The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2012 => Topic started by: TVDOC on November 18, 2011, 12:56:22 PM
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283472/newt-and-social-conservatives-katrina-trinko
Three marriages. Two divorces. Add up the numbers, and Newt Gingrich is an improbable candidate to win over the influential social-conservative bloc in the GOP.
But in this unconventional cycle, both national and early-primary-state evangelical and social-conservative leaders are signaling that Gingrich’s personal history is no insurmountable obstacle, although some would like to see him further address his past decisions.
“In general, I think people who have experienced the ultimate form of forgiveness themselves are willing to extend mercy and extend forgiveness to others,†says Ralph Reed, founder and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition.
<excerpted>
Balance at link.....
doc
-
vs. Obama? Yes, I think so.
-
Given Romney's track record of 'Positions of convenience' on abortion, he probably has a lot better shot at getting that support than Mitt.
-
vs. Obama? Yes, I think so.
Against Romney also. Ralph Reed has got it right.
-
Against Romney also. Ralph Reed has got it right.
I expect he can give Perry a strong shellacking as well. Ron Paul can sit down and shut his soup cooler any time he's done making an ass of himself.
-
I expect he can give Perry a strong shellacking as well. Ron Paul can sit down and shut his soup cooler any time he's done making an ass of himself.
No, he can't. It's impossible for him to shut up. That little Squeaks the Mouse voice is one that will not go away until he's taking the dirt nap. Nevermind the fact that at age 76, he's got to know his time has come and gone. He's the proverbial turd in the punchbowl, nothing more.
Perry is toast. Ditto Bachman. Cain needs to do a fast turnaround or it's going to be a two-way race before Iowa even starts.
-
No, he can't. It's impossible for him to shut up. That little Squeaks the Mouse voice is one that will not go away until he's taking the dirt nap. Nevermind the fact that at age 76, he's got to know his time has come and gone. He's the proverbial turd in the punchbowl, nothing more.
Perry is toast. Ditto Bachman. Cain needs to do a fast turnaround or it's going to be a two-way race before Iowa even starts.
Cain falls in the "toast" category as well........he had a brief day in the sun, however, as I stated when he entered the race, his lack of understanding (or interest) in foreign affairs doomed his run from the start.....he never was a serious contender. His recent rise in the polls is simply a manifestation of how opposed the Republican base is with the possibility of a Romney nomination.
I consider Cain the conservative version of Barack Obama.......Lots of sloganeering, no real political experience, and his commercial background doesn't qualify him to run the country (plus 9-9-9 is really naive and unworkable in a practical sense). He's a likeable guy, and in the remote chance that he won the nomination, I'd have no problem voting for him......but let's face it, he isn't going to make the cut.
doc
-
Newt has had personal problems, heck, who hasn't? But the man does not lack for intellectual substance. I salivate at the prospect of a man to umm, well, Obama debate, since Obama will not have the Teleprompter to read from. :-)
-
Newt has had personal problems, heck, who hasn't? But the man does not lack for intellectual substance. I salivate at the prospect of a man to umm, well, Obama debate, since Obama will not have the Teleprompter to read from. :-)
blammo and its handlers would never agree to any debate unless the questions were on their list of predetermined topics.
-
blammo and its handlers would never agree to any debate unless the questions were on their list of predetermined topics.
I know, but I also know Obamblahblaha is the type of idiot who could fumble reading Moochelle's organic produce shopping list. :-) Plus, in the debate formats I've usually seen, the opponent has 30 or 60 seconds to respond/rebut whatever the person answering the "unbiased" :whatever: moderator/s have asked.
-
I know, but I also know Obamblahblaha is the type of idiot who could fumble reading Moochelle's organic produce shopping list. :-) Plus, in the debate formats I've usually seen, the opponent has 30 or 60 seconds to respond/rebut whatever the person answering the "unbiased" :whatever: moderator/s have asked.
That would be the right kind of debate. NO MODERATOR to ask biased questions and to cut off answers not in the script.
-
That would be the right kind of debate. NO MODERATOR to ask biased questions and to cut off answers not in the script.
Perhaps one of Newt's greatest strengths so far.......is that he has absolutte NO problem challenging the moderator if he feels that the question is dumb, unfair or biased.....
