It’s all true about Gingrich

Peggy Noonan has a good column about the promise and perils of Newt Gingrich:

I had a friend once who amused herself thinking up bumper stickers for states. The one she made up for California was brilliant. “California: It’s All True.” It is so vast and sprawling a place, so rich and various, that whatever you’ve heard about its wildness, weirdness and wonders, it’s true.

That’s the problem with Newt Gingrich: It’s all true. It’s part of the reason so many of those who know him are anxious about the thought of his becoming president. It’s also why people are looking at him, thinking about him, considering him as president.

Ethically dubious? True. Intelligent and accomplished? True. Has he known breathtaking success and contributed to real reforms in government? Yes. Presided over disasters? Absolutely. Can he lead? Yes. Is he erratic and unreliable as a leader? Yes. Egomaniacal? True. Original and focused, harebrained and impulsive—all true.

Do you want evidence he’s a Burkean conservative? Start with welfare reform in 1996. A sober, standard Republican? Go to the balanced budgets of the Clinton era. Is he a tea partier? Sure, he speaks the slashing lingo with relish. Is he moderate? Yes, that can be proved. Michele Bachmann this week called him a “frugal socialist,” and there’s plenty of evidence of that, too.

One way to view this is that he is so rich and varied as a character, as geniuses often are, that he contains worlds, multitudes. One senses that would be his way of looking at it. Another way to look at it: In a long career, one will shift views, adapt to circumstances, tack this way and that. Another way: He’s philosophically unanchored, an unstable element. There are too many storms within him, and he seeks out external storms in order to equalize his own atmosphere. He’s a trouble magnet, a starter of fights that need not be fought. He is the first modern potential president about whom there is too much information.

via Gingrich Is Inspiring—and Disturbing – WSJ.com.

Noonan goes on to say that those who have worked with him in the past tend not to support him.  But that those who do are pointing out that he was the last one to actually reform the government.  Her whole essay is worth reading.

Where do you come down on Gingrich at this point?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Lou G.

    As a devout Christian, I dislike Gingrich as a person in character. However, my dilemma is not as much with him as it is the Republican field this year. None of the candidates are compelling enough to be President of the United States, imo. But like I think I hear someone else say:
    Gingrich is the only major leaguer in a field of AA ball players. He’s no where near a hall of famer, but he’s got the level and experience of play behind him to get the job done. You take a bigger chance on the minor leaguers, because there is just so much not known about they capabilities. It’s possible to find a AA league player with the kind of talent and capability to step up to the plate and get’er done. The risks are simply way higher with an unknown minor leaguer, versus the “devil you know”.

    My question (to myself and others…) is which of the minor leaguers have what it takes and can step up to the plate?

  • Lou G.

    As a devout Christian, I dislike Gingrich as a person in character. However, my dilemma is not as much with him as it is the Republican field this year. None of the candidates are compelling enough to be President of the United States, imo. But like I think I hear someone else say:
    Gingrich is the only major leaguer in a field of AA ball players. He’s no where near a hall of famer, but he’s got the level and experience of play behind him to get the job done. You take a bigger chance on the minor leaguers, because there is just so much not known about they capabilities. It’s possible to find a AA league player with the kind of talent and capability to step up to the plate and get’er done. The risks are simply way higher with an unknown minor leaguer, versus the “devil you know”.

    My question (to myself and others…) is which of the minor leaguers have what it takes and can step up to the plate?

  • Bob

    It’s OK if a 6th grader has ADD, changes their opinion as fast as the wind.

    Not OK for someone who aspires to be POTUS.

    That’s why (among many other reasons) Newt can’t win against the President.

    Which is why I hope he gets the Repub. nomination.

  • Bob

    It’s OK if a 6th grader has ADD, changes their opinion as fast as the wind.

    Not OK for someone who aspires to be POTUS.

    That’s why (among many other reasons) Newt can’t win against the President.

    Which is why I hope he gets the Repub. nomination.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Yes, one can’t be changing their tune all the time and expect to become or remain President…unless one happens to be a Democrat.

    Since most of the mainstream media is of like mind and party…they will almost always let Democrats get away with it. Plus, most Democratic voters don’t have a clue anyway, to eb=ven realize when their man (woman) has flipped on a topic anyway.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Yes, one can’t be changing their tune all the time and expect to become or remain President…unless one happens to be a Democrat.

    Since most of the mainstream media is of like mind and party…they will almost always let Democrats get away with it. Plus, most Democratic voters don’t have a clue anyway, to eb=ven realize when their man (woman) has flipped on a topic anyway.

  • Pingback: Noted Journalist, Peggy Noonan, on Newt Gingrich (Ari Melber) | GoodOleWoody's Blog

  • Pingback: Noted Journalist, Peggy Noonan, on Newt Gingrich (Ari Melber) | GoodOleWoody's Blog

  • Aloysius

    I personally think that this article — “The Tempting of the Christian Right” — is on target.

  • Aloysius

    I personally think that this article — “The Tempting of the Christian Right” — is on target.

  • Aloysius
  • Aloysius
  • SKPeterson

    Count me amongst the completely indifferent.

  • SKPeterson

    Count me amongst the completely indifferent.

  • https://profiles.google.com/114761676313688657626 P. C.

    Lou G @1. I concur with your analysis of Newt Gingrich. Similarly, in 2008, the Democrats drafted an “AA” league player who now resides in the White House and he is now, at best, only playing “A” league ball. He has more strikeouts and foul balls than I can count.

    So what this country needs is a Major League player in the Big Stadium. Although he is not my favorite choice, it appears Romney will at least look good in uniform.

  • https://profiles.google.com/114761676313688657626 P. C.

    Lou G @1. I concur with your analysis of Newt Gingrich. Similarly, in 2008, the Democrats drafted an “AA” league player who now resides in the White House and he is now, at best, only playing “A” league ball. He has more strikeouts and foul balls than I can count.

    So what this country needs is a Major League player in the Big Stadium. Although he is not my favorite choice, it appears Romney will at least look good in uniform.

  • Lutheran

    Steve M.,

    Why not provide some examples? Otherwise your generalities are baseless.

    ‘Since most of the mainstream media is of like mind and party…they will almost always let Democrats get away with it.’

    Get away with what?

    And how about citing something other than the current right-wing meme about the mainstream media?

  • Lutheran

    Steve M.,

    Why not provide some examples? Otherwise your generalities are baseless.

    ‘Since most of the mainstream media is of like mind and party…they will almost always let Democrats get away with it.’

    Get away with what?

    And how about citing something other than the current right-wing meme about the mainstream media?

  • Jon

    Let’s be honest: Hatred of the black Christian in the White House is what animates the religious right. Gingrich’s serial adultery and corruption, Romney’s flip flops, 4th vacation home, Mormonism, etc., don’t matter a whit. Stop pretending.

  • Jon

    Let’s be honest: Hatred of the black Christian in the White House is what animates the religious right. Gingrich’s serial adultery and corruption, Romney’s flip flops, 4th vacation home, Mormonism, etc., don’t matter a whit. Stop pretending.

  • –helen

    Jon:
    Half black and probably less than half Christian, by appearances.

    [But I'm not "the religious right" politically; I'm not speaking for them.]

  • –helen

    Jon:
    Half black and probably less than half Christian, by appearances.

    [But I'm not "the religious right" politically; I'm not speaking for them.]

  • Jon

    @10, No, by appearances and public testimony, Obama’s a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.

    I, by the way, am also of mixed race ancestry.

  • Jon

    @10, No, by appearances and public testimony, Obama’s a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.

    I, by the way, am also of mixed race ancestry.

  • SKPeterson

    Jon,

    I don’t think people hate Obama, just as I don’t believe people hated Bush. Maybe they do/did, but it’s certainly an irrational response (so I suppose it’s perfect for the internet and tv). There is much to criticize in the policy positions of Mr. Obama, there was also much to criticize in Mr. Bush’s policies (and in Mr.Clinton’s, and in Bush patre, in those of Messrs. Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and Roosevelt).

