Texas Governor Rick Perry has dropped out of the GOP presidential race. He endorsed Newt Gingrich. So did Sarah Palin. Ex-candidate Herman Cain, however, endorsed “the people.”
Gingrich’s former wife is saying that he wanted “an open marriage” even as he was making speeches about family values.
Meanwhile, Rick Santorum won the Iowa caucuses. A miscount had given the victory to Mitt Romney, but it turns out that Santorum actually had 34 more votes.
So where does all of this leave us? If enough candidates drop out, might voters coalesce around someone other than Romney? If so, who? Ron Paul is, of course, a major alternative.
Who do you think would be better–or worse–Gingrich or Santorum?
{ 111 comments… read them below or add one }
I was pretty impressed at how Gingrich came back hard at John King/CNN and ABC at the very beginning of the debate last night, administering a very pointed scolding. In the parlance of yesterday’s post on this blog, he went a little “Achilles” on him. As president, I don’t imagine he’d stand for any mess from Ahmajinedad or Putin. He seems the most presidential to me. Mildly checkered past (not Clintonian, to be sure) but his personal life seems to have moved in the right direction – towards stability.
….. his personal life seems to have movev in the right direction — towards stability.
“Moving towards stability” is not a phrase that Gringrich would use to descibe himself. Newt is a bit of a maddie. I doubt whether knows if he is moving towards stability or not.
Given his colourful past, it will be interesting to see what level of support he does get.
“Who do you think would be better–or worse–Gingrich or Santorum?”
Sort of like asking the question, “How would you prefer to be tortured, on the rack with hot tongs, or a flogging after having your back flayed?”
But the answer, in a nutshell, is both.
Now, if you put the question as “Who do you think would be better–or worse–Gingrich/Santorum or Obama?” my answers don’t change one bit. So, that scores points for consistency in outcomes.
I’m really torn by this primary. True, Gingrich delivered a biting retort to the moderator, but the fact remains. Gingrich was standing on a platform of moral values in the 90′s while his own personal life was more liberal than most liberals. This is an issue that discredits character. So, on character, Rick Santorum beat everyone in the room. However, as Pete (#1) says, Gingrich gives the most presidential appearance in most of the debates. Even though Santorum helped himself quite a bit, I think he’s still a ways off from having a “presidential” persona.
What seems to be happening most clearly is an unraveling of Prince Romney’s armor. He’s very vulnerable and will have a hard time hanging on to “front runner” status.
What I’ve heard a few pundits saying this morning is that the reason why ppl pulling the stings in national Republican politics are encouraging the continued challenges to Romney is that they want a brokered convention. Supposedly, this will allow them to introduce an outsider, if need be. I dunno if that’s true or really possible at this point… we shall see…
Callista had a six-year affair with Newt while he was still married.
It would be repugnant to see her as First Lady.
I’ve got an idea! Let’s stop paying any attention to the Republican primaries because the field is so rotten and the voters so terrible that there is not a single chance that Obama will lose in the general. I mean, look at the candidates! In any other primary in history, basically none of these people would have even bothered to form an exploratory committee because their histories are so awful, their intellectual chops so lacking and their experience so unpresidential that there wouldn’t be a chance in hell that anyone would vote for them. The only remotely presidential candidate in the field is Mitt Romney, and because he’s a moderate people are willing to consider literally every other piece of tripe with a superpac as an alternative.
Face it, the Republican party is in shambles. Conservative populism has allowed joke candidates to conjure political careers out of thin air and resurrect dead careers that should have been killed again to ensure they stayed dead. Count this one as a loss and regroup for 2016. Use that time to regain some intellectual footing and run a serious candidate with a serious agenda (something other than “he’s not Barack Obama”).
Bbbbutt, Kirk, Obama ran on a “he’s not George W. Bush” agenda and won.
Just for a change, here’s a link to a DC publication other than the Washington Compost. In his column, “Why use ‘despicable,’ clueless left-wing media to moderate GOP debates?,” Charles Hurt of the Washington Times wrote:
According to folks like Carl, even Barack Obama is not “Barack Obama.” So I feel safe voting for him.
Kirk—”yes” and “Amen” to everything you just wrote. I have been thinking the same things.
All I can offer is to take your thought just a bit further; it’s not just that Republicans need to back away from populism and groom more credible candidates, I think some real soul-searching is long overdue (not the phony baloney hand-wringing of a couple years ago). They need to quit believing their own myths and propaganda. A careful reconsideration of what “conservatism” is really all about should take place, and since the pros are already well established in Republican minds, the hard part is admitting to the cons.
Family/Christian values as part of the party platform? Ditch ‘em totally. Those issues are dead as far as winning elections go.
Foreign policy? Hold meetings and don’t invite any of the R.P. kooks to participate, but do steal some pages out of R.P.’s playbook. Think less “projection of power,” not more. Support a military which can defend this country from direct threats, not to sustain total global supremacy. If you don’t like “foreign entanglements,” then do something about our dependency on Middle East oil.
