Why Evangelicals May Win the Nomination for Newt Gingrich
He provocatively says in his book Rediscovering God In America that “[t]here is no attack on American life more destructive and more historically dishonest than the secular Left’s relentless effort to drive God out of America’s public square.” He coined the phrase “secular-socialist machine” and has put out a plan to rein in activist judges.
He’s the only candidate that talks about the growing persecution of Christians in the Islamic world, saying the Arab Spring is becoming an “Anti-Christian Spring.” He shows himself to be in-tune with the latest developments outraging evangelicals, such as the complaint against the private Catholic University of America for having crosses in Islamic prayer rooms and no club exclusively for Muslim students.
The second reason is the “born-again” experience and how that makes it easy for evangelicals to look past his marital history. The experience is based in confessing personal failings and discovering a life-changing relationship with God. Most evangelicals relate more to someone who has fallen and redeemed himself than to someone who grew up in faith and has never known much else. His recent explanation would play very well in a church:
I do believe in a forgiving God. And I think most people, deep down in their hearts, hope there’s a forgiving God. Somebody once said that when we were young, we seek justice, but as we get older, we seek mercy.
If Gingrich opens up about his personal experience and how it brought him to God, he’ll rally the evangelical vote behind him. He started to do this on Hannity this week.
Last, the economy is the number one issue for evangelicals like everyone else. They want a candidate from their ranks, but substance plays a huge role in their decision. They want a commander-in-chief, but one who values the importance of faith in leadership.
During the October 18 debate, Gingrich said, “How can you have judgment if you have no faith? How can I trust you with power if you don’t pray?”
Those are the types of words evangelicals love to hear, but they must come from the mouth of someone they feel is a credible contender for the office of the presidency and has an actionable plan based on their issues.
It is the evangelical vote that will decide who stands next to Romney when the campaign becomes a two-man race. And right now, it looks like Gingrich is their candidate.
As a Conservative Evangelical I have wrestled with Gingrich as the potential GOP nominee to face Obama. I just cannot stop thinking about Dole vs Clinton when I consider Gingrich as the nominee. Maybe enough has changed since then, like people realize a youthful idealist radical like Obama is still not qualified to be President, even after being President for the past 3 years. Maybe America will want an older, more experienced person in the White House. For me, I am not ready to recant my previous concerns about Gingrich.
http://bluecollarphilosophy.com/2011/11/my-mea-culpa-about-newt-gingrichs-presidential-run/
In a race that will likely have gay marriage as a hot button issue, Gingrich’s multiple marriages and affair are going to an issue. Gingrich could do well in a debate against Obama, but I’m not yet convinced he’s the best choice.
So do you not believe in forgiveness, as discussed in the article?
Of course forgiveness is important. But in political terms, you know it will be an issue.
Gingrich recently was converted to Roman Catholicism. How does one suppose that will motivate evangelicals to vote for him? The Council of Trent, 1565, stated that only Catholics can be saved. Is Newt but a cafeteria Catholic; or does hw believe what his church teaches?
The Council of Trent!!? That was four hundred and fifty years ago! Excuse me, Smarty, but the Reformation is over. So is the Inquisition.
One could add to this that at Vatican II, the Catholic Church recognized the existence of other Christian communities as being in fact Christian. I personally haven’t run into a genuinely believing Catholic clergy or layperson who has failed to accept me as a fellow Christian in decades.
Your personal experiences notwithstanding, the decrees of the Council of Trent have never been rescinded and so still stand. The fact is, the RCC is the very mistress of deception and ambiguity. She teaches whatever the immediate audience wishes to hear. Force her defenders to define their terms and all their arguments collapse. Try “church” and “tradition” for starters. Compare their definitions to scriptural definitions, then throw away your Mr. Christopher medal and start looking for a new religion.
You are wrong about what the Catholic Church teaches in that regard.
Todd…
I know that you know about the account of King David and Bathsheba. David gets Bathsheba pregnant & tries to cover it up by sending her husband Uriah the Hittite into the front line of battle (guaranteeing his death). He was clueless about his crime/sin until rebuked by a prophet.
Psalm 51 is a confession from David to GOD. David pleads for mercy and forgiveness. He begs GOD to “blot out his transgressions, not be cast away from His presence, & not have GOD’s spirit taken from him.”
