Catholic; it is that some Christians who say that the beliefs of the President matter to them are willing to support a man who does not share their specific beliefs. It is a weird phenomenon, if nothing else.
I am also willing to give people a second chance in most cases, but being the chief executive of the United States of America is something that a person should earn. Nobody is naturally or automatically entitled to it. He or she should be noble and decent and loyal. That’s true whether the person agrees with me 100% on political issues or whether that person is diametrically opposed to my political stance.
Report comment to moderator
WORLDREADER, so. . .
You seem to see yourself as a political strategist first and a follower of Christ second. You seem to care more about which party wins an election than in voting according to what you believe is right.
I understand why you do, but it seems like worldly wisdom to me.
I myself am willing to trust God with the results if I vote according to my convictions. If that means four more years with Obama or the appointment of liberal judges, than I can still trust God. Maybe he wants our country to suffer a bit more so that people will wake up.
Report comment to moderator
Worldreader 67 – It will also mean that someone who may be a VP candidate (Rubio, for instance, or Jindal or Paul) COULD influence the presidential nominee positively, and lead to true change in the forthcoming years, with a simply astounding nominee in 2016, for example.
I agree the Republicans have better candidates in the wings, but the next big Democrat powerhouse is Mario Cuomo. He is the real deal. I’m not happy about that – just pointing it out.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A:
I am sincerely glad that you are so able to trust the Lord with the future of our country. I admit that, even though I do trust the precious Lord with our country, and my ultimate hope is in the One who so beautifully changed my life, I do certainly struggle with fears, even though I shouldn’t.
With all due respect, Kyle, your tone with me is just not necessary. I am a follower of Christ first, and certainly not a perfect one. I’m definitely NOT a political strategist!
Nor would I be a good one….
However, I am voting according to my convictions and based on the best (albeit potentially flawed) information that I have been given and of which I am aware. That’s all. I’m doing my best, as I believe you are as well. Thank you for voting according to your convictions so fully; a Christian must do this.
Regarding the comment: “You seem to care more about which party wins an election than in voting according to what you believe is right”…
I believe that I have made it clear that I am voting according to what I believe is right. I don’t even consider myself a Republican, to be frank. I tend to shy away (much to my husband’s chagrin) from associating with a particular Party.
However… I believe again that, from the candidates available, Gingrich is the best option. I may very well be wrong. But I certainly do NOT want President Obama in there for another four years, and yes, I do want the Republican party to win this one. As the mother of an adopted daughter, in light of the comments our current president made today about abortion, my heart aches to think we may have him in there longer. Yes, I want people to vote for a solid opponent to him; however, if they feel led to vote for a third party candidate, they have every freedom to do so according to their principles, and I believe they are doing what they believe is truly right, although I disagree with the option they are taking.
Thank you for reminding me that God is sovereign. You are certainly right about that, and I am thankful that all of people commenting on this article, though we may disagree, seem to love the Lord and sincerely seek to follow Him. We can certainly find a reason to be grateful in that.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle asked: “Joel Mark, are you willing to include Clinton in your list of flawed heroes?”
No, not a hero. His values, priorities and policies are too hurtful and debilitating to the country. But I always have wished him well as a person. And like all men, h is flawed, but he has not earne heroic status at any level I have obseved. He vetoed the born-alive abrtion ban bill twice (he supported partial-birth abortion until he finally gave in to the Republicans). He is a huge abrtion supporter. That’s immoral and unconscionable. He appointed extremist activist justices. Unlike either Gingrich or Martin Luther King, Jr, Clinton lied to a Grand Jury and committed perjury all while in high office, betraying our trust on the job. That’s political and publicly illegal , not just a personl failing. But it was uniquely inappropriate that his aultery was with a White House intern around 20 yeas old. And worst of all, Clinton and his minions smeared and attackd a very decent man for just doing his job (appointed by congress) effectively–Ken Starr. None of this is heroic.
My heroes do not have to be perfect, but tey have to be heroic in some way that i deem morally praiseworthy and that I have observed. King was very imperfect persolly but in there ralm of civil rights and as an advocate for equal rights and freedom for all, he made an eormously positive contribution. So I can cn honor that in particular without excusing his sins.
And no, i di not support Clinton and i never said that his behavior made no difference to his ability to lead. don’t say that about anyone’s behavior. I never say that about anyone’s behavior, but i also consider a bigger picture when assessing tough decisions.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl I’m fairly sure he would not want me to vote for Gingrich, in addition to my own strong reservations. (He would not forbid it, I don’t think,…
Probably the most depressing line I’ve read on these pages since I have been here. Just the thought that anyone could “forbid” anyone else to vote a certain way give me the absolute creeps. It’s worse than the haredi government minister in Israel who refused to let a woman scientist go up on stage to accept an award.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle wrote; “My point is not that I oppose Gingrich because he is Roman Catholic; it is that some Christians who say that the beliefs of the President matter to them are willing to support a man who does not share their specific beliefs.”
And that is just what I consider illegitimate, Kyle. Your strange need to use Gingrich to judge and excoriat some unnamed Christians (as a group i presme) who disagree with you politically is unsound to say the least. Why must you demean fellow Chrstians who disagree withyou politically or use a different model or voting than yu do? Maybe they see a biger picture than you, Kyle. Just maybe!
Nobody I know thinks ANYONE is naturally or automatically entitled to the presidecy. Gingrich is running for the office, not claiming it. He cannot win without the consent of the governed.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl:
Just for the record, I think most everyone else understood what you meant. And congrats on the new marriage, too. What a gift.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl:
Just for the record, I think we can safely presume that most everyone else understood what you meant by that comment. *ahem* And congrats on the new marriage, too.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl (and all others):
I won’t repeat myself a third time, just so you know. I thought the first one didn’t go through, and it did. So I get the joy of humiliating myself on modern cyberspace journalism. Oh well.
It’s humbling.
Report comment to moderator
JJF at #22: The issue is not so trivial as knowing how to treat a lady or to use a napkin properly. The issue is a critical lack of integrity, a demonstrated penchant for the utter hypocrisy that can say one thing while living something else entirely (and in more areas than just his marriage), a pompous grandiosity that demonstrates a self-serving and self-important mind.
What’s funny is that Xion is always going on about how immoral Democrats are, and has the nerve to repeat that same dopey argument in #14 in the course of supporting a serial adulterer and child-support deadbeat for the GOP nomination.
I mean really, if his hypocrisy were any more naked, this thread would be rated NC-17.
Report comment to moderator
#71
I don’t see the problem so much as having “imperfect heroes,” but that so many Christians are willing to accept such imperfections ONLY when they happen to agree politically with the imperfect politician in question.
I’m sorry. IMO, that’s simply hypocrisy.
Report comment to moderator
#83 Conan “What’s funny is that Xion is always going on about how immoral Democrats are, and has the nerve to repeat that same dopey argument in #14 in the course of supporting a serial adulterer and child-support deadbeat for the GOP nomination.”
I am not defending Gingrich in the least. I voted for Ron Paul. My point is that there are issues which affect America and others which do not. Adultery isn’t one of them. Destroying the economy is. Increasing the debt is. Killing energy is. Leading us into socialism is. See the difference?
The media (and Democrats and now Christians apparently) are so caught up in the candidates private lives and are completely ignoring issues that matter!
The argument in #14 is true. Democrats have double standards. When it is their own guy, like Barney Frank, the guy could not be more vile or unethical having gay sex with drug induced prostitutes and a Fannie Mae executive while setting up banking rules that flooded the market with bad mortgages leading to economic crisis. What is his punishment? Well, Obama rewards him and the voters reelect him. But when a Republican is merely divorced, Democrats join Christians in becoming Victorian prudes, covering their sensitive ears and blushing.
My point is that we should criticize politicians for actual issues that matter to America. Bush and Obama and the Congress for decades have been leading America into economic ruin. Every decision Obama makes is bad for this country. Gingrich and Romney would not be much better, but that has to do with their big government mentality and not their private lives.
