The South Carolina Debate

Okay, this morning, I wrote:

Rick Perry is out.

Ron Paul is still in the game, and may yet run as a third-party candidate. But he won’t be the GOP nominee.

It is down to Obama vs. Romney, or Obama vs. Gingrich, or Obama vs. Santorum.

So, the White House has to be feeling pretty good about things, just now. Not that Perry ever had the president’s re-election campaign at all quaking, but they must be thinking, with the field narrowed, “we can easily beat any of these guys.”

Now, having watched the South Carolina debate
— which was a pretty good debate; it helps having fewer people on the stage — I find I am still not loving any of these guys, but I respect them a bit more. And while the press will still do all it can for Obama (so maybe he should treat them better, but really, why would he?) I think perhaps it won’t be the cakewalk I was thinking, for the president.

I still don’t think Ron Paul can be the nominee. I respect him and I actually like the fact that he thinks in surprising ways — his ability to do so suggests he might actually be able to work with both sides of congress — but on foreign policy, alone, there is no way the GOP will have him.

Santorum is a good man, but his manner still bugs me.
It’s easy to see when he’s been pricked; he sometimes seems like he’s talking from between his teeth and — worst of all — there was a moment tonight, fairly early in the debate, when he reminded me of Al Gore at his most unlikable, during the 2000 debates, when he sighed and shook his head through a debate. And he loses me on illegal immigration.

Romney and Newt: so much baggage. But I came away from tonight’s debate actually liking Romney more than I ever have — I really appreciated his clear but temperate anger when he was defending his pro-life record; I liked that he could be angry without getting snippy. And Newt, well…he’s certainly larger-than-life. I actually liked his response to the illegal immigration question. I still think someone needs to talk to me about creating an Ellis Island West and the complete overhauling and reform of the NIS, which is utterly broken. Lizzie has ideas! :-)

I don’t know who I would vote for were I a Republican voting in a primary. But it was a good, substantial debate. The group is stronger for being smaller.

Still, as my husband said, all these debates certainly are giving the Obama team lots of talking points and tape for their commercials. Do they end soon?

By the way, I missed this exchange
with King and Gingrich. What did you think of the question, and the answer? Is the press overplaying the hand?

YouTube Preview Image

Related: a take on the SOPA question, and a story from Drudge

Hey, an Insty link!
Thanks, Glenn!

More reactions as I read ‘em:
Ira Stoll

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » IRA STOLL ON TONIGHT’S DEBATE. More thoughts from The Anchoress. “I find I am still not loving a…

  • Reg

    When you watch Romney’s earlier videos, in which he states with perfect sincerity that he’s 100% pro-choice, and compare to how he now says he’s pro-life, it’s obvious the guy has no principle and doesn’t stand for anything except climbing the next rung.

  • Earl E. Teetyme

    “all these debates certainly are giving the Obama team lots of talking points and tape for their commercials”

    And the last three years of the Obama presidency have given Republicans lots of talking points and tapes for their commercials, and I have a feeling that these will be far more devastating than clips from the debates.

  • Bookdoc

    I heard Sarah make a good point on Hannity on my way home tonight. She felt the process should go on as the attacks obozo and his lsm minions will come up with will be more vicious (and more despicable-thanks Newt) than anything their fellow Republicans can do. We need someone who can take that sort of beating and come out stronger and, if there is anything really bad in someone’s background, let it come out now rather than as an October surprise. Whoever is the nominee will get the Palin treatment only worse and they’d better be ready to deal with it.

  • Oregon Catholic

    The clip of Gingrich has me reeling. On one hand he has a point about how despicable it was to open the debate with that question and I loved that he gave both barrels to CNN. It’s time the media got some blowback. On the other, I’m amazed at how self-righteous he is after acting the sleaze. He gives a good show ing to ‘the best defense is a good offense’.

    But he doesn’t fool me and I still won’t vote for such a dishonest character. I don’t believe for a minute that he has changed. I get no sense of any healthy shame. I think if he had any he wouldn’t allow his daughters to be defending his behavior, nor be on the campaign trail being a part of such a spectacle, nor would he put his wife through it if he had any respect for her. It’s all too unseemly.

  • Pat Dooley

    Newt went after the MSM and cowed them. Conservatives like candidates who fight. Newt is fighting. I’m horrified to think the best we can do is Newt or Romney, but if that is the choice, it’s Newt. He shows a fighting spirit even after he has been written off by the punditry.

