Can Gingrich Win Social Conservatives?

[TVDOC]

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

[Erasmus]

vs. Obama?  Yes, I think so.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Given Romney's track record of 'Positions of convenience' on abortion, he probably has a lot better shot at getting that support than Mitt.

[Lacarnut]

vs. Obama?  Yes, I think so.

Against Romney also. Ralph Reed has got it right.

[DefiantSix]

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.

[NHSparky]

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.

[TVDOC]

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

[Boudicca]

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.

[CG6468]

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.

[Boudicca]

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" moderator/s have asked.

[CG6468]

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" 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.

[TVDOC]

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

[CG6468]

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.

[BEG]

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.

[TVDOC]

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

[Ballygrl]

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.

[Lacarnut]

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.

[CG6468]

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.

[TVDOC]

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

[NHSparky]

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.

[Splashdown]

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.

[CG6468]

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.

[NHSparky]

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.

[TVDOC]

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

[CG6468]

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.