Two friends of mine will debate whether or not the best man for the job is Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney. On the PRO Gingrich side is SonlitKnight. On the ANTI Gingrich side (or, PRO Santorum) is Elvis Nixon. That's the simplistic position they espouse, but this will be more widely discussed. If you wish to join in, your comments are welcome beneath the post. Stand by for the opening statement from both participants.
PRO GINGRICH: SonlitKnight writes:
With the newest poll by Rasmussen showing Democrats at (yet another) all-time low, I will not insult your intelligence by suggesting that, given the chance, Rick Santorum could not beat Obama. I have said, and continue to say, that we can beat Obama with a ham sandwich. Rick's problem is that there are two men that he cannot beat. Their names are Romney and Gingrich. My opponent will surely say that Rick Santorum is the most Conservative candidate still in the running. I heartily disagree....with the "in the running" part. After his 34 vote Iowa victory, Santorum has gotten 9.4%, 13% and 13% in the last 3 contests. Like Huckabee in 2008, he has failed to capitalize on the Iowa momentum and his moment is now gone.
Santorum is an incredibly decent man, a devout Catholic Christian, a wonderful steadfast conservative and a family many who has shown incredible grace amid some heavy crosses. If you are making the argument that Santorum is more of a Conservative purist than Newt, I'd say you have a plausible enough case that I won't contest it.
You miss the point.
As a patriot, Rick must do what's best for the country, not what's best for Rick. Had Rick Santorum dropped out after South Carolina, Newt Gingrich would have won Florida. Had Newt Gingrich dropped out, Santorum would not have won Florida, Romney would have simply won by a wider margin. Exit polls bear this out.
If Santorum drops out now, Newt Gingrich will win Michigan. That's right, Michigan, where Mitt Romney's Dad was a Governor.
The race, right now, is between Newt Gingrich, who couldn't possibly win the house in 1994, but did. He is the man who couldn't possibly balance the budget, but did. He is the heir to the legacy of Ronald Reagan, who could not possibly beat Jimmy carter, but did. Now, the Gingriches and Reagans of the world are being mocked and ridiculed by the likes of Bob Dole and John McCain. Yes! let's take advice from the only Republicans in 50 years to lose Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, New Hampshire and Nevada! How's that "movin' to the center" thing working out for ya, Mitt?
Still, I will concede that, in this election cycle, even a mutt like Mitt beats Obama (though both lose to the Ham sandwich).
That's where the trouble starts. You see, I don't want to beat Obama WITH Obama. Ok...Romney has a better haircut. I'll give you just on example (beyond the obvious support of health care, social engineering).
The Federal minimum wage is an unconstitutional, unfunded mandate that is little more than a gimmick to get Democrats elected. It has never created a job and it has never been shown to help the poor. It is electioneering sleight of hand.
Let me explain.
Suzy makes $7.25 per hour. Joan makes $14.50 per hour.
Suzy's rate is increased to $7.98, a 10% hike in the minimum wage. Suzy's company did not enjoy any increased production and has, thus, taken a 10% direct hit on their profits. Suzy's company (and everyone else's) must raise their prices 10% so Suzy has gone absolutely nowhere in terms of buying power. On the other hand, Joan, unless she too gets a 10% raise (very unlikely) has just seen her real buying power drop to $13.05.
Unfortunately, many employees only receive an annual Cost of living adjustment, so their wages (in terms of constant dollars) never go up.
Mitt Romney, genius businessman wants an automatic, annual increase in the minimum wage, indexed to inflation. This means that only those making the minimum wage, or people getting raises at twice the inflation rate, will not see their pay decline each year. So, each year, the advantage of pay for skilled, trained seasoned workers over burger flippers,will decrease until the incentive to produce disappears completely.
This is the America Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi want! Should our nominee be pushing such crap?
Right now there is one man who can stop him, only one. Unfortunately, there is also only one man who can stop the man who can stop Mitt Romney. For goodness sake, Rick, wake up and smell the coffee. It's not about you, we've got a country to save. (2/2/12)
PRO SANTORUM: Elvis Nixon
First of all, I thank SonlitKnight for his comprehensive opening salvo and his tone of respect and reasonable attitude. Far too often political debates degenerate into rancorous jeremiads with neither side proving much except their own emotional incontinence.SonlitKnight and I agree one the most important issue of all. Mr Obama is a threat to Christian values and in his arrogance Mr Obama has emboldened our enemies abroad and weakened our nation at home. His judicial appointments have been a catastrophe and his administration is openly hostile to the republican form of government as enshrined in our U.S. Constitution.
The fundamental question is which candidate is best suited to unseat Mr Obama in the upcoming election?
I must state that I am not overly impressed with any of the four remaining GOP candidates. In a nation that is overwhelmingly Protestant, it is peculiar that the political party most strongly associated with evangelical Christians has a Mormon front runner and two Roman Catholics as its top three candidates.
Let's examine the field. I have read Ron Paul's explicit Christian testimony and am heartened by his statements in favor of life and other issue of profound importance to Christian voters. Dr Ron Paul is outstanding in his analysis of the Federal Reserve and Austrian (Free Market) economics, and his domestic policy is overall quite good, but for a variety of issues that deserve a fully developed treatment and analysis, it is perhaps best to say that he has made a few remarks that are "off the reservation" with regard to current mainstream GOP voters. He will not be the GOP nominee (but I believe he can make an important contribution via his delegates at the GOP Convention in Tampa, Florida.) Beyond that it seems that Mr Paul is far and away the dark horse of the GOP field and as such not really a part of the discussion at hand.
That leaves the other three. In an effort to address the most crucial issue before us, how to unseat Obama I will stipulate, for the sake of this debate only, that Governor Romney has some problems.
Having said that, we are left with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.
If we table the viability of Governor Romney, the problem before us is: If not Romney, who?
Realistically, one of the other two should step aside so that the votes of those opposed to Romney may be pooled together. Who must step aside? It must be Newt Gingrich.
I agree wholeheartedly that Mr Gingrich's attacks on the sanctimonious liberal media are delightful to watch but the sad truth is that he is an enormous liability to the Republican Party.
Gingrich claims he is a "Reagan Conservative." This claim has as much validity as Islamo-Atheist Obama claiming that he is a Christian and that the Bible instructs him to raise taxes. Simply making a statement does not make it true.
Mr Gingrich is not a traditional conservative. Conservatives do not leave their wife (suffering with cancer) for another woman and then do the same to wife #2 (who suffered from MS) while carrying on an elongated affair with wife #3. Gingrich libeled his former wife by claiming he had "witnesses" that he never asked for an "open marriage." This defense is absurd on its face. Were these alleged witnesses with him at every moment? Were they privy to his bedroom conversations with his wife? If so, how reliable are their claims?