    Romney seems like Obama-lite. Unlike Newt, he won’t admit a mistake. If Romney said, “After my experience in Massachusetts, I now realize that the problem with Healthcare is not enough regulation, but too much. I was a Republican Governor of one of the most liberal states in America and I compromised with a Democrat House and Senate to pass a bill that insured everyone. That was a mistake.” But he can’t/won’t say anything like that.

  • Pat Dooley

    @Oregon Catholic: He converted to your faith. He confesses his sins and begs forgiveness. What more could a Christian ask?

  • alison

    he may have converted. he may have repented. that’s between him and G-d.

    i too am a sinner, and i know most of my character flaws are things that manifest as the same sin over and over. having repented doesn’t make me immediately able to sin no more. hubris, vanity, and pride don’t seem sins gingrich has stopped committing. that doesn’t make him a worse sinner than me, or a better one. but it does make him ill suited for the presidency. not every christian finds themselves most taken in by their appetites. his are particularly ill suited to prudence.

  • Richard Cook

    Oregon Catholic:

    You ARE aware that his second wife was the other woman from his first marriage. As a practicing Christian I am not going to judge a politicians fitness to run for office on his personal peccadilloes since “all have sinned and fallen short”. I do not get this need for the pure character since that does not exist. I am looking at their record and their ability to adhere to conservative values on important issues, especially 2nd amendment issues. I do not like Newts tendency to flame out at some point. Ron Paul’s foreign policy is straight outta 1796 even though I love his stance on most econ issues. I think Romney we can work with. Why do people need to be excited about a candidate? I need a candidate who lives up to certain values and will not go off the rails so to speak.

  • Deacon Greg Kandra

    I thought King posed the question that had to be posed, and did it in a straight-forward, matter-of-fact manner. (He just laid out the facts of the story everyone was talking about, and asked for a response, which was a professional and intelligent way to handle it.) Everybody in the room, including Newt, knew that the subject had to come up; it was just a question of when and how. Props to John King for jumping on it at the beginning and getting it out of the way.

    But Newt used it as a club to beat the media, and reacted in a manner that was calculated to win over the crowd — blaming King for even bringing it up. A little humility and candor and contrition would have gone a long way toward giving him credibility and integrity at that moment, but then, that wouldn’t have gotten a standing ovation and created an iconic YouTube moment. And pundits are saying that response may well have won him the primary. Go figure.

    And I agree about Santorum. There’s something about his affect that comes across as testy and joyless. Every grin seems forced. This is not a Happy Warrior. My wife sat through the first several minutes of the debate — she’d only caught bits and pieces of the others — and was underwhelmed. “I really don’t like him,” she said after one Santorum soliloquy. It’s a gut reaction, but I don’t think hers is unique.

  • Dan

    I think Santorum hit the real weakness of Newt. He is an idea person and need to discipline his very facile intelligence. I think his conversion to the Catholic faith is genuine – but one doesn’t become saintly quickly. But people with great ambition are sometimes to great things AND do great errors.

  • Peggy R

    Whatever unethical motives of ABC and Marianne Gingrich and their timing, Gingrich is utterly lacking in shame for his own actions. He’s appalled that a presidential debate is opened with such a question? He doesn’t think he needs to answer Qs about his serial infidelities? If he hadn’t been such a cad, there would be no need for such a Q. I can’t believe the daughters are trotted out to defend him. Does he really think his “good name” is harmed by this story? Certainly, the timing is an issue. I agree that the media would not cover a Dem like this, but that doesn’t excuse Gingrich’s own conduct which is at issue. Incredible crowd cheers!

    Santorum is hard to like. He gets so exasperated when people don’t see things his way. He is impatient with the ignorance of the rest of us. He ought to try to be a governor for a while. But, he is indeed a more honorable and legitimate conservative than Gingrich.

  • Gayle Miller

    As far as I’m concerned, Newt was perfectly correct in firing back! And he did it in a comprehensive manner. The new cuddly version of Newt was getting on my nerves. It’s about time he did what he did!