    Am I opposed to Obama? Yes, mostly. I was also largely against Bush, and so far, the only Republican I will even remotely consider voting for is Ron Paul. Maybe Steven Harper in a pinch.

  • SKPeterson

    Jon,

    I don’t think people hate Obama, just as I don’t believe people hated Bush. Maybe they do/did, but it’s certainly an irrational response (so I suppose it’s perfect for the internet and tv). There is much to criticize in the policy positions of Mr. Obama, there was also much to criticize in Mr. Bush’s policies (and in Mr.Clinton’s, and in Bush patre, in those of Messrs. Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and Roosevelt).

    Am I opposed to Obama? Yes, mostly. I was also largely against Bush, and so far, the only Republican I will even remotely consider voting for is Ron Paul. Maybe Steven Harper in a pinch.

  • Lou G.

    P. C. “it appears Romney will at least look good in uniform.”
    Agreed!

  • Lou G.

    P. C. “it appears Romney will at least look good in uniform.”
    Agreed!

  • Karl

    @11, How is pro-choice appear to be Christian? Even satan believes who the Lord Jesus Christ is.

  • Karl

    @11, How is pro-choice appear to be Christian? Even satan believes who the Lord Jesus Christ is.

  • Jon

    @14 Karl, I wasn’t aware that Satan claimed Christ as savior. Christians can disagree on how to make abortion rare. No Republican candidate that I know of actually believes abortion is murder, by the way. And, historically, the US hasn’t treated it as such.

  • Jon

    @14 Karl, I wasn’t aware that Satan claimed Christ as savior. Christians can disagree on how to make abortion rare. No Republican candidate that I know of actually believes abortion is murder, by the way. And, historically, the US hasn’t treated it as such.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Lutheran,

    How about this ‘Fast and Furious’ story, for one. Do you honestly believe that if Bush were President and this story broke about the government selling guns to drug dealers in Mexico that there would be scant few stories on it as there are on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, ABC, and the major metropolitan newspapers?

    Here’s plenty more examples if you really want to see them:
    http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/nq/2011/20111211052718.aspx

    .

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Lutheran,

    How about this ‘Fast and Furious’ story, for one. Do you honestly believe that if Bush were President and this story broke about the government selling guns to drug dealers in Mexico that there would be scant few stories on it as there are on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, ABC, and the major metropolitan newspapers?

    Here’s plenty more examples if you really want to see them:
    http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/nq/2011/20111211052718.aspx

    .

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “No Republican candidate that I know of actually believes abortion is murder, by the way.”

    How do you know that? Clairvoyance?

    They say they believe that.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “No Republican candidate that I know of actually believes abortion is murder, by the way.”

    How do you know that? Clairvoyance?

    They say they believe that.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I don’t think people hate Obama,”

    People feel that Obama hates them. People feel that he pursues policies that will punish those whom he doesn’t like and reward those he does.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I don’t think people hate Obama,”

    People feel that Obama hates them. People feel that he pursues policies that will punish those whom he doesn’t like and reward those he does.

  • Grace

    Gingrich has shown remorse for his deeds. God can forgive, what’s wrong with the rest of you?

    Strange how leading church leaders have taken a wrong sinful path, never repented, never recanted, but yet continue to be held in high esteem among their flock.

    As the adulteress was accused – all the men left, not one of them could answer. But yet all of you hold Gingrich up to a higher standard.

  • Grace

    Gingrich has shown remorse for his deeds. God can forgive, what’s wrong with the rest of you?

    Strange how leading church leaders have taken a wrong sinful path, never repented, never recanted, but yet continue to be held in high esteem among their flock.

    As the adulteress was accused – all the men left, not one of them could answer. But yet all of you hold Gingrich up to a higher standard.

  • Karl

    @15 Jon, I believe I am probably somewhat narrow minded in regards to my belief, but I think we can be so open minded sometimes that we let people fall into thinking they are Christian when they are not and they will end up eternally in hell.

    This is part of an interview, March 27,2004 by Cathleen Falsani, the religion reporter for the respected Chicago Sun-Times
    “GG:
    What do you believe?

    OBAMA:
    I am a Christian. So, I have a deep faith. I draw from the Christian faith. On the other hand, I was born in Hawaii where obviously there are a lot of Eastern influences. I lived in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, between the ages of six and 10. My father was from Kenya, and although he was probably most accurately labeled an agnostic, his father was Muslim. And I’d say, probably, intellectually I’ve drawn as much from Judaism as any other faith.

    (A patron stops and says, “Congratulations,” shakes his hand. “Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you.”)

    So, I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that there is a higher power, that we are connected as a people. There are values that transcend race or culture that move us forward, and there’s an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.

    And so, part of my project in life was to spend the first 40 years of my life figuring out what I did believe – I’m 42 now. And it’s not that I had it all completely worked out, but I’m spending a lot of time now trying to apply what I believe and trying to live up to those values.

    GG:
    Do you believe in heaven?

    OBAMA:
    Do I believe in the harps and clouds and wings?

    GG:
    A place spiritually you go to after you die?

    OBAMA:
    What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.

    When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see in them that I am transferring values that I got from my mother, and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.”

    CHRISTIANITY defined: One who professes in Jesus Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

    Anyone can claim Christianity but a Christian does not “believe their are many paths to the same place” and a Christian does “have knowledge of what happens after I die.” Also Christians will not be rewarded for living “my life as well as I can.” Their is only one way to heaven through Jesus Christ and we will be in heaven or hell when we die.

    I did not mean to imply that satan claimed Jesus Christ as Savior, just that, even satan acknowledges WHO Jesus is when tempting Him in the Bible.

    As far as abortion being murder is concerned, it does not matter as to what any Democrat canidate, Republican canidate, US history,nor what you or I believe in. It matters what the Word of God tells us and that is murder is wrong. Unless we have Biblical evidence otherwise, Christians should be demanding and working together to find a canidate regardless of political party to stand behind that actually will stand up for what the Bible teaches.

  • Karl

    @15 Jon, I believe I am probably somewhat narrow minded in regards to my belief, but I think we can be so open minded sometimes that we let people fall into thinking they are Christian when they are not and they will end up eternally in hell.

    This is part of an interview, March 27,2004 by Cathleen Falsani, the religion reporter for the respected Chicago Sun-Times
    “GG:
    What do you believe?

    OBAMA:
    I am a Christian. So, I have a deep faith. I draw from the Christian faith. On the other hand, I was born in Hawaii where obviously there are a lot of Eastern influences. I lived in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, between the ages of six and 10. My father was from Kenya, and although he was probably most accurately labeled an agnostic, his father was Muslim. And I’d say, probably, intellectually I’ve drawn as much from Judaism as any other faith.

    (A patron stops and says, “Congratulations,” shakes his hand. “Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you.”)

    So, I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that there is a higher power, that we are connected as a people. There are values that transcend race or culture that move us forward, and there’s an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.

    And so, part of my project in life was to spend the first 40 years of my life figuring out what I did believe – I’m 42 now. And it’s not that I had it all completely worked out, but I’m spending a lot of time now trying to apply what I believe and trying to live up to those values.

    GG:
    Do you believe in heaven?

    OBAMA:
    Do I believe in the harps and clouds and wings?

    GG:
    A place spiritually you go to after you die?

    OBAMA:
    What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.

    When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see in them that I am transferring values that I got from my mother, and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.”

    CHRISTIANITY defined: One who professes in Jesus Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

    Anyone can claim Christianity but a Christian does not “believe their are many paths to the same place” and a Christian does “have knowledge of what happens after I die.” Also Christians will not be rewarded for living “my life as well as I can.” Their is only one way to heaven through Jesus Christ and we will be in heaven or hell when we die.

    I did not mean to imply that satan claimed Jesus Christ as Savior, just that, even satan acknowledges WHO Jesus is when tempting Him in the Bible.