Domestically, try to be smart; yes, we need jobs and we need to create an environment that’s attractive for investment, but don’t ever for a second imagine corporations in this country are in business for anyone but themselves. Corporate America only wants to maximize profits. Period. Perhaps that’s necessitated by their fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders, but it still makes them easy to figure out. The Republicans do NOT have to try to create a heaven-on-earth for capitalists. In that same vein, quit mocking the OWS crowd long enough to appreciate what is the anger simmering in society that energizes their movement. And then resist the temptation to moralize and preach how they have no right to be angry. Republicans are increasingly being seen as the party that turns a blind eye to Wall Street “greed,” which is really that insatiable goal to maximize profits no matter what already mentioned.
I could go on—entitlements, smaller government, health care, and a host of other important issues–but my point is Kirk is correct about the party of Lincoln being in shambles. They’ve done more to ruin their chances than the Democrats ever did.
only 6,993 hours left until this madness subsides for a minute.
Hey, nothing says America like the approving roar of the Christian Right for a family values candidate who finds nothing more ‘despicable’ than the press asking him about the bitter denunciations from his ex-wife; to clarify, the ex-wife for whom he left the mother of his children, then left to get it on with another, 25 years his junior. Yes, asking about that behavior is far more ‘despicable’ than, um, actualy doing it.
Can Armageddon come any sooner?
For Newt’s base, any doubts they have about his character are trumped by their anger at “the media.” Newt knows it and he’s using it to deflect serious questions.
So a reasonable question to ask is whether Gingrich has changed his marital behavior over the past 12 years or is there any indication he continues to behave like he did in the 1990s.
OTOH, Barry has behaved like an arrogant, America-hating traitor and buffoon for most of his adult life, and there is daily evidence he continues to behave that way.
Good article on the “Law and Government.”
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/01/18/what-is-the-purpose-of-law-and-government/?comments#comments
Still don’t know which candidate fits.
In my fantasies, the 2016 Republican candidate would be a man with the mind of Ron Paul and the body of Mitt Romney.
“So a reasonable question to ask is whether Gingrich has changed his marital behavior over the past 12 years or is there any indication he continues to behave like he did in the 1990s.”
So the real questions are: does Newt still fool around on the sly, and how can we know until we know?
The question isn’t whether Newt is an SOB. It is whether he is our SOB.
“If you don’t like “foreign entanglements,” then do something about our dependency on Middle East oil.”
Uh, dependency on the Middle East?
I think you mean Canada and Mexico.
Maybe the MSM will spy on Gingrich day and night and report to the American people if he cheats on his wife so that we don’t end up with another serial adulterer in the Oval Office like Kennedy or Monica’s ex-boyfriend.
“Callista had a six-year affair with Newt while he was still married.
It would be repugnant to see her as First Lady.”
LOL, sounds like my 13 year old son evaluating the The Twelve Caesars. When I asked him which he thought was the best, he chose the one with the least disgusting private life. I thought is was pretty funny. Tells me a lot more about my kid than about the rulers.
So, two Democrats on her (@ 6 and 10) are suggesting that the Republicans just quit right now. Worried much, are you?
I still think it’s Romney, though it’s far from clear that he will win South Carolina, meaning that this thing is going to continue for a while. Newt’s got the momentum for the moment, thanks to ABC’s dud of an interview after Drudge pumped it up to be a game-changer. His performance in the debate last night, calling out the media for what it is, probably put him over the top in South Carolina, particularly given Romney’s seeming inability to explain that the reason he pays taxes at the 15% capital gains rate is, well, because his income is mostly capital gains. Mitt, how about pointing out that you are paying 15% on income that is taxed twice, since it is also subject to corporate taxation? How about calling the Democrats on the hypocrisy and nerve of running John Kerry in 2004 and then complaining about someone having made a buck in 2011? Mitt needs a little Newt in him. At any rate, the phrase “brittle candidate” has started to be applied to Mitt, and he certainly needs to work on his mojo, since the press won’t protect him in the general election like they did (and will) that other “brittle candidate”, Barack Obama.
“her” should be “here” @ 22, obviously.
@ 20, so Clinton fooling around made him unfit to be President, because character matters, but Newt’s repeatedly proven, highly questionable character is neither here nor there?
@24 Clinton was twice elected, therefore the electorate deemed him fit. However that is not the same as being deemed fit by Republican primary voters.
Tom @ 24: Clinton lying under oath is what made him unfit to be president.
To me, it’s never been a question of Gingrich or Santorum. Gingrich has never been an option for me. Too many conservatives who served under him when he was Speaker cannot recommend his leadership. Gingrich’s ex-wife has no impact on my opinion. Of course, she may impact independent voters.
I’m surprised people think Gingrich “looks” presidential. What Gingrich looks to me is like a marvelous debater. But if he’s the nominee, there will only be two presidential debates. If he’s the nominee, the party will have buyer’s remorse, if not in the campaign, then if he’s elected.