    And I AM voting for him – I’d be happy if he’d take Herman Cain (perceived baggage and all) as his running mate or someone equally sharp (Col Allen West comes to mind) so that the vice presidential debates won’t be a snoozefest. The thought of Gov. Christie being Romney’s running mate as has been rumoured was delicious. Christie v. Biden! OMG that would be worth watching and might even do a great deal to fully illuminate the essential fecklessness of the current administration! Meanwhile, Newt could slap the teleprompter prince around at will and, hoping that he has the good sense to do it respectfully, it would go a long way to defeating the current occupant of the White House and all his Czars!

  • Thomas R

    “He converted to your faith. He confesses his sins and begs forgiveness. What more could a Christian ask?”

    I’ve been annoyed by people going on about this too much too, but to be honest I think they do have a bit of a point that at times he doesn’t come off all that contrite. I think McCain was a bit more willing to bemoan how he treated his first wife, etc. And Catholics do believe in penance and also recognition/humility of your own flaws. Gingrich’s “grandiosity” can occasionally sound prideful or worrisome.

    Now I like him more than the other candidates left. Also this idea that being President would be “bad for his soul”, lead him to a place where he’ll face old temptations again, I think makes less sense when I think on it. I mean in a way it’s true, but I’d think it’d be true for everyone that political power increases temptations. But in another way if what tempts him to sin is lust and pride I’m really skeptical that he wouldn’t get those in full-force just being a writer. Heck some guys get into writing so they can get woman. Still he does have some failings.

    As for Romney he had moments where I liked him more than I thought I could. Even in one of his “slams” as his statement about Gingrich being minor in the Reagan years had a ring of truth to me and looking it up seems accurate. But I also thought he had moments where he still seemed awkward and more worrisome that he seemed almost confused people would dare criticize him.

  • Kathy Schiffer

    You know, there are so many conservatives who still like Ron Paul, despite his inexplicable foreign policy positions. Myself, I am amused by him– While their positions on issues may differ widely, he reminds me of Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown. He’s an oddster, for sure!

    I’m sorry that Santorum doesn’t resonate with you. Of the group, he is the honest, character-driven candidate; and I’d sure be proud to live in a republic under his leadership. I’ve gotten to know him particularly on the pro-life issues; but on the economy, on domestic energy, the family, immigration policy, and so many other points, I’d trust a statesman who seeks to do what is right and just over a career politician any day. I think Santorum is that guy.

  • Amy

    Newt released 2010 tax statement. The rest of them could release 2010, not 2011. Newt’s wife appears “plastic,” so artificial, so made up. It may sound unnverving to some, but both my husband and I look at her as political baggage. I like Ron Paul. I will vote for him knowing he probably won’t win SC, but I like his message and he may run as a third party candidate. We don’t have many choices, and I am sick of the two party system. Remember, the Republicans had the White House, the Sentate and the House during Bush’s 5-6 years. They were not fiscally responsible, did nothing about downsizing government….checks and balances didn’t work!

  • kevin

    I would have more respect for John King doing this to Gingrich if he comes out in September asks Obama who his drug dealer was (the one who sold him his coke), or how he came to be a Marxist in college, or why he hung out with a terrorist like Bill Ayers. But, we know our beloved state-run media would never offend his majesty that way.

  • kevin

    Sometimes I think we’ve fallen into the trap of thinking we’re entitled to have the perfect candidate who pleases us in every way. Like Jesus I suppose. But it just isn’t going to happen.

  • Greta

    There were as many cheering at home when Newt hit on the media carrying Obama to victory and covering up for his horrible record as there were in the hall. This should be a major part of how the republican candidate deals with winning the white house. McRino in the last election was so focused on wanting to be loved by the media that he ran a horrible campaign spending more time chastising anyone who went after Obama, while sitting by and watching the media and his own staff bash his running mate. Note that when Palin was put on as McRino’s running mate, his campaign took off and her crowds were twice as big and energized as his own. The media is correctly and deservedly dispised as a PR arm of the Democratic Party and needs to be treated with contempt shown by Newt. On this blog, Anchoress has shown multiple times that the media has given Obama and his administration a complete pass on its performance just as they ignored everything in Obama’s background during the campaign.
    The question on Newt marriage has been asked and answered, yet they continue to try to make this an issue in the campaign. Everyone knows the story and can decide if it matters to them in how he would govern. Last time we had a candidte who in my view did far worse was Clinton and the majority of Americans view his handling of the economy as great. Clinton did his deed in the oval office and stood there and denied it with his famous “I did not” speech and sent his wife out to defend him with her vast right wing conspiracy until the blue dress appeared. We all know how the media handled that one coming on strong to defend Clinton and say this did not matter. Clinton under oath lied to officials for which he lost his license as a lawyer after he left office. For those who seem to want to see Newt in sack cloth and ashes, he did make a change in his life and I would assume has reconciled his sin with God in his conversion. What has Clinton done but continue to defend himself as being crucified by the right and continues to show arrogance.