    As far as abortion being murder is concerned, it does not matter as to what any Democrat canidate, Republican canidate, US history,nor what you or I believe in. It matters what the Word of God tells us and that is murder is wrong. Unless we have Biblical evidence otherwise, Christians should be demanding and working together to find a canidate regardless of political party to stand behind that actually will stand up for what the Bible teaches.

  • Grace

    Jon @ 15

    YOU WROTE: “No Republican candidate that I know of actually believes abortion is murder, by the way. “

    President Regan ceertainly did. This quote from President Ronald Reagan

    PRESIDENT DENOUNCES ABORTION AS ‘MURDER’

    By PHIL GAILEY, Special to the New York Times (The New York Times); National Desk
    June 24, 1986,

    The Los Angeles Times, a transcript of which was released by the White House. In opposing abortion, the President said,I don’t think that I’m trying to do something that is taking a privilege away from womanhood, because I don’t think that womanhood should be considering murder a privilege.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/24/us/president-denounces-abortion-as-murder.html

  • Grace

    Jon @ 15

    YOU WROTE: “No Republican candidate that I know of actually believes abortion is murder, by the way. “

    President Regan ceertainly did. This quote from President Ronald Reagan

    PRESIDENT DENOUNCES ABORTION AS ‘MURDER’

    By PHIL GAILEY, Special to the New York Times (The New York Times); National Desk
    June 24, 1986,

    The Los Angeles Times, a transcript of which was released by the White House. In opposing abortion, the President said,I don’t think that I’m trying to do something that is taking a privilege away from womanhood, because I don’t think that womanhood should be considering murder a privilege.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/24/us/president-denounces-abortion-as-murder.html

  • SKPeterson

    Jon – Ron Paul is pro-life, he just doesn’t believe the federal government should be the arbiter; it is properly the province of the states like most other crimes against persons.

  • SKPeterson

    Jon – Ron Paul is pro-life, he just doesn’t believe the federal government should be the arbiter; it is properly the province of the states like most other crimes against persons.

  • JunkerGeorg

    I’m hesitant to trust whichever Republican candidate the MSM is proclaiming the new frontrunner. Whether it be Gingrich or Romney, whomever the MSM deems as the most viable nominee in their minds it also would mean one who is more liable to lose over/against Obama in a head-to-head. (As if the MSM wants to see a Republican president!) I mean, both Gingrich and Romney have past records on certain issues which will hinder their ability to contrast themselves with Obama in presidential debates (e.g., socialized health care, health care mandates, global warming, TARP bailout support, Debt Increase support, etc.). They represent some of the same status quo which some disgruntled anti-war Democrats, fiscal conservative Independents, and constitutional Tea-party-ish Republicans will not go for.

    Secondly, given the Ron Paul factor, i.e., that most of Ron Paul’s supporters will vote on the basis of principles rather than on party lines (and will vote FOR someone rather than just vote AGAINST Obama), they’d rather write Ron Paul in as a candidate than vote for another Rino Republican. I still don’t think Ron Paul will run as a third party candidate, but we’ll see. The irony is (and some polls have started to show it), while Gingrich or Romney may be the most winnable “nominee”, more so than Ron Paul or the other candidates, they would not be the winnable candidate for president. Even apart from my bias for RP, I think that the actual figures will show that unless RP gets the nomination (doubtful), that Dr. Veith’s prediction is most likely: Obama is going to be re-elected. Gingrich/Romney simply will not gain enough independent/tea-party/disgruntled Democrat votes that RP would. One can blame RP, but just as well blame stubborn Republicans who’d rather vote for a losing horse in Gingrich/Romney and give the election to Obama, than vote for a candidate like RP whose actual views they don’t really know/understand and hence are terrified of.

  • JunkerGeorg

    I’m hesitant to trust whichever Republican candidate the MSM is proclaiming the new frontrunner. Whether it be Gingrich or Romney, whomever the MSM deems as the most viable nominee in their minds it also would mean one who is more liable to lose over/against Obama in a head-to-head. (As if the MSM wants to see a Republican president!) I mean, both Gingrich and Romney have past records on certain issues which will hinder their ability to contrast themselves with Obama in presidential debates (e.g., socialized health care, health care mandates, global warming, TARP bailout support, Debt Increase support, etc.). They represent some of the same status quo which some disgruntled anti-war Democrats, fiscal conservative Independents, and constitutional Tea-party-ish Republicans will not go for.

    Secondly, given the Ron Paul factor, i.e., that most of Ron Paul’s supporters will vote on the basis of principles rather than on party lines (and will vote FOR someone rather than just vote AGAINST Obama), they’d rather write Ron Paul in as a candidate than vote for another Rino Republican. I still don’t think Ron Paul will run as a third party candidate, but we’ll see. The irony is (and some polls have started to show it), while Gingrich or Romney may be the most winnable “nominee”, more so than Ron Paul or the other candidates, they would not be the winnable candidate for president. Even apart from my bias for RP, I think that the actual figures will show that unless RP gets the nomination (doubtful), that Dr. Veith’s prediction is most likely: Obama is going to be re-elected. Gingrich/Romney simply will not gain enough independent/tea-party/disgruntled Democrat votes that RP would. One can blame RP, but just as well blame stubborn Republicans who’d rather vote for a losing horse in Gingrich/Romney and give the election to Obama, than vote for a candidate like RP whose actual views they don’t really know/understand and hence are terrified of.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I saw Gingrich in a debate here in Portland maybe a decade ago. He shared the stage with Ralph Nader — this was back when Nader was actually a name that commanded interest. Before the debate, my take on Gingrich was still very much colored by the Contract With America and Clinton’s impeachment. But I was impressed by how much he appealed to the crowd — which, being Portland, was pretty full of left-wingers. Or at least he appealed to me. Maybe I was already tired of Nader, who was already pretty tired himself at that point.

    Point being, I find Gingrich a more compelling character than most of the GOP field. I’m not sure I’d vote for him, but then, I’m not sure I wouldn’t vote for him, either. Yes, even against Obama.

    I’m probably seduced a bit by the fact that the man isn’t an idiot spouting talking points. The problem with that is that intelligence really isn’t the prime quality of a good President, from what I can tell. Leadership is far more important — but then, Newt has that, too. Of course, you also have to surround yourself with a good team, and I’m not sure if Gingrich is very good at that. He seems to have the problem that other intelligent people have, of not working well with others, of putting too much stock in his own ideas. Something like that.

    Let’s put it this way. If we take it as a given that the GOP nominee is going to lose against in an election against Obama, I’d much rather have Gingrich running against him than anyone else at the moment (other than Ron Paul, whom I respect; but I’m not so naive as to expect he truly has a chance, sorry). I think a Candidate Gingrich would provide the best value for the nation, mainly by forcing Obama to respond to him. Obama would be forced to compete on substance and ideas. If Romney or Perry gets the nod, however, it’ll be Partisan Platitude City. Booooring. And ever so tiresome.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I saw Gingrich in a debate here in Portland maybe a decade ago. He shared the stage with Ralph Nader — this was back when Nader was actually a name that commanded interest. Before the debate, my take on Gingrich was still very much colored by the Contract With America and Clinton’s impeachment. But I was impressed by how much he appealed to the crowd — which, being Portland, was pretty full of left-wingers. Or at least he appealed to me. Maybe I was already tired of Nader, who was already pretty tired himself at that point.

    Point being, I find Gingrich a more compelling character than most of the GOP field. I’m not sure I’d vote for him, but then, I’m not sure I wouldn’t vote for him, either. Yes, even against Obama.

    I’m probably seduced a bit by the fact that the man isn’t an idiot spouting talking points. The problem with that is that intelligence really isn’t the prime quality of a good President, from what I can tell. Leadership is far more important — but then, Newt has that, too. Of course, you also have to surround yourself with a good team, and I’m not sure if Gingrich is very good at that. He seems to have the problem that other intelligent people have, of not working well with others, of putting too much stock in his own ideas. Something like that.