Even if you believe Gingrich's abandoned wife is a liar, you must face the reality that a triple-marriage career politician is better suited to the party of Clinton than than the Party of Reagan (Yes, Reagan was divorced once. His wife left him- enormous difference).
Can we be so naive as to believe that Mr Gingrich's "friends" in the media will not revisit this sordid affair over and over as he campaigns against beloved Obama?
Gingrich polls in the low 20% with GOP women and even lower among independent women and democrats. There are more women registered to vote in the United States than men. This argument alone ought to be dis-positive on practical grounds.
For the sake of argument, let us continue with Newt's disqualifications beyond his personal moral failings.
Fundamentally, the argument is that Gingrich represents "true" conservative values and Romney does not. The issue then becomes defining what you mean by "conservative."
Gingrich is a committed globalist who shepherded through GATT and NAFTA for Bill Clinton. These treaties sundered American sovereignty and resulted in the hemorrhaging of millions of manufacturing jobs and the massive influx of illiterate Mexicans whose own traditional economy was shattered as a direct consequence of NAFTA. Gingrich has never once apologized for his vital role in these fiasco and indeed boasts of it.
Did conservatives endorse pro-abortion/pro-homosexual "marriage" candidate Dee Dee Scozzafava over a TEA Party candidate? No. But NAFTA Newt did.
Do conservatives join with Nancy Pelosi endorsing the idea of man made climate change and make commercials on behalf of this sideshow? No, but NAFTA Newt did.
With millions of American citizens out of work and illegals FLOODING the US to take jobs away from unemployed Americans, do conservatives endorse the DREAM Act and amnesty? No, but Newt does. His Hispandering is nauseating.
The list goes on and on. I have not even started on Newt's profiting from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Newt is no conservative.
His erratic behavior and hubris guarantee an election campaign overflowing with gaffes (such as his "moon base" pledge) that will be fodder for the very media Newt disparages.
If anyone ought to drop out, it must be Newt. (2/3/12)
The best way for me to respond to Mr. Nixon is to put his remarks in brackets [ like this ] and then address them. So let's go......
[ First of all, I thank SonlitKnight for his comprehensive opening salvo and his tone of respect and reasonable attitude. Far too often political debates degenerate into rancorous jeremiads with neither side proving much except their own emotional incontinence. ]
Well, thank you. You are right, political discussion can get emotional.
[ SonlitKnight and I agree one the most important issue of all. Mr Obama is a threat to Christian values and in his arrogance Mr Obama has emboldened our enemies abroad and weakened our nation at home. His judicial appointments have been a catastrophe and his administration is openly hostile to the republican form of government as enshrined in our U.S. Constitution.
The fundamental question is which candidate is best suited to unseat Mr Obama in the upcoming election? ]
No, I disagree. I think that, right now the question is which of the three remaining viable candidates is UNSUITABLE to run against Obama and how do we stop him? I think we are approaching this from the perspective of who you think the best man is. You say Santorum and you may very well be right.
However, the best man to run against Obama has to be someone theoretically capable of running against Obama.
I can say that the best team to beat the Patriots is the Steelers. I could argue that the Steelers beat the Patriots earlier. That is all irrelevant. Right now, the only team CAPABLE of beating the Patriots are the Giants. I may PREFER the Steelers but the only CHOICES are the Patriots and the Giants.
Likewise, Santorum is and has been a better man than Gingrich. I gladly concede it...but the nomination is going to be between Romney and Gingrich. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.
[ I must state that I am not overly impressed with any of the four remaining GOP candidates. In a nation that is overwhelmingly Protestant, it is peculiar that the political party most strongly associated with evangelical Christians has a Mormon front runner and two Roman Catholics as its top three candidates. ]
Overwhelmingly protestant? Huh? 1 in 4 Americans are Catholic making it-by far- the largest Christian denomination. Further, 9 of the 47 Republicans in the US Senate are Catholics. Again, by far, the largest denomination. In the US House, there are scores of Catholic Republicans, including the Speaker. The same is true of Governors- Bob McDonnell, the Governor of my state is one example. So, your comment about the fringe religion of Mormonism may have merit, but my religion has earned it's rightful place in our political structure, thank you very much.
[ Let's examine the field. I have read Ron Paul's explicit Christian testimony and am heartened by his statements in favor of life and other issue of profound importance to Christian voters. Dr Ron Paul is outstanding in his analysis of the Federal Reserve and Austrian (Free Market) economics, and his domestic policy is overall quite good, but for a variety of issues that deserve a fully developed treatment and analysis, it is perhaps best to say that he has made a few remarks that are "off the reservation" with regard to current mainstream GOP voters. He will not be the GOP nominee (but I believe he can make an important contribution via his delegates at the GOP Convention in Tampa, Florida.) Beyond that it seems that Mr Paul is far and away the dark horse of the GOP field and as such not really a part of the discussion at hand. ]
In my estimation, Ron Paul is nuttier than a pecan pie but, since we both agree he is nut viable, I'll end it there.
[ That leaves the other three. In an effort to address the most crucial issue before us, how to unseat Obama I will stipulate, for the sake of this debate only, that Governor Romney has some problems.
Having said that, we are left with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.
If we table the viability of Governor Romney, the problem before us is: If not Romney, who? ]
Saying Romney "has some problems" could qualify you for understatement of the year. However, you last question gets to the meat of the matter. If not, Romney, who?
To answer that question, let's get back to my earlier comparison between the Governor from Massachusetts and the TEAM from Massachusetts. If not the Patriots, who?
There is only one possible answer... the Giants.
In this analogy, Newt is The Giants.
[ Realistically, one of the other two should step aside so that the votes of those opposed to Romney may be pooled together. Who must step aside? It must be Newt Gingrich. ]
It is ironic that you say "realistically" then suggest that it is Newt who should step aside. Gingrich leads Santorum nationally by 10 while Romney leads Gingrich by only 5.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152423/Romney-Leads-Gingrich.aspx
It is beyond any use of logic to suggest that Santorum is the more viable of the two.
[ I agree wholeheartedly that Mr Gingrich's attacks on the sanctimonious liberal media are delightful to watch but the sad truth is that he is an enormous liability to the Republican Party. ]
That is an assertion you have yet to prove.