I think it’s Santorum’s sincerity that looks so out of place in modern politics. He’s not polished and it stinks that we’re seeking polish over substance and constancy.
Someone, please send Carl (#14) a box of kleenex. I think the foam bubbles pouring from his mouth must bother whoever else is with him in the room quite a lot, maybe even dripping onto his keyboard and place him in danger of electrocution.
Tom at 13 – exactly
Tom at 24 – perjury is different, but you’re right in general because Newt kept saying “Character Counts.” The standing ovation Newt got last night showed that Newt lost that argument in the 90s and Clinton won.
JFK and Monica’s ex-beau were unfit to be President and unfit as Presidents in their soiling the White House besides their continuing adulteries. In Slick Willie’s case it also included lying about it after he was caught.
Thus, Tom, if you have substantive evidence that Newt has maintained a Kennedyesque/Slick Willie adulterous lifestyle over the past decade or is likely to continue that behavior if he were elected president, despite his claims to the contrary, then your question might have some relevance.
Don @ 26, but the question of character being discussed has nothing to do with Clinton lying under oath. It has to do with who’s lying under Gingrich.
Carl @30
Don’t we have plenty of evidence that Newt is undisciplined and erratic, regardless of what his ex-wife says? Do we really think that an erratic, undisciplined person makes a good leader of the free world?
For those who think the Republicans need to turn tale and regroup for 2016 – and the rest, I will restate one of my points above (#3).
Several pundits in the know (such as Politico) have made predictions that the establishment Republicans are continuing to support runs by Santorum and Gingrich, and their accompanying attacks against Romney, in order to keep a four way race going up until the convention.
If this happens, then the party can have a brokered convention (without an already named nominee) and subsequentally have the option to introduce an outsider. I think there is some merit in this thinking.
However, I am not sure whether the best suitors (Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or Mitch Daniels) will have changed their positions by then. My guess is they are all still eyeing 2016, rather than jumping in on the bigtop ring this year. Any thoughts??
Hey, Cincinnatus (16),
My recipe would be: Mind of Newt, body of Mitt, Character of Rick.
(Double, double, toil and trouble. Fire burn, and cauldron bubble. hehehee.)
Dan @ 32. you’re asking Carl if a wild man would make a good leader of the free world? Carl?
Lou – Your thoughts may have merit. One thing that the Reps could do, win or lose, is determine their 2012 and 2016 candidate in the same person, or at least a reasonable facsimile thereof. What they want is a new Ronald Reagan; they haven’t found him (and right now, they’d probably piss all over him if they did), but having someone who can run like Reagan did in 1976 and 1980, can set them up in the long term. It may very well be that Romney gets to this generation’s Ford to the as yet to be realized Reagan-to-be.
I’m somewhat bemused by Gary’s comments @ 10 – a bit of a backhand to Ron Paul and his supporters and then proceeding to basically hold up the large swathes of the Ron Paul platform as the way forward for the Republican Party. Maybe there is hope.
Dan @32, if you have any of such evidence that Newt is so undisciplined and erratic a person today, regardless of what his ex-wife says, that he would not make a good leader for the free world, go ahead and present it. In this way we may be able to compare him to other GOP candidates, past presidents, as well as to the current White House excrescence.
SKP – Yes, I also found myself nodding quite a bit to Gary’s comments (10). Most of what he said is exactly the subtle undertoe that keeps dragging the candidates back out to sea, week after week — preventing anyone from landing, standing and staying on solid ground.
As an aside, I’ve been following Chris Christie, and of anyone I’ve heard or looked at so far, I really do think the guy has got the goods. Question is, will he ever get into this?
In support of Santorum –
Two things led to Santorum’s big defeat in PA – his unflinching support of conservative social positions and his backing of Specter over Toomey. The latter lost him his base and the former, combined with war fatigue, lost him independents.
It was because Santorum was so effective in forwarding the conservative social agenda that the left targeted him. But the public is not as likely to vote against conservative social issues this season. I think Obama’s campaign would rather run against the Wall Street Rich Guy or the Hypocritical Wildman than the Religious Wacko. Maybe I’m wrong.
But if the social issues are some of the most important to you, you can’t get a better candidate than Rick Santorum.
And if the economy is the main issue, you might prefer Romney, but Santorum’s messaging, I think, will play better with independents looking for jobs.
And if debating Obama is the main issue, then you have the wrong issue.
Carl @ 37
I’ve got a lot of respect for Tom Coburn. I was surprised he said the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uPkZwRFqxg
You can look up a lot of the other house leaders at the time and find more comments like these if you want to search for them.
Dan, plus Santorum is that rare bread of Republican who identifies with normal Joe’s and Jane’s — the blue collar stiff who is trying to live by the rules and a make a go of things. He’s a pretty straight up fella. Seems he’s just a tad bit too naive/innocent for politics. I mean that has its appeal, too. But the machine would just wreck him, I’m afraid.