    Let’s put it this way. If we take it as a given that the GOP nominee is going to lose against in an election against Obama, I’d much rather have Gingrich running against him than anyone else at the moment (other than Ron Paul, whom I respect; but I’m not so naive as to expect he truly has a chance, sorry). I think a Candidate Gingrich would provide the best value for the nation, mainly by forcing Obama to respond to him. Obama would be forced to compete on substance and ideas. If Romney or Perry gets the nod, however, it’ll be Partisan Platitude City. Booooring. And ever so tiresome.

  • Bob

    I love the headline at the top of this thread…

    Gringrich…

    Grinch + Rich=

    Gringrich.

    Perfect.

    Hope it wasn’t a conservatian slip.
    :)

  • Bob

    I love the headline at the top of this thread…

    Gringrich…

    Grinch + Rich=

    Gringrich.

    Perfect.

    Hope it wasn’t a conservatian slip.
    :)

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Freudian slip, Bob! And yet it kind of works. I guess I’ll fix it for historical reasons.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Freudian slip, Bob! And yet it kind of works. I guess I’ll fix it for historical reasons.

  • John C

    Grace, Newt is a narcissist and is just as likely to divorce and marry again. He is more articulate than Rick Perry and reads the New York Times but he is just as deluded.
    Gingrich is an entertainer, a bit of a tap dancer: he is having a lot of fun with a conservative audience but we haven’t even got to intermission yet.

  • John C

    Grace, Newt is a narcissist and is just as likely to divorce and marry again. He is more articulate than Rick Perry and reads the New York Times but he is just as deluded.
    Gingrich is an entertainer, a bit of a tap dancer: he is having a lot of fun with a conservative audience but we haven’t even got to intermission yet.

  • Grace

    John C @ 27

    “Grace, Newt is a narcissist and is just as likely to divorce and marry again. He is more articulate than Rick Perry and reads the New York Times but he is just as deluded.

    You don’t know Newt’s heart or his repentance, of his sins to God. He has said he was wrong…. there are many church fathers who never repented, never recanted their sins.

    “Gingrich is an entertainer, a bit of a tap dancer: he is having a lot of fun with a conservative audience but we haven’t even got to intermission yet.

    He’s not an “entertainer” – he’s a very intelligent man, one whom many are jealous of. Envy of Newt has become disgusting. Every time someone denies it, .. it then becomes the joke on them.

    “Tap dancer” ? – that’s a silly comment! :lol: I’d think that over the next time you are tempted to plug that into your keyboard!

  • Grace

    John C @ 27

    “Grace, Newt is a narcissist and is just as likely to divorce and marry again. He is more articulate than Rick Perry and reads the New York Times but he is just as deluded.

    You don’t know Newt’s heart or his repentance, of his sins to God. He has said he was wrong…. there are many church fathers who never repented, never recanted their sins.

    “Gingrich is an entertainer, a bit of a tap dancer: he is having a lot of fun with a conservative audience but we haven’t even got to intermission yet.

    He’s not an “entertainer” – he’s a very intelligent man, one whom many are jealous of. Envy of Newt has become disgusting. Every time someone denies it, .. it then becomes the joke on them.

    “Tap dancer” ? – that’s a silly comment! :lol: I’d think that over the next time you are tempted to plug that into your keyboard!

  • Dust

    anybody but obama :)

  • Dust

    anybody but obama :)

  • JunkerGeorg

    @My favorite poster,

    “You don’t know Newt’s heart or his repentance, of his sins to God. He has said he was wrong…. there are many church fathers who never repented, never recanted their sins.”
    ——–

    Your argument is like saying a pedophile football coach (e.g., Sandusky) , after having publicly confessed his sins to sexually molesting boys, should be allowed to keep coaching young men, or working in a daycare center for that matter, because, after all, he said he was sorry and God does forgive.

    No one is denying God’s forgiveness. The issue is about the fruits in keeping with repentance. For example, if a person in a public office, whether it be a politician or a pastor, is found to have committed adultery (like Newt did not once, but twice, and over a period of 6 years in one case, doing so on the job), let alone undergoes a divorce even once (let alone twice like Newt), should he seek to still serve in public office after the fact??? In terms of a pastor, I do believe he should resign and no longer serve in that office. In the case of a secular politician, he is certainly free to keep running for public offices in terms of what is legal/lawful/allowable under secular law, even if he did what he has done 20 times and gets re-elected. But is it beneficial, right, proper, befitting the public office with the public trust associated with it. I mean, does not knowing that Clinton was doing what he was doing with a staffer named Lewinsky on Sundays after church in the Oval Office not appear to you to be maligning of the dignity of the public office? Is that politicians should be doing on the job at taxpayer’s expense? If you say no, then look up Newt’s first affair at least, with an intern who was seventeen at the time the affair started. No one is saying God does not forgive him/he can’t be forgiven. Some of us question though whether it is right for him to not suffer some consequences of his own volition, namely, ceasing to continue in a public office and retreating to the private sector. Others feel that is fine. Whichever, it is not about whether or not God offers forgiveness to each and every sinner.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @My favorite poster,

    “You don’t know Newt’s heart or his repentance, of his sins to God. He has said he was wrong…. there are many church fathers who never repented, never recanted their sins.”
    ——–

    Your argument is like saying a pedophile football coach (e.g., Sandusky) , after having publicly confessed his sins to sexually molesting boys, should be allowed to keep coaching young men, or working in a daycare center for that matter, because, after all, he said he was sorry and God does forgive.

    No one is denying God’s forgiveness. The issue is about the fruits in keeping with repentance. For example, if a person in a public office, whether it be a politician or a pastor, is found to have committed adultery (like Newt did not once, but twice, and over a period of 6 years in one case, doing so on the job), let alone undergoes a divorce even once (let alone twice like Newt), should he seek to still serve in public office after the fact??? In terms of a pastor, I do believe he should resign and no longer serve in that office. In the case of a secular politician, he is certainly free to keep running for public offices in terms of what is legal/lawful/allowable under secular law, even if he did what he has done 20 times and gets re-elected. But is it beneficial, right, proper, befitting the public office with the public trust associated with it. I mean, does not knowing that Clinton was doing what he was doing with a staffer named Lewinsky on Sundays after church in the Oval Office not appear to you to be maligning of the dignity of the public office? Is that politicians should be doing on the job at taxpayer’s expense? If you say no, then look up Newt’s first affair at least, with an intern who was seventeen at the time the affair started. No one is saying God does not forgive him/he can’t be forgiven. Some of us question though whether it is right for him to not suffer some consequences of his own volition, namely, ceasing to continue in a public office and retreating to the private sector. Others feel that is fine. Whichever, it is not about whether or not God offers forgiveness to each and every sinner.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@28),

    [Newt]’s a very intelligent man, one whom many are jealous of. Envy of Newt has become disgusting.

    You know, this is now the second time you’ve tried to accuse people of “envy”. You tried it with Tebow, as well.

    Are you just incapable of processing criticism of your heroes? Can you not admit that they have flaws? Is “you’re all just jealous” the only defense you have to offer? Has it ever worked for you?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@28),

    [Newt]’s a very intelligent man, one whom many are jealous of. Envy of Newt has become disgusting.

    You know, this is now the second time you’ve tried to accuse people of “envy”. You tried it with Tebow, as well.

    Are you just incapable of processing criticism of your heroes? Can you not admit that they have flaws? Is “you’re all just jealous” the only defense you have to offer? Has it ever worked for you?

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 30

    YOU WROTE BELOW:

    Your argument is like saying a pedophile football coach (e.g., Sandusky) , after having publicly confessed his sins to sexually molesting boys, should be allowed to keep coaching young men, or working in a daycare center for that matter, because, after all, he said he was sorry and God does forgive. “

    All your gibberish isn’t worth the read.