    Newt hit a major home run last night and look for his stock to rise as it is time the Republicans had a candidate willing to take on the PR arm of the Democratic Party. And I hope if nominated, Newt takes on a VP who is equally ready to take on the lying media they will face. Palin would be my choice. She is experienced now, rested, and ready.

  • Karen Townsend

    I have not made up my mind on to whom I’ll give support in our primary. It isn’t until April, now, thanks to DOJ denying our new re-districting map, so my vote will probably not matter much at that point. I, too, can’t get behind Santorum. I find him to act as a petulant child at times on stage. I think he is mean-spirited. I can’t help it. I saw him in person in Myrtle Beach speak at a forum and still felt nothing but icky about him.

    Who knew it’d be between Mitt and Newt? Strange election year, indeed.

  • LisaB

    It’s curious that to some Gingrich isn’t showing the appropriate level of groveling in regards to his ex-wife. Any person who has experienced divorce in any aspect (as a child, sibling, spouse, etc.) knows that divorces are ugly, messy and extremely hurtful. Also, Marianne Gingrich is guilty of sleeping with another woman’s husband (Gingrich) – she needs to do some groveling herself – she’s no victim.

  • Greta

    Amy, Paul cannot win because of his idiotic naive foreign policy. If he chooses to run as third party, he well knows in doing so he is electing Obama. He also knows he is dooming his own son to a future that is very limited if this happens. Many have dreams of a third party in this country. If it happens, if it comes from the conservative side, it simply insures that their exact opposite will win every election by splitting the conservative vote. If it comes from the left as with the green party, it gives conservatives an edge. When people come to face reality, they have to decide if they want socialist big government solutions to everything and ever increasing massive debt with ever less jobs, or demand that conservatives when elected govern from that viewpoint. It can be done if the people stay focused. Example was when W. Bush put up Myers for the court and the people got involved and forced him to replace her with a real known conservative.

    There is a major war going on now with two clear sides. One is a socialist concept which has failed everywhere it has been tried and the other is the conservative traditional side which favors a country that was amazingly successful from our founding. Since 1965 and LBJ, we have had the socialist failed programs inserted into our government and when they have full power, they have wasted no time in advancing their tenacles into the heart of America. It is going to take a conservative who knows where these tenacles reach and how to use the government to extract them. Newt is the only candidate who knows how these tenacles work, where they are, and how to extract them. Romney will not have a clue and frankly I suspect will be amazingly unwilling to try to do so if elected. Paul will be so focused on turning America isolationist which might have been fine 100 years ago, and find he is fighting both parties, that he will not be effective. he will also be three years older than Reagan at the start of his second term and who knows what that could mean to a president just starting out. Santorum was rejected in his own state and has a habit of going along with legislation. His attack on Newt history was filled with error. Note that there are video’s of Santorum saying everything he learned he owed to the leadership of Newt. Look for them to start to come out.
    Bottom line is that Obama in a second term will inflict more harm to this country that will leave tenacles we may never be able to extract and that doom us to a third rate country which I frankly believe is his goal. He hates America because he has grown up hearing that he, because of his skin color, has been trashed by America and now is his time to get payback. Not racist, but fact.

  • Peggy R

    Do we really want to replace a leftist “brainy” egomaniac with a right of center brainy egomaniac?

    (I’m not convinced Newt is conservative. He may still want big govt approaches to problems. And he is impulsive and undisciplined more than anything else. Yes, I don’t think O is really brainy, but Newt is indeed.)

    At this point, I’ll take Candidate Mr. Plastic over Candidate Mr. Ego with his Mistress #2 qua Wife #3, aka Mrs. Plastic, any day in our WH.

  • kevin

    Agree with Greta. Newt is the best equipped intellectually to take Obama on and attempt to restore the country to its pre-socialist ways. The domestic background concerns me, yes, but Obama’s background concerns me 10x more. And Newt did have a powerful Reagan-esque moment last night which helps.