He's made a good number of them look like fools on national television......that, of course, is their greatest nightmare......they don't get to skew the debate with him.
doc
-
Perhaps one of Newt's greatest strengths so far.......is that he has absolutte NO problem challenging the moderator if he feels that the question is dumb, unfair or biased.....
He's made a good number of them look like fools on national television......that, of course, is their greatest nightmare......they don't get to skew the debate with him.
doc
That is certainly true. But what would El Presidente and its handlers have to say about that? Nothing they do or will do would surprise me.
-
I have secretly wanted to watch Gingrich debate Obama since he announced he was running. Even when I was sure he was a goner, I still would have paid to watch that debate.
-
That is certainly true. But what would El Presidente and its handlers have to say about that? Nothing they do or will do would surprise me.
The best of all possible outcomes........with "live" TV, once the camera is on, there is no control over what the debate participants actually say. I seriously doubt that Newt would agree to prescreened responses, and Obama HAS to debate the Republican nominee.......or be called a coward in front of the entire populace.
doc
-
I've never been a fan of Newt but he's brilliant and we're voting for him in the primary if he's still in the race.
-
The best of all possible outcomes........with "live" TV, once the camera is on, there is no control over what the debate participants actually say. I seriously doubt that Newt would agree to prescreened responses, and Obama HAS to debate the Republican nominee.......or be called a coward in front of the entire populace.
doc
Knowing the creeps that come from the liberal media, it would not surprise me if the moderators gave Obummer the questions beforehand. Even so, I think Newt could tear him a new one.
-
Knowing the creeps that come from the liberal media, it would not surprise me if the moderators gave Obummer the questions beforehand. Even so, I think Newt could tear him a new one.
That's exactly why I'd demand that there be NO moderator.
-
That's exactly why I'd demand that there be NO moderator.
That would be impossible if you expect the debate to be televised.......someone has to keep the show on schedule, and maintain the participants comments within fairly strict time limits........make it fit into the network's allotted time window.
No moderator means that you have a "discussion" and not a debate, and it would ultimately include filibustering and participants interrupting and talking over each other......neither are productive from my point of view.
That's one thing that makes certain Fox News programming unwatchable for me.......in their attempt to make discussions "fair and balanced", they allow participants to talk over each other and interrupt.......it's a useless waste of the viewer's time. The show host should be equipped with two big red switches on his/her console so that should a participant begin interrupting their mic gets shut off until it's their turn to speak.
All that said, there ARE impartial moderators out there.......just not in the mainstream media personality group. Business leaders, clergymen, retired military officers, etc..........there is no reason that a moderator has to be a "famous" media spokesman. The only qualifications are the ability to speak well, read a digital clock, and follow a written program schedule........it ain't rocket science.
doc
-
If it comes down to a 2-way race between Mitt and Newt, it's no contest.
Never trust a guy who combs his hair with olive oil and a fork. Especially if he's a Masshole.
-
Newt was at the bottom of my list (well, maybe above Romney) at the beginning of this. What I've seen so far is an extraordinarily intelligent, well-versed, well disciplined (biggest surprise) candidate who attacks Obama's record rather than his Republican counterparts. This is a completely different Gingrich than the guy in the 1990s.
My one remaining problem with him is his choice of whom to support during the 2010 midterms. I'm thinking he could have done more for the conservative candidates in some of the highest-profile districts that we lost. That aside, I don't hate him.
-
That would be impossible if you expect the debate to be televised.......someone has to keep the show on schedule, and maintain the participants comments within fairly strict time limits........make it fit into the network's allotted time window.
doc
But the Rep. debate with no moderator and just a timekeeper was fine.
-
But the Rep. debate with no moderator and just a timekeeper was fine.
In fact, the moderator is more of a distraction and a way for the MSM outlets to paint the GOP nominees as puppy-kicking Neanderthals. Make them go bye-bye.
-
But the Rep. debate with no moderator and just a timekeeper was fine.
I assume you're referring to the one between Gingrich and Cain....
Which wasn't really a debate, but a discussion between two candidates that mostly agreed with each other on issues........if you were to attempt that with two candidates that were worlds apart ideologically, it wouldn't work........not on TV at least.