    I’m surprised anyone would bring up “pedophilia” in regards to Newt Gingrich, that’s just about as low as it gets.

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 30

    YOU WROTE BELOW:

    Your argument is like saying a pedophile football coach (e.g., Sandusky) , after having publicly confessed his sins to sexually molesting boys, should be allowed to keep coaching young men, or working in a daycare center for that matter, because, after all, he said he was sorry and God does forgive. “

    All your gibberish isn’t worth the read.

    I’m surprised anyone would bring up “pedophilia” in regards to Newt Gingrich, that’s just about as low as it gets.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Newt is a polished version of the status quo. With the exception of Ron Paul, all of the Republican field are touting slight variations of the same big government theme: Some magical mix of budget cuts and tax manipulations with some added pixie dust consisting of special recipe social legislation guaranteed to cure our ills and pay our bills. All of it is a crock. RP may be considered unelectable, but he is the only one willing to address the real gravity of our situation and it’s causes.

    Also, Mr. Gingrich has proven himself untrustworthy and given to expedience over principle. We elect him at our peril.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Newt is a polished version of the status quo. With the exception of Ron Paul, all of the Republican field are touting slight variations of the same big government theme: Some magical mix of budget cuts and tax manipulations with some added pixie dust consisting of special recipe social legislation guaranteed to cure our ills and pay our bills. All of it is a crock. RP may be considered unelectable, but he is the only one willing to address the real gravity of our situation and it’s causes.

    Also, Mr. Gingrich has proven himself untrustworthy and given to expedience over principle. We elect him at our peril.

  • Grace

    Patrick Kyle @ 33

    YOU STATED:
    “RP may be considered unelectable, but he is the only one willing to address the real gravity of our situation and it’s causes.”

    Ron Paul has no moral compass, if he did, he would not have voted endlessly as shown below. Ron Paul is an ‘ISOLATIONIST, living in a troubled world. A misguided man, no matter his position or education in medicine.

    Ron Paul on the issues:

    Legalizing prostitution is about protecting liberty. (May 2011)
    Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
    Our drug war is driving our immigration policy. (Sep 2011)
    We don’t need laws to tell us to not use heroin. (May 2011)
    Drug War allows drug lords to make a lot more money. (Apr 2011)
    Someday we’ll wake up and end the Second Prohibition. (Apr 2011)
    Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs. (Sep 2007)
    Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
    Drug War fosters violence at home & breeds resentment abroad. (Oct 2001)
    Voted NO on more funding for Mexico to fight drugs. (Jun 2008)
    Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
    Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
    Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)

  • Grace

    Patrick Kyle @ 33

    YOU STATED:
    “RP may be considered unelectable, but he is the only one willing to address the real gravity of our situation and it’s causes.”

    Ron Paul has no moral compass, if he did, he would not have voted endlessly as shown below. Ron Paul is an ‘ISOLATIONIST, living in a troubled world. A misguided man, no matter his position or education in medicine.

    Ron Paul on the issues:

    Legalizing prostitution is about protecting liberty. (May 2011)
    Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
    Our drug war is driving our immigration policy. (Sep 2011)
    We don’t need laws to tell us to not use heroin. (May 2011)
    Drug War allows drug lords to make a lot more money. (Apr 2011)
    Someday we’ll wake up and end the Second Prohibition. (Apr 2011)
    Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs. (Sep 2007)
    Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
    Drug War fosters violence at home & breeds resentment abroad. (Oct 2001)
    Voted NO on more funding for Mexico to fight drugs. (Jun 2008)
    Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
    Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
    Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@34):

    Ron Paul has no moral compass.

    It’s funny that you would complain about that while apparently feeling no compunction whatsoever in (a) lying about the man and (b) cravenly defaming him. Your moral compass isn’t looking so hot right now either, in this context.

    Clearly, you’re insanely jealous of Ron Paul, driven mad by envy.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@34):

    Ron Paul has no moral compass.

    It’s funny that you would complain about that while apparently feeling no compunction whatsoever in (a) lying about the man and (b) cravenly defaming him. Your moral compass isn’t looking so hot right now either, in this context.

    Clearly, you’re insanely jealous of Ron Paul, driven mad by envy.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Good for him. I agree with his policies and principles. Drug prohibition works no better than alcohol prohibition, and the resulting violence, corruption and destabilization both here and abroad proves this. The wholesale warehousing of over a million US citizens in prisons hasn’t even dented the drug trade.

    His other ‘no’ votes are principled opposition to the unconstitutional expansion of government and not endorsements of various vices, or votes against various causes like ‘Amber alerts.’

    These subtleties are often lost on those like yourself.

    As to his being an isolationist, good. Do we really need American military bases in 130+ countries? Can we afford it? (I found out today that China has a standing policy AGAINST establishing permanent military bases on foreign soil. ) All our military bases spread all over the world make us look like war mongers and empire builders.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Good for him. I agree with his policies and principles. Drug prohibition works no better than alcohol prohibition, and the resulting violence, corruption and destabilization both here and abroad proves this. The wholesale warehousing of over a million US citizens in prisons hasn’t even dented the drug trade.

    His other ‘no’ votes are principled opposition to the unconstitutional expansion of government and not endorsements of various vices, or votes against various causes like ‘Amber alerts.’

    These subtleties are often lost on those like yourself.

    As to his being an isolationist, good. Do we really need American military bases in 130+ countries? Can we afford it? (I found out today that China has a standing policy AGAINST establishing permanent military bases on foreign soil. ) All our military bases spread all over the world make us look like war mongers and empire builders.

  • Grace

    Regarding Ron Paul

    Any candidate that supports “Legalizing prostitution” has no moral compass.

  • Grace

    Regarding Ron Paul

    Any candidate that supports “Legalizing prostitution” has no moral compass.

  • John C

    On the other hand, his moral compass might just be highly polished and finely calibrated. It’s all relative, Grace.

  • John C

    On the other hand, his moral compass might just be highly polished and finely calibrated. It’s all relative, Grace.

  • Grace

    There is nothing “polished” about “legalizing prostitution” -

  • Grace

    There is nothing “polished” about “legalizing prostitution” -

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Grace, #34,

    YOU STATED,

    Ron Paul on the issues:

    Legalizing prostitution is about protecting liberty. (May 2011)
    Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
    Our drug war is driving our immigration policy. (Sep 2011)
    We don’t need laws to tell us to not use heroin. (May 2011)
    Drug War allows drug lords to make a lot more money. (Apr 2011)
    Someday we’ll wake up and end the Second Prohibition. (Apr 2011)
    Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs. (Sep 2007)
    Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
    Drug War fosters violence at home & breeds resentment abroad. (Oct 2001)
    Voted NO on more funding for Mexico to fight drugs. (Jun 2008)
    Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
    Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
    Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
    —————

    Grace, you know what is so funny? When I clink on this link,

    http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul.htm

    I happen to find the exact same wording as your post #34 on this thread! That is such an amazing coincidence, is it not?! I must be a coincidence, as I know YOU of all people would NEVER just “copy and paste something without doing your homework”, as you have asserted in the following reply over/against me on November 13, 2011 at 10:30 pm (post #36 in the thread “Perry’s last gaffe?”):

    “JunkerGeorg @ 35
    The POINT BEING you did not look up the information you provided from either an email, or a blog on the web. You just copy pasted it without doing your “homework”–I do give my sources, I give LINKS, references to news reports, public agencies, etc, and Scripture –”

    Grace, in all charity I’ll assume that was just an amazing coincidence, rather than an example of amazing hypocrisy on your part (you know, sort of like when Newt Gingrich was trying to impeach Clinton for the Lewinsky affair while he himself was having a 6 year long affair.)