    When I hear Chris Rock say that Obama needs a second term so he can do “some gangsta s—,” I think that’s exactly what will happen. Mr. “I’ll Act on My Own” will do more and more of that and his contempt for that “charter of negative liberties” will be even more transparent.

  • Elaine

    I too perked up with Romney and while he did some liberal Romneycare I want to believe that he will try and repeal Obamacare likes he says he will. He was feistier about his wealth and capitalism and that is good. He obviously knows about economic issues which is the major concern for this country. Romney does have a manner that is mild and easy going but I do see a fighter in him at times. There is just something so nice about him that I can not explain – just a feeling. With Newt I admire him but Newt gives me pause as he tends to get wound up and has to backtrack like with the Bain capital stuff. He did get a lot done with the congress back in the old days and that is my attraction to him. Maybe it will take a zany personality to get back on track. I am just so torn with these two but time will tell.

  • Richard Johnson

    I think what turns the stomach of many people regarding Newt’s attitude is the fact that while he was engaging in adultery he was, as Speaker of the House, leading the charge against a sitting President for doing exactly the same thing.

    Hypocrisy? Yes, but given his attitude last night it is coupled with a serious case of jackassery.

  • kevin

    No Richard, President Clinton was charged with lying under oath in a judicial proceeding, not adultery. And he was impeached for that offense.

    Nor was Newt leading a charge to get him for adultery. Please get the facts straight.

  • jill e

    I’m not particularly thrilled by any of the Republicans but liked a couple of Facebook/blog comments noted at Instapundit:

    “I don’t care if Gingrich was a swinger at this point. If he gets the nod, he gets my vote, because at least he was screwing a woman and NOT AMERICA.”

    “People seem to be thinking that Romney’s tax returns can be demagogued because adhering to our current tax law will make anyone look shifty and incoherent because the law is so complex and incoherent.”

  • Jasper

    I really don’t like Santorem because he acts like he’s mad. I’d rather have the soft spoken, don’t rock the boat type who plays nice with the media. I’m with Elizabeth, I’m still hoping for Hillary to run 3rd party.

    [That's a pretty despicable, dishonest and nasty complete misrepresentation of me and my opinions, Jasper. I thought you weren't going to be that way, anymore? -admin]

  • Will

    “I thought King posed the question that had to be posed, and did it in a straight-forward, matter-of-fact manner.”

    I agree with Deacon Greg Kandra about the question to Mr. Gingrich at the beginning of the debate.

  • Richard Johnson

    Kevin, I believe it is you who needs to get his facts straight.

    “The GOP’s multimillion dollar ad campaign invoking President Clinton’s relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky was devised by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and tested before more than three dozen groups of likely voters before Republicans unleashed the assault, party sources said yesterday.

    In reviving the presidential sex scandal just one week before Election Day, Gingrich and his chief strategists aimed to energize their most loyal supporters, whose enthusiasm appeared to be waning after House conservatives lost the budget fight and the Clinton scandal fell off the front pages.”

    As someone who worships the Republicans I can see how you might wish to wiggle out of this, but thankfully we have history as a witness against you. Again, it was Gingrich leading the GOP charge against Clinton’s re-election by bringing up the Lewinsky affair, and doing so a week before the election.

    Of course, since it was being done against a Democrat, no doubt that absolves all sin by Gingrich.

  • Richard Johnson

    Actually, Occum’s Razor, it goes deeper than that. Newt was Speaker of the House during the time of the Republican Revolution, when they controlled both houses of Congress for the first time in a generation. They brought forward numerous bills to cut taxes and spend money. But did they bring forth the Human Life Amendment that was so contentiously fought for at numerous GOP conventions?

    No. Specifically Rep. Henry Hyde and Speaker Gingrich chose *not* to move the amendment, in spite of the fact they controlled both houses of Congress. Rep. Hyde chose not to move it out of sub-committee when he was chair of the House Judiciary Committee, at the request of the Speaker, so that attention could be focused on the fiscal agenda of the Contract With America.

    Obama voted against saving the life of children who survived abortion. Gingrich chose to advance money over the Human Life Amendment.

    Peas in the same pod?