[ Gingrich claims he is a "Reagan Conservative." This claim has as much validity as Islamo-Atheist Obama claiming that he is a Christian and that the Bible instructs him to raise taxes. Simply making a statement does not make it true. ]
That was not a very sound argument. The use of both hyperbole and the juxtaposition fallacy did little to advance your case. I would argue that BOTH Reagans (Nancy and Michael) have said that he is, in fact, the torch bearer for RR. I would also state that his accomplishments as Speaker (including 4 straight balanced budgets) speak for themselves.
[ Mr Gingrich is not a traditional conservative. Conservatives do not leave their wife (suffering with cancer) for another woman and then do the same to wife #2 (who suffered from MS) while carrying on an elongated affair with wife #3. Gingrich libeled his former wife by claiming he had "witnesses" that he never asked for an "open marriage." This defense is absurd on its face. Were these alleged witnesses with him at every moment? Were they privy to his bedroom conversations with his wife? If so, how reliable are their claims?
Even if you believe Gingrich's abandoned wife is a liar, you must face the reality that a triple-marriage career politician is better suited to the party of Clinton than than the Party of Reagan (Yes, Reagan was divorced once. His wife left him- enormous difference). ]
These things have nothing to do with being a Conservative. Sorry to inform you of this but Conservatives are sinners too, myself included. Was what Newt did rotten? Yes. Do I believe he is truly repentant? I do. King David committed adultery too, as did Mary Magdalene. God didn't write them off.
[ Can we be so naive as to believe that Mr Gingrich's "friends" in the media will not revisit this sordid affair over and over as he campaigns against beloved Obama? ]
No more than they will revisit Santorum comparing gays to those who have sex with animals. I care not what MSNBC has to say.
[ Gingrich polls in the low 20% with GOP women and even lower among independent women and democrats. There are more women registered to vote in the United States than men. This argument alone ought to be dis-positive on practical grounds. ]
Gingrich received a higher percentage of the women's vote in SC then either Romney or Santorum.
[ Fundamentally, the argument is that Gingrich represents "true" conservative values and Romney does not. The issue then becomes defining what you mean by "conservative."
Gingrich is a committed globalist who shepherded through GATT and NAFTA for Bill Clinton. These treaties sundered American sovereignty and resulted in the hemorrhaging of millions of manufacturing jobs and the massive influx of illiterate Mexicans whose own traditional economy was shattered as a direct consequence of NAFTA. Gingrich has never once apologized for his vital role in these fiasco and indeed boasts of it.
Did conservatives endorse pro-abortion/pro-homosexual "marriage" candidate Dee Dee Scozzafava over a TEA Party candidate? No. But NAFTA Newt did.
Do conservatives join with Nancy Pelosi endorsing the idea of man made climate change and make commercials on behalf of this sideshow? No, but NAFTA Newt did.
With millions of American citizens out of work and illegals FLOODING the US to take jobs away from unemployed Americans, do conservatives endorse the DREAM Act and amnesty? No, but Newt does. His Hispandering is nauseating.
The list goes on and on. I have not even started on Newt's profiting from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Newt is no conservative.
His erratic behavior and hubris guarantee an election campaign overflowing with gaffes (such as his "moon base" pledge) that will be fodder for the very media Newt disparages.
If anyone ought to drop out, it must be Newt. ]
First of all, I have never been one to buy into the ridiculous "One world government" hooey that springs from a gross misunderstanding of the book of Revelation and an almost flat-earth denial of the technological age we live in.
Nevertheless, I agree that NAFTA and GATT were both bad deals, not because they sought global trade (a reality that we must live in) but because the put us at an unfair advantage. We can argue that and all those other issues until the cows come home and it won't change one fundamental reality.
Either Newt will be the nominee or Romney will. I never claimed Newt was perfect, far from it. I have only said, and you agree, that Romney is worse.
Newt cleaned Rick's clock in SC and in Florida and Nevada will obviously be the same. Santorum cannot win...he can only help Romney win.
Is THAT what you want? I hope not. (2/4/12)
--------------------------------
ADDENDUM: Mr. Nixon, I offer my closing argument here and now and the supporters of Jimmy Z can decide the outcome. Here are the facts, and they are not disputed.
Mitt Romney has now won three states and Gingrich and Santorum one each. Santorum won Iowa by 34 votes over Romney, while Gingrich won South Carolina by almost 76,000 over Romney. Gingrich bested Santorum by almost twice that number in South Carolina.
All three of Romney's wins came in critical battleground states where Obama is trouble. In all 3, Romney won with less than 50% of the vote so the failure of conservatives to unite is to blame. In all 3, Gingrich beat Santorum. That's right, Gingrich has now beaten Santorum 4 consecutive times. True, the margin in New Hampshire was close but it has been anything but close since.
Here are the margins by Gingrich over Santorum in the last 3 contests by raw numbers and percentage:
These are the facts and they are undisputed. Santorum needs to drop out today. Period. The Gingrich side rests. (2/5/12)
PRO-SANTORUM: Elvis Nixon
It seems that the Newt Gingrich aficionados are intent on following a "don't bother me with the facts" stance.
Rasmussen released a poll today showing that Rick Santorum is the only Republican who can beat Obama in a head to head contest.
If Newt were a true conservative and a man of honor he would drop out today and pledge all of his support to Santorum -assuming Newt actually believes Romney is the wrong man for the job- a hard thing to imagine seeing as there is hardly a dimes' worth of difference on policy between them- except on importing illiterate illegal aliens in the midst of an economic crisis- Newt is all for that- Romney is not.
I pointed out the multiple factors that would lead any reasonable person to conclude that Newt Gingrich by far the worst candidate in GOP field
Gingrich has an abysmal record of throwing fellow conservatives under the bus in favor of enriching himself and preening before the cameras.
Ron Paul was the Texas Chairman for Ronald Reagan back in 1976. Reagan personally taped a glowing endorsement for Dr Paul when he was campaigning in the 1980's. Newt Gingich attempted to put an open borders neoCon up against Ron Paul. If your standard for a candidate is being a genuine "Reagan Conservative" that would mean you must endorse Ron Paul.
I made the following factual statements that were dismissed as something "we can argue about until the cows come home"- actually there would not be much of an "argument" as each statement is a historically accurate truth:
"..Gingrich is a committed globalist who shepherded through GATT and NAFTA for Bill Clinton. These treaties sundered American sovereignty and resulted in the hemorrhaging of millions of manufacturing jobs and the massive influx of illiterate Mexicans whose own traditional economy was shattered as a direct consequence of NAFTA. Gingrich has never once apologized for his vital role in these fiasco and indeed boasts of it.
Did conservatives endorse pro-abortion/pro-homosexual "marriage" candidate Dee Dee Scozzafava over a TEA Party candidate? No. But NAFTA Newt did.