A man’s past is forgiven and forgotten by GOD, if that man truly repents.
4. Wishful thinking by Gingrich supporters.
Axelrod sup! , Are you sick? That’s all you could come up with this morning?
how so?
how so, please explain?
“In a remark that apparently no one noticed during the November 9 debate, Romney mentioned he’s only gone to one church and has only had one wife. He was obviously drawing a contrast with Gingrich.”
But Romney is STILL a Mormon and despite what many people say on the outside, on the inside I’ll bet a lot of these evangelicals still see Mormonism as a cult. It is a secret form of bias that may help Newt get the nomination.
And if Newt is smart, he may want Rick Santorum as a running mate. He comes from a very important state (Pennsylvania) and he’s very much a social conservative, something the evangelicals would love. Santorum is also very experienced and is a sharp fellow, something the Democrats would have a hard time fighting against. Santorum would be a big help to Newt and would help stir up the base, something Newt needs right now.
But Santorum can’t delver that state. He lost the senate seat by 20pts.
LETS SEE… A CATHOLIC potus AND A CATHOLIC vp TOO… SHALL WE HAVE THE POPE FOR sPEAKER OF THE hOUSE?
@ white pussy cat, some of born again types sure are fixated on catholics and their church. They don’t give a second thought to you.
@ white pussy cat, some of you born again types sure are fixated on Catholics and their church. They don’t give a second thought about you.
Very few ‘born again types’ fret much at all about the Catholic Church these days. For that matter, I doubt that Romney’s Mormonism is that great an obstacle except in the minds of the bigoted Left who try to make it an issue with evangelicals, whom they detest equally with Mormons. Romney’s got enough problems with “Romneycare”.
What a pity! Because their alleged Lord, Jesus Christ, commands them to love me as much as they love themselves. But then, the RCC never did pay much attention to what God had to say, did they. Nor have you.
and Hermain Cain as Secretary of the Treasury (or Commerce).
But not until he completes his remedial reading course.
This is a large part of why I can back Newt. He has shown that he has grown since his divorce days. The only problem I have with newt these days is his initial lurch to the left when new crisis’ emerge that need to be dealth with.
Perhaps reading more in depth about Newt’s issues and so called baggage would help? http://www.newt.org/answers?mid=52
* * * “Perhaps reading more in depth about Newt’s issues and so called baggage would help?”
Yes, yes it would — from an unbiased source, NOT Newt’s own horn-tootling, I-wanna-be-president website!
The only positive I can find with Newt is that he could blow Obama out of the water in any debate. There is simply too much history to overcome the negatives. He says he has “grown” since his House speaker,philandering days, when he couldn’t seem to handle his growing power. Mitt Romney has been a thoughtful grown up all his adult life, and as a Evangelical Christian I’ll stake my lot with him as the man that can solve American economic problems and deal with foreign policy in a pro-Israel, pro-freedom manner. Independents are going to decide this election and everyone should keep that in mind.
Romney is an entitlement pimp like the Bush/Rove clan. The republican party has no purpose if we elect “tax collectors for the welfare state.”
If we elect Romney and get ‘expanded ag subsidies 2′, ‘No child left behind 2′ and ‘Prescription drugs 2′ then I am out of the Republican party.
I’m not so sure about Mitt. Everything he has done in his state is left of center. And BTW, what the heck is a definition of “CENTER”. He is a RINO.
Newt has a lot of baggage. Not all of it good. But, I, WE! – need to get rid of obama, that is first and foremost. And Newt is an extremely smart man. Yes, he had issues in earlier years, but he is an American! Heart and sole.
“And Newt is an extremely smart man.”
Trouble is; an extremely smart man is EXTREMELY scary to a whole lot of people in America, especially those in the mushy middle and the young. The Blacks, most Hispanics, and the divorced or never married women, and the young that vote will never vote for an authoritative heterosexual white male. But we really need to peel off some of the yutes and some suburban women. To the yutes, Newt is the professor that might give them a B. To the suburban women, he’s a man that might actually want to discipline their children and keep score at a game. I like him; want to vote for him, but with an electorate a majority of which voted for an avowed communist, we got a long, hard row to hoe.
Obama has more personal baggage than any other POTUS that I know of. And he is not one bit repentant.