  • doc

    Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and convincing others to lie under oath. Cheating on your spouse is not an impeachable offense and by that time, Hillary was used to it. Of course, Hillary obstructed justice during the investigations of her activities. Hmmm, so do Obama and Holder. It’s almost as if the Democrats know they can get away with it because the corporate media are Pravda to their Politburo.

  • doc

    No, Richard. The Democrats are the Party of Abortion. They own it and protect it. The Republicans have been pushed by pro-lifers to be the Party in opposition to abortion. This is a clear and distinct line that will not be blurred.

  • Liz

    I haven’t made up my mind yet, but seeing Newt take on one arrogant journalist after another has been fabulous. I’m having flashbacks of Rumsfeld’s wonderful press conferences.
    While Newt’s behavior as a husband will naturally impact people’s decision (and I think it should), he has a right to fight back against the prominence given this story (the 1st question in the debate), the unseemliness of pursuing a bitter ex-wife’s salacious personal stories from the divorce with such vigor, and the fact that the MSM again and again refuses to apply this interest in moral character to Democrats – Obama, Edwards, Clinton, etc. I’m really hoping that he emboldens the other candidates to do the same – to reject the premise of loaded questions, and to (more gently) call out bias when being held to a higher standard than Obama.

  • Pingback: Can a Standing O Shake a Worldview? « The Anchoress

  • kevin

    Well Richard if you want to avoid acknowledging what the actual articles of impeachment were, fine, let’s get into a comparison of the conduct.

    Newt allegedly cheating on his second wife, maybe first. If true, bad, yes. Clinton cheating on this first wife – - in the Oval Office, with an intern, with a cigar, while on the phone discussing U.S. troop commitments.

    Incomparably worse, sorry.

  • Sue from Buffalo

    I’m voting for Newt. The man has a spine. I really disagree that the Marianne Gingrich interview needed to be brought up especially right at the beginning which sets the tone. Do I think that Newt is still cheating/being dishonorable in his marriage? No. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that. Do I believe him concerning his conversion? Yes. There has been nothing to indicate otherwise and if there is…it will all come out soon.

    And…he has shown us that we finally have someone who can put the media in their place. YES!!

    Richard, exactly WHO is “worshipping Republicans?” Stretching.

    In my opinion (for what it’s worth), it is long overdue for this Republican Party to have someone who can think fast on their feet and fight back. THAT is why you are hearing the cheering. He is saying what a lot of us have been yelling back at our tvs.
    Baggage? Yep. I think he can handle it. And, in my opinion, what some people might see as arrogance, vanity, no repentance… I’m seeing as confidence and a vision. Leadership. Strong leadership. I’m really not seeing it as arrogance or vanity or lack of repentance. He doesn’t appear to be interested in apologizing to us for what was between himself, Marianne and God. Happened ten years ago, he’s turned himself around in that respect and he’s moving forward.

    In my opinion, he’s our best chance at beating Barack Obama.

  • Jen

    To Elizabeth and Deacon Greg, I understand the gut reaction you’re talking about regarding Santorum. I just wish I could persuade you to set that aside for a while. It’s his core that matters, and there’s no one else on that stage who has a more solid core that him. He is the ONLY one right now who is connecting the dots between the brokenness of the family and the brokenness of the economy and the country. He’s the only one who is drawing the connecting line between poverty and broken families. He’s the only one brave enough to say that if we don’t protect and build up the family, we will never save the nation. He’s the only voice out there saying what’s not “politically-correct” and doing it without apology. He has more courage than 10 men. To do what he’s done during this campaign, when his very NAME has been turned into a disgusting, filthy smear attack against him, shows that he cares about the future of this country and he cares about doing the right thing, even at great personal cost.

    I, too, wish he would let loose with the charisma that I have seen him display in smaller settings. Perhaps with time he will; perhaps when he doesn’t’ have to fight tooth and nail with the media just to get them to acknowledge that he’s in the room. Until Iowa, no one would give him the time of day. But he won without millions of dollars to spend, and without any help at all from the press. He won through old-fashioned hard work and persistence. Those are qualities we sorely need in the White House.

    He’s not perfect, but his imperfections are small in comparison to the others, and what he has to offer is huge.

  • Richard Johnson

    “Tell me Richard, between the two peas: Newt and Obama- which one is currently in favor of protecting both the unborn AND the born-alive infants?”

    President Obama? Definitely not…no question about it.
    Candidate Gingrich? Unknown, since when he had the chance to advance the Human Life Amendment he balked.

    Actions speak louder than words, Razor. You sound very much like folks did in 1996 when Alan Keyes raised this same issue during his campaign. Newt’s actions, or rather inaction, speak very loudly.

    He lied to two of his wives. He failed to act for the unborn when he had the chance to do so. Yet for some reason he is trustworthy now?

  • Richard Johnson

    “So I reiterate: Marital Infidelity versus the cold blooded murder of “Born-Alive Infants”- no comparison Richard. No comparison at all.”

    And in 2016, when President Newt Gingrich comes promising to you that this time, unlike all the other times he had the chance, THIS TIME he promises that if you vote for him he will do whatever is within his power to pass the Human Life Amendment…

    …will you still believe him?

  • Richard Johnson

    Lest we forget, Occam, it was Newt Gingrich who, along with Bob Dole, called for “moderation” in the GOP platform debates leading up to the 1996 GOP convention. He and Dole called for a “declaration of tolerance” within the GOP platform regarding those who held pro-abortion positions in the party.,2101132

  • richard40

    I am not worried about the debates giving Obama ny lines of attack, since I suspect Obama has found them all anyway. In fact i think the attacks help the candidates, since they give then useful experience at handling the even worse attacks that will come from Obama. For example, I would rather than Romney has to deal with Bain now, that having Obama hit him with it in October. Now it will be mostly old news by October. Same with Newt and his problems with the ex wife. Any campaign vulnerability is best exposed as early as possible.

    I am leaning toward Romney, since I beleive the main problem for this election is taming overgrown gov spending, and I think a downsizing expert like Romney is best equiped to do that.

  • Mark

    Richard Johnson is lost. He almost sounds like he works for the Obama legions. Note how he changes colors and arguments as each one is confronted and shows as being wrong to its core.

    Richard, do you support someone who fought to keep murder lined up for the babies that survive the first murder attempt? Obama did and I am sure he still would today. Newt has almost a 99% voting record from those who measure pro life votes and this is over a 20 year period. Yes, I trust him on life as our president.

    Richard, you didn’t answer on the simple fact adultery is not an impeachabel offense. Clinton lied to the American people with his face in the camera spouting “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinski.” He either encouraged or allowed his wife to go out on national TV and spout that it was all a lie and that it was part of a right wing conspiracy. Of course we don’t know if Hillary actually believed this serial sex offender/rapist or not. If so, she shows an amazing bad judgement. If not, she is just as big a liar as her husband. It was no one but Clinton himself that chose to lie under oath and the media and even the womens rights groups carried his water for him in the lie. When caught by the blue dress showing up, these same groups were forced to turn their backs on years of efforts to make sexual harrasment no longer acceptable so they could continue to defend this sexual harrasser of the first order. If he had cheated, and come out and admitted it, there would not have been impeachment.

    Newt must really scare the hell out of Richard that his teleprompter boy might not be able to handle someone who is going to come after him and his media partners with both guns blazing. Richard then comes out to say Newt and Bob Dole preached for the Republicans to use moderation in the 96 campaign. That might be why he know nows that when dealing with lying democrats and their media partners, there can be no moderation.

    If we want Obama to win, we can join the media who is trying to push Romney for nomination. I have little use for Romney who says he wants us to vote him the nomination and then he will show his tax returns. No, you want the nomination, we want to see everything now. What an idiotic argument that you will only show it later when it could give us 4 more years of Obama. If this were someone the media was worrying about, he would not be able to move without them all over him and they have almost given him a pass. that pass will end when he has the nomination and then they will attack like the Obama dogs they are. Wake up folks, the Obama team wants Romney to be running against them and so do the media.

  • Manny

    @Peggy R

    “Do we really want to replace a leftist “brainy” egomaniac with a right of center brainy egomaniac?”

    I’m with you. Newt is a disater for the GOP. He has no outside likability. And he’s a walking dysfunctionality. He was thrown out of Speakership by REPUBLICANS! Romney is our only hope.

  • Richard Johnson

    “Newt must really scare the hell out of Richard that his teleprompter boy might not be able to handle someone who is going to come after him and his media partners with both guns blazing. Richard then comes out to say Newt and Bob Dole preached for the Republicans to use moderation in the 96 campaign. That might be why he know nows that when dealing with lying democrats and their media partners, there can be no moderation.”