Do conservatives join with Nancy Pelosi endorsing the idea of man made climate change and make commercials on behalf of this sideshow? No, but NAFTA Newt did.
With millions of American citizens out of work and illegals FLOODING the US to take jobs away from unemployed Americans, do conservatives endorse the DREAM Act and amnesty? No, but Newt does. His Hispandering is nauseating.
The list goes on and on. I have not even started on Newt's profiting from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Newt is no conservative.
His erratic behavior and hubris guarantee an election campaign overflowing with gaffes (such as his "moon base" pledge) that will be fodder for the very media Newt disparages.
If anyone ought to drop out, it must be Newt"
To discount the media firestorm that will be unleashed on whoever the GOP candidate will be it is madness to argue that "I do not care about what MSNBC says"- you may not but plenty of ignorant voters do listen to the managed media. Why give them a seemingly deranged candidate with a horribly checkered past?
Gingrich has led his entire public life as a parasite. A parasite on public funding. A parasite who excortiates actual conservatives like Paul Ryan with his infamous "Right Wing Social engineering" remarks- Gingrich is a parasite on the conservative moment.
The man is a phony and the electorate sees him as erratic and un-electable. His win in South Carolina has been repudiated by wide margins. Even his Vegas money base failed to generate any interest in him and his "sugar daddy" Adelson is cutting off the spigot of gambling $.
Newt must go - He is an embarrassment on par with Jeb Bush and Juan McCain.
[ It seems that the Newt Gingrich aficionados are intent on following a "don't bother me with the facts" stance. ] (Previous comments from Elvis Nixon appear in blue)
I thought that you were the one that said we should stay clear of hyperbolic, inflammatory rhetoric. First of all, I am not a Newt aficionado nor have I ever claimed to be. There are at least a dozen other candidates I would have been more than willing to support but each either declined to run or were not able to make a good showing. As for the "don't bother me with the facts" crap, that was just as incendiary, just as unnecessary and, frankly, just as much of a lie as the first statement.
I never contested a single true statement that you made. If I did, please point to it. You sir, do not seem to comprehend that something can be true and, at the same time, irrelevant to the debate at hand.
[ Rasmussen released a poll today showing that Rick Santorum is the only Republican who can beat Obama in a head to head contest. ]
As some one who knows a bit about polling, and actually interviewed Scott Rasmussen, let me tell you what this is called.... It's called "statistical noise". There have been dozens and dozens of polls taken by Rasmussen and Santorum, Gingrich, Cain and Romney have all been shown to lead Obama at one time or another. This is the first and only poll showing Santorum up top but it doesn't matter. They are up, they are down, from day to day and week to week but one thing remains constant- the incumbent Obama almost always draws less than 50% in the top-line (or horse race ) number. The same is true of his overall approval number and especially his strong approval number. They have all been consistently underwater. This is even more pronounced when you screen the sample to states (where Obama is underwater in 40 out of 50 and in 10 of the top 12 battlegrounds) and to undecided voters, where his approval/disapproval sits at -56 (20/76).
The same poll you referenced showed Romney down 47-41 correct? So, undecided voters who approve of Obama at a rate of 20% (and strongly approve of him at a rate of 2% are going to swing to him?
No. 76% of those undecideds are going to break for Romney, 20% for Obama and the remaining 4% will stay home. So, the reality of this poll is Romney at 50.1 and Obama at 49.4. Please do not insult my intelligence by suggesting that only Santorum can beat Obama. Obama is toast, it isn't even a question. We can beat him with a ham sandwich.
I am not concerned at all with the Democrats winning the 2012 election.....
but I am starting to be petrified about 2014 and 2016.
[ If Newt were a true conservative and a man of honor he would drop out today and pledge all of his support to Santorum -assuming Newt actually believes Romney is the wrong man for the job- a hard thing to imagine seeing as there is hardly a dimes' worth of difference on policy between them- except on importing illiterate illegal aliens in the midst of an economic crisis- Newt is all for that- Romney is not. ]
There isn't anything substantive that can be responded to there. First of all, I have already conceded the man of honor badge to Santorum. This is one of those irrelevant facts that I pointed to. Ok.... So, Santorum is more honorable than Gingrich. Billy Graham is more honorable than either of them so let's nominate Billy Graham. Stop being silly and stick to the facts. For you to suggest that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Romney and Gingrich is just more empty, hyperventilated rhetoric. Do I have disagreements with Gingrich? Sure. How about the fact that Santorum endorsed Arlen Spectre over Pat Toomey, hmmm? Arlen Spectre??? Are you kidding me????
None of the candidates are perfect. Yet, what has struck you down is the fact that you have already conceded that Romney is the worst. I will not let you back off that concession now because you find yourself cornered.
The ONLY relevant fact is that Gingrich at least has a shot of stopping Romney, while Mr. 10% clearly does not. Your insistence that the man who has beaten your guy 4 straight times (by almost 2 1/2 times in the last 3) is the guy who should drop out tells me one very sobering fact...
Do not ask for whom the "afraid of the facts" bell tolls....it tolls for thee.
[ I made the following factual statements that were dismissed as something "we can argue about until the cows come home"- actually there would not be much of an "argument" as each statement is a historically accurate truth. ]
Yes, I dismissed them, not on the basis of their accuracy but on the basis of their RELEVANCE. I opposed both Nafta and Gatt but that has NOTHING to do with the argument at hand. I would LOVE to get behind a candidate who is 100% right on 100% of the issues. We are trying to settle who can stop Mitt Romney and you want to argue with me over Nafta! This is especially silly since we AGREE that it was a bad law. Please try to stay on point.
I have already stated that Santorum is the more pure Conservative. I would LOVE to see Santorum as president. All of this means NOTHING when the man can't break 13% of the vote in any state. Santorum is NOT viable. He CANNOT beat Romney, He CANNOT beat Gingrich. You have done NOTHING to counter that very real and relevant truth.
[ To discount the media firestorm that will be unleashed on whoever the GOP candidate will be it is madness to argue that "I do not care about what MSNBC says"- you may not but plenty of ignorant voters do listen to the managed media. Why give them a seemingly deranged candidate with a horribly checkered past? ]
Reagan didn't have a 'checkered past', they savaged him. Quayle misspelled a word...they massacred him. Clarence Thomas was a human success story, they smeared him. With Sarah Palin, they went as far as to suggest that her husband was having sex with his own daughter. If you think they won't have Rick Santorum ripped to shreds by election day, you are delusional. Why would you let the media choose your candidate for you?