Thanks for that! Romney is the grown up and has been faithful and loyal to his family all of his married life. Does that not mean character to anyone? You know Rush has mentioned that why haven’t the dems gone after Romney when they have gone after everyone else? Well, I think it’s because the conservatives have made their job easy. We will take him out ourselves, so they don’t have to spend time getting rid of him.
I believe he’s the one man who could defeat this America hater in office. I think he is the one man the Independents could get behind. Romney loves this country and is not afraid to say so. You call him a flip flopper and yet you don’t mind that Newt (whom I like) has to explain a lot of the things he has done.
Our country will be under in 4 more years with the supreme court made up of commie libs, but gosh Romney is a Mormon!
There is more to Gingrich than his debating skills. He has already led one conservative revolution. Go back and read the first Contract With America. Give him credit for implementing it. He has the experience to do it again.
Let’s not be disingenuous or prevaricate or be hypocritical. There is only one reason the evangelicals prefer Newt. He’s not Mormon. Most evangelicals wouldn’t know what Mormon beliefs are if they were on a billboard 1000 ft tall. They are more than willing to vomit the misinformation given to them by people who wouldn’t recognize the truth if it slapped them in the head.
Does Romney have faults? Absolutely. Will I vote for him? I don’t know yet.
Does Newt have faults? Again absolutely. But I won’t not vote for him or support him because he’s Catholic.
I want my elected officials to have religion. I want them to be moral people with a firm handle on the difference between right and wrong. I want them to believe in a power higher than man and to have integrity, honor, faith and hope.
After the last two election cycles however I am rethinking my stand on religious bias. I’m just about ready to fall in on the side of “anyone but an evangelical”. While I’ve tried to be a bigger person, I am beginning to see that for them there is no such thing as tolerance. “Our way or the highway” seems to be the first and foremost tenet of their faith.
Makes that whole “love one another” idea kind of moot.
I happen to be one of the Evang`s. that you are lumping together in your false assessment of why one group votes a certain way….I would vote for a Hindu, or Zin Buddist if he loved America, and supported conservative agenda…please don`t make dumb statements like this in the future….You do want people to think you have brains don`t ya……
“I want my politician to have religion” .. but, you won’t vote for Newt because he is a Catholic??? A contradiction, wouldn’t you say?
Read it again Dear. I won’t NOT vote for Newt. This means his religion is NOT a factor in whether I vote for him or not.
My point was not that evangelicals were evil, simply that many of them won’t support Romney because he’s Mormon. Not because he’s not qualified or experienced enough. Simply because they don’t like his religion, which many of them no next to nothing (that is true, anyway) about. As I said I’m not sure who I’ll vote for. I vote for the person with the most experience, who has integrity and is honest and upright.
I could tell you about a candidate for a local election in my area who had evangelicals go to churches around the area and spread lies and misinformation about the candidates religious beliefs causing them to lose the election and one of their own to win. This is fact. This is the truth. So tell me again why I should believe otherwise when this is the experience I’ve had personally. I don’t even have to rely on made up stories and half- truths and vicious lies.
I have NEVER in the past made a persons religion a determinate as to whether I would support them for office but I must say that it is harder now not to take that into consideration. I haven’t had very positive experiences with evangelicals in person and on the internet but I’m sure there are some out there who aren’t intolerant of those who they think have different beliefs. Those who are more concerned with the beliefs we have in common.
Aren’t there?
This evangelical (me) will not support Romney because of Romneycare. He has lost credibility on that issue. He’s a smooth talker, but can’t talk his way out of that one, INHO.
I’m an evangelical. Personnaly, I think Mormonism is a cult. However, they are blessed with very stable families and good morals. Mormonism is not why I don’t want Romney. Romneycare is one reason. I don’t hear him talking about revamping the tax code (i.e., more crony capitalism with corporate tax welfare). He’s too vanilla (like McCain) and I’m afraid of the same too nice campaign when we all know Obama will run the dirtiest campaign ever. We need a fighter. I just can’t picture Romney as a fighter.
I’m an evangelical. You said we don’t know what Mormonism teaches. Mormons deny the divinity of Jesus Christ; they claim Lucifer is Christ’s brother; they deny Christ’s work on the cross; they deny salvation through faith, not works; they claim that God is up on some alien planet, having sex and producing children who are incarnated onto Earth; they claim that every Mormon, if they are good enough, can themselves become gods. And so on and so forth. Oh, and their “Prophet” Joseph Smith made specific prophecies that were not fulfilled, thus making him biblically a false prophet.