    “It seems to me that a man whose sins arose as a consequence of the pursuit of political power and the unwise use of it after he became Speaker of the House should not be seeking the most powerful office in the world.

    Newt Gingrich, to be sure, changed my life, and I am grateful for that. But it is far more important that Gingrich’s new life change his soul, and for this reason, I will not support him in the Republican primary.”


    “More than any other Republican constituency, religious conservatives have good reasons to be wary of Newt Gingrich. As the leader of a right-wing insurgency in the early 1990s, he often kept their causes at arm’s length — deliberately excluding issues like abortion and school prayer from the Contract With America, for instance. As Speaker of the House, he undercut their claim to the moral high ground by carrying on an extramarital affair even as his party was impeaching Bill Clinton for lying under oath about adultery.”


    “Ross Douthat pointedly warns Christians to be very, very careful about associating themselves with Newt Gingrich – and for a good reason I’ve heard nobody else bring up. He points out that conservative Christianity is facing a big demographic challenge in this country. Younger American Christians are much less engaged by the same culture-war fights that have preoccupied their parents’ generation of Christians. As Robert Putnam and others have documented in social science research, many of the Millenials have turned from Christianity itself, or from conservative Christianity, out of dissent from the “Republican Party At Prayer” model of Christianity they discern there. Gingrich is a classic example the kind of thing that younger Christians (and ex-Christians) find so objectionable about the Religious Right, Ross points out, in that he is an icon of partisan piety that looks an awful lot like rank hypocrisy.”

    These are points not unlike those raised by Alan Keyes back in ’96. But hey, it’s easier to accuse those who disagree with you of being stalking-horses than to actually consider that your own position might be wrong. Newt and his wing of the GOP build their campaigns on the corpses of dead children, born and unborn, and do precious little to stem the flow of those corpses. Why? Because they value the abortion issue more than the lives lost to abortion. The next campaign is more important than the next life to be saved from the abortionist’s knife.

    Ah well, some things never change.


    “And I watched in the last two and a half years — I don’t know if any of you did watch this whole election thing on the Republican side. Those who know me marveled at my entry into the presidential race. I marveled at it a little bit myself. Most of them did forbear to send me the name of any good psychiatrists they knew of. But I’m sure that they thought about it.

    But what got me involved in that whole business was that people I sort of had some respect for, and whom I had thought were the national leaders who would surely stand unequivocally for the pro-life cause started going before the American people and saying things like: “Well, you know, we haven’t done our job of convincing everybody; the constitutional issues are settled for the time being; let’s concentrate on reducing the numbers of abortions and forget this whole human life amendment and forget the issue of principle; we can’t win on that one.”

    And I heard people, whose initials I should give you. Shall I give you their initials_ I heard people whose initials are Bill Bennett, and Dan Quayle and others saying things like this. It shocked me, I’ve gotta tell you. It did shock me. It shocked me.

    It’s like the Republican Convention, recently held, shocked me. Was anybody here shocked by that convention_ I was shocked by it. Do you know what I was shocked by_ I was shocked by being in a convention where the overwhelming majority, solid, from every part of the country a majority, even in some of these states where you had pro-abortion governors doing their best to stack the deck against pro-life people — we still managed to pull out strong pro-life representation. So that this was a convention that was more strongly pro-life than the convention that met to nominate George Bush in 1992. Did you realize that_ More strongly committed to the moral conservative cause. More strongly committed to the pro-life, moral conservative cause. Proving, of course, what we all know: that this is a cause that has strong roots in the Republican Party and, as we saw at the Democrat Convention, spreads its life in the Democratic Party, because it is the cause of truth. O.K._

    But what appeared on the podium at the Republican Convention_ The one thing I will say about the Democrats: at least they were honest about it. They kept Bob Casey off that podium at that convention because he disagreed with their platform. They kept Alan Keyes off the podium at the Republican Convention because I agree with the platform. This is strange logic.”

  • Doc

    Richard, the fact that you try to equate Republican policies on abortion with Democrat policies on abortion tells me that your sole purpose with this line is to discourage uninformed pro-life Republicans. The fact is, a record number of abortion-restricting laws have been passed at the state level in 2011 and this would not have been possible without Republicans putting a whomping on Democrats in November, 2010. Now, is this an inconvenient truth for you?