[ Gingrich has led his entire public life as a parasite. A parasite on public funding. A parasite who excortiates actual conservatives like Paul Ryan with his infamous "Right Wing Social engineering" remarks- Gingrich is a parasite on the conservative moment.
The man is a phony and the electorate sees him as erratic and un-electable. His win in South Carolina has been repudiated by wide margins. Even his Vegas money base failed to generate any interest in him and his "sugar daddy" Adelson is cutting off the spigot of gambling $.
Newt must go= He is an embarrassment on par with Jeb Bush and Juan McCain. ]
Ok. You hate Newt Gingrich. I get it. I could view your personal animus towards him as hypocritical but I will just say that you are entitled to your opinion.
However, you have failed to even approach making a case that Rick Santorum can beat him and you conceded early that it is between Gingrich and Santorum to do so because Romney has some problems.
If Gingrich's 76,000 vote win in SC has been repudiated by 2 losses what are we to say about Santorum's 4 straight drubbings after a 34 vote win in Iowa? Erratic and unelectable? They were sipping champagne in the White House the night Ronald Reagan won the nomination. The same who say Newt is unelectable say the same about Rick, They are the same who told us Ford, Dole and McCain were the most electable. You can say it, but you sure haven't shown it.
In my view, it is pretty clear that you lost this debate on the merits. Jimmy Z's readers will have to decide if they agree. (2/7/12)
PRO-GINGRICH: SonlitKnight
The best way for me to respond to Mr. Nixon is to put his remarks in brackets [ like this ] and then address them. So let's go......[ First of all, I thank SonlitKnight for his comprehensive opening salvo and his tone of respect and reasonable attitude. Far too often political debates degenerate into rancorous jeremiads with neither side proving much except their own emotional incontinence. ]
Well, thank you. You are right, political discussion can get emotional.
[ SonlitKnight and I agree one the most important issue of all. Mr Obama is a threat to Christian values and in his arrogance Mr Obama has emboldened our enemies abroad and weakened our nation at home. His judicial appointments have been a catastrophe and his administration is openly hostile to the republican form of government as enshrined in our U.S. Constitution.
The fundamental question is which candidate is best suited to unseat Mr Obama in the upcoming election? ]
No, I disagree. I think that, right now the question is which of the three remaining viable candidates is UNSUITABLE to run against Obama and how do we stop him? I think we are approaching this from the perspective of who you think the best man is. You say Santorum and you may very well be right.
However, the best man to run against Obama has to be someone theoretically capable of running against Obama.
I can say that the best team to beat the Patriots is the Steelers. I could argue that the Steelers beat the Patriots earlier. That is all irrelevant. Right now, the only team CAPABLE of beating the Patriots are the Giants. I may PREFER the Steelers but the only CHOICES are the Patriots and the Giants.
Likewise, Santorum is and has been a better man than Gingrich. I gladly concede it...but the nomination is going to be between Romney and Gingrich. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.
[ I must state that I am not overly impressed with any of the four remaining GOP candidates. In a nation that is overwhelmingly Protestant, it is peculiar that the political party most strongly associated with evangelical Christians has a Mormon front runner and two Roman Catholics as its top three candidates. ]
Overwhelmingly protestant? Huh? 1 in 4 Americans are Catholic making it-by far- the largest Christian denomination. Further, 9 of the 47 Republicans in the US Senate are Catholics. Again, by far, the largest denomination. In the US House, there are scores of Catholic Republicans, including the Speaker. The same is true of Governors- Bob McDonnell, the Governor of my state is one example. So, your comment about the fringe religion of Mormonism may have merit, but my religion has earned it's rightful place in our political structure, thank you very much.
[ Let's examine the field. I have read Ron Paul's explicit Christian testimony and am heartened by his statements in favor of life and other issue of profound importance to Christian voters. Dr Ron Paul is outstanding in his analysis of the Federal Reserve and Austrian (Free Market) economics, and his domestic policy is overall quite good, but for a variety of issues that deserve a fully developed treatment and analysis, it is perhaps best to say that he has made a few remarks that are "off the reservation" with regard to current mainstream GOP voters. He will not be the GOP nominee (but I believe he can make an important contribution via his delegates at the GOP Convention in Tampa, Florida.) Beyond that it seems that Mr Paul is far and away the dark horse of the GOP field and as such not really a part of the discussion at hand. ]
In my estimation, Ron Paul is nuttier than a pecan pie but, since we both agree he is nut viable, I'll end it there.
[ That leaves the other three. In an effort to address the most crucial issue before us, how to unseat Obama I will stipulate, for the sake of this debate only, that Governor Romney has some problems.
Having said that, we are left with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.
If we table the viability of Governor Romney, the problem before us is: If not Romney, who? ]
Saying Romney "has some problems" could qualify you for understatement of the year. However, you last question gets to the meat of the matter. If not, Romney, who?
To answer that question, let's get back to my earlier comparison between the Governor from Massachusetts and the TEAM from Massachusetts. If not the Patriots, who?
There is only one possible answer... the Giants.
In this analogy, Newt is The Giants.
[ Realistically, one of the other two should step aside so that the votes of those opposed to Romney may be pooled together. Who must step aside? It must be Newt Gingrich. ]
It is ironic that you say "realistically" then suggest that it is Newt who should step aside. Gingrich leads Santorum nationally by 10 while Romney leads Gingrich by only 5.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152423/Romney-Leads-Gingrich.aspx
It is beyond any use of logic to suggest that Santorum is the more viable of the two.
[ I agree wholeheartedly that Mr Gingrich's attacks on the sanctimonious liberal media are delightful to watch but the sad truth is that he is an enormous liability to the Republican Party. ]
That is an assertion you have yet to prove.
[ Gingrich claims he is a "Reagan Conservative." This claim has as much validity as Islamo-Atheist Obama claiming that he is a Christian and that the Bible instructs him to raise taxes. Simply making a statement does not make it true. ]
That was not a very sound argument. The use of both hyperbole and the juxtaposition fallacy did little to advance your case. I would argue that BOTH Reagans (Nancy and Michael) have said that he is, in fact, the torch bearer for RR. I would also state that his accomplishments as Speaker (including 4 straight balanced budgets) speak for themselves.
[ Mr Gingrich is not a traditional conservative. Conservatives do not leave their wife (suffering with cancer) for another woman and then do the same to wife #2 (who suffered from MS) while carrying on an elongated affair with wife #3. Gingrich libeled his former wife by claiming he had "witnesses" that he never asked for an "open marriage." This defense is absurd on its face. Were these alleged witnesses with him at every moment? Were they privy to his bedroom conversations with his wife? If so, how reliable are their claims?