In other words, I know what Mormonism teaches and, as a result, consider it a cult.
You are mixing truth with lies. The LDS Church teaches that Christ is the Son of God, that he is Devine, that he was born to the virgin Mary, that he paid the ultimate price for sin for all who have ever lived, and will ever live on Earth -through his Atonement, which included the suffering in the Garden and on the cross. The LDS church teaches that all humans are also sons and daughters of God, but Christ is the only one of us begotten in the flesh, the only devine One on Earth, and the only Perfect Being to have ever walked the earth. In reference to Satan being Christ’s brother, the LDS church believes that he was a son of God as well, an angel that rebelled against God. Thus, the church does believe that Christ, Satan and all humans are brothers and sisters in that sense. Chirst is God’s firstborn in the Spirit of all these spirit children.
Yes Mormon beliefs vary greatly from “orthodox” or “mainstream” Christianity on many, many issues, but the divinity of Christ, and the fact that he is the only path back to God, through His Grace, is not one of them. Many in the Evangelical community try to twist what Mormon’s believe in this regard to distance them even further. Mormons believe that their own actions and good works will not save them, but that they NEED Christ’s Grace to be saved.
I was for a Gingrich/Rice ticket in 2000, but we got weenie lib “W” instead.
I was overseas and hadn’t read the “baggage” that the Left hung on him.
I still don’t know what it’s all about, nor do I care, if it’s just divorces.
Who cares? The heros of right and left in the US are pederast football players.
At least Newt had his gendership correct!
I think thats an excellent ticket for 2012.
Perhaps reading more in depth about Newt’s issues and so called baggage would help? http://www.newt.org/answers?mid=52
The $1.6 million Newt was paid by Freddie Mac and his lying explanation that it was just for historical advice ought to be enough to sink his candidacy unless people are stupid enough to believe that Washington can be cleaned up by someone who has had his nose in the trough.
Not seeing why evangelicals would go for Newt.
Newt supported federal funding of abortions (not to mention TARP and the individual mandate), and his personal life is a mess. He is the worst candidate the GOP could nominate from a family values standpoint.
You all miss a central point: Mormons are not considered Christians, based on their beliefs. Yes you can check it, but most denominations will not recognize Mormon baptism, the Roman Catholics in the lead.
You should also remember the Mountain Meadows Massacre, when Mormons killed a number of non-Mormons while dressed as Paiutes. People in the area remember it quite well and anti-Mormon feeling is strong through very silent.
And you have to get quite heretical for the Catholic Church not to recognize you as having been baptized. If a Seventh Day Adventist wishes to become a Catholic, he will only need to receive Confirmation. Mormons, on the other hand, deny the Trinity as such, so they will not be considered to have been validly baptized.
The Seventh Day Adventist baptism is “not” recognized as valid, if becoming a Catholic. The Mormon baptism is not recognized due the their re-definition of who Christ is. They do not believe he was conceived in a “divine nature”. They do not share the christian understanding of a triumph God. They are not Monotheistic. Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witness and Mormons are “restorationists” unlike the Protestants, who are “reformationists”.. Restorationist’s believe that the Gospel of the Lord has not been present on earth for the past 1800 years (approx) but was “restored” through their individual prophets. Catholic’s “do” recognize the baptisms of most the reformationist religions, because they are baptized in the name of the Trinity.
There really is no use confronting your ignorance but it’s hard to remember something that happened in 1857. I don’t think anyone is alive that would remember it. However, it was horrible and was not done by the LDS Church it was done by some men who had been kicked out of Illinois, whose lives had been destroyed and some of whose women had been killed. There is no excuse for it. I agree!
The evangelicals just cannot understand that we believe in Christ, but we believe there is Father, Son and Holy Ghost. As he stated to his disciples “Be one even as my Father in Heaven and I are one.” OK, I’m making dinner so you look it up to get the exact quote.
Anyway, we do not go around saying anyone else is not a Christian, it’s hard to understand how much we are hated by the evangelicals.
I will let Christ be the Judge!