At the end of the day, it wouldn’t be the worst thing to get Santorum out of all this.
sorry, rare breed (not bread). Heh.
I believe Newt Gingrich would be an excellent president. Rick Santorum would be a good choice as VP.
Gingrich took King on last night in a straight forward stand, he made his point without a miss-step, while King appeared as a school boy. This is the kind of man who would look at those who oppose the United States the same way. Obama bows to our enemies, Gingrich would never do such a thing.
Gingrich won the debate, he’s brilliant, just like Dick Cheney. You can’t say that for Romney.
As for Romeny; it’s becoming more and more obvious, the Democratic party would LOVE to see Romney as the nominee.
Romney’s answer last night, was telling:
Romney slid around the question of releasing tax returns. Here’s the slippery answer he gave last night:
It would be TO LATE if Romney were the nominee to at last release his tax records. The key comment was: ” if I’m the nominee“ – - he’s slippery. He won’t answer a question straight, he dances about just as Clinton, back when!
I have to say, I’m honestly shocked that there are significant numbers of Republicans who earnestly support Gingrich and think that he would make a fine President.
I’m fond of repeating the fact of Romney’s sociopathy. But whatever sociopathology Romney suffers from, Gingrich has it in double or even triple measure. There is almost literally nothing to like about the guy on a personal or political level.
And people are actually buying his blatant demagoguing of the media bias issue last night?
Yes, Cincy, unfortunately. Ppl are eating up the Gingrich man handled the moderator. Seems like most folks in the Rep. party have already given him a pass on this point. Sad.
Make no mistake – It WILL bite him in the open election, if he advances to that place.
Hey all y’all. Two words and a number:
Ron Paul 2012
(yeah, I know it’s a pipe dream, but this time around, all we have are dreams)
Cincinnatus @45 –
Yes.
I was appalled at the applause. If John King had wanted to be a jerk about it, he could approached this very differently. King did not have to bring up the actual report. He could have had the first question of the debate be to Newt, “In choosing a candidate for Republican nomination, does character count?” Then, Newt is put in the awkward position of either 1) contradicting his 90s mantra, 2) bringing up the report himself, or 3) trying to ignore the allusion. Instead, King made it very easy for Newt to address this.
Let’s be honest about politics. Newt had to address this last night for campaign reasons. He had to talk about it. King did Newt a favor the way he asked the question.
The problem is that Republican voters appear more interested in repudiating the media and Obama than in governing a country.
@Don
Ha! A Democrat! No Don, I reserve hatred for both parties. It’s just that right now, I feel that the Republican party is far more nuts than the Democrats. I think that these primaries are proving this. I’ve actually voted Republican more often than Democrat. The only Democrat I’ve voted for was the State AG for Virginia and that was less of voting for him and more of voting against Ken Cuccinelli.
Dan @ 48
Pure nonsense!
Gingrich has the backbone to stand against those who oppose our government, who are socialistic, who would love to see our country drown in debt, draining every dollar from any source. Making it impossible to create jobs here, by taxing corporations who hire the masses. The only way they can stay in business is to send those jobs oversees.
The media last night, proved how inept they really are. King, played the Demo game, and it backfired. Gingrich had the fast track answer, he didn’t mince words. People are tired of hearing the sordid stories the media spins, adding a sound bite here, and a quote from another source. They got just what they deserved last night. King opened the door, and Gingrich gave him his lunch, and that includes the entire LIBBY left!
Gingrich man-handled King, but he never answered the question. He’s going to have to deal with his indiscretions sooner or later. Better now than in the general election, where Obama will come out looking like the ‘moral’ candidate to the general public (where pro-life won’t matter much).
Lou @ 51
Gingrich did Lou, you just weren’t listening!
Below, King asking the question, and Gingrich giving him the answer.
It makes sense that Grace would be a Gingrich-bot. After all, he did advocate the death penalty for anyone caught dealing drugs in the United States.
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Georgia/Newt_Gingrich/Views/Illegal_Drugs/
I mean, I know my 16-year-old brother-in-law was stupid to pass around some weed in the halls of his high school, but…execution?
Of course Gingrich’s daughters of Wife #1 would object to airtime for Wife #2 who precipitated his first divorce.
This one should give Romney fits.
The Rompster tried to pull a slippery fish last night with ” if I’m the nominee“ SEE post 43. IF
Grace @48 -
This is what Newt Gingrich is at his best: a fantastic communicator with a mind for ideas.
This is also true about Newt Gingrich:
– he will have a dickens of a time winning over independent- and even some Republican- women voters
- he already has Republicans who agree with him ideologically saying he would not make a good president, because he was not a good Speaker
- he has a massive ethics violation file that will get leaked
- on top of all this, he has all of Romney’s rich-guy negatives, too
- he is undisciplined and will not stay on message
Now, if you look at this and see someone who should be entrusted with the presidency, then you and I see things very differently. To be clear, it’s not ideological problems I am raising. It’s that Newt Gingrich is not a competent leader. “He’s learned and changed,” you may say, but his disaster of an opening campaign says otherwise.