Even if you believe Gingrich's abandoned wife is a liar, you must face the reality that a triple-marriage career politician is better suited to the party of Clinton than than the Party of Reagan (Yes, Reagan was divorced once. His wife left him- enormous difference). ]
These things have nothing to do with being a Conservative. Sorry to inform you of this but Conservatives are sinners too, myself included. Was what Newt did rotten? Yes. Do I believe he is truly repentant? I do. King David committed adultery too, as did Mary Magdalene. God didn't write them off.
[ Can we be so naive as to believe that Mr Gingrich's "friends" in the media will not revisit this sordid affair over and over as he campaigns against beloved Obama? ]
No more than they will revisit Santorum comparing gays to those who have sex with animals. I care not what MSNBC has to say.
[ Gingrich polls in the low 20% with GOP women and even lower among independent women and democrats. There are more women registered to vote in the United States than men. This argument alone ought to be dis-positive on practical grounds. ]
Gingrich received a higher percentage of the women's vote in SC then either Romney or Santorum.
[ Fundamentally, the argument is that Gingrich represents "true" conservative values and Romney does not. The issue then becomes defining what you mean by "conservative."
Gingrich is a committed globalist who shepherded through GATT and NAFTA for Bill Clinton. These treaties sundered American sovereignty and resulted in the hemorrhaging of millions of manufacturing jobs and the massive influx of illiterate Mexicans whose own traditional economy was shattered as a direct consequence of NAFTA. Gingrich has never once apologized for his vital role in these fiasco and indeed boasts of it.
Did conservatives endorse pro-abortion/pro-homosexual "marriage" candidate Dee Dee Scozzafava over a TEA Party candidate? No. But NAFTA Newt did.
Do conservatives join with Nancy Pelosi endorsing the idea of man made climate change and make commercials on behalf of this sideshow? No, but NAFTA Newt did.
With millions of American citizens out of work and illegals FLOODING the US to take jobs away from unemployed Americans, do conservatives endorse the DREAM Act and amnesty? No, but Newt does. His Hispandering is nauseating.
The list goes on and on. I have not even started on Newt's profiting from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Newt is no conservative.
His erratic behavior and hubris guarantee an election campaign overflowing with gaffes (such as his "moon base" pledge) that will be fodder for the very media Newt disparages.
If anyone ought to drop out, it must be Newt. ]
First of all, I have never been one to buy into the ridiculous "One world government" hooey that springs from a gross misunderstanding of the book of Revelation and an almost flat-earth denial of the technological age we live in.
Nevertheless, I agree that NAFTA and GATT were both bad deals, not because they sought global trade (a reality that we must live in) but because the put us at an unfair advantage. We can argue that and all those other issues until the cows come home and it won't change one fundamental reality.
Either Newt will be the nominee or Romney will. I never claimed Newt was perfect, far from it. I have only said, and you agree, that Romney is worse.
Newt cleaned Rick's clock in SC and in Florida and Nevada will obviously be the same. Santorum cannot win...he can only help Romney win.
Is THAT what you want? I hope not. (2/4/12)
--------------------------------
ADDENDUM: Mr. Nixon, I offer my closing argument here and now and the supporters of Jimmy Z can decide the outcome. Here are the facts, and they are not disputed.
Mitt Romney has now won three states and Gingrich and Santorum one each. Santorum won Iowa by 34 votes over Romney, while Gingrich won South Carolina by almost 76,000 over Romney. Gingrich bested Santorum by almost twice that number in South Carolina.
All three of Romney's wins came in critical battleground states where Obama is trouble. In all 3, Romney won with less than 50% of the vote so the failure of conservatives to unite is to blame. In all 3, Gingrich beat Santorum. That's right, Gingrich has now beaten Santorum 4 consecutive times. True, the margin in New Hampshire was close but it has been anything but close since.
Here are the margins by Gingrich over Santorum in the last 3 contests by raw numbers and percentage:
• In South Carolina, Gingrich beat Santorum by 141,111 votes. In this contest, Gingrich got 238% of the vote total of Santorum.If the 8% number holds, Santorum's average finish in the last 4 contests is less than 11% of the vote with Santorum losing ground to Gingrich 4 consecutive times since Iowa. True, even with Santorum out, Gingrich would have lost New Hampshire (Romney's back yard) and Nevada (where there was a heavy Mormon vote) but he would have still gotten more delegates, as those states give them by proportion. Yet, Gingrich could very plausibly have won Florida. Depressed turnout hurt him there because of Santorum's stubborn refusal to drop out. We are running out of time to stop Romney. This isn't funny anymore.
• In Florida, Gingrich beat Santorum by 310,318, achieving 239% of the Santorum vote.
• In Nevada, hard numbers are not yet in but the percentages are showing that Gingrich has gotten about 313% of the vote of Santorum, who at 8%, is going to also finish behind Ron Paul.
These are the facts and they are undisputed. Santorum needs to drop out today. Period. The Gingrich side rests. (2/5/12)
PRO-SANTORUM: Elvis Nixon
It seems that the Newt Gingrich aficionados are intent on following a "don't bother me with the facts" stance.Rasmussen released a poll today showing that Rick Santorum is the only Republican who can beat Obama in a head to head contest.
If Newt were a true conservative and a man of honor he would drop out today and pledge all of his support to Santorum -assuming Newt actually believes Romney is the wrong man for the job- a hard thing to imagine seeing as there is hardly a dimes' worth of difference on policy between them- except on importing illiterate illegal aliens in the midst of an economic crisis- Newt is all for that- Romney is not.
I pointed out the multiple factors that would lead any reasonable person to conclude that Newt Gingrich by far the worst candidate in GOP field
Gingrich has an abysmal record of throwing fellow conservatives under the bus in favor of enriching himself and preening before the cameras.
Ron Paul was the Texas Chairman for Ronald Reagan back in 1976. Reagan personally taped a glowing endorsement for Dr Paul when he was campaigning in the 1980's. Newt Gingich attempted to put an open borders neoCon up against Ron Paul. If your standard for a candidate is being a genuine "Reagan Conservative" that would mean you must endorse Ron Paul.
I made the following factual statements that were dismissed as something "we can argue about until the cows come home"- actually there would not be much of an "argument" as each statement is a historically accurate truth:
"..Gingrich is a committed globalist who shepherded through GATT and NAFTA for Bill Clinton. These treaties sundered American sovereignty and resulted in the hemorrhaging of millions of manufacturing jobs and the massive influx of illiterate Mexicans whose own traditional economy was shattered as a direct consequence of NAFTA. Gingrich has never once apologized for his vital role in these fiasco and indeed boasts of it.