I suspect that you are overlooking the fact that when the Republican candidate is nominated, we are going to be subjected to the worst mudslinging, gutter politic, personal assassination display that we've seen in modern history. The campaign is NOT going to be pretty, and the expectation that presidential debates will somehow "rise above it all" I think is naive.
doc
-
I generally agree with you, DOC. I just wish they'd be able to go at it, no holds barred.
This is gonna get a whole hell of a lot worse, and campaigns may forever be changed because of it.
-
Can I go on record here and say that Newt will act more of a triangulator than a true conservative if he is nominated and elected?
I have always maintained that the makeup of Congress was far more important than the presidency. Even with Obama's annointment, it was the most liberal Congress since the New Deal era that ushered in the calamity we face.
My fear is not that Gingrich would inherently be non-true conservative. My fear is that his influence and leanings would effectively move the congress to the left, while a true conservative president would result in the Congress moving to the right, or at least polarizing it so its leftist extremists could be exposed. Reagan was instrumental in this regard.
But Gingrich has burned us before, so Trust but Verify becomes predominant in my view of his candidacy. While I am still an avid Herman Cain fan for the presidency and will remain one at least through the first three caucuses and primaries, i DO acknowledge that Mitt Romney may be a skilled political Republican, but he is no conservative; hence a conservative congress may be far less effective, which will ALSO make it that more vulnerable. And THAT'S my ultimate fear. Because if the Congress is not allowed to act to repel Obamacare and other elements of his policies, we are not going to see anything reversed for a very long time, if ever.
-
Can I go on record here and say that Newt will act more of a triangulator than a true conservative if he is nominated and elected?
I have always maintained that the makeup of Congress was far more important than the presidency. Even with Obama's annointment, it was the most liberal Congress since the New Deal era that ushered in the calamity we face.
My fear is not that Gingrich would inherently be non-true conservative. My fear is that his influence and leanings would effectively move the congress to the left, while a true conservative president would result in the Congress moving to the right, or at least polarizing it so its leftist extremists could be exposed. Reagan was instrumental in this regard.
But Gingrich has burned us before, so Trust but Verify becomes predominant in my view of his candidacy. While I am still an avid Herman Cain fan for the presidency and will remain one at least through the first three caucuses and primaries, i DO acknowledge that Mitt Romney may be a skilled political Republican, but he is no conservative; hence a conservative congress may be far less effective, which will ALSO make it that more vulnerable. And THAT'S my ultimate fear. Because if the Congress is not allowed to act to repel Obamacare and other elements of his policies, we are not going to see anything reversed for a very long time, if ever.
If you are saying that Romney will be to the right of Newt, I don't buy that. Furthermore, I think that Newt could get more accomplished than Romney or Cain because of his record and experience. I like Cain but he is the flavor of the month just like Perry.
My fear is that Romney will trim around the edges of Obamacare rather repeal it. Since I am an old fart, socialized meds scare the living crap out of me. Romney will be the equivalent of Obama lite. I don't believe Newt would go that route. Cain and Newt are the only two candidates that could take their message to the people and win them over like Reagan did. If a Repub wins the Presidency, it is going to take a balls to the wall communicator and fighter to get rid of the many things Obama and the the Democrats have screwed up. We need drastic changes and the Democrats, the media, the Env. and other kooks will fight tooth and nail against changes to their liberal agenda even if we get a filibuster proof Senate.
-
If you are saying that Romney will be to the right of Newt...
NO. I actually wasn't comparing Romney to Newt, per se, though it appears it could have been seen as such.
I was referring, first and foremost, to Newt's proven track record of being a bit erratic. He talks, and I feel he actually feels, as if he's a conservative. But his actions in the past, as well as much of his post-Speaker career, has not resonated with conservative ideals much of the time. Yes, he's a damn good debater, and I have no question that he's the most intellectual person, as well as communicator, of the bunch.
But I have not said that Romney is right. I basically said that Romney will automatically move Congress to the left, as a RINO in office tends to do that. The non-existent species, the conservative or even moderate Democrat (Zell Miller anyone?), would also have that same effect, by the way.