Still, let’s say you think he could be a good leader just because he’s a good communicator. Then, you still run into the problem that he’s simply not electable with all his baggage. Iowa saw all that baggage and left Newt. SC is not seeing those same ads because it’s in Romney’s favor if Newt beats Santorum. But FL will see those ads and will make the same decision Iowa did. Newt’s baggage is real. It’s Newt’s own not the media’s.
That’s why I say the GOP faithful want a repudiation of the Left rather than a true executive – because Newt’s polling well and it’s obvious to anyone who looks at the history that Newt is not qualified to be a president.
I love listening to Newt speak. I do not want to ever see him govern again.
Dan @ 56
Don’t try and ‘pre-suppose what I might say, it doesn’t help your argument, it’s ludicrous.
Gingrich is a brilliant man, the same cannot be said for Romney.
Again you pre-suppose what I might say or think. It’s all through your post to me.
As for “baggage” the biggest piece that Romeny carts with him is, he’s a Mormon, he belongs to a cult. That’s no small matter. After spending the past 8 years or so, studying the cults, it becomes clear that IF one belongs to a cult, is dedicated to their beliefs, as is Romney, they are not even close to being a prospective nominee for president of the United States. Romney holds a high position within the LDS Church.
Take a few days, study Mormon beliefs, not just The Book of Mormon, which will give you little information. Study their core beliefs. Those who belong to, and are leaders in this group, believe what their doctrine decrees as TRUTH.
“… it becomes clear that IF one belongs to a cult, is dedicated to their beliefs, as is Romney, they are not even close to being a prospective nominee for president of the United States.”
Wasn’t our first and greatest President a Freemason?
Tom,
Washington has nothing to do with Romney. Another un-gifted remark!
Grace:
I know you aren’t fond (or capable?) of answering serious questions, I but I want to pose one to you anyway. Could you please articulate your reasons for supporting Gingrich so enthusiastically? Why do you like him as a candidate?
I understand that a particular personal quality of Romney disqualifies him for you–he’s a Mormon. Ok, but Gingrich is guilty of grievous personal infidelities (and hypocrisy), blatant professional corruption, and dangerously ludicrous policy proposals (executing all drug dealers? refusing to abide by Supreme Court decisions?), not to mention general demagoguery.
So, given all that, why does he appeal to you? I sincerely wish to understand what some Republicans see in Gingrich at the moment.
Grace, is it really wise to continually beat your one-trick pony so long after he passed away?
Since you’re riding the “pony” with no tricks, I’d suggest you park your hobby horse! There is no trick to your game, it’s the same old pieces tied together with hot air.
only 6,984 hours left until this madness subsides for a minute.
Grace @57 –
You responded to none of the substance of what I wrote.
Your essential claim is that I wrongly assumed what you would say. The problem is that I was not supposing what you WOULD say, but responding to what you DID say. Your argument has been that Gingrich appears smart and performs well in debates. I grant those qualities and say they are not sufficient for the presidency. If they were, what’s wrong with Obama?
I do not support Mitt Romney. I only think it is evident Romney is better qualified to be president than a man who was already being pushed out of his Speakership just three years in. If you want to stop Romney, then you need to get off the Gingrich train fast. We’re out of time to run through the same cycle we followed with Herman Cain.
Dan
We aren’t out of time at all, this has nothing to do with Herman Cain, Cain didn’t admit to anything, he fled his bid to run for president!
This from CNN Debate, held on 1-11-2012
Gingrich is repentant for what he did, he went to the LORD for forgiveness. That isn’t good enough for some of you. However there are numerous people on this blog who believe their pastor can give “absolution” for their sins, but that doesn’t count Gingrich, who admits his deeds as needing to be repented of.
Gingrich is smarter, that irks many of you. He would stand toe to toe with those such as Ahmadinejad, and all the rest just like him. That isn’t something Romney is capable of, nor is Obama.
I would much rather have a repentant sinner running for president of this country than a man who believes those in his cult can take the place of God ALMIGHTY.
Keep on keeping on Bryan.
Grace – I’m not a Romney supporter by any means, but I think your calling him out as unintelligent is a gratuitous cheap shot. I can find plenty of fault with his positions and what I perceive as an intellectual dishonesty, but I would not characterize it as a lack of intelligence. Romney proved he has enough intelligence and business savvy in his career with Bain, a career of which he should be proud and should be trumpeting. But, he cannot even communicate that adequately and as a result cannot even communicate it safely or benignly. I’d like to like the guy if he’s the eventual nominee, but I just cannot see the guy as President (not that the alternative is my cup of Presidential tea, either – both parties have poorly served the American people in recent years).
And, as I recall, you were a Perry supporter early on. Did you simply just transfer your fervent allegiance from Perry to Newt because of Perry’s endorsement? I ask, because you’re coming across as the poster child for the cult of personality.