    Have a nice day! :)

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Grace, #34,

    YOU STATED,

    Ron Paul on the issues:

    Legalizing prostitution is about protecting liberty. (May 2011)
    Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
    Our drug war is driving our immigration policy. (Sep 2011)
    We don’t need laws to tell us to not use heroin. (May 2011)
    Drug War allows drug lords to make a lot more money. (Apr 2011)
    Someday we’ll wake up and end the Second Prohibition. (Apr 2011)
    Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs. (Sep 2007)
    Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
    Drug War fosters violence at home & breeds resentment abroad. (Oct 2001)
    Voted NO on more funding for Mexico to fight drugs. (Jun 2008)
    Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
    Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
    Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
    —————

    Grace, you know what is so funny? When I clink on this link,

    http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul.htm

    I happen to find the exact same wording as your post #34 on this thread! That is such an amazing coincidence, is it not?! I must be a coincidence, as I know YOU of all people would NEVER just “copy and paste something without doing your homework”, as you have asserted in the following reply over/against me on November 13, 2011 at 10:30 pm (post #36 in the thread “Perry’s last gaffe?”):

    “JunkerGeorg @ 35
    The POINT BEING you did not look up the information you provided from either an email, or a blog on the web. You just copy pasted it without doing your “homework”–I do give my sources, I give LINKS, references to news reports, public agencies, etc, and Scripture –”

    Grace, in all charity I’ll assume that was just an amazing coincidence, rather than an example of amazing hypocrisy on your part (you know, sort of like when Newt Gingrich was trying to impeach Clinton for the Lewinsky affair while he himself was having a 6 year long affair.)

    Have a nice day! :)

  • JunkerGeorg

    Oh, and, just to show how lowly some of us are for copy/pasting (as distinct for “others” on very high horses who would never do such a thing), here’s a compliation I found on Newt. Research it for yourselves, so far I haven’t found anything inaccurate (but of course, you better check with those “others”):

    SCOOP ON NEWT

    I found these facts on Newt’s record helpful in assessing him:

    04/02/1987 – He cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine (anti First Amendment legislation).
    10/22/1991 – He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police Corps.
    11/19/1993 – He voted for the NAFTA Implementation Act.
    11/27/1994 – He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.
    08/27/1995 – He suggests that drug smuggling should carry a death sentence.
    01/06/1996 – He himself conceived a secret CIA mission to topple the Iranian leadership.

    04/25/1996 – Voted for the single largest increase on Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion).

    06/20/1995 – He wrote the foreword to a book about tearing down the U.S. Constitution in order to get around US sovereignty and implement a globalist one world government model.

    06/01/1996 – He helped a Democrat switch parties in a failed attempt to defeat constitutionalist Ron Paul in the 1996 congressional election in Dist.14 of Texas.

    09/25/1996 – Introduced H.R. 4170, demanded life-sentence or execution for someone bringing 2 ounces of marijuana across the border.

    01/22/1997 – Congress gave him a record-setting $300,000 fine for ethical wrongdoing.

    11/29/2006 – He called for a serious debate on the 1st Amendment, stating that the free speech of all citizens should be curtailed in order to fight terrorism (e.g., stopping terrorists from using the internet.), calling for a “Geneva Convention for terrorists” so it would be clear which American citizens the Constitution need not apply to, namely, those under suspicion of being terrorists (which, according to the “watchlist” of Dept of Homeland Security, includes many Americans, including Christian pro-lifers, NRA advocates, etc.)

    02/15/2007 – He supported Bush’s proposal for mandatory carbon caps.

    04/04/2007 – He says that there should be a clear distinction about what weapons should be reserved for only for the military, contrary to the 2nd Amendment which does not differentiate between arms.

    04/17/2008 – Made a commercial with Nancy Pelosi on Climate Change.

    09/28/2008 – Says if he were in office, he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout.

    10/01/2008 – Says in an article that TARP was a “workout, not a bailout.”

    12/08/2008 – He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.

    03/31/2009 – Says we should have Singapore-style drug tests for Americans.
    07/30/2010 – Says that Iraq was just step one in defeating the “Axis of Evil”.

    08/03/2010 – Advocates attacks on Iran & North Korea.

    08/16/2010 – Opposes property rights of the mosque owner in NYC.

    08/16/2010 – Compares mosque supporters to Nazis.

    11/15/2010 – He defended Romneycare; blamed liberals.

    12/02/2010 – He advocates a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.

    12/05/2010 – He said that a website owner should be considered an enemy combatant, hunted down and executed, for publishing leaked government memos.

    01/30/2011 – He lobbied for ethanol subsidies.

    01/30/2011 – He suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for Americans.

    02/10/2011 – He wants to replace the EPA instead of abolishing it.
    02/02/2011 – He says we are “losing the War on Terror”; the conflict will be as long as the Cold War.

    02/15/2011 – His book said that he believes man-made climate-change and advocated creating “a new endowment for conservation and the environment.”

    03/09/2011 – He blames his infidelity to multiple wives on his passion for the country.

    03/15/2011 – Says that NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico.

    03/19/2011 – He has no regrets about supporting Medicare drug coverage. (Now $7.2T unfunded liability).

    03/23/2011 – He completely flip-flopped on Libyan intervention in 16 days.

    03/25/2011 – He plans to sign as many as 200 executive orders on his first day as president.

    03/27/2011 – He says that America is under attack by atheist Islamists.

    04/25/2011 – He’s a paid lobbyist for Federal ethanol subsidies.

    05/11/2011 – His campaign video said that he wants to “find solutions together, and insist on imposing those solutions on those who do not want to change.”

    05/12/2011 – He was more supportive of individual health-care mandates than Mitt Romney.

    05/15/2011 – Said GOP’s plan to cut back Medicare was “too big a jump.”

    05/15/2011 – He backed Obama’s individual mandate; “All of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care.”

    05/16/2011 – He also endorsed individual mandates in 1993 when Clinton pushed Universal Health Care.

    05/17/2011 – He has an outstanding debt to Tiffany’s Jewelry of between $250K – $500K.

    06/09/2011 – His own campaign staff resigned en masse.

    07/15/2011 – His poorly managed campaign is over $1 Million in debt.

    08/01/2011 – He hired a company to create fake Twitter to appear as if he had a following.

    08/11/2011 – His recent criticism of the United Nations is United Nations by a long, long history of supporting it.

    09/27/2011 – He says that he “helped develop the model for Homeland Security”.

    10/07/2011 – He said he’d ignore the Supreme Court if need be.

  • JunkerGeorg

    Oh, and, just to show how lowly some of us are for copy/pasting (as distinct for “others” on very high horses who would never do such a thing), here’s a compliation I found on Newt. Research it for yourselves, so far I haven’t found anything inaccurate (but of course, you better check with those “others”):

    SCOOP ON NEWT

    I found these facts on Newt’s record helpful in assessing him:

    04/02/1987 – He cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine (anti First Amendment legislation).
    10/22/1991 – He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police Corps.
    11/19/1993 – He voted for the NAFTA Implementation Act.
    11/27/1994 – He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.
    08/27/1995 – He suggests that drug smuggling should carry a death sentence.
    01/06/1996 – He himself conceived a secret CIA mission to topple the Iranian leadership.

    04/25/1996 – Voted for the single largest increase on Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion).

    06/20/1995 – He wrote the foreword to a book about tearing down the U.S. Constitution in order to get around US sovereignty and implement a globalist one world government model.

    06/01/1996 – He helped a Democrat switch parties in a failed attempt to defeat constitutionalist Ron Paul in the 1996 congressional election in Dist.14 of Texas.

    09/25/1996 – Introduced H.R. 4170, demanded life-sentence or execution for someone bringing 2 ounces of marijuana across the border.

    01/22/1997 – Congress gave him a record-setting $300,000 fine for ethical wrongdoing.

    11/29/2006 – He called for a serious debate on the 1st Amendment, stating that the free speech of all citizens should be curtailed in order to fight terrorism (e.g., stopping terrorists from using the internet.), calling for a “Geneva Convention for terrorists” so it would be clear which American citizens the Constitution need not apply to, namely, those under suspicion of being terrorists (which, according to the “watchlist” of Dept of Homeland Security, includes many Americans, including Christian pro-lifers, NRA advocates, etc.)