Report comment to moderator
Bret Stephens has a searing WSJarticle today, “The GOP Deserves to Lose” including:
Finally, there are the men not in the field: Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour. This was the GOP A-Team, the guys who should have showed up to the first debate but didn’t because running for president is hard and the spouses were reluctant. Nothing commends them for it. If this election is as important as they all say it is, they had a duty to step up. Abraham Lincoln did not shy from the contest of 1860 because of Mary Todd. If Mr. Obama wins in November—or, rather, when he does—the failure will lie as heavily on their shoulders as it will with the nominee.
I hope this isn’t true though it likely is.
Report comment to moderator
Janie, since you and I know each other from church, you know we agree on most things, including the seriousness of Newt Gingrich’s moral failures.
We have two problems as evangelicals:
First, if we don’t do something very soon, Mitt Romney is going to end up being the nominee. Romney has a history of flip-flopping on issues of critical importance, including abortion, and since the primary purpose of government is to protect the life of its citizens, I believe Republicans need to do everything possible to prevent someone from being nominated who cannot be trusted to try to stop baby-killers.
Unless something happens very soon with Rick Santorum, Gingrich is going to end up being the primary candidate best able to defeat Romney.
Second, South Carolina, one of our most conservative states in both political and religious terms, has just voted by a large margin for Gingrich. What does it mean for the future of America when a Bible Belt state votes by a wide margin for a man with a history of multiple adulteries? I don’t know, but I fear for the future of the Republican Party. I don’t want to see it become a European-style conservative party like those of Italy and France where top leaders routinly commit gross immorality and nobody cares because they are politically conservative. Gingrich is not Sarkozy or Berlusconi, but we’ve worked long and hard over the last three decades to make the Republican Party the party of moral values and I don’t want to see that ruined.
At this point, realistically, Gingrich is our best chance at stopping Romney and we evangelicals are probably going to have to make peace with that, just like the voters in South Carolina.
Report comment to moderator
Guess it all depends on what you think “the goal” is.
Is it to “topple Obama”?
Or is it to “stop Romney” (see 87)?
We Ron Paul supporters happen to think it is neither of those, but rather to put an end to big, unconstitutional, Leviathan government.
With Dr. Paul, we at least have the beginnings of a chance. (There would, after all, be 500-some legislators kicking and screaming against him if he were elected.)
Is there even the possibility of that with any of the others?
What, are you kidding?
Report comment to moderator
Sails 86 – Thanks for the WSJ article link. It’s really stupid, as far as I’m concerned. Those wonderful non-candidates would also look terrible to everybody if they had gone through the last many months of pounding. It’s the current process. And, unfortunately, it favors Democrats completely over Republicans due to press bias.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A 74 – You are getting very close to talking like the liberals – “my opponent is not just wrong, he or she is EVIL”.
Report comment to moderator
@ Frank in Spokane: I have some Ron Paul supporters in my own church. I ask them this — “Is your goal to win elections or to be a permanent minority that talks about supporting the Constitution but never gets a chance to govern?”
We have elections for a reason. We don’t have a European-style parliamentary democracy where small-percentage minority groups get a seat at the table and maybe a minor portfolio in the cabinet of a multiparty coalition government. Here, if you can’t get to 50 percent you can’t even get a seat at the table, let alone a chance to govern — and Ron Paul defenders of the Constitution ought to know our history and why the Constitution is written that way.
I have problems with Ron Paul’s positions, but that’s not the most important problem I have with Ron Paul. Paul’s goal doesn’t seem to be to win elections, but rather to be a “voice in the wilderness.” Nice idea, but that’s a mission statement for a conservative think-tank, not a political campaign.
What just happened in South Carolina seriously worries me for the future of the American conservative movement. That’s a Bible Belt state. It’s the headquarters of World Magazine, for crying out loud!
But the fact is that Obama must be stopped, I don’t think Romney would be much better and based on his record, he might be almost as bad, and our only real choices left are Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. Unless something happens very quickly in Santorum’s campaign, we’re going to have to find a way as evangelicals to support Newt Gingrich. I don’t like that choice, but that’s what we’ve got left, and the stakes are too high to throw away our votes on a candidate like Ron Paul.
Report comment to moderator
WorldReader, I want to apologize. I went too far.
Let me explain. Hopefully I won’t dig a deeper hole.
By “political strategist” I meant that you are thinking only of the strategy of beating President Obama. You are not alone, and I should remember that many well-meaning people agree with you. I used to myself, which makes it pretty rotten of me to write with the tone that I used.
Maybe you and the other strategic thinkers are right. Maybe what God cares most about is stopping Obama and other Democrats. I know longer think so, but maybe you are right.
—–
In my case, I came to see that I was acting like a Republican first and a Christian second. Maybe you are different from me, and I hope that you and others are. I came to see that my vote was a sacred duty and a sacred bond, and that I should not purposely vote for somebody that I did not sincerely and wholeheartedly wish to see in office. I came to believe that my first priority was not to keep Democrats out of office or to put Republicans into office, but to try to put into office the very best person to hold that office. That’s how I veiw it. I could be wrong.
Report comment to moderator
TWH, you are right about me. Good call. I regret what I wrote in 74.
However, you are wrong in implying that only liberals take that approach; conservatives demonize people just as much. People have certainly said or implied that Barack Obama is EVIL.
Report comment to moderator
Follow-up to 92.
I also want to say that I understand the following concepts:
1. that sometimes we do not have the “best” candidate–only the lesser of two evils
2. that voting for somebody other than a Republican or Democrat is a wasted vote
I understand those things, but I no longer believe them.
I have a friend who says it this way, “Just because they put it on my tray, I don’t have to eat it.”
If a person cannot in good conscience vote for the D candidate or the R candidate, there are usually other candidates to vote for, or one can abstain. Abstention is a time-honored tradition for those who cannot bring themselves to vote one way or another.
Anyway, that’s my recently-adopted view. Others may (and should) do what they believe is right.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Kyle. And I take your point about my overly broad statement in 94. Of course it is true that these kinds of statements come from both sides. I do strongly believe that liberal politicians and media people employ this “wrong AND evil” tactic far beyond conservative politicians and media, and could easily provide many examples (push Granny off the cliff comes to mind). But I understand that my own personal bias makes it impossible for me to be completely objective in judging this.
Report comment to moderator
“Adultery isn’t one of them. Destroying the economy is.”
Having a President who is a lying, lust-driven, untrustworthy creep who can’t keep the most important vow of his life in even a minimal fashion doesn’t “affect America?”
Where do you think this switch in people’s brains is, that allows them to treat their wives and children in a lesser fashion than a minimally decent human being would, while being unable to resist temptation to obviously egregious behavior the way 99% of men walking around do (and whatever you say about the overall faithfulness of men, 99% of them don’t carry on promiscuously, while married, the way Newt has done) but enables them to run an entire country with the integrity the office deserves, and to control themselves and act responsibly in situations of high pressure and serious temptation to do the easy thing?
This is what I don’t get.
Report comment to moderator
Besides, the economy is already toast, and none of the candidates running (Paul included) is going to be able to fix that.
Report comment to moderator
Pentamom, Gingrich has been honest about his serious failings. He has, also, been confirmed by the Catholic church including a serious confession of past sins. It is not good to cynically second guess or condemn any person who has been honest and confessed past sins.
As to the economy, Gingrich’s individual flat tax rate would be 15 percent, and the corporate rate would be just 12.5 percent — about a third of its current level of 35 percent; this would in itself go a long way to reduce lobbyist influence, crony capitalism, and put the economy on a sounder footing.
Our economic problem is solvable with sufficient political will. In my view Gingrich is the ablest of the present candidates to deal with it.
Report comment to moderator
#97
Pentamom, you are right that nobody can totally fix it. However, Paul would try at least to get us heading back in the right direction. I believe in my heart that he would. None of the others will.
Report comment to moderator
100!