Cincinnatus (@60), surely you know the answer to your own question. Grace can’t support Obama (because Democrat/abortion). She can’t support Romney (because Mormon!!). She can’t support Ron Paul (because drugs!!/prostitution!!). And the candidate she formerly championed (Perry) has officially dropped out.
So naturally she’s a supporter of one of the two Catholic candidates, even though she formerly spent no small amount of time on this site bashing Catholics with even more fervor than do Lutherans (indeed, she blamed Lutherans for being too close to Catholics), and even though she considers Romney’s bad theology to be a non-starter for the office of the Presidency. But the Catholic theology she decried is apparently not an obstacle to her endorsing Newt. (Or Santorum, but Grace is clearly trying to pick the candidate most likely to win, so we’re hearing more about Newt right now.)
Anyhow, back to Grace’s favorite election topic (@57):
Oh does he? Do tell. Give us the benefit of the full eight years of your studying, Grace.
Because all I’ve ever heard was that he was an LDS “high priest” — which, if you know anything about Mormons, you know isn’t nearly as impressive as it sounds (just like their elders aren’t, well, elder). He was president of the Boston stake … from 1986 to 1994, that is. But to say that he “holds” (note present tense) a “high position” in that church, well, you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do, Grace.
Oh look! While I was writing my comment, Grace posted (@65) one of the two quotes about Mormonism that she picked up from from eight years of studying that religion.
SKPeterson
I was a Rick Perry supporter, so what? Perry’s endorsement had nothing to do with it. However in your ‘mind set, I can see where you might come to such a conclusion.
“Cult of personality” ? the new flip tag for those who decide to vote for another? The cult doll is the one who mimics the Ken doll!
Grace – I’m just noting that you’ve transferred your somewhat ardent support for Perry to Gingrich, and rather quickly; the body ain’t even cold! It’s just a little odd.
Also, please explain your last line. I have no idea what you mean regarding cult dolls and Ken dolls. Are cult dolls voodoo dolls, or what?
tODD @ 68
The quote you have given, using your favorite learning tool (GOOGLE) is one I have used often, far more often than your examples. It typifies Joseph Smith’s exalted view of himself, and it also points out his complete ignorance of Scripture… but rather elevates himself to taking the place of God Almighty.
There is much more to Mormonism that the quote I gave, however the one I choose suffices to prove my point.
The study of groups, counter to the Word of God is productive. It gives me the ability to prove how ungodly their doctrine is, therefore it’s value is obvious, even if you are struggling with its merits.
Grace @65 -
Sadly, this is exactly the same thing we faced with Cain. Allegations were made and the conservatives in the country jumped to support Cain, flooding his coffers with money and supporting him in polls. Then, we all stepped back and realized Herman Cain is not ready to be president.
In Newt’s opening statement (wasn’t it nice of John King to give Newt a chance to have an opening statement and to talk as long as he wanted on the subject?), Newt claimed the media makes it hard to run. But it’s “the media’s” attacks which launched Cain and now relaunched Newt.
The ugly truth of why so many capable candidates didn’t run this year is that they knew they would have to run the gauntlet of both Romney’s and Obama’s super-PACs. The lazy media won’t have to lift a finger to investigate anything. The PACs (including Newt’s odious Winning Our Future) will do all the stone throwing themselves.
Forgiveness has nothing to do with this. I’ve been forgiven for my sins – that absolution did not magically turn me into an effective leader and governor.
Grace, take it from someone who has (more and more of late) been accused of saying nonsensical things. Your last line @ 69 makes no sense whatsoever.
Tom @ 73
“Your last line @ 69 makes no sense whatsoever.”
I can see why you would have problems with it!
SKPeterson @ 70
This was a joke four years ago in the last election, nothing’s changed!
Below: latest poll from DRUDGE –
Grace –
I like Newt too – and have since Christie decided not to run. I don’t understand the focus on his divorce – and don’t think it really makes a difference.
Romney’s Mormonism is not something I support, but it is not why I am against him. Romney governed as a liberal, and is now supposedly running as a conservative (with no record of conservative policy making what-so-ever). As some of the pundits have asked “who is Mitt Romney?” We don’t know and cannot know – I fear there is nothing there but a longing to be someone, to be a power broker – no actual goals needed. He is plastic, and will lose – but maybe America wants phoney plastic?? Oh, I forgot Romney does have a goal – Romney’s adventures in becoming a god could include the Presidency, he would seem to be on his way to his goal with that earthly position, so why not? (Okay, is that too snarky?)
Newt on the other hand is a man of ideas, and has a basic conservative bent that is inescapable. Is is conservatism perfect? No – but it is real, and not just a platform he has adopted (ala Romney) for the present situation, until that situation changes. I think Newt would implement some changes that could possibly reverse some of our downwardly mobile economics – or maybe not – I am kind of a pessimist about America’s economic future. I don’t see us getting out of this enormous debt and weight on our growth. Until this country gets back to making things, and we quit aborting our future I really don’t see things turning around for more that brief respites.