    02/15/2007 – He supported Bush’s proposal for mandatory carbon caps.

    04/04/2007 – He says that there should be a clear distinction about what weapons should be reserved for only for the military, contrary to the 2nd Amendment which does not differentiate between arms.

    04/17/2008 – Made a commercial with Nancy Pelosi on Climate Change.

    09/28/2008 – Says if he were in office, he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout.

    10/01/2008 – Says in an article that TARP was a “workout, not a bailout.”

    12/08/2008 – He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.

    03/31/2009 – Says we should have Singapore-style drug tests for Americans.
    07/30/2010 – Says that Iraq was just step one in defeating the “Axis of Evil”.

    08/03/2010 – Advocates attacks on Iran & North Korea.

    08/16/2010 – Opposes property rights of the mosque owner in NYC.

    08/16/2010 – Compares mosque supporters to Nazis.

    11/15/2010 – He defended Romneycare; blamed liberals.

    12/02/2010 – He advocates a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.

    12/05/2010 – He said that a website owner should be considered an enemy combatant, hunted down and executed, for publishing leaked government memos.

    01/30/2011 – He lobbied for ethanol subsidies.

    01/30/2011 – He suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for Americans.

    02/10/2011 – He wants to replace the EPA instead of abolishing it.
    02/02/2011 – He says we are “losing the War on Terror”; the conflict will be as long as the Cold War.

    02/15/2011 – His book said that he believes man-made climate-change and advocated creating “a new endowment for conservation and the environment.”

    03/09/2011 – He blames his infidelity to multiple wives on his passion for the country.

    03/15/2011 – Says that NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico.

    03/19/2011 – He has no regrets about supporting Medicare drug coverage. (Now $7.2T unfunded liability).

    03/23/2011 – He completely flip-flopped on Libyan intervention in 16 days.

    03/25/2011 – He plans to sign as many as 200 executive orders on his first day as president.

    03/27/2011 – He says that America is under attack by atheist Islamists.

    04/25/2011 – He’s a paid lobbyist for Federal ethanol subsidies.

    05/11/2011 – His campaign video said that he wants to “find solutions together, and insist on imposing those solutions on those who do not want to change.”

    05/12/2011 – He was more supportive of individual health-care mandates than Mitt Romney.

    05/15/2011 – Said GOP’s plan to cut back Medicare was “too big a jump.”

    05/15/2011 – He backed Obama’s individual mandate; “All of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care.”

    05/16/2011 – He also endorsed individual mandates in 1993 when Clinton pushed Universal Health Care.

    05/17/2011 – He has an outstanding debt to Tiffany’s Jewelry of between $250K – $500K.

    06/09/2011 – His own campaign staff resigned en masse.

    07/15/2011 – His poorly managed campaign is over $1 Million in debt.

    08/01/2011 – He hired a company to create fake Twitter to appear as if he had a following.

    08/11/2011 – His recent criticism of the United Nations is United Nations by a long, long history of supporting it.

    09/27/2011 – He says that he “helped develop the model for Homeland Security”.

    10/07/2011 – He said he’d ignore the Supreme Court if need be.

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 40

    You’re right! That’s why it says, at the top of the list:

    Ron Paul on the issues:

    Your snarky attempt at a comparison, stateing:

    “Grace, in all charity I’ll assume that was just an amazing coincidence, rather than an example of amazing hypocrisy on your part (you know, sort of like <b.when Newt Gingrich was trying to impeach Clinton for the Lewinsky affair while he himself was having a 6 year long affair.)”

    You hit rock bottom with that one JunkerGeorg -

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 40

    You’re right! That’s why it says, at the top of the list:

    Ron Paul on the issues:

    Your snarky attempt at a comparison, stateing:

    “Grace, in all charity I’ll assume that was just an amazing coincidence, rather than an example of amazing hypocrisy on your part (you know, sort of like <b.when Newt Gingrich was trying to impeach Clinton for the Lewinsky affair while he himself was having a 6 year long affair.)”

    You hit rock bottom with that one JunkerGeorg -

  • Bob

    Since most evangelicals won’t vote for the Mittster because he’s a Mormon…

    All Newtie has to do is use phrases that make evangelicals salivate
    without thinking:

    “forgiveness”

    “I did wrong”

    “Now I’m a grandpa, 68 years old…”

    All Newtonia has to do is weave in “personal relationship to Christ” a few times, and he’s in with that crowd.

    (But the elephant in the corner: How many will notice that Newtie’s now a Roman Catholic??)

  • Bob

    Since most evangelicals won’t vote for the Mittster because he’s a Mormon…

    All Newtie has to do is use phrases that make evangelicals salivate
    without thinking:

    “forgiveness”

    “I did wrong”

    “Now I’m a grandpa, 68 years old…”

    All Newtonia has to do is weave in “personal relationship to Christ” a few times, and he’s in with that crowd.

    (But the elephant in the corner: How many will notice that Newtie’s now a Roman Catholic??)

  • Grace

    Bob @ 43

    Using cutsey names to rename candidates you don’t care for is juvenile.

    You do not know Newt’s heart, or repentance. Those who admit they are wrong and repent, are much different from those who never repent, never recant their sin. We have witnessed many as leaders within denominations who NEVER made confession of the sin in their lives that was obvious.

    2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

    5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
    Matthew 7

    Newt admitted his sin!

  • Grace

    Bob @ 43

    Using cutsey names to rename candidates you don’t care for is juvenile.

    You do not know Newt’s heart, or repentance. Those who admit they are wrong and repent, are much different from those who never repent, never recant their sin. We have witnessed many as leaders within denominations who NEVER made confession of the sin in their lives that was obvious.

    2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

    5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
    Matthew 7

    Newt admitted his sin!

  • Bob

    You just proved my point, Grace.

    You’ve swallowed the Newtie Kool-Aid.

  • Bob

    You just proved my point, Grace.

    You’ve swallowed the Newtie Kool-Aid.

  • Grace

    Bob @ 45

    “You’ve swallowed the Newtie Kool-Aid.”

    “Kool-Aid” – a phrase that only the Elephants in the room continue to sing. :lol:

  • Grace

    Bob @ 45

    “You’ve swallowed the Newtie Kool-Aid.”

    “Kool-Aid” – a phrase that only the Elephants in the room continue to sing. :lol:

  • Bob

    Newtie’s proposed fiscal plan would triple our country’s debt by the year 2024.

    “2012 GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich is outdoing his Republican rivals in promising enormous tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans. According to an independent analysis by the Tax Policy Center, Gingrich’s plan would violate basic notions of fairness by requiring middle-class families to pay higher tax rates than millionaires.”

    “But that’s not all that’s wrong with it. Gingrich’s plan is by far the most fiscally reckless plan to be released by a major 2012 contender. The magnitude of the tax cuts he is proposing to the wealthy and corporations would drive the debt to unprecedented and dangerous levels even if federal spending is cut drastically.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/

  • Bob

    Newtie’s proposed fiscal plan would triple our country’s debt by the year 2024.

    “2012 GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich is outdoing his Republican rivals in promising enormous tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans. According to an independent analysis by the Tax Policy Center, Gingrich’s plan would violate basic notions of fairness by requiring middle-class families to pay higher tax rates than millionaires.”

    “But that’s not all that’s wrong with it. Gingrich’s plan is by far the most fiscally reckless plan to be released by a major 2012 contender. The magnitude of the tax cuts he is proposing to the wealthy and corporations would drive the debt to unprecedented and dangerous levels even if federal spending is cut drastically.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/

  • JunkerGeorg

    Grace @ 42

    YOU STATE:

    JunkerGeorg @ 40

    You’re right! That’s why it says, at the top of the list:

    Ron Paul on the issues:

    You hit rock bottom with that one JunkerGeorg -
    ——————————–

    Ha ha. If “rock bottom” means “grounded in reality”, then yes, that would be me. Now, as for what planet you’re from Grace…Maybe in your world there is a clickable link on your post #34, but as for things in our world here, there is not. Since you have asserted you always do provide links and “never copy and paste” (while attempting to chide those like myself who do not always do so for reasons of time and that this is a blog, not the Washington Post), I felt it important to point it out.