Did conservatives endorse pro-abortion/pro-homosexual "marriage" candidate Dee Dee Scozzafava over a TEA Party candidate? No. But NAFTA Newt did.
Do conservatives join with Nancy Pelosi endorsing the idea of man made climate change and make commercials on behalf of this sideshow? No, but NAFTA Newt did.
With millions of American citizens out of work and illegals FLOODING the US to take jobs away from unemployed Americans, do conservatives endorse the DREAM Act and amnesty? No, but Newt does. His Hispandering is nauseating.
The list goes on and on. I have not even started on Newt's profiting from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Newt is no conservative.
His erratic behavior and hubris guarantee an election campaign overflowing with gaffes (such as his "moon base" pledge) that will be fodder for the very media Newt disparages.
If anyone ought to drop out, it must be Newt"
To discount the media firestorm that will be unleashed on whoever the GOP candidate will be it is madness to argue that "I do not care about what MSNBC says"- you may not but plenty of ignorant voters do listen to the managed media. Why give them a seemingly deranged candidate with a horribly checkered past?
Gingrich has led his entire public life as a parasite. A parasite on public funding. A parasite who excortiates actual conservatives like Paul Ryan with his infamous "Right Wing Social engineering" remarks- Gingrich is a parasite on the conservative moment.
The man is a phony and the electorate sees him as erratic and un-electable. His win in South Carolina has been repudiated by wide margins. Even his Vegas money base failed to generate any interest in him and his "sugar daddy" Adelson is cutting off the spigot of gambling $.
Newt must go - He is an embarrassment on par with Jeb Bush and Juan McCain.
PRO-GINGRICH: SonlitKnight
[ It seems that the Newt Gingrich aficionados are intent on following a "don't bother me with the facts" stance. ] (Previous comments from Elvis Nixon appear in blue)I thought that you were the one that said we should stay clear of hyperbolic, inflammatory rhetoric. First of all, I am not a Newt aficionado nor have I ever claimed to be. There are at least a dozen other candidates I would have been more than willing to support but each either declined to run or were not able to make a good showing. As for the "don't bother me with the facts" crap, that was just as incendiary, just as unnecessary and, frankly, just as much of a lie as the first statement.
I never contested a single true statement that you made. If I did, please point to it. You sir, do not seem to comprehend that something can be true and, at the same time, irrelevant to the debate at hand.
[ Rasmussen released a poll today showing that Rick Santorum is the only Republican who can beat Obama in a head to head contest. ]
As some one who knows a bit about polling, and actually interviewed Scott Rasmussen, let me tell you what this is called.... It's called "statistical noise". There have been dozens and dozens of polls taken by Rasmussen and Santorum, Gingrich, Cain and Romney have all been shown to lead Obama at one time or another. This is the first and only poll showing Santorum up top but it doesn't matter. They are up, they are down, from day to day and week to week but one thing remains constant- the incumbent Obama almost always draws less than 50% in the top-line (or horse race ) number. The same is true of his overall approval number and especially his strong approval number. They have all been consistently underwater. This is even more pronounced when you screen the sample to states (where Obama is underwater in 40 out of 50 and in 10 of the top 12 battlegrounds) and to undecided voters, where his approval/disapproval sits at -56 (20/76).
The same poll you referenced showed Romney down 47-41 correct? So, undecided voters who approve of Obama at a rate of 20% (and strongly approve of him at a rate of 2% are going to swing to him?
No. 76% of those undecideds are going to break for Romney, 20% for Obama and the remaining 4% will stay home. So, the reality of this poll is Romney at 50.1 and Obama at 49.4. Please do not insult my intelligence by suggesting that only Santorum can beat Obama. Obama is toast, it isn't even a question. We can beat him with a ham sandwich.
I am not concerned at all with the Democrats winning the 2012 election.....
but I am starting to be petrified about 2014 and 2016.
[ If Newt were a true conservative and a man of honor he would drop out today and pledge all of his support to Santorum -assuming Newt actually believes Romney is the wrong man for the job- a hard thing to imagine seeing as there is hardly a dimes' worth of difference on policy between them- except on importing illiterate illegal aliens in the midst of an economic crisis- Newt is all for that- Romney is not. ]
There isn't anything substantive that can be responded to there. First of all, I have already conceded the man of honor badge to Santorum. This is one of those irrelevant facts that I pointed to. Ok.... So, Santorum is more honorable than Gingrich. Billy Graham is more honorable than either of them so let's nominate Billy Graham. Stop being silly and stick to the facts. For you to suggest that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Romney and Gingrich is just more empty, hyperventilated rhetoric. Do I have disagreements with Gingrich? Sure. How about the fact that Santorum endorsed Arlen Spectre over Pat Toomey, hmmm? Arlen Spectre??? Are you kidding me????
None of the candidates are perfect. Yet, what has struck you down is the fact that you have already conceded that Romney is the worst. I will not let you back off that concession now because you find yourself cornered.
The ONLY relevant fact is that Gingrich at least has a shot of stopping Romney, while Mr. 10% clearly does not. Your insistence that the man who has beaten your guy 4 straight times (by almost 2 1/2 times in the last 3) is the guy who should drop out tells me one very sobering fact...
Do not ask for whom the "afraid of the facts" bell tolls....it tolls for thee.
[ I made the following factual statements that were dismissed as something "we can argue about until the cows come home"- actually there would not be much of an "argument" as each statement is a historically accurate truth. ]
Yes, I dismissed them, not on the basis of their accuracy but on the basis of their RELEVANCE. I opposed both Nafta and Gatt but that has NOTHING to do with the argument at hand. I would LOVE to get behind a candidate who is 100% right on 100% of the issues. We are trying to settle who can stop Mitt Romney and you want to argue with me over Nafta! This is especially silly since we AGREE that it was a bad law. Please try to stay on point.
I have already stated that Santorum is the more pure Conservative. I would LOVE to see Santorum as president. All of this means NOTHING when the man can't break 13% of the vote in any state. Santorum is NOT viable. He CANNOT beat Romney, He CANNOT beat Gingrich. You have done NOTHING to counter that very real and relevant truth.
[ To discount the media firestorm that will be unleashed on whoever the GOP candidate will be it is madness to argue that "I do not care about what MSNBC says"- you may not but plenty of ignorant voters do listen to the managed media. Why give them a seemingly deranged candidate with a horribly checkered past? ]
Reagan didn't have a 'checkered past', they savaged him. Quayle misspelled a word...they massacred him. Clarence Thomas was a human success story, they smeared him. With Sarah Palin, they went as far as to suggest that her husband was having sex with his own daughter. If you think they won't have Rick Santorum ripped to shreds by election day, you are delusional. Why would you let the media choose your candidate for you?