Moallen @78
NO, it’s not to “snarky” it fits just like a glove.
I agree. If Newt wins, it will be an uphill battle. This country is left as a widow, savings savaged, those who are greedy have received their ill gotten gains through money that was not available, but taken by a willful leader.
I BELIEVE that this country can once again, be what it was 50 years ago, but it will require hard work, and NOT from those who seek socialism as their stepmother.
The citizens of the United States need to return to the days of our grandparents, or in some cases our parents. Those who saved, worked hard, considered what they had to be a gift from God, not something they were entitled to.
Thanks for a great post, I enjoyed reading it.
“I BELIEVE that this country can once again, be what it was 50 years ago …”
1962? I’m with you all the way on this one, Grace! John F. Kennedy was President, Democrats controlled both houses, and union membership was at an all-time high.
This just in from CNN
Tom
Who controlled what? – let your mind wander?
Where was Marilyn Monroe?
“Where was Marilyn Monroe?”
Someplace secret with 19-year-old Newt?
Just so we’re all clear, no one actually “wins” the Iowa caucuses. Phrasing like that is only used for PR purposes. The statistical tie between Santorum and Romney is just that — not a meaningful difference in results. They both won the same number of delegates, but keep in mind these are not pledged, national delegates. No, they are unpledged, and they are only at the county level. These county delegates then go on to elect district delegates, who then go on to elect state delegates, who — finally — national delegates are selected.
All of which to say that this “surprise” shift in fortune for Santorum in the Iowa results is utterly meaningless, except to perhaps indict the Iowa GOP for being sadly unorganized.
Of course, people who are desperate will find in this razor-thin “victory” something to justify prolonging their hopes.
Wow. She’s back. Must have forgotten to take her meds.
Gingrich or Santorum. Hmm…to me it is sort of like the scenario of cars driving toward a cliff. Obama says “Speed up!” Whereas NeoCon Chicken Hawk Big Government Crony Capitalist TARP Supporting Constitution-Compromising Republicrats are simply suggesting, “Slow down, at least a little bit.”
There is only one, Ron Paul, who is saying, “Turn around!”
Junker
Ah………
the medicine flamer is back!
Grace and Carl both love Gingrich. Hence it has to be Romney 2012, where sanity, good manners, reason and logic are concerned. Support from the asylum is as good a reason to question a candidate as any.
@Klasie Kraalogies, #87
“Support from the asylum is as good a reason to question a candidate as any.”
——————
It appears the head of the ward gave them internet privileges on the weekend. Aren’t we lucky.
LOL, sounds like my 13 year old son evaluating the The Twelve Caesars. When I asked him which he thought was the best, he chose the one with the least disgusting private life. I thought is was pretty funny. Tells me a lot more about my kid than about the rulers. –sg
So your boy at 13 has more sense than most of the adults in the news these days. Hope he keeps it!
SC exit polls say 48% think Gingrich is the most electable. This is an astounding miscalculation with Newt’s national fav/unfav sitting at 27/56 in the 1/12-1/14 Fox News poll. Are people “researching” their candidates only by watching the debates?
Dan
You might have problems with the ANSWER to your question, HOWEVER:
The majority of thinking Americans do not want a cultist as their next president. People are far more aware of what a cult is than you might comprehend. It isn’t just the debates Dan, as much as you and others would like to assume. You and your cronies can thumb your nose at what ‘they believe, making sneering comments, as though it’s normal to believe you can be a god, or that God has ordained anyone to take his place.
Study that which you don’t understand, instead of thinking it’s all about the debates. South Carolina is full of real Christian people, they aren’t bowled over by all the hooting that their governor strutted about, as she blew her whistle for the Rompster.
The next point is this:
Obama claimed to go to church every Sunday with his family (11:AM) that was nothing more than a charade. Couple that with all the hoopla over Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright, and you have your answer. The last thing we need in this country is a billion dollar Ken doll who’s life is wrapped around a cult!
Dan@90: I think you overestimate the voters still. They’re not even watching the debates; a few of them are watching post facto news coverage of the debates, in which winners are conveniently declared for listeners who can’t be bothered to think for themselves.
I love mass democracy.
Grace –
It’s odd that every one of your responses sidesteps what I said to talk about Romney’s religion when I’m a Santorum booster (see 27). Santorum and Gingrich are both Roman Catholic.
Cincinnatus –
Maybe. Sigh.
I’ve been reading articles by Newt’s daughter. A daughter’s eyes fall gently on her father, I know. Still, I believe her perspective is helpful as we decide our country’s future: http://www.creators.com/opinion/jackie-gingrich-cushman.html
Klasie Kraalogies @87: “Grace and Carl both love Gingrich.”
From where did you get that notion?!? Certainly not from anything I’ve previouly posted.
Newt’s a pig, but that doesn’t make him unable to govern. He is attractive to voters because his first principles appear to be conservative, a value that has been lacking of late.
