Thread: Newt Gingrich

Please God!!! Not Newt!!!!

IMO the guy has no moral compass whatsoever. He also needs to explain everything he says the day after he said it because that is not what he truly meant. He kept the conservative /republican opposition to Clinton in turmoil as speaker, giving Bill the edge. He actually supported both Nafta and Gatt (along with Bill)which de industrialized America and has put us in a good chunk of the financial mess we are in(no jobs). IMO he may be a Republican but he is not a conservative, more than anything I believe him to be a self serving politician. Unless the powers that be allow Ron Paul some spotlight I may have to bow out of the election hysteria next November and stay home . A few years ago before my grandfather died we were talking about American politics and we agreed that there was little difference between the parties or the candidates and that he had quit voting entirely, the only thing he could see happening was the big money getting bigger as well as big government getting bigger, the people getting smaller. Although he had but an eighth grade education he had seen his father off to WWI, raised a family through the great depression and WWII, saw America rise to greatness in the '50's, the turmoil of the Viet Nam conflict, the civil rights movement, Korea two Gulf Wars, as a kid he could sneak under the tent flap to watch a movie as the "professor" played the accompanying music on the piano, as an old man he could watch everything he wanted on DVD. I figured his experience amounted to something.

If he is the best the Republicans have to offer, they should close up shop.

Honestly I don't think the Republicans expect a victory in 2012 for the White House so they're not going to put up a very strong candidate. I think they're more interested in remaining in control of the Congress. If Gingrich is the nominee then Obama will surely be relected for his 2nd term.

Originally Posted by Str8nSharp

Honestly I don't think the Republicans expect a victory in 2012 for the White House so they're not going to put up a very strong candidate. I think they're more interested in remaining in control of the Congress. If Gingrich is the nominee then Obama will surely be relected for his 2nd term.

I don't agree with that. Sure they want to remain in control of congress but their main goal since the last election has been, and remains, to defeat Obama in 2012. I realize that most of the representatives on both sides of the aisle have heartfelt principles controlling their votes and their thinking, but the fact that they ..... both sides.... have refused to compromise for the good of the country as a whole, has me wondering if I can vote for any of them.

Originally Posted by Str8nSharp

Honestly I don't think the Republicans expect a victory in 2012 for the White House so they're not going to put up a very strong candidate. I think they're more interested in remaining in control of the Congress. If Gingrich is the nominee then Obama will surely be relected for his 2nd term.

I doubt that. With Obama's approval ratings as low as they are now, I expect any republican to be a contender, simply by virtue of not being democrat.

Originally Posted by Bruno

From what I have read up until now, Gingrich has no moral compass and has done some very amoral things in the past, like having affairs when his wives were sick, serving divorce papers to a wife in the hospital bed, and leaving his wife with not enough money to pay for the hospital bills.

Then you're reading from biased sources. The left exaggerated the story and made it sound as if Newt was heartless when that wasn't the case at all. Newt's daughter wrote about it in her new book.

Originally Posted by Mvcrash

If he is the best the Republicans have to offer, they should close up shop.

National poll, November 30, 2011: Gingrich 45%, Obama 43%. Does this mean the Democrats should file for bankruptcy? Better hurry up if they're to beat the country to it:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Originally Posted by eflatminor

Then you're reading from biased sources. The left exaggerated the story and made it sound as if Newt was heartless when that wasn't the case at all. Newt's daughter wrote about it in her new book.

And this book is unbiased how?

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I don't agree with that. Sure they want to remain in control of congress but their main goal since the last election has been, and remains, to defeat Obama in 2012. I realize that most of the representatives on both sides of the aisle have heartfelt principles controlling their votes and their thinking, but the fact that they ..... both sides.... have refused to compromise for the good of the country as a whole, has me wondering if I can vote for any of them.

Amen! I tend to be very Libertarian politically and very conservative in my personal life. I would love to see a good conservative candidate who values the constitution and sees the world exactly like I do. However, reality is not so kind as to give everyone what they want. You hit the nail on the head. Few in congress seem willing to give an inch to the other side in order to get anything actually accomplished. Like a bunch of children both sides have to have EVERYTHING their way and are not willing to budge.

You would think they were ALL from Missouri or something.

Originally Posted by Theseus

And this book is unbiased how?

A first hand account, as is the case with Newt's daughter, is quite a different thing to a "news" source that neglects to incorporate said first hand account into their reporting. The girl's mother, who was not only 'not' on her deathbed but is still alive, corroborates the daughter's story. So, we have two first hand accounts (three if you count Newt's) vs reporting that overlooks those first hand accounts altogether. So yes, the "news" stories are biased while the girl's book is supported by those that were actually there. You may believe whomever you like of course.