Report comment to moderator
“Pentamom, Gingrich has been honest about his serious failings. He has, also, been confirmed by the Catholic church including a serious confession of past sins. It is not good to cynically second guess or condemn any person who has been honest and confessed past sins. ”
But the reality is, that even if his repentance is genuine (and I’m in no position to judge that), he has given us no actual reason to believe that he has become trustworthy. Public confession and vows of faithfulness, while indeed an important step in a thousand ways, are not the same thing as actually regaining credibility.
The thing is, you need someone who is *actually trustworthy* to be President. If the best you can do is “someone who has a horrible track record of being untrustworthy almost to the full extent possible for a human being, but I hope and want to believe in charity that he has changed,” that is not the same as his actually being trustworthy. The “worthy” part of “trustworthy” has to count for something.
And his actions of shooting the messenger who brought up his sin are not really a positive indicator, BTW.
As a man, I hold out hope that he has changed. As someone I would want to entrust with such a responsibility, he has forfeited trust in the past, and has not yet regained it. So why should he be entrusted? Being willing to hope for the best is not the same as having reason to trust someone.
I’ve also heard it said, and I think there is some credence to this, that a man who truly wants to put that kind of past behind him and overcome the sins he has being ruled by in the past, does not go right back in the arena where the temptations were presented. A man who has been susceptible to thinking that his power places him above the normal constraints of honor probably should not be running for President, for the sake of his own soul. A failure to realize that might just call into question the solidity, if not the genuineness (which again, I do not judge) of his reformation.
Report comment to moderator
“I believe in my heart that he would. None of the others will.”
I believe that Paul might sincerely want to more than the others, and might try harder.
But he wouldn’t be able actually to do it. It can’t be fixed that way.
Report comment to moderator
Pentamom, post 101 is very well said. He may or may not be repentant; we genuinely don’t know. But why “bet” such high stakes on something of which we have seen no actual evidence?
Report comment to moderator
This brings to mind a truth we learned years ago when we were walking through the valley of a manipulative teenager: “Forgiveness is granted, but trust is earned.” We learned not to judge her heart – give the benefit of the doubt and leave it up to God to show her if her apologies were insincere. But we also equally learned to watch her actions and reinstall the privileges that come with trust accordingly.
Pentamom1 is right on. As a Christian I rejoice that Newt claims to have repented and embraced Christ, and I leave it between him and God the sincerity of that decision. That is really all I can do in terms of “forgiveness” since he hasn’t personally wronged me. However, as a Christian looking to vote for someone for president, I also weigh the issue of trust. He hasn’t demonstrated that he is trustworthy, in my book.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy, “I don’t see the problem so much as having “imperfect heroes,” but that so many Christians are willing to accept such imperfections ONLY when they happen to agree politically with the imperfect politician in question.”
Maybe that’s because we are talking about people running for a political office and we care about their politics. Maybe Christians have political and policy convictions that actually matter when they support or vote for a candidate. Conservative Christians like me are ready to accept imperfections in all people but when voting, we ONLY support those who agree with us politically. So what?!? The fact that they are imperfect applies to all in different ways. But it is legit and NOT hypocritical to support imperfect people who agree with you politically. After all, it’s politics. Sheesh!
Report comment to moderator
@91 – But the fact is that Obama must be stopped…
This is opinion. It may be your goal/purpose to stop Obama (and, as a result, you see the needed action point to be voting for an “electable” candidate), but this is not the goal/purpose of many Christians. For some of us, the goal/purpose is to see our nation returned to a small, constitutional government — and we vote accordingly. The best candidate available to us in this regard is Ron Paul. Stop trying to convince people at your church to vote for someone else. Who are you to say they have made the wrong choice?
Report comment to moderator
Of course that’s his opinion Julianna. There are no facts on the future because it hasn’t happened yet. Convince away all you want, and allow others to do the same.
What part of voting do you disagree with? Honestly, Ron Paul fans are even now his worst campaiagn enemies. But he doesn’t seem to care. He just likes the limelight of the controversy. I have no reason to trust him any more than anyone else. He’s all talk. All pessimism, all the time, on everything. No balance. He’s a loser.
Report comment to moderator
#106: You’ve hit on what I think is the key disconnect between Paul supporters and folks like Joel Mark and Sails. From the perspective of the Paul supporter, electing Gingrich is only marginally different from re-electing Obama. Neither will act within constitutional limits. Neither will make appreciable headway in respecting civil rights. Neither will make headway toward reducing our budget deficit and national debt. Both are extremely willing to engage in questionable foreign military actions.
So why would I vote for Gingrich, who has a demonstrated record of untrustworthiness and general moral failing, over a guy like Paul, even if voting for Paul helps Obama get re-elected? To the Paul supporter, Gingrich isn’t sufficiently preferable to Obama to merit voting for Gingrich against his conscience.
From the perspective of the Gingrich supporter, however, Obama is the devil. He’s intentionally trying to destroy the country and, specifically, to do everything in his power to thwart Christianity. He wants to gut the military. He projects weakness in foreign policy and emboldens our enemies. To a person with this perspective, Gingrich is the antidote.
To sway the typical “conservative Republican” to Paul’s cause, then, you have to convince him/her that the country is really no better off with Gingrich (or Romney, or whoever) at the helm than it is with Obama and, at the same time, that it would be better off with Paul. You can’t just focus on Paul’s merits relative to typical Republicans, because Paul is much less likely to be elected. You need to defeat the, “But if I vote for Paul then I’m just re-electing the Democrat,” reasoning, by essentially saying, “So what? The Republican wouldn’t be any better, and here’s why.”
Report comment to moderator
#85 Right. Barney Frank. The one name you always mention, because he is the only one there is.
The facts make a fool of you on this claim. Most of the Democrats who have been caught in indiscretions have resigned in disgrace and never returned to office. And.most Republicans so caught have.suffered no real consequences, have continued in.office.or, in ag least one case, run for.president.
But hang the facts, right? You will continue to.make this ridiculous claim, and.continue.to cite Barney Frank Aa hour example, because the truth is less.important than scoring a point.
Report comment to moderator
Who are they Conan? Seriously. Gerry Studds, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy?
Report comment to moderator
Kyle:
Thank you for the apology, and it is wholeheartedly accepted! I also appreciate your clarification, and I think you make an excellent point.
You stated:
“Maybe what God cares most about is stopping Obama and other Democrats. I know longer think so, but maybe you are right…
I came to see that my vote was a sacred duty and a sacred bond, and that I should not purposely vote for somebody that I did not sincerely and wholeheartedly wish to see in office. I came to believe that my first priority was not to keep Democrats out of office or to put Republicans into office, but to try to put into office the very best person to hold that office. That’s how I veiw it. I could be wrong.”
In response: I also don’t know what God most cares about regarding the election. Perhaps that is one of those “secret things that belong to the Lord.” But I do believe as you do that — and you stated this very eloquently — voting is a sacred duty and we should absolutely seek to put the very best person in that office, inasmuch as we are able. You ARE right about this, undeniably.
I wish this year there was someone I felt more “sold” on in this respect. Four years ago I felt that there was a candidate of that caliber, but I don’t this year; therefore I am using the best information I have (and my conscience guided by the Scriptures) to help put into office someone whom I think could do the best job for our country.
I could be wrong about the choice. Good luck to you as you continue to seek God and make your own choice in this respect! And thank you again.
Report comment to moderator
#108
I think you said it well.
I am definitely of the opinion that electing Gingrich would be no better for the country than leaving Obama in office.
As much as I dislike him, at least Obama has been faithful to his family.
Report comment to moderator
#105
Joel Mark,
You act as if I haven’t been on WMB for over 7 years, and that I haven’t heard the Christians (in general) go non-linear over the indiscretions of the “other guys” and, now, totally accept the indiscretions of those supposedly on “our side.”
Sheesh is right.
Report comment to moderator
#104
Graced,
Amen!
Report comment to moderator
I’ve also heard it said, and I think there is some credence to this, that a man who truly wants to put that kind of past behind him and overcome the sins he has being ruled by in the past, does not go right back in the arena where the temptations were presented.
*****Exactly. A person who has sinned with liquor does not get a job in a bar.
Report comment to moderator
But he wouldn’t be able actually to do it. It can’t be fixed that way.
******Perhaps. But, unlike any of the others, at least he wouldn’t take us further down the Statist road.
Report comment to moderator
Louise, I named a few already. Weiner. Edwards. Spitzer. Also, Jim McGreevey. Clinton stayed in office, but he has apparently changed his ways. Studds also didn’t suffer much, true. What about Henry Hyde? John Ensign? Rudy Giuliani? Larry Craig?
I agree there are D’s who don’t get much fallout and Rs who.do. But the reverse is also true. Xion’s oft-repeated claim is simply ludicrous.
Report comment to moderator
#108, Buddyglass,
The main disconnect I have with Ron Paul supporters is that they are utopian and unrealistic. They are led by a populist political preacher who has not accomplished much of anything politically in his decades of service. But I do also disconnect with RP on foreign policy as well and on some important social issues. I disagree with the basic Iranian leader’s view of America and RP agrees with them.
The Republicans are profoundly different from Obama, but none of them are perfect either. But I am not a utopian when it comes to politics and politicans.
Report comment to moderator
BG: From the perspective of the Paul supporter, electing Gingrich is only marginally different from re-electing Obama.
The problem with this is that the Paul perspective, while basically right on domestic policy, is wrong on foreign policy.
The difference between Obama and Gingrich is fundamental. Obama is a hard leftist who wants America to become a European style bankrupt Welfare State and apologizes for supposed American in foreign relations. Gingrich, like Paul Ryan, wants America to become a nation of largely self reliant people who are not dependent on government candy. In international relations he is proud of America’s role, especially in WW II and the Cold War, and agrees with Andrew Jackson that the main purpose of war is to kill the enemy.
Joel is perfectly right, the reelection of Obama would be a disaster for America. The Third Party types who would aid this need to think more carefully,
As to Gingrich’s admitted perfidies, they pale compared to the Biblical David’s adultery and murder. David asked for the Lord’s forgiveness; so hasn’t Gingrich. In my view for all his faults Gingrich is a possibly Churchillian figure who, like Reagan, could do great work for our country. I, also, think that the his serious conversion to Catholicism has steadied his past rather mercurial nature and obviated his tendency toward grave sin. See Pastor Garlow’s view on this.
Report comment to moderator
Budddyglass, NWJulianna, GraceD:
You have summed up well my own frustrations. I am fed up with incrementalism.
Xion, I am not disgusted with Gingrich because I am prudishly scandalized by his adulteries. They are merely the garish symptoms of his other failures of responsibility–he gave us a Contract With America and promised to shrink government–did he fulfill his vows there, either? Gingrich had unprecedented power to change the course of government and he frittered it away.
He kited his checks in the House–even one $9,000 for the IRS– and he’ll continue his fiscal irresponsibility in the White House.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288785/ex-pols-gingrich-supported-gang-seven-brian-bolduc
Ask Dick Armey what he thinks about Gingrich. ““It’s typical of Newt to be whimsical,” Armey said in a phone interview with POLITICO on Monday. “We always say: Newt always has so many great ideas. Well yeah, but then he shifts between them at such a rate it’s pretty hard to track it let alone keep up with it.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55081_Page2.html#ixzz1kPkwV6DD
Report comment to moderator
Tammy,
You comment as if Christians have no right to discuss openly and sincerely the indiscretions of political leaders and still be free to take sincere political positions or support politicans that are less than perfect themselves. All Christians are outraged by adultery regardless of politics, but political decisions are still political decisions. Every politican is a mixed bag and every vote is a compromise of something. That’s not new.
You seem to have no concern over the ardent defenders of Democrats who comit serious indiscretions (and keep them in office) but are nevertheless virulently outraged over Gingrich’s 15 year old adultery as if it disqualifies him.
Regarding the example of President Clinton, his indiscretions were illegal at a level that went beyond his adultery (perjury, lying to a Grand Jury, obstructing justice, abusing his power in office to cover up, etc.). Thus, Clinton and his cover-ups compare far more with Nixon than with Gingrich. And I (like the Republican leaders of the early ’70s) agree that Nixon should have left his high office (like Clinton should have). Clinton and Nixon both betrayed our trust in similar ways, even though Nixon did NOT commit adultery.
The truth remians that politics is the art of compromise. Always was and always will be. Like it or not. Better to be honest about that.
Report comment to moderator
Pardon me, in the second paragraph, second sentence it ought to have been …and apologizes for supposed American past failings in foreign relations….
Report comment to moderator
By the way, that is an old link on Politico, not referring to this last Monday. Armey was commenting on Gingrich’s extremely unhelpful comments on Paul Ryan’s health care plan. Remember those, too? Whose side is he on, anyway? Armey says later in the interview,
“My view right now is he has joined the ‘don’t care’ crowd, “Armey said. “It isn’t about the nation’s health care — the nation’s fiscal health care — it’s about [Newt’s] presidential race.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55081_Page2.html#ixzz1kPnbRZfV
Report comment to moderator
Sails, good post at 119. Churchill was a very crass guy personally, but a great leader nevertheless. I’m not quite ready to link Gingrich with Churchill though, and I still hold out for Santorum while I still have the option to support the one I think is best. I understand the serious concerns about Gingrich, but I think you and I are agreed on responding to the alarmist over-reactions to him.
Report comment to moderator
On the genuine consistency of conservative Christian Republicans:
To state it clearly, conservative Christians who supported Nixon’s departure from office show tremendous consistency with their call fo Clinton to leave office too. The difference is that the Republican Party in Nixon’s day refused to condone his illegal cover-up activities and called for Nixon’s departure. The Democrats, in contrast, all lined up behind Clinton regardless of his illegal cover-up activities and his many sins in office.
The same Dems who wanted Nixon gove, hypocritically refused to tell Clinton to step down. And CLinton was worse than Nixon at every level of illegality, and Nixon did not commit adultery with an intern either).
Report comment to moderator
Kyle, in my conversation with you, I am defending “conservative Christians” as a group against your general accusations of inconsistency at the moral level as applied to politics. They are invalid. But I am not defending Gingrich or his history of moral shortfalls.
At the debate in South Carolina, Gingrich told the audience that “Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things…” He seemed to be speaking as if he was the victim in some way. No. Gingrich put others through great pain. He is not the victim here and in this case, his outrage was inappropriate when you consider what we do know that he did (we don’t know that he asked for an “open marriage” but we do know that he acted it out anyway and sinfully).
As a minister, I know that I have taken a role that invites personal and public scrutiny. It goes with the territory. I should not be unduly outraged when questions on my personal integrity come up if some evidence exists that compromises my trustworthiness as a leader.
This is one of reasons I am not currently supporting Gingrich. We can do better and should. If he is the candidate agianst Obama, I reserve the right to make an independent practical political decision when I know what the options are for. I will vote according to what I believe is best for the coutnry overall.
Report comment to moderator
One could, and many have, say much meaner, crueler things about Newt than what is said in this article. I’ve read some things that almost approach the vitriolic feverishness of a Sarah Palin attack. There is no question that Newt-hate is alive and well among the Establishments of this republic.
However I would remind Christian conservatives not to parrot the opinions of the Establishments who are no more our trustworthy friends in a legislative mosh-pit than they are at social functions. Far less so in fact. There’s another side of every story and then there’s also the plain simple truth the way that God sees it. I’m always for trying to figure out that point of view, the view unblemished by incomplete facts or bias or prejudice. I understand that I’m not God but I also understand that there’s a ring to truth and that the Holy Spirit loves Truth.
All these critiques of Newt, focusing on his loose lips and apparently, allegedly, looser morals, seem to completely ignore the historical context of his prior service as “Mr. Speaker”. We forget that Newt was no more than a ragged voice in the wilderness at first, that he spoke up with reckless courage and relentless perseverance on a House floor that was highly hostile to conservatism. Newt wasn’t merely speaking to his colleagues though, he was cleverly speaking to me and my generation of young republicans through the brand new medium of CSPAN. And that’s just the beginning of the story.
Newt was courageous and outspoken as Speaker too. The only trouble was that he wasn’t some Tebow anymore by that point, some sensational rookie taking the unsuspecting scene by storm. By the time he was back for a second term, people knew who he was and by people I mean the folks on the secret Clinton PR team whose job it was to lie effectively to the American public about Newt Gingrich to make him a less dangerous opponent.
In any case, although many of the lies were simple, fleeting ones that were easily disproved, the Clinton machine was most successful at creating a sense of doubt around Newt’s integrity. Once they sensed a little blood in the water they were ruthless. To this day the cloud of mistrust they created around Gingrich remains.
There are so many good things that can be said about Newt and at risk of being completely outre and contretemps, I will list a few of them:
(1) The man is a gifted impromptu communicator who makes Obama look like the TOTUS-reading automaton that he is.
(2) Gingrich is no newbie to leftist uber-hate. The Lame Stream trying to crawl under his skin won’t be a paralyzing new sensation for him.
(3) Gingrich knows intimately what it takes to build consensus in Congress and get legislation passed.
(4) Gingrich is quite familiar with the wiles of lobbyists (who, unlike what Washington outsiders like to think, have a useful role to play)
(5) Newt is pretty much immune from personal scandal attack. As long as he doesn’t create any new scandals, there’s nothing left that anyone could dig up to say that would shock the world and derail him politically.
(6) Newt has the gift of restating conservatism in leftist lingo. While stuck in the mud conservatives hate this talent, it’s what makes Newt more effective as a national figure than either Paul or Santorum.
The Left can’t use it’s usual line on Newt, that he’s a conservative and therefore stupid. He’s clearly not stupid and lefties that try to make him look stupid always end up with egg on their faces. There are only two alternatives, to say that he’s corrupt or that he’s not a conservative and we hear both of these messages from the Lame Stream constantly.
Report comment to moderator
“(5) Newt is pretty much immune from personal scandal attack. As long as he doesn’t create any new scandals, there’s nothing left that anyone could dig up to say that would shock the world and derail him politically.”
This is supposed to be good, that he’s a penny stock that can’t lose anything more from here? Can’t we expect more from our leaders than “He has sunk as far as a man could sink, so we can safely elect him now”? Seriously, think about it. The same could be said about an awful lot of truly evil man, that we already know so many bad things about them that we can’t possibly hear anything worse . . . but we don’t elect such men. Truly, we don’t. At least Obama is their horrible candidate; we don’t have to put up one who is almost as bad (and worse in some ways) to match them.
Report comment to moderator
DarrellToddMaurina (91): Is your goal to win elections or to be a permanent minority that talks about supporting the Constitution but never gets a chance to govern?
Frank: [dope-slapping own forehead] You know, you’re right! What was I thinking, vainly speaking out and fighting for the cause of genuine liberty and a constitutionally-bound national government since, like, 1995?
Get me a razor blade, I’m gonna go right out and scrape them Liberty Stickers off my bumper, and when the WA caucus rolls around in March, I’m gonna cast my vote for somebody who can win and govern!
/sarcasm
Because after all, isn’t that what it’s really all about?
Winning and governing?
Report comment to moderator
It matters not that the bus his headed toward the edge of the cliff.
All that matters is that we get one of our drivers behind the wheel. (At least he’ll back it off from ninety to sixty five.)
Report comment to moderator
I always wonder when I read these political threads how many of the new, anonymous commenters are flunkies. Like #127, for example. Doesn’t that sound like something a staffer would write, taking on a Scroopy sort of voice?
Then I remember, hmmm, Gingrich has no staff. “Campaign manager Rob Johnson, strategists Sam Dawson and Dave Carney, spokesman Rick Tyler, and consultants Katon Dawson in South Carolina and Craig Schoenfeld in Iowa all quit in protest of the candidate’s refusal to take their advice.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56670.html#ixzz1kRNumoZU
His staff all jumped ship when he boarded, at Callista’s insistence, for the cruise in Greece. “He does whatever she wants,”one of them said.
Does that really sound like presidential material to you, WaikoloaLogoi? Really?
Report comment to moderator
I love your comments, Frank.
I have felt no need to weigh in since you and Thorn and Cheryl were holding out the hope of sanity prevailing amongst us just fine–and no takes me seriously here anyway–but then there was South Carolina and I just can’t hold in my outrage anymore. I have to do my little part to undo what Newtie’s doing. Particularly since it will all over by the time the primaries roll by my state and my vote is largely symbolic, anyway. I must have an outlet.
So that is why I am here. I will try to behave. I will try especially hard to not annoy Louise, since she is way smarter than me. Or she may try to test my constitutional law and pro-life credentials again.
Report comment to moderator
Whoops, my son has just helpfully pointed out that it should read “no one takes me seriously.”
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: To state it clearly, conservative Christians who supported Nixon’s departure from office show tremendous consistency with their call fo Clinton to leave office too.
There are a couple of important differences.
First, Nixon’s coverup was of crimes intended to subvert the whole democratic process and cheat in elections by smearing their opponents. Clinton’s coverup was of his own personal failings which, tawdry as they may have been, didn’t imperil the nation.
Second, nobody was trying to take Nixon down until it became obvious he was behaving dishonorably and covering up serious crimes. The Republicans in Clinton’s Congress were trying to bring him down from day one.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, let me try to make it clear. I am not talking about all conservative Christians. I even used the expression if the shoe fits, wear it. Do you know that that means?
I am talking about two groups:
1. The voters in South Carolina–whoever they might be–that identified themselves as evangelicals and who said that it is important that the candidate shares their beliefs and who then voted for Gingrich.
2. Any Christians who attacked Clinton (and other Democrats) but who excuse Gingrich (and other Republicans) for the same or similar behavior.
That’s all.
Report comment to moderator
But I forgot! And perhaps his staff forgot,and so shouldn’t have quit en masse! It wasn’t irresponsible at all for Newt to board that cruise ship in June, shortly after announcing his candidacy, because in his mind, he already had
“the nomination locked up.”
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Clinton’s crimes were also intended to subvert justice and equality under the law. Clinton was just as guilty of smearing his opponents. And Clinton illegally had far more FBI files to use against enemies than Nixon did. Just having those files was another crime. At least Nixon was faithful to his wife and did not commit adultery with a young White House intern.
And it was fair and decent for fellow Republicans to call for Nixon’s exit when it became obvious he was behaving dishonorably. You don’t convict and judge until the facts are clear. It would be unfair in indecent to do that sooner, wouldn’t it Conan?
It is shameful that the Democrats who kept Clinton in office were NOT as honorable as the Republicans who called for Nixon to resign.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle,
Christians who criticized Clinton and advocated his impeachment and resignation were right. I don’t know of any Christians who have excused Gingrich for his adultery.
As for your presumption that Clinton’s deeds was the same or similar as Gingrich’s, that is only true of the adultery which all Christians consistently condemn. The other illegalities and political abuses of power and lying under oath that Clinton did went beyond anything Gingrich did.
Report comment to moderator
Again, it is disgraceful, in my view, that the Democrats who did everything possible to keep Clinton in office were NOT as honorable as the Republicans who called for Nixon to resign.
Report comment to moderator
@ 129: Frank, we’re not dealing with church politics where if you don’t like what the pastor and the elders are doing, there are no effective ways to stop you from walking out and starting your own church more to your liking.
Realistically, unless you intend to move to some wilderness with a few hundred friends and a lot of guns and supplies, you’re stuck in the United States or somewhere else in the Western world that acknowledges your right to criticize your civil rulers.
That means you’d better be concerned about getting to a 50 percent majority if you want to have any hope of having your views heard, let along enacted.
As a constitutional conservative and apparently a supporter of Ron Paul (please correct me if I’m wrong in describing you), you would be well advised to look to the history of the Founding Fathers themselves, who made many hard choices necessary to keep the American Revolution from being defeated militarily on the battlefield, and then politically through disunion.
Those choices include ones that would be controversial for many evangelicals today. How many of us would be happy seeing Benjamin Franklin as a senior government leader? For us Calvinists, what about the pragmatic compromise to grant freedoms to Roman Catholics far beyond what they had in England as a necessary compromise to accept the (quite willingly offered) support of wealthy Catholic landowners and merchants in Maryland, and to accept the support of what was still a Catholic monarchy in France against which the colonists had fought viciously in the wilderness within living memory of Washington and other soldiers in that war?
We as evangelicals need to figure out how we’re going to deal with the fact that lots of evangelicals in South Carolina decided to vote for Newt Gingrich. I have real fears for what that says about the conservative movement, but we can’t bury our heads in the sand.
This article by a South Carolina leader in both the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (my denomination, BTW) and South Carolina politics points out that even in the precinct of Bob Jones University, Santorum won over Gingrich, despite his multiple adulteries, by only FIFTEEN VOTES.
http://caffeinatedcarolina.com/2012/01/the-evangelical-votes/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CaffeinatedCarolina+%28Caffeinated+Carolina%29
South Carolina may not be the buckle of the Bible Belt, but it’s awful close. This is the home of World Magazine, after all, and the role of South Carolina conservative Christians has been key for three decades in Republican politics.
Something big has changed in conservative Christian circles. A candidate won South Carolina, and won by wide margins, who would not even be considered a few years ago.
We need to decide how to handle that, and if we’re not careful, we’re going to see the Republican Party become a secular conservative party on a European model.
That would be an extremely bad outcome.
Report comment to moderator
@ 132 (Karen Butler: “then there was South Carolina and I just can’t hold in my outrage anymore. I have to do my little part to undo what Newtie’s doing”)
@ 135 (KyleA): We agree insofar as I share your concerns about evangelical Christians who said values are important, and then voted for Gingrich. Where I think we disagree is what we do next.
South Carolina could have been the place that a social conservative values-oriented candidate got traction. The last choice left was Santorum, but earlier on it could have been Perry or Bachmann or maybe several other candidates who never entered the race.
But that didn’t happen. On the contrary, by large double-digit margins, Newt Gingrich won, and won big, and won with the strong support of conservative evangelical Bible-believing Christians in some of the most conservative parts of the state where evangelicals are very well organized politically.
We need to decide very soon as evangelicals whether we want to take a go-for-broke approach and say we can’t live with Gingrich’s moral failures, back Santorum 100 percent, and run the very serious risk of nominating Mitt Romney by splitting the vote, or we have to decide that we can live with Gingrich if he becomes the nominee and hope Gingrich is serious about believing we evangelicals deserve a seat at the table.
In my state of Missouri I have no choice because Gingrich didn’t get his name on the ballot for the Republican primary next month and the race will probably be over by the Republican caucuses.
For people in other states, think hard about your vote.
My choice is to say that I’ll live with Gingrich if I have to, because the primary purpose of government is to protect its people and I can’t tolerate a candidate who doesn’t understand the dangers of Islamofascism and who has a history of flip-flopping on abortion. That rules out both Ron Paul and Romney for me, but Paul would be ruled out anyway since he has no chance of winning and some other serious problems.
I don’t like that choice.
We had many people who would have been better candidates for president — people with years of experience, including key executive experience.
But that’s not the hand we’ve been dealt. We as evangelicals have to choose now, and choose between seriously flawed choices.
If we choose wrongly, or if we get President Gingrich regardless of what we chose, we as evangelicals will not be in the driver’s seat. We’re going to have to trust that Gingrich will be more faithful in his statements to us than he was to his wives.
For me, that’s a choice I’m willing to tolerate, but I sure hope Santorum gains traction so we don’t have to make that choice.
Report comment to moderator
Darrell, actually we don’t “have to” choose to back a candidate we believe is morally unfit to govern. We can vote for a man our conscience allows and leave the results to God.
If you “had to” vote for either Hitler or Stalin, or abstain, which would you choose?
If you “had to” vote for two avidly pro-abortion candidates, would you vote or would you abstain or vote third party?
It is actually possible to have two different candidates on the ballot who are not morally fit to lead, and to choose to vote for neither. That is my own decision as far as Gingrich is concerned, if he gets the nomination. I will vote third party or not vote at all. I will not vote for the man.
Yes, compromise is sometimes necessary in politics. I personally voted for McCain last time, believing him to be far better than Obama. But Gingrich is a different case, and he won’t get my vote, even if he is the nominee. Most likely, nominating him will mean Obama gets back into office (because I believe a large number of people will likewise decide they cannot vote for him). I don’t like that idea, but neither do I like the idea of Gingrich in office. I won’t vote for either man.
Report comment to moderator
DarrellToddMaurina: You stated, “My choice is to say that I’ll live with Gingrich if I have to, because the primary purpose of government is to protect its people… We had many people who would have been better candidates for president — people with years of experience, including key executive experience… But that’s not the hand we’ve been dealt. We as evangelicals have to choose now, and choose between seriously flawed choices… For me, that’s a choice I’m willing to tolerate.”
You took the words RIGHT out of my mouth. Thank you for stating so completely (and graciously and humbly, I might add) exactly where my hubby and I are finding ourselves with this election. You hit the nail right on the head.
Report comment to moderator
One more thing:
Are we willing — seriously willing — to run the risk of getting Obama back in there based on where he is leading this country? I’m not being facetious or sarcastic, I am genuinely asking this to those who may decide not to vote. Part of me must confess that, because my daughter’s birth mom very easily could have chosen abortion, I shudder (absolutely SHUDDER) to think of Obama winning because truly lovely Christian people would not vote for Gingrich. I am just truly asking in the gentlest way I know how…
Are we willing to risk that?
Report comment to moderator
And you are free to disagree with me, by the way. I just need to ask.
Report comment to moderator
Tyranny is tyranny, and I don’t care if it’s right wing or left wing: I’m not voting for it. If it comes it won’t be by my ballot.
Report comment to moderator
And just let me add this little wrinkle lest anyone misunderstand what I wrote in #144 regarding abortion:
No, I am NOT suggesting that anyone who abstains would be at fault for more abortions. Please do NOT misunderstand that.
Also, if your answer is still, according to your conscience, “No, I won’t vote for Gingrich,” then that is legitimate, and I respect that.
And thirdly (lest this accusation fly at me)… no, I am not a “one-issue voter.”
Thanks all.
Report comment to moderator
#144
The Republican “conservatives” won’t be any better, so far as I can see.
Ron Paul is the only one who has been staunchly, always, pro-life. The rest? They are only as pro-life as getting elected requires them to be.
Report comment to moderator
#142
Amen.
Me too.
Report comment to moderator
I repeat, I will not vote for Gingrich under any circumstances. And, I’m betting that many other Republicans feel the same way.
You don’t do something wrong, because the “other guy” is worse. I cannot be party to seriously sinful behavior or look as if I condone it in any way. It just reads as hypocrisy to those who are lost.
God is in charge of who wins. We need to honor that and do what is RIGHT, not what is “least sinful.”
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry, judge. I only helped the guy kill ONE person, and that guy over there helped that other guy kill 10! So, I think I ought to get off. It was the least of two evils.
But, perhaps, replies the judge, you might have chosen not to help either defendant kill anyone?
Report comment to moderator
Every vote is a judgment call. We alsways do it somewhat in the dark. We never know everything about the candidate(s) and we cannot fully know what they will do. We cannot know fully whether everything said was true or if we have been misled. There is good and bad about each option in different ways. All of them are sinners in different ways. Sometimes the best options was divorced (Reagan) and the worst option may have a nice family on the surface but is extremely mean or dishonest. We never know for sure. And anyone you vote for will change somewhat over the time of their tenure. It’s not an exact science and, for me, perfect voting is impossible, just like perfect leaders are non-existant. So let’s all give up and let a few know-it-all academic elites choose our leaders for us. That way we can pretend to be perfectly pure and not blameable for what our leaders do.
Report comment to moderator
When I vote, I simply ask which of my options will be best for our country and make a judgment call and go back to may friends and family and love them. I’m confident God will not judge me for my sincere but flawed political votes. I just do the best I can with the information I have and with the options I have at the time.
Report comment to moderator
worldreader (144): Are we willing — seriously willing — to run the risk of getting Obama back in there based on where he is leading this country?
Frank: See my post at (13) above.
Same bus.
Same direction.
Same cliff.
We’ll just get there a bit slower with Newt Santomney.
… maybe.
Report comment to moderator
[Make that "my post at (130) above ..."]
Report comment to moderator
Tammy,
Thank you very much for your comments. I commend you truly for sticking to your conscience so fully in this election. It would be wrong for you to vote against your conscience, undoubtedly.
I could be reading into your comment in #150 about “we need to honor and do what is right, not least sinful.” It seems that you are saying — and do forgive me if I am wrong on this — that it would be wrong for me to vote for Gingrich. Am I right?
IF that is the implication, I’d like to explain why I, like you, am doing what I believe is right by voting for Gingrich (IF he’s the nominee) according to MY conscience:
Again, the abortion issue (and I confess this is extremely personal to me because of my precious adopted daugheter)… based on the information I have, I believe that he will be staunchly pro-life. If I abstain by not voting for Gingrich, then I believe that I am opening the door to allowing Obama’s heinous disregard for human life to prevail. Because of my daughter, I CANNOT — I WILL NOT — do that. Again, this is according to my own conscience, since God is not endorsing a candidate. I believe it’s right for me to proceed in this way.
There are other reasons as well, but I will leave it there.
Again, if I misunderstood you Tammy, I ask for your forgiveness.
I admire and respect your position, although I disagree. Thank you for listening.
Report comment to moderator
Frank in Spokane:
This is TOTALLY off topic, but I grew up in Washington (but on the west side of the mountains, in the SW part of the state). I miss it! I’m in OK now. It’s not the same. It’s rather dry here. And insanely hot. And barren and drought-ridden and brown and…
Report comment to moderator
I’m closer to your old stomping grounds than Frank (smack in the middle of the state).
And to answer your question in #144: Yes. I’m willing to risk that. My other option is to vote for a man I can’t say is the best man in the race with a clear conscience. So voting for him is not an option. With my vote, I’m not trying to put a leader in place. I’m stating who I think the best man for that role is. I’ll let God allow the results.
Report comment to moderator
[Hi World. Encountered this snippet on the net recently.]
EMPEROR AND EMPRESS OBAMA
The Old Testament has time-proven insights into professional vacationers like the Obamas:
Proverbs 19:10 (NIV): “It is not fitting for a fool to live in luxury – how much worse for a slave to rule over princes!”
Also Proverbs 30:22 (NIV) which says that the earth cannot bear up under “a servant who becomes king.”
And Ecclesiastes 5:2-3 (KJV) advises: “let thy words be few…a fool’s voice is known by multitude of words.”
Although Obama is not descended from slaves, he may feel that he’s destined to become a black-slavery avenger.
Or maybe an enslaver of all free citizens!
For some stunning info on Pres. Obama and his fellow traitors, Google “Imam Bloomberg’s Sharia Mosque,” “Michelle Obama’s Allah-day,” “Obama Supports Public Depravity,” “David Letterman’s Hate Etc.,” “Un-Americans Fight Franklin Graham” and also “Sandra Bernhard, Larry David, Kathy Griffin, Bill Maher, Joan Rivers, Sarah Silverman.” Also Google “Islam will purify Jews and Christians” and “Prof. F. N. Lee’s ISLAM IN THE BIBLE [PDF].”
Since Christians are commanded to ask God to send severe judgment on persons who commit and support the worst forms of evil (see I Cor. 5 and note “taken away”), Christians everywhere should constantly pray that the Lord will soon “take away” or at least overthrow all US leaders (including subversive, America-hating, Jesus-bashing Hollywood shmucks) who continue to sear their conscience, who dangle every unspeakably filthy vice before young people, and who arrogantly trample the God-given rights of the majority including the rights of the unborn. Do we need a second American Revolution?
After the Obamas are kicked out of the White House, there will be no place on earth where they can escape from scowling folks who wish to belatedly express their gratitude, in tangible ways, to the Obamas who tried to destroy the greatest nation ever!
Report comment to moderator
World Reader (144 and other posts),
First off, as far as whether we’re “willing” to see Obama back in office, no. But I believe God is sovereign and I am not, and I really don’t think God will say, “She voted for the right man because he had a chance to win against Obama, even though the man she voted for was morally disqualified himself. Good job; she voted for the lesser of two evils.” (Nor am I saying that God will say a vote for some other person is evil–I am not the judge. A vote against one’s own conscience is of course wrong, unless the conscience is overly sensitive. But to vote for a bad candidate, a morally invalid candidate, as a “strategic” political move, may be trusting in shrewdness rather than God’s sovereignty.)
My own two cents: I also am not a one-issue voter. WORLD had a column a number of years ago that summed up my position perfectly: On abortion, I am not a “one-issue voter,” but I am a voter who believes that being pro-abortion disqualifies a man from public office and disqualifies him from my vote, no matter what.
We are in agreement there.
Where I’d go a step farther is in saying that Newt Gingrich, in his flagrant and hypocritical adultery, is also disqualfied from public office. Who knows how much he might lessen the stigma against adultery and divorce? But even if there are no additional sins under his watch, he himself is unqualified, by virtue of his adultery (we’ve discussed already whether or not it has been fully repented, which we cannot know, but the very real danger in putting him back in power and within reach of temptation and subtle temptresses who are well aware of his weakness) but also by virtue of his lack of a positive record. (I would say the long-term hypocritical adultery is disqualifying, the negative record unqualifying, which isn’t as strong.)
On abortion: I have already said I will not vote for a pro-abortion president. But the fact remains that voting for a pro-life president who in no way changes the law to a pro-life stance is unlikely to save a single life. A pro-life president may manage to reduce some federal funding and otherwise play around the margins, and he may speak out against abortion (although few presidents but Reagan have ever even done that much). But as long as unrestricted abortion is the law of the land, such changes are pretty much window dressing while the slaughter continues.
For many years we’ve waited with bated breath for enough pro-life judges on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade. And how strenuously is anyone with a hint of pro-life sympathy derailed in Congress (Bork, anyone)? And how many Republican nominees have turned out to vote for abortion after all? And how many years have we been waiting?
I have heard hints that Gingrich isn’t all that solidly pro-life; I haven’t checked the record on that one myself, since he’s already eliminated from my own consideration. But honestly, even on this one issue, will Gingrich help us at all? For me he is already disqualified on other grounds, anyway, but I haven’t heard reason to believe he will be that helpful on this one. (My hunch is he’d govern “toward the middle” enough that he’d be careful not to rock the boat on Democratic causes such as abortion that just don’t mean that much to him.)
The only candidate who is pro-life enough to be helpful to the pro-life cause is Ron Paul. (I don’t know enough about Santorum to eliminate him, but the right candidate simply must be persuaded of the Constitutional requirement against a top-heavy federal government. Humanly speaking, the only “winnable” way to get rid of abortion being legal in all fifty states is to overthrow Roe v Wade as blatantly unconstitutional and send the abortion issue back to the states, where laws against it will quickly be enacted in many states. But we first have to have a leader who believes strongly enough in the Constitution.)
Anyway, you asked for a response, and this is mine.