After many election cycles, it becomes obvious that there will never be one perfect candidate. The ultimate choice, always, is the lesser of two very flawed people. In the primary stage, it is the choice among many flawed candidates.
After many election cycles, it becomes clear that America must pay for our bum choices. If we continue to send crummy people to Washington, we will not survive. Robert Kennedy summarized it best: If the voter wishes to go to hell, it is our job to get him there. Our economy has almost arrived, melted down.
Newt is one of the brightest, and dumbest, candidates to run, in modern times. Some of his statements have made me gasp. But he has the knack of learning, changing, and he has seen the elephant; he knows Washington, and its too concentrated power. I will listen to him. Trust will have to wait.
There is no chance he can win. I don’t like Romney but at least he certainly could win.
Only if we vote for him. I have a problem with that.
Sure, Gingrich has baggage, but he would wipe the floor with Obama. It would be amazing to watch, a pleasure actually. Obama is an empty suit. He only knows now to deceive. I hope that anyone defeats him.
I, for one, can’t wait to see it!
I am an evangelical conservative who has supported Herman Cain for months now. However, Gingrich would be an attractive alternative for the very reasons you state. With Herman’s campaign imploding due to internal mismanagement, I could easily move int the Gingrich camp.
There are only 8 candidates left, and only 2 obviously viable ones. Other than Romney and Newt, all the rest are long shots.
And each of the viable 2 have strengths and weaknesses.
I advocate for selecting the one who is most likely to defeat the most dangerous person on the planet.
Mitt and Newt are both pretty good candidates, but both will be attacked by a billion+ dollars seeking to destroy their character and beliefs because the most dangerous man on the planet can’t run on his record.
Mitt, in my view, believes in himself and will defend himself vociferously. Conservative policies? not so much. Pull Obama into the melee? probably not.
Newt, in my view, believes in a conservative view of the world, and will advocate for that more vociferously than anybody else in the country is capable of doing. I also believe he will counter-attack like a trained police dog and will bring Obama’s lifetime of radicalism and corruption into play. I don’t care how hot Newt’s pants were a generation ago, and I accept that people can change.
I hope the country will come to the same conclusion.
“Other than Romney and Newt, all the rest are long shots.”
A couple of weeks ago that sentence would have read “Other than Romney and Herman”. A few weeks before than it would have read “Other than Romney and Rick” (no, not Santorum). A few weeks before that it would have read “Other than Romney and Michele”.
Let’s face it, the contest is down to Romney and Somebody Else. The name of Somebody Else keeps changing but it’s always Romney and whoever is flavor of the month.
Full Disclosure: I support Michele Bachmann. You can say I’m living in the past, but I made my decision in July and I haven’t changed my mind.
Read Michele’s book before the next time you change your mind.
and what exactly is the virtue of not changing your mind? It seems to me that favoring a candidate until he or she demonstates an inability to win is ok. We are supposed to learn about them during this process, aren’t we?
Also, your argument seems to be that any of them can come back and be a factor. But that’s almost certainly not true. The reason Newt has caught on is that as the field has been winnowed, people decided to give him a second look, largely because he is such a good debator, because he had major successes in the past, and seems to have learned from his many mistakes. It’s hard to say anything similar for Bachmann, or Perry, Cain, and Ron Paul. The timing just isn’t right. Gingrich had decades to mellow, and he hadn’t been rejected, just ignored. People aren’t going to turn away from Michell or Perry and then a couple of months later go back to them. I guess there is some chance for Huntsman and Santorum, since they haven’t had their day in the sun. I just doubt it. How will Huntsman overcome his rep as a liberal? If anybody else can emerge, it has to be Santorum, but it seems remote at this time, since he is hardly a mystery man.
I know the conventional wisdom is that anything can happen. I’m challenging that. I think the writing is on the wall after about 6 months of the candidates actively revealing themselves. I don’t expect any big surprises at this point. The path seems to be that Newt will take his lumps now and if he can survive them, he and Romney will fight it out through the first half dozen primaries. By that point, the winner will be obvious.
I understand the desire to have someone new and better, since Newt and Mitt have such obvious flaws, or someone old who re-catches fire. I’m just stating what seems to me to be the harsh reality of the situation.
I also don’t think a brokered convention is very likely.
I recently reregistered as an Independent BECAUSE I resent the interference of evangelicals in the election process. Beginning with the “caucus” