We all knew this was coming but I have to agree with his indignation….the very first question?
He makes wonderful points while kicking some ass and then completely denies the allegation of the open marriage.
He also released his tax returns in a not too subtle dig at Mitt.
We all knew Newt was going down without a fight.
Meanwhile Santorum handled this question quite well, and it was pretty damn funny
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaQF7i2jct8[/youtube]
UPDATE
Great post on Newt:
…CNN’s John King opened the Charleston debate with a direct question to Gingrich about his past. “Do you want to take a moment to address that?” King asked.
“No, but I will,” Gingrich replied. And he wound up his ire and spent the next few minutes pulverizing the media for digging into his past on the eve of the South Carolina primary. When King tried to deflect Gingrich’s wrath back off onto ABC, Gingrich would have none of it: King has brought up the issue in the debate, after all. King looked visibly cowed.
In the hotel bar in Charleston, SC where I ended up watching the debate, cheers went up to match the standing ovation Gingrich earned from the live audience. The other candidates all found themselves, rather than criticizing Gingrich’s past infidelity, piling onto his attack on the media.
…Newt Gingrich was not my preferred candidate, and still isn’t. But in these debates he has proven that Republicans love a fighter. We are tired of a biased media belittling us and denigrating, even undermining, us. We are tired of an ignorant media inflating nonsense and avoiding asking the other side the tough questions Republicans deal with every day. Like a Civil War general once accused of letting his personal problems get in the way of doing his duty, we may not be able to spare Newt Gingrich. He isn’t perfect, far from it. But he fights.
UPDATE
1. Romney can’t answer questions about his tax returns at all.
2. He’s terrible at it and he needs to get better, quickly.
3. John King trying to use Romney’s father as a precedent on the tax return issue was dumb.
4. Romney referred to “RomneyCare” tonight. I think that was a first, and not a good first for him.
5. He also made some sort of reference to coming from the “streets of America.” Romney is a fine man, but if there’s anyone less “street” than Mitt Romney I don’t know who it could be. If he’s street than I’m the shock collar for a vicious Mexican drug gang.
6. Newt’s opening answer was very strong and will be replayed a lot. But I thought it was overstated and as he kept going it became clear he was trying to squelch the issue rather than express his true rage. When he was all lovey-dovey with John King after the debate, it underscored that it was as much performance as anything else.
7. Ron Paul had some of his best moments of any debate. I really liked his answer on free trade. The problem, of course, is that he’s a theoretical free trader and an operational protectionist.
8. I was less impressed than most with Santorum tonight than a lot of folks seem to have been. But I still think he did very well, all things considered.
10. Santorum’s best moment came when he threaded the needle on immigration, sounding both tough and compassionate.
11. He also had the most dramatic moment dropping the House banking scandal bomb on Newt.
12. It is simply amazing that it took all this time (is this the 17th debate?) for anyone to really deliver a serious and cogent attack on RomneyCare.
See author page
It wasn’t the media that packed the baggage Newt Gingrich is carrying around. If he wants to know who he should be mad at, maybe he should look in a mirror.
Curt that in my opinion has been all along the reason why Romney is gaining hardly any traction with the Republican base. He is the figure head, like it or not, of the “Republican Establishment” and represents everything I left the Republican party for.
I will speak for myself , though I will bet many feel the same way. I had finally reached my breaking point with the Republican Party not sticking up and defending the ideals I believe in, the supposedly same ideals they are supposed to believe in. While I am defending them to the onslaughts of friends and family who are liberals, they are pretending to be above it all. They are talking about reaching across the isle and I am about one beer away from going to jail for thumping a friend over the head with a baseball bat trying to explain a Conservative position on an issue to someone who is nothing more then a guy who takes the latest CNN soundbite as gospel.
Its like sending soldiers out to fight a bloody battle with the enemy and the the generals are partying with the enemies leaders treating the war like its some misunderstanding that they will eventually work out over the next round of Mint Juleps. Its not as if these “leaders” haven’t a venue to defend us in the trenches. They are all on the Sunday talk shows apologizing and “clarifying” positions all the while addressing the opposition as “my esteemed colleague across the isle”. Here I am using my K-BAR trying to shove it into one of the these idiots “esteemed colleagues” minions throat battling with the conviction and verbal violence he/she should be. What soldier worth the ammo to arm them would not question the “leadership” that sends them to die in a battle they seem to be trying to avoid?
What it comes down to, and I know you know this Curt, the Republican/Conservative base is begging to be led by a George Smith Patton Jr, not another George Brinton McClellan.
One other thing I want to add before our “esteemed colleagues” from across the isle will accuse me of.
In my family, people I love , respect, and trust my daughters life in, are gays and lesbians. That issue for me is a dead horse that is constantly being pounded on to redirect the real problems this country has. I don’t expect my fellow Floppers to agree with me or hold the same position. I understand and respect the reasons they feel the way they do. I will say I agree with some of the positions and surprisingly to some, those of my family who are of that persuasion would as well.
Newt treated John as a king. Rodney King.
@Greg: Greg, the issue here is that the media only vets Conseratives. They gave Obama a free ride. There is more information on my dog who died last year in the media than anyone has reported on Obama. ( My dog was a habitual criminal. He was routinely picked up on his way to the local pub for wings” He was given a pass while I was in Iraq by the local marshall.) Remember that “guy in the neighborhood”, Bill Ayers? Media didn’t make much of that. How about John Edwards? It took the National Enquirer to break that story even though major media had it earlier. The issue here is equal treatment.
Newt did indeed kick ass, although I thought it was directed at CNN and ABC, not CBS.
I have never been in a national debate on stage, in front of the cameras, but I imagine the stress is great. They have to make good points about the issues, attack their opponents without being whiny or petulant or personally antagonistic all the while scoring points with the voter. Talk about threading a needle, but I like the idea of an intensive primary like this. To get these issues out now does inoculate the electorate to a great degree for when Obama and the DNC go on the attack at the nominee.
Santorum at times makes good points, but he comes across to me, like the kid who is mad at his brother for getting him in trouble with his parents.
Ron Paul sounded like he always does, like a crotchety old man and doesn’t seem to be able to make a point without raising his voice to a high pitched whine.
Mitt Romney stutters and hesitates too much when given questions that he ought to have down pat. E.G. his taxes, his stance on Romneycare, etc…
Newt is flawed. Probably too much to carry the conservative banner. Still, he’s smart. He’s tough. And he takes no prisoners. For American patriots, Newt’s political-correctness-be-damned approach is manna from heaven.
Like many Americans, I see 2012 as the most important presidental election of our lifetime. Who will I vote for? “NOT Obama”.
CURT
thank you,
my friends CONSERVATIVES HERE AT FA, YOU DON’T KNOW HOW PRECIOUS AND SMART YOU ALL ARE,
and you should know how I’m feeling bless to be around you all,
I can see each one of you on top of AMERICA, like I saw RICK PERRY,
AND NOW NEWT, HE IS GREAT and they can say anything, he is still great and wont let anything destroy his spirit, that’s why he must stay on top.
EDIT BYE Y’ALL
He sure changed the mood in this house last night, loved the thrashing John King suffered. I wouldn’t do this as a rule, but, I hope CNN’s ratings were high for the debate.
This from Lucianne:
“Newt headbutts King over hectoring ex. Paul yaps from the attic. Mitt giggles like Betty White and Rick forgot his raccoon coat and pennant. What to do with this crew?
All the debates controlled by the lame stream media are designed to make GOP candidates look bad. They are all instruments of the democrat party.
Yet Dem infidelities are relevant to character, campaigns and fit leadership…..
** I don’t give a flying fart who does what in their private lives if it’s none of my business. I’d just like to see some consistent standards of rhetoric across party lines from both parties.
@Cary: Not according to the media who not only doesn’t point them out, but actively try to bury them.
Newt’s response makes for good theater, but not Presidential politics. This sort of cowboy political reaction may go over good with the machomitos among us, but not on the world stage. CNN’s John King was simply asking if he wanted to explain the charges, and didn’t call for a tirade.
Typical skewed wingnut perception of reality. Newt was shamed and his arrogance (and ethics) prove he’s unfit for this office.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
It was not a tirade, it was a well deserved smack down.
BTW, heh, what were we going through during the last presidential primaries? Oh, I remember…..it was the John Edwards scandal that broke……OCTOBER 10,…..2007. I don’t recall any questions regarding the pregnant Rielle Hunter, how about you?
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/presidential-cheating-scandal-alleged-affair-could-wreck-john-edwards-campaign-bid
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/john_edwards/index.html
So you see, not only did the press NOT question “Mr. Edwards” about his campaign financed, pregnant mistress while his cancer stricken wife sat in debate audiences THROUGHOUT that entire campaign season, they wouldn’t report it. It was kept out of the news, allowing “Mr. Edwards” to……hold out hope for a cabinet position.
Funny that, eh? Where was John King or any other liberal hack debate host? hmmmm
Yeah, just an innocent question that is important in learning how a candidate is going to fix a broken economy, flagging unemployment, and basically undo the damage caused by the most inept President since Jimmy Carter.
Do you put any thought into you arguments or do you just throw it out there hoping it will make sense? P
This reminds me of the time when Hillary was asked about Bill’s girlfriends during the democratic debates in ’08. . . oh. . . wait. . .
Honestly, I’m starting to think more and more that I could vote for Newt. None of these guys are what I’d ideally want, but at least he stands his ground. It’ll be fun to watch the talking heads explode. . . now if he’ll just pick Sarah as VP!
I don’t even like Newt, but that was a righteous flaming he gave that metrosexual cnn reporter. It’s about time somebody went after those liberal quislings with a naily board, and Newtie was just the guy to do it!
@Michael Henkins:
Nope. It’s just here to troll.
Dr. King knew the importance of character. Remember his words:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Unfortunately, the 2008 election made a mockery of Dr. King’s vision. Elected by Americans who fell under the spell of his right-colored skin and oratory charms, Obama walked into the oval office with a mission in mind.
Change.
The dream has been shattered.
The term is “shot caller” not shock collar. I hope I do not need to suppy a diffinitive diference between the two.
@JustAl:
I have a serious case of Gingrivitis and am as anti-Newtonian as Curt and Mata and much of FA are toward being anti-Romney.
Can someone convince me that, given the Republican nomination, Gingrich would be capable of handing Obama a defeat in the general?
I can see voters in the middle disgruntled with the current PotUS not voting for President Obama to win reelection; but I can also see those same voters in that middle who would vote against a Newt presidency.
And as much as Santorum may be the only “true” (social) conservative left in the race, I definitely have a hard time envisioning him winning in the general election- I think he’d fare even worse than either Gingrich or Romney- because he is so socially conservative.
Just my opinion.
That’s a pretty tall order that only a genuinely gifted seer with a crystal ball could fill, Wordsmith. I’m not much on polls since they are generally a tool to nudge public opinion in a particular way. Look at Romney… if you tell enough people, often enough, that he’s the only one that can beat Obama, the herd mentality automatically falls in line. Many justify their opinions by quoting how many people agree with them. Just a bizarre quirk of human nature, I guess. But I’ll do my best.
But you’ve thrown in a lot of assumptions there, Wordsmith. I think there are some voters who will stick with their guy no matter what… the RP supporters, for one. And if it’s the young, I see them breaking Obama’s way if it’s any one *but* RP as the nominee, and he’s not running third party. So I don’t think any of the other three candidates would get them anyway.
Most of the Republican/conservative voters say they will support *any* candidate over Obama. And that would include Newt. So those would be the “anyone but Obama” voters.
I agree with you INRE Santorum, altho not exclusively for his social conservative views. I just think Santorum would be mincemeat up against Obama. His debate performances are mostly lackluster, with only a few, sporadic good moments as a claim to fame. Romney also tends to get the deer in the headlight brain farts during debates… that is when he bothers to answer a question. Drives me nuts that he just steers his answer off course most of the time, and I’m left scratching my head as to why the moderators don’t push him. That was one of the things I liked about the Monday debate… the three moderators were relentless in pursuing an answer to the question, and not allowing them to string a bunch of campaign generalities together for effect. Best and most productive debate bloodfest I can remember in primary history.
Were it a Newt nomination… and who knows at this point… those that find him unappealing now, would find him more so in general debates. He doesn’t speak in vague language, and offers specifics for issues. Take, for example, his bullet points offered for the SC economy… i.e. improving the harbor and stepping up their manufacturing. Then there were his points about the Dept of Education… turning it back over to the states, followed up by him saying he hopes the states turn it over to the local boards and parents. These are approaches that can resonate…. getting the remote central government out of our backyards.
Reality is, mon pal Wordsmith, not that much of the nation is watching these debates right now. Thus the pre-anointment of Romney… they only read how wonderful Romney is day after day, so of course polls tend to show steady support, and some bizarre belief he’s the only one to beat Obama. (Sure glad Reagan didn’t listen to that tripe….)
The low viewership is likely because it’s just the primaries. But we’re not talking about much exposure to the anyone-but-Romney alternatives by the masses. The first Fox debate in September started out with 6.1 million viewers. It’s gone down steadily with each debate, and has been half that amount in the last four debates. In the 2008 POTUS election, 131.463 million voters turned out. This makes the 3 million watching the debates a miniscule 2.28% of the voting population, paying attention to debate skills, the candidates and the issues.
Hopefully debate viewership would be going up during a general. At that point, Newt can more than hold his own in debates, and get his point across. McCain may have coined his “straight talk” slogan, but it’s really Newt who lives it.. much to the chagrin of many. But if voters are not watching how any of these candidates handle themselves now, what they know about Newt is only what is portrayed in the media and by the GOP establishment, who are backing Romney. Newt’s kinda like an anchovy… an acquired taste after regular exposure.
I always find it somewhat amusing that conservatives and Republicans love to brag about how they came to power after four decades in the 90s, and moved the Congress to the right. They think they did this without Gingrich? Interesting revisionist history. But evidently even the politically right aren’t averse to massaging history if the cause of pushing voters into the arms of another McCain is considered lofty enough.
Newt was unpopular with many of his own party, just as Sarah was in Alaska. Both have a pesky habit of working across the aisle, wheeling and dealing to get the best possible outcome. And for that, neither win the Miss Congeniality awards. The ethics charges, none of which stuck and of which Newt was exonerated, is what made a Republican Congress (who didn’t like him much anyway) rebel. And because of the mudslinging, bad publicity and charges, the Republicans lost seats.
Nor do they consider that one of the big election issues was the Ken Starr investigation that lead to the Clinton impeachment just weeks before Newt resigned Jan 1999. Even tho they hadn’t held hearings, the Republicans were portrayed in the press and by the lib/progs as petty. Think that may have had something to do with the loss of seats? Or is that just another little ditty is history they want to erase, in order to pin it all on Newt? They needed a scapegoat, and they didn’t like the Speaker.
So they blamed Newt for the loss… never once recognizing their personal dislike for the unpopular Speaker, and the impeachment, also contributed to that perception. In retrospect, I have to wonder why they didn’t back Newt, who wasn’t guilty of the charges, even if they didn’t like him. Like Palin, Newt was effective. Even Clinton, who often met with Newt to hammer out problems, noted that he and the Speaker were very much alike. And that was not confined only to having an eye for the ladies.
I’m not interested in having a POTUS that, like Obama, is adored by his party in Congress. It’s his job to prod both parties into productivity…. and that’s going to make both sides royally PO’ed. You simply can’t please everyone.
As I’ve said, we’re all craving a filet mignon, but all the buffet has to offer is hamburgers and meatballs. Newt is far from perfect as well. But he is the only one that has a record of positive achievement under his belt. Additionally, he’s a walking encyclopedia of political history and facts. Obama will have a hard time combating that merely with feel good rhetoric in a debate.
In August 2010, Esquire did an interview with Marianne Gingrich. It’s actually very good, and despite how many who haven’t read it try to portray as a slam piece, it’s actually well balanced in it’s analysis of a complex man. There are slams yes… and there is also praise. Just like a real human. But there is no denying the record.
In the long run, it will be the economy, unemployment and jobs. And we’ll get the candidate we get. Unless something extraordinary happens, that will be Romney, Newt or Santorum. And if there is not enough light at the end of the tunnel by election day, most will just do the same as they’ve had to do so often before… hold the nose, and pull the lever for the lesser of two evils.
@Wordsmith:
We all see the world through the prism of our own ideals. Not being a “social” conservative I’ve always considered the evangelical wing of conservatism as the “soft underbelly” to borrow from Churchill. There is a reason why the media always, always strike at the “social” values the perceive (incorrectly) to be universal on the right. These are the wedge issues between those that are more religious and those that are more libertarian. The one thing the media loves to point out (or fabricate) is “hypocrisy” on the part of a candidate on the right.
I agree, Santorum, and to a lessor degree Newt will drive away some of the socially liberal, fiscally/defense conservatives.
But honestly, I think Romney will drive away more total voters and will be made a complete fool of, even by the pretender in chief if they debate. Many of the religious bent have problems with his brand of religion, many of us don’t appreciate a guy who has described himself as a “progressive” who is “proud” of Massachusetts gun laws, etc. let alone Romneycare.
I am so far out in the cold on this one that my teeth are chattering (or maybe that’s just anger). With the resurgence of the right triggered by the big “O” I had hopped by now we’d have a fiscally conservative candidate who wanted to lead us back to the Constitution, away from a nanny/police state both at home and abroad. But instead we’ve got a deck with more jokers than the rules allow.
John King entered the stage like a Bob Barker and went on the attack. Even with his prearranged spiel, he got newtered. Newt was prepared and didn’t flinch one bit.
He’s had quite the week. Juan Williams was embarrassed with the race card. Ann Curry of NBC was made to look like a fool. John King was made to look like a helpless sheep. The MSM is crying foul because these are attacks. They get what’s deserved trying to deflect the record of the worst precedent in US history.
The Dept. of injustice is trying to destroy Sheriff Joe of Arizona with baseless accusations. Sheriff Joe has the cajones to lead his Cold Case Posse in investigating fraudulent birth certificates and social insurance numbers. The scum of this administration is starting to float to the top. More info coming up in February. This will not go away. Arizona is not backing down on illegal immigration.
Dirty Tricks Alert!
In one state, several people who have been successful in getting themselves known as very probably Mitt Romney delegates for the Republican National Convention are actually staunch Ron Paul supporters!
Friends contacted in other states saw the same thing happening — long time Dr. Paul supporters working to become delegates to the convention pledging to support Mitt Romney and others!
Remember:
Delegates are only locked in for their candidate during the first vote!
After the first vote, they can vote for whoever they want. So if Mitt Romney is unable to clear an outright majority on the first ballot, suddenly he could see some of his delegates turn on him — turn and go back to Ron Paul.
MORE:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/19/the-horserace-for-january-19-2012/
Slide down to the Ron Paul subheading.
John King was doing his job. He led off by respectfully asking a question that was probably on the minds of nearly everyone who has been following the republican primaries.
When there’s an elephant in the room, the first thing you ask about is the elephant.
Actually, probably only those that had Marianne on their mind were people like you, Greg. And if he was doing “his job”, why didn’t he do his job for John Edwards. Why didn’t they pound Obama on Ayers and Rev Wright?
Or could it be he only considers it “his job” when it’s a GOP candidates personal past life?
GREG NOT THE ELEPHANT BUT WHICH DIRECTION IS THE TRUMP AIMING AT?
oil guy from ALBERTA
hi,
is it me but John KING was so white in the face, you thought it was a cardboard copy of him ,
bye
You’re right on Bee Warrior. King took a terrible spanking. MSNBC will definitely avoid Newt.
RCP composite polls has Newt ahead in the polls for S Carolina. Things are achanging. lol.
@Greg: So you feel the elephant in the room is rehashed accusations from a vengeful and somewhat batty ex-wife, possibly for money — as long as the person negatively affected is a Republican. Not that 40% of the Federal budget is borrowed. Not that this administration grows more lawless by the day.
She’s been saying this stuff since 1995. It isn’t new, just repackaged. Where was this so-called elephant when it was time to vet Bill Clinton and John Edwards? Were they asked about their infidelities at Presidential debates? Answer me.
This one is simple MataHarley. It was a power grab by a bunch of raging little punk Republicans who had to be dragged by the hair kicking and screaming to get “Contract With America” passed. They formed an unholy alliance with the Democrats party to make Newt Gingrich go away with trumped-up charges everyone one knew was a pile of steaming Barbra Streisand. That is the back story to why the Republican Establishment is working so hard to take Gingrich out. Payback is a bitch and Gingrich not only knows how to play the game better than them, he also knows where they bury the bodies as well.
LOL! Michael, you do have an endearing turn of phrase, guy. But reality is a bitch, and the demonization and scapegoating of Newt is also a very real bitch. Frankly, he gets points just by taking the punches and still remain firmly standing on his two feet. Romney, under the same pressure, would have caved and whimpered long ago.
@MataHarley, #32:
How strange would it have seemed if the question about the elephant had gone unasked?
I don’t imagine Gingrich is going to get a pass en route to the White House on the same sort of misconduct he previously condemned certain democrats for. Not when the guy he hopes to replace seems to be a model of marital fidelity. I’m actually a little surprised that republicans seem so ready to ignore what they previously obsessed about.
I have no problem with it being asked because it was the hard ball that Newt was expecting, and he hit it out of the ballpark. My problem is that the media tends to lynch GOP candidates with hearsay “evidence”… as they did with Cain… in the media as a trial by media, and think it’s ethical.
It’s also ironic that any one would lend credibility to the first mistress, mashing some sour grapes about when the second mistress showed up. That’s one dumb broad… She should be happy that Newt, unlike most men who have extramarital affairs, actually married her, and stayed married to her for some time before falling for another. But considering her own culpability in what is supposed to be her beef about ethics and morality, she’s hardly one to be taken with a grain of salt.
@Missy:
I had the same feeling – it was almost like “Morning in America” all over again. It was so great to see one of those media worms put in his place.
Mata Did you see Dobson’s endorsement of Santorum noting Karen would make “a fabulous First Lady role model”while Newt’s wife “was a mistress for 8 years” Seems forgiveness available for men but “not so fast you ladies”
Gotta love those evangelicals.
Now rich… is there anyway we can ever convince you to stop with the “blanket” description bit? James Dobson, who was pitching for Santorum at the evangelical meeting last week, did indeed label Callista as an eight year mistress. But two points to clarify your misrepresentation of evangelicals.
1: Dobson’s endorsement is his own, and not that of the sum of the evangelicals at the meeting and
2: Many at that meeting found Dobson’s judgment call on Callista offensive.
I would say you’d do better to confine your sarcasm and judgment to the orator of that insult, Dobson, and not the evangelicals as a whole.
Notice how many public figures are turning the tables on the media lately? Romney went after occupiers interrupting him. Newt turned on King. The list goes on. Good. The press has become petty and self-important, with little to contribute.
Glad to see a few lobbed back at the “journalists.” this is a significant change.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III
HI,
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
I couldn’t resist,
bye
@Greg:
When did Newt condemn Democrats for infidelity?
GREG WE KNOW NEWT PAST BUT OBAMA PAST NO ONE KNOW EVEN LESS YOU,
IT WILL COME OUT SOMEDAY TOO. SOON
EDIT BYE
@liberalchild: Have you ever had an original thought? Or a pertinent point to make?
I didn’t think so.
Even liberal1 at least tried to make some kind of a point with his rant. He got it wrong with his nonsense about the world stage, I mean that is the same type of things that were said about Reagan.
Maybe you ought to just stick to attacking helpless babies. That is much more suited to your IQ.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): As I said in my previous comment, your assessment is the same argument lobbed at Ronald Reagan. It was wrong then, it is wrong now.
Mata Evangelical choice Mormon or Adulterer TOUGH ONE
Anticsrocks Can we agree Newt ain’t no Ronald Reagan?
Woof.. not much Bible doctrine in your background, eh?
The majority of Christians have no problems with Mormons. And the majority of Christians also know that man is flawed, never without sin, and that recognizing and confessing (not necessarily in the formal Catholic sense) your sins is part of the every day life of an “evangelical”.
So no… to those who understand Christianity, and man’s flawed human nature that will never be without sin, Christians have no problems with Mormons or adulterers. Seems to me like it’s mostly a problem for you. So sad…. But then, you’ll be voting for Obama anyway. Therefore your own personal problems really don’t mean much in the scheme of things.
All humans are individuals. Reagan was a one of a kind person, as are we all. Does he have to be? And we still don’t support human cloning. (like how boring would that be?? LOL)
But he is one who did implement textbook Reagan philosophy and actions, embodied in the Contract of America… the document written (not the exclusive author) by Larry Hunter with the assistance of Newt, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, Boehner (go no…), Bill Paxton and others, was classic lifted Reagan for the majority of it. (and no, Santorum was not one of those who helped write the Contract…)
Richard Wheeler
since when does the private life of THE CANDIDATES is so viciously attack?
ILL TELL YOU WHY, SINCE OBAMA CAME WITHOUT ANY PRIVATE LIFE , WITHOUT ANY CHARACTER DISPLAY, WITHOUT ANY BIRTH CERTIFICATE DISPLAY, NO PROFILE,AND HE HAD A FREE PROTECTED PASS, AND YOU AND YOUR CROWD OF DEMOCRATS AND MEDIA, DARE TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR DEDICATED CANDIDATES TO SEEK FOR THE DIFFICULT POSITION TO BRING AMERICA OUT OF THE DESTRUCTION SHE WAS PUSHED IN WITH THEIR BLESSING
and now our CANDIDATES HAVE BEEN ATTACK, INSULTED AND ACCUSED OF LIES ON THEIR REPUTATION WITH VICIOUS SCENARIOS FABRICATED TO SMEAR THEIR PERSON,
THEY HAD THE GUTS TO FACE IT, THAT ALONE TELL OF WHAT HARD SKIN THEY ARE MADE OF,
YOU JOIN THE GAME OF YOUR DEMOCRAT SIDE HAVING SO MUCH FUN DIDN’T YOU?
WELL THAT IS IT, YOU WILL BE SILENCE ON EVERY SMEAR AND EVERY SNEAKY WORD YOU PUT IN AGAINST THEM . THE BUCK STOP HERE,
Whoa Mata There are Christians of which I am one.Then there are Evangelicals. To suggest they have no problems with Mormans is naive as witnessed by Evangelical Huckabee’s removal of Romney in 08.
I’ll partially agree on redemption,though it seems to be more for philandering men than adulterous mistresses.They’ve certainly learned to forgive and forgive and forgive their own philandering pastors.
Either you have your own distinct definition of an evangelical, rich, or you are conveniently forgetting the bitter rivalry of Huckabee and Romney during 2008. And I assure you, it was not based on Huckabee disrepecting Mormonism. Romney was a rude and plastic liar then, and he remains the same today. Prior to now, Romney enjoyed the “it’s my turn to be anointed”, and kept most of his cool… that is until Gingrich started rising in IA. Then the Romney faithful pulled the plug on civility in desperation. Romney and his supporters showed their true colors. To this day, whether about Newt or Santorum, Romney refuses to apologize or back pedal on his superpac venomous ads, saying only “if there is errors, they should be corrected”. But he won’t publicly admit the errors.
Sleazy? Hang yes..
And your last sentence? Again you make blanket assumptions, using only James Dobson to support your statement. You seem to have a learning disability….
@Richard Wheeler: Yes, I never said he was. Although he has many of the same Conservative beliefs that Reagan did.
I am a HUGE Reagan fan and I like Newt for the nomination. But I will offer this critique of Newt. I think that in the past he over thought issues and it has worked against him at times.
The only issue he and I disagree on is AGW. However he has seemed to change his mind on the whole carbon loading debate.
My stance on issues has evolved as I have grown up, so I hesitate to hold someone to something they said or did, for the most part, years ago. When they publicly state that they take a different tack on a topic, I trust but verify. So far Newt has held steady on his change in belief on AGW.
Anticsrocks “Trust but verify” There it is!! Thanks
Mata BTW Re that Evangelical leader’s meeting in Texas last weekend. James Dobson lovingly referred to as the “pope of the evangelicals” skewered Callista while announcing his endorsement of Santorum.
The vote Santorum 85
Gingrich 29
Romney Still waiting for his first.
Mata You got a real H.O. for Romney gal. A leader of YOUR party not mine. Newt a Georgia Conserv. should beat Romney a Mass. mod/lib by 2o points in his neighboring S.C. Romney still the favorite to win. You gonna blister him all the way to the finish line? Classy
@Richard Wheeler: If Santorum were out of the race, the Conservative vote wouldn’t be split and his 15% would go to Gingrich who would then be leading 50% to 29% instead of 35 – 29.
Updated: 3 polls show Gingrich leading SC race after debate
Let’s not forget here that Newt’s accuser is a disgruntled Ex Wife. Let’s not forget that the Democrats Messiah Slick Willie as President of the United States got a hummer from an interm named Monica Lewinski when he was at work!! My advice to all you liberal wachos who like to take cheap shots at Newt, tell me how you feel about Slick and if he should have gotten re elected as President given his failures. BTW wachos, this was not a one time thing with Monica or with other woeman he banged along the way, and of course was married to Hillary at the time.
Anticsrocks You sure cherry picked those 3 polls where Gingrich average lead about 4% and Santorum polled between 9 and 14. We’ll see today though no matter the results Romney will still be favorite to win nom.
Common sense Newt slogan gonna be “I’m no worse than Clinton” Good luck with that. Monica happened in 2nd term and IMO would have prevented any future victory AND cost Gore the Presidency in 2000.
Cherry picked??? RealClearPolitics has the latest polls round up. How many do you think there are?
Anticsrocks is correct… the majority of SC polling has Gingrich up. The Gallup poll nationally still has Romney up over Gingrich. But anything can change. If Newt won SC, and depending upon how FL goes, the “national” polls would likely be affected, since polls generally reflect a herd mentality. Everyone likes to think they picked the winner, and they base that on who the polls and media say that is.