[ Gingrich has led his entire public life as a parasite. A parasite on public funding. A parasite who excortiates actual conservatives like Paul Ryan with his infamous "Right Wing Social engineering" remarks- Gingrich is a parasite on the conservative moment.
The man is a phony and the electorate sees him as erratic and un-electable. His win in South Carolina has been repudiated by wide margins. Even his Vegas money base failed to generate any interest in him and his "sugar daddy" Adelson is cutting off the spigot of gambling $.
Newt must go= He is an embarrassment on par with Jeb Bush and Juan McCain. ]
Ok. You hate Newt Gingrich. I get it. I could view your personal animus towards him as hypocritical but I will just say that you are entitled to your opinion.
However, you have failed to even approach making a case that Rick Santorum can beat him and you conceded early that it is between Gingrich and Santorum to do so because Romney has some problems.
If Gingrich's 76,000 vote win in SC has been repudiated by 2 losses what are we to say about Santorum's 4 straight drubbings after a 34 vote win in Iowa? Erratic and unelectable? They were sipping champagne in the White House the night Ronald Reagan won the nomination. The same who say Newt is unelectable say the same about Rick, They are the same who told us Ford, Dole and McCain were the most electable. You can say it, but you sure haven't shown it.
In my view, it is pretty clear that you lost this debate on the merits. Jimmy Z's readers will have to decide if they agree. (2/7/12)
Posts
Sadly SonlitKnight failed to make the argument that Gringrich is the “best man” for the job. Instead he made the case that Mitt sucks (agreed) and Santorum getting out would help Newt win regardless of whether or not he is the “best man.”
ReplyDeleteHowever, Santorum getting out would NOT have given Newt the win in Florida. Romney won 46.4% of the vote, Newt 31.9% and Rick 13.3%. In the unlikely event that all of Rick’s supporters would have gone to Newt that have given him 45.2%, still losing to Mitt. Nobody but Romney was winning Florida with the millions of negative ads he ran.
In fact, SonlitKnight even admitted that Santorum is more of a Conservative purist than Newt, an incredibly decent man and even more praise.
Between Rick and Newt, the Democrats have tons of baggage to dump on Newt but very little on Rick. I believe Rick will have better appeal in the general election when the candidate has to win over the moderate and independent vote. Newt’s anger and take no crap from the leftist media wins over conservatives but will go over so well with the mushy moderates and independents who actually decide who wins the election.
Rick is by far the better man and better conservative. I think his biggest problem is his appearance and mannerism (heard him called a whiner) and lack of familiarity. I think with more exposure he can rise above these.
It will be interesting to see how he does against Mitt in Missouri where Newt will not be on the ballot.
As of now the polls show:
2012 President: Republican Primary
45% Santorum, 34% Romney, 13% Paul
What if Rick beats Mitt after Romney trounced Gingrich??
For goodness sake, Newt, wake up and smell the coffee. It's not about you & your mega-ego, we've got a country to save and we need the best conservative with little baggage to do. If we can’t elect the best conservative, what the Tea Party movement for?
Rich H.
Rich,
DeleteThanks so much for the comment. Keep your eye out for Elvis Nixon's opening statement.
Jz
Rich,
ReplyDeleteFirst let me counter your claim that Newt would not have won Florida if Santorum had dropped out. I heartily disagree. 2 things happened as a result of Romney's obvious lead;
1) Protest voters, in small numbers, voted for Perry, Bachman and Cain.
2) 300,000 2008 voters stayed home.
If Gingrich was neck and neck with Romney, those voters would have gone with Mitt.
Secondly, I also disagree with your contention that I didn't make the case for Newt being the "best guy". The "best guy" is the guy who is both Conservative and effective. That is where Newt excelled. He won the House for the first time in 40 years and, when there, balanced the budget 4 straight time. Newt is a brawler at a time when a brawler is what we need. I truly believe he would keep his promise of 200 executive orders his first day.
Santorum, when in office, had great ideas too but was ineffective in getting them implemented. He also lost his Senate seat by the largest margin of any incumbent Senator in US History.
Ineffective legislator, ineffective campaigner. It's about RESULTS, Rich and that is where Rick, unfortunately falls short.
Third, we agree that Mitt sucks? Good. Now let's face the fact that only Newt can beat him. You show me Missouri? The only swing state to go for McCain?
Rich, there is only one question I have for you Santorum supporters. It is not whether Santorum is theoretically better than Gingrich. I will ask you if Gingrich is better than Romney. That really is your choice now. A vote for Santorum is a vote for Romney.
sorry... I meant to say "If Gingrich was neck and neck with Romney, those voters would have gone with Newt."
ReplyDeleteIllegals need to be arrested and deported forthwith, whether they've been here 20 years or 20 minutes. However, those who employ them, or flack for them, as NAFTA Newt does, need to be completely ruined-bankrupted and imprisoned, and their families and associates shunned and bankrupted as well.
ReplyDeleteAs Harvard Political Scientist Samuel P. Huntington has documented the US is NOT 'a nation of immigrants'-it is a nation and culture based on the history and culture of Europeans generally(and Northern Europeans most specifically) in cultural and ethnic terms, and, to the extent religion can be cited, Christian. And no, those initial Americans did not 'immigrate' they colonized the current US, and physically beat down the indigenous peoples at times as part of the process… Yet the descendants of the culture and peoples who colonized the nation in the first place are actually expected to quietly accept the transformation of the nation into some kind of multiculti mystery stew. Well, its time to stop 'tolerating' this transformation(for whose benefit?) and start fighting it-with special focus on the self-loathing and treasonous.
Newt Gingrich is a traitor to our Founders and all of those who have fought and bled in defense of our nation. If we are swamped with illiterate, illegal aliens who do not speak English and do not want to learn English we will have a fully dependent class of persons who will ensure Democrat victories in every election after Newt has shuffled of this mortal coil.
Wow
ReplyDeleteNewt a traitor?
You are showing yourself to be a little bit of an extremist.
If I were you, I would shun the hyperbolic hate speech and make a meritorious argument for the continuation of Rick's candidacy that is a little stronger than "vote for Rick because I hate Newt".
My position is not at all like yours. I do not hate your candidate. Maybe, Rick can build on last night's results and mount a challenge to Romney. If so, I would be only too happy to support him.