“For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light.”
Many of us are undecided, but still we are attracted to conservative first principles, that government can not fix all problems.
I love mass democracy.
Yup, let’s ask the ignorant what they think. Then after they tell them what to think, they poll them to see what they think. Rinse, repeat.
Booklover @ 97
Newt Gingrich has repented of his sins, he made that clear in one of the debates. The LORD can cleanse anyone from their sins, IF they repent, that includes all of us, even you!
Yes, Grace, he may be a forgiven pig.
In the same way that you and I are worms, perhaps forgiven worms.
“Yup”
Someone votes contrary to your choice and they become “ignorant” ?
Yes some complain of “mass democracy” – perhaps in hopes that those they believe beneath them, should be denied the right to vote. I certainly wouldn’t want a great many on this blog taking away the rights of others, so that they could install such a nut case as Ron Paul as president. Hundreds of votes gifted to each, because they consider others inferior?
101 should have read:
“Yup” ?
You can forgive a thief for stealing your car, but you don’t trust him with keys to your house.
Helen,
Excuse me dear – - but one does not trust a man who wants to be the president of the U.S. who supports legalized prostitution, drugs, including cocaine, heroin, to name just two. Add to that bucked the AMBER alert bill, of which has saved the lives of over 550 children.
Then there’s the guy who is the member of a cult. They believe that one day they will take the place of God ALMIGHTY, and HE will go other places. That isn’t a man I could trust, nor do I want to govern this country.
After reading some of these posts, it becomes apparent that many would prefer a test of sorts, for all those seeking to vote. Therefore making sure everyone watched each debate, agreed with those in charge (those in charge superior, knowing whom everyone MUST vote for, based on so called intellectual standards) taking notes, and then scoring each individual’s test results. All those failing to meet the requirements of such testing, would be denied the ‘right to vote. After all, one could only reason that they, the inferior and ignorant, needed correction.
Ask many who consider themselves superior, what they “think” that might include.. everyone who voted for Obama and the individual he chose as a VP running mate? Look at several who endorsed this man; Ted Kennedy and his niece Caroline Kennedy, of course you can count on the Clintons, Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a raft of other notable others, who consider their educational, intellectual abilities superior to others. Dragging their LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE cart behind them.
I believe the majority of this country sees right through the “socialist” underpinnings of this administration. Even if, they have lost their jobs, collecting unemployment, losing homes, depending on charity, .. they can clearly see the folly of “socialism” and it’s masters.
Respect for our neighbors, even when it means taking the time to explain the circumstances that led to the disaster our country has faced as the Oval office head buffoon, threw billions out every window of the capital, to resurrect a plan that was pure nonsense, but appealed to every lazy individual, and gave the “progressives” the VOTES they needed to implement their vile plan.
Grace@105:
Talk about a straw man. That’s a stretch even for you. No one in this thread has called for “intelligence tests” before voting or the abolition of democracy.
Though now that you mention it…
Meanwhile, please stop campaigning for Newt. Your words simply aren’t credible after you dogmatic advocacy of Perry earlier this year. So now Newt is suddenly and inexplicably your chosen savior of the Republican Party–nay, America?
This is a good time for me to ask a question I posed earlier that you apparently refused to answer: why exactly do you like Newt? Why would he make a good President? You keep insisting that he has repented of his sins as if that were politically relevant. But I don’t vote for people because they’re repentant Catholics. I’ve repented of my sins too, but I don’t expect you to vote for me in November. And I’ve already summarized Gingrich’s problems–his grotesque personal indiscretions, his blatant professional corruption, and his absurd policy proposals. So why should I support Newt in spite of all that (and more!)? Again, I’m asking this question sincerely and non-rhetorically. I don’t want snark for an answer. As someone who is, strictly speaking, undecided, convince me that Newt is The One.
Cincinnatus @ 107
Cincinnatus, …………………… Rick Perry is no longer running for the presidency, …. having said that, I have chosen to support Newt Gingrich. There is no reason to support a candidate that is no longer running. I know there are more than a few on this blog who intend to ‘write in’ the fav’s name, even though they would not be the nominee.
Did you think I would not have someone else in mind if Perry left the race? That was a corn ball question, assuming I wouldn’t have another candidate to support, add to that your request that I “ please stop campaigning for Newt“
The rest of your post is the same old stuff, asked over and over again, until you get the answer you want. Try it on someone else!
Amazing. If author Stephen King were reading this thread, he’d have plenty of character material from our token Kathy Bates here to make a “Misery 2″.
Grace@108: I know you’ve chosen to support Newt. Trust me, all of us know. You’ve made that painfully clear. I’m asking why you support him. What’s good about Newt that outweighs his grievous flaws?
Hmmm, thoughts of intelligence tests for voting bring me to thinking of intelligence tests for posting on blogs.
Ahem… (make sure you read the mouseover text – that’s the real punchline)
Should we institute this on here? Anyone want to guess which people would fail to get in?