Report comment to moderator
@ 143 WorldReader: Thank you for your note.
@ 142 Cheryl: I think we disagree on the proper use of voting rights in a democracy, but I will not argue against someone’s conscience. If you can’t vote for Gingrich based on your conscience, that’s between you and God.
I’m far from unaware of the problems associated with having Gingrich as the nominee or as the president. My point is that a Christian case can be made for voting for him as the best choice left. For me, I’m probably voting for Santorum, for reasons that include Gingrich not being on the Missouri primary ballot. But obviously lots of social conservatives in South Carolina just voted for Gingrich, and I think a reasonable case can be made for their votes.
Report comment to moderator
World Reader,
You are a very polite debater! Kudos!
However, I agree with Cheryl in #160.
In addition, I simply add to what she’s already said … while abortions have been in a small, steady decline since 1995, that decline started under a Democratic President and has not been affected by Bush or by Obama, and would not likely be affected by Gingrich either.
The fact that a President may *personally* disagree with abortion doesn’t seem to make a hill o’ beans of difference in what actually *happens* with abortion. That is controlled by the fact that it is legal. It is also influenced by accessibility, the economy, and people’s perceptions.
You would do more to stop abortion by evangelizing your neighbors and friends, teaching your children well, and supporting your local pregnancy counseling center, than by placing your hopes in the President of the U.S.
In other words, IMO, those of you voting for Gingrich will bring a man of disrepute into the office (for which the Conservatives will take the blame) and you will not save a single baby because of it.
Report comment to moderator
And, if you truly believed that pro-life was THE issue, Cheryl is right. You’d be voting for Ron Paul. He is the ONLY candidate who is staunchly, unwaveringly pro-life.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and I highly doubt that any Supreme Court nominees will be Conservative enough to bring about an overthrow of Roe vs. Wade at this time in history (it could happen in the future, because most young people are now leaning pro-life).
It certainly didn’t work with Bush’s appointees.
Report comment to moderator
And, of course, there is always the issue of the Constitutionality of having such things decided by the Federal Supreme Court. Had we left it to the States, abortions would be outlawed in a good number. But, we gave a non-Constitutional power to the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule all the States (many of whom had laws against it), and make abortion legal.
Now, of all the powers granted to the Federal government, I think one actually *could* argue that they have the right to oversee and make laws on abortion because it pertains to life. And, like a State cannot make murder legal, perhaps it shouldn’t be able to make abortion legal.
However, since most people did not have the scientific knowledge we do now when Roe vs. Wade happened, effectively we DID give the Federal government the power to make murder legal (because it wasn’t seen or understood to be murder then). And, now, we still reap the consequences.
If we’d left it with the States, MANY babies would be alive today, because many States never approved of abortion (and still don’t, as their attempts to pass end-runs around the law show). Their sovereignty, however, was overruled when Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land.
And, as our medical knowledge has grown, the State’s laws would have followed suit. I believe we’d only have a very few States left now with unfettered abortion on the books. Most would have long since put all sorts of conditions on it, and many would have banned it all together. This would likely have save millions of babies.
But, because the Federal government overstepped its bounds, and we let it, we now have to wait for a Federal solution and some court to be willing to overturn Roe vs. Wade. That will take MUCH longer, and many more years, and many more babies will die in the meantime.
We allowed the Fed to have power it shouldn’t, and babies have died because of it. Many babies.
Report comment to moderator
@ 165 Tammy: “If we’d left it with the States, MANY babies would be alive today, because many States never approved of abortion (and still don’t, as their attempts to pass end-runs around the law show).”
I agree. However, let’s not minimize the problem in leaving it up to the states whether to take away unborn life without due process of law. Constitutionally, the federal supreme court could and should forbid legalization of premeditated child murder because otherwise people will see abortions across state lines.
This isn’t just theory. The liberal pastor who drove me out of the denomination where I was raised had been part of Judy Widdicombe’s “Clergy Consultation Service” raising money to “help” women get abortions in states where that was illegal if they couldn’t afford to make the trip themselves.
Here’s an obituary for Widdicome, which I post to show how awful she was:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/obituaries/judy-widdicombe-dies-she-put-women-in-charge-at-abortion/article_2b57e99b-48a7-5564-a6ee-b1ac37ede2d7.html
We can never minimize the stakes of abortion politics. It really is baby killing and these people will stop at nothing to commit murder for profit.
Report comment to moderator
#166
Of course there will be people like this. But, the point is that I believe that MORE states would have made it illegal (and remember that accessibility is a huge part of getting one … it has to be EASY for most people, if not all). And, so many babies would have been saved.
Also, it is far easier to chip away at each state and get more and more controls (most states have shown that they’re open to such controls, but the Fed. government keeps overruling them), then it is to get the entire nation, and the Supreme Court to overturn and change such a huge ruling.
Bottom Line: if we’d followed the Constitution the way that it is written, more babies would be alive today, and we’d be much further on the road to outlawing or severely restricting abortion.
Report comment to moderator
#159 illustrates perfectly why Newt won over those so-called evangelical voters in South Carolina. Michael Tomasky said it best:
“It has turned politics completely away from the question of who might govern the country well to who can best embody our hatreds and revenge fantasies.”
Report comment to moderator
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/26/dole-assails-gingrich-in-plea-to-conservatives/
“”If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices,” Dole said. “Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.”
-Dole
Report comment to moderator
this i do know, if newt gets the nomination, are you going to vote for obama? all the elite old guard of the gop support mitt, they gave us gerald ford,george h w bush,robert dole, and john mccain.honorable men all,but why should people vote for a moderate republican when they can have a liberal democrat? it has not worked for generations, so why do we think it’ll work this time? if you stick up your nose and vote for a write in or ron paul, you’ll have handed obama his 2nd and possibly his 3rd term. the last moderate to was ike eisenhower,and that had a lot more to with his victorious leadership in europe.
Report comment to moderator
but why should people vote for a moderate republican
But what makes you think Newt is conservative? He favored TARP, supported the individual mandate on healthcare, famously stood with Pelosi to back the Global Warming Protection Act, etc, etc etc
More here:http://www.dailypaul.com/189535/newts-liberal-agenda-exposed-great-link-for-the-uninformed
And World Reader, he put social issues, especially abortion, on the back burner when he was Speaker of the House, to the great frustration of Values Voters…what makes you think he has had some great change of heart there?
Report comment to moderator
“He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.”
Yeah, that is one thing that has not changed about him. It is why his entire staff quit in June and his organization is still a shambles. He won’t listen to anybody, still.
Except Callista.
Report comment to moderator
@ 169 (Tammy, quoting Dole): ““”If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices,” Dole said. “Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.”
This sounds good, until you remember that Dole himself ran his campaign rarely taking advice. It would take a while to find the link, but I think I remember a New York Times article during that election quoting a Republican who said that he thinks Bill Clinton listens to Hillary but wasn’t sure Bob Dole listened to anybody.
Also, Dole is part of the RINO wing of the Republican Party. He objected to Gingrich for the same reasons he didn’t like the rest of the Reagan Revolution. We all know Gingrich was a bombthrower in the House of Representatives, but those who are used to the current Rush Limbaugh model of aggressive conservative in-your-face politics may not remember that Christian conservatives were being demonized for putting ideology front-and-center in Congress at the same time Gingrich was pushing a related but not identical conservative economic agenda.
Bottom line: I expect Dole to opppose Gingrich. They represent very different styles of politics — in-your-face rather than collegiality — and for Christian conservatives, we need to be careful linking our wagons to a RINO elite Republican group of people who don’t like us any more than they like Gingrich. It’s important to be principled without being unnecessarily offensive, but the RINO elites of the Republican Party will be just as angry with us as they are with the Gingrich supporters because 1) they believe social issues lose elections, and 2) in many cases they find Christian values to be personally offensive even if they can’t say so in public. The law of God convicts people of sin, and lots of politicians really hate to bow the knee to a different King.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!