    Looks like you’ve fallen from that high horse of yours Grace. But we all know you just make things up as you go along.

  • JunkerGeorg

    Grace @ 42

    YOU STATE:

    JunkerGeorg @ 40

    You’re right! That’s why it says, at the top of the list:

    Ron Paul on the issues:

    You hit rock bottom with that one JunkerGeorg -
    ——————————–

    Ha ha. If “rock bottom” means “grounded in reality”, then yes, that would be me. Now, as for what planet you’re from Grace…Maybe in your world there is a clickable link on your post #34, but as for things in our world here, there is not. Since you have asserted you always do provide links and “never copy and paste” (while attempting to chide those like myself who do not always do so for reasons of time and that this is a blog, not the Washington Post), I felt it important to point it out.

    Looks like you’ve fallen from that high horse of yours Grace. But we all know you just make things up as you go along.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@37):

    Any candidate that supports “Legalizing prostitution” has no moral compass.

    Of course, your continued insistence on slandering a man based on your inability — and unwillingness — to understand his positions tells us a great deal more about your “moral compass”, Grace, than his position does about his compass.

    Rather than listen to people explain Paul’s position, you’ve decided that you’re simply not going to listen at all, and instead, you’ll simply start slandering anyone who disagrees with you.

    In short, you’re scared of actual debate.

    But let’s try this, um, insight of yours on in other areas:
    Anyone that supports legalizing idolatry has no moral compass.
    Anyone that supports legalizing coveting has no moral compass.
    Anyone that supports legalizing anything less than a perfect love for one’s neighbor has no moral compass.

    so, if I understand your supremely nuanced logic here, Grace, the only people with “moral compasses” are those who favor criminalizing everything that God calls sin. Even though God himself didn’t do that when he laid out the laws for the nation of Israel — I mean, he allowed for divorce, among other things. So, I guess, by your logic, God also lacks a moral compass, along with Ron Paul and the rest of us. Oh, and you.

    So that’s clever reasoning you’ve got going there.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@37):

    Any candidate that supports “Legalizing prostitution” has no moral compass.

    Of course, your continued insistence on slandering a man based on your inability — and unwillingness — to understand his positions tells us a great deal more about your “moral compass”, Grace, than his position does about his compass.

    Rather than listen to people explain Paul’s position, you’ve decided that you’re simply not going to listen at all, and instead, you’ll simply start slandering anyone who disagrees with you.

    In short, you’re scared of actual debate.

    But let’s try this, um, insight of yours on in other areas:
    Anyone that supports legalizing idolatry has no moral compass.
    Anyone that supports legalizing coveting has no moral compass.
    Anyone that supports legalizing anything less than a perfect love for one’s neighbor has no moral compass.

    so, if I understand your supremely nuanced logic here, Grace, the only people with “moral compasses” are those who favor criminalizing everything that God calls sin. Even though God himself didn’t do that when he laid out the laws for the nation of Israel — I mean, he allowed for divorce, among other things. So, I guess, by your logic, God also lacks a moral compass, along with Ron Paul and the rest of us. Oh, and you.

    So that’s clever reasoning you’ve got going there.

  • FoC’er

    Newt is a chameleon, both political and moral. Thrice married. Handed his second wife a writ of divorce while she was hospitalized with cancer. Untrustworthy.

  • FoC’er

    Newt is a chameleon, both political and moral. Thrice married. Handed his second wife a writ of divorce while she was hospitalized with cancer. Untrustworthy.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FoC’er (@50), your account of Newt’s life is also “untrustworthy”. We already discussed that on this blog.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FoC’er (@50), your account of Newt’s life is also “untrustworthy”. We already discussed that on this blog.

  • FoC’er

    Did I say she was on her “deathbed”? No. I said ( article did also) she was “hospitalized” at the time Newt “visited” and had a “divorce discussion.” Such timing. Wow. Fact is, if a man shows repeatedly he can’t maintain a vow of fidelity to his wife (wives), what reason is there to surmise he’ll do any better with the oaths he swears to the state? tODD, you seem like you might be reasonably intelligent, so for God sakes, wake up and smell the coffee! Newt is a untrustworthy. BTW, did he ever pay Tiffanys? C’mon man.

  • FoC’er

    Did I say she was on her “deathbed”? No. I said ( article did also) she was “hospitalized” at the time Newt “visited” and had a “divorce discussion.” Such timing. Wow. Fact is, if a man shows repeatedly he can’t maintain a vow of fidelity to his wife (wives), what reason is there to surmise he’ll do any better with the oaths he swears to the state? tODD, you seem like you might be reasonably intelligent, so for God sakes, wake up and smell the coffee! Newt is a untrustworthy. BTW, did he ever pay Tiffanys? C’mon man.

  • Bob

    I’m listening to an conservative Christian minister from Iowa, on a radio show. He says Newtie is completely untrustworthy. He points out that there’s a world of difference between forgiveness and trustworthiness.

    200 Assemblies of God Iowa ministers, he says, are encouraging their flocks to not vote for the Newtster.

    Indeed. Forgiveness and trustworthiness are two completely different things.

    When it comes to trustworthiness, Newt’s not (trust)worthy.

  • Bob

    I’m listening to an conservative Christian minister from Iowa, on a radio show. He says Newtie is completely untrustworthy. He points out that there’s a world of difference between forgiveness and trustworthiness.

    200 Assemblies of God Iowa ministers, he says, are encouraging their flocks to not vote for the Newtster.

    Indeed. Forgiveness and trustworthiness are two completely different things.

    When it comes to trustworthiness, Newt’s not (trust)worthy.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FoC’er (@52), um … what?

    Did I say she was on her “deathbed”? No.

    Who said you said that? Against whom are you defending yourself?

    I said ( article did also) she was “hospitalized” at the time Newt “visited” and had a “divorce discussion.”

    Um, I can all read what you wrote (@50) — without even scrolling up! — and trust me, you did not use the phrase “divorce discussion”, so I don’t know why you’re now pretending you did. You said Gingrich, and I quote,

    Handed his second wife a writ of divorce

    Again, read the whole article at the link I provided. Your story is, at best, distorted from the actual facts, with the end result being that it makes Gingrich out to be worse than the story merits.

    Yes, the man is twice divorced. Factor that into your opinions, if you want. But did he “hand his second wife a writ of divorce while she was hospitalized” — very much implying some sort of callousness and surprise, and not the longstanding mutual acrimony that appears to be the case? No.

    Please don’t let your feelings about the man attempt to change your approach towards facts and honesty.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FoC’er (@52), um … what?

    Did I say she was on her “deathbed”? No.

    Who said you said that? Against whom are you defending yourself?

    I said ( article did also) she was “hospitalized” at the time Newt “visited” and had a “divorce discussion.”

    Um, I can all read what you wrote (@50) — without even scrolling up! — and trust me, you did not use the phrase “divorce discussion”, so I don’t know why you’re now pretending you did. You said Gingrich, and I quote,

    Handed his second wife a writ of divorce

    Again, read the whole article at the link I provided. Your story is, at best, distorted from the actual facts, with the end result being that it makes Gingrich out to be worse than the story merits.

    Yes, the man is twice divorced. Factor that into your opinions, if you want. But did he “hand his second wife a writ of divorce while she was hospitalized” — very much implying some sort of callousness and surprise, and not the longstanding mutual acrimony that appears to be the case? No.

    Please don’t let your feelings about the man attempt to change your approach towards facts and honesty.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X