Romney claims that he had to do what he did because he was in a Blue state, and that his actions would not reflect how he would govern as President. But we ALL know that score. A Romney presidency would be a big win for Obama, because it means that his policies will be set in stone. I don't for one minute think that if I were a Democrat, right now, the MOST important job would be to get Romney as the GOP candidate, even more than worrying if Obama will be reelected (which he won't barring a catastrophic event by or to the GOP nominee).
So I do prefer Gingrich many times more than Romney. Hell, I prefer Ron PAUL over Romney. But the game is not just winning the presidency. The REAL game is to maintain a strong, conservative focus on the legislative branch (Congress), and the makeup of the president can dictate how the 535 legislative positions will be determined, and whether Obama's / 111th Congress' policies can be reversed. I do NOT trust Romney, and Gingrich is in a Trust but Verify mode with me right now.
-
Romney claims that he had to do what he did because he was in a Blue state, and that his actions would not reflect how he would govern as President. But we ALL know that score. A Romney presidency would be a big win for Obama, because it means that his policies will be set in stone.
I agree with that. What would even be worse is that the GOP would be DOA in 2016 because you would have a Tea Party candidate running against Romney as an independent. Someone like Palin would run and grab a big chunk of GOP voters. Conservatives would not stand for another 4 years of a Yankee liberal posing as a Repub. That might assure a Democratic victory. On the other hand, it might wind up in Congress.
Every election the pundits state that this is the most important election in our lifetime. I concur but 5 years from now we will see a drastically different country. If the economy/jobs do not improve greatly, we could be in for a taste of what is happening in Europe.
-
I've never been a fan of Newt but he's brilliant and we're voting for him in the primary if he's still in the race.
Same here.
NO. I actually wasn't comparing Romney to Newt, per se, though it appears it could have been seen as such.
I was referring, first and foremost, to Newt's proven track record of being a bit erratic. He talks, and I feel he actually feels, as if he's a conservative. But his actions in the past, as well as much of his post-Speaker career, has not resonated with conservative ideals much of the time. Yes, he's a damn good debater, and I have no question that he's the most intellectual person, as well as communicator, of the bunch.
But I have not said that Romney is right. I basically said that Romney will automatically move Congress to the left, as a RINO in office tends to do that. The non-existent species, the conservative or even moderate Democrat (Zell Miller anyone?), would also have that same effect, by the way.
Romney claims that he had to do what he did because he was in a Blue state, and that his actions would not reflect how he would govern as President. But we ALL know that score. A Romney presidency would be a big win for Obama, because it means that his policies will be set in stone. I don't for one minute think that if I were a Democrat, right now, the MOST important job would be to get Romney as the GOP candidate, even more than worrying if Obama will be reelected (which he won't barring a catastrophic event by or to the GOP nominee).
So I do prefer Gingrich many times more than Romney. Hell, I prefer Ron PAUL over Romney. But the game is not just winning the presidency. The REAL game is to maintain a strong, conservative focus on the legislative branch (Congress), and the makeup of the president can dictate how the 535 legislative positions will be determined, and whether Obama's / 111th Congress' policies can be reversed. I do NOT trust Romney, and Gingrich is in a Trust but Verify mode with me right now.
Gingrich is more conservative than Romney for sure. Romney flip flops all the time. I agree that Congress is a big factor as well. If Obama had a second term, but Congress controlled by Republicans, he may as well be a lame duck. Frankly, I would be surprised if Obama is a two termer. I think we are in heading into a era of one term Presidents and that is not unprecedented. The last time we had string of one term President was 1960 to 1980.
Kennedy-Assassinated in 1963
Johnson-Serve the remaining term of Kennedy and won in 1964. Did not run in 1968.
Nixon-Won in 1968 and 1972, but resigned in 1974 from Watergate.
Ford-Served remaining of Nixon's term, but lost in 1976.
Carter-Lost in 1980
None I consider were two full term Presidents.
-
You know, right at the moment I feel stupid. I can't remember if the republican primary in S.C. is done on the computer screens as are the general election or if it is done on the paper ballots of old.
I wonder if it's to late to get Jim DeMint on it as a write in? Can't write his name on the computer screen.
-
I wonder if it's to late to get Jim DeMint on it as a write in? Can't write his name on the computer screen.
Those automated voting machines still give you the option of a write-in candidate.
I'm always tempted to do it because 90% of the local politicians and judges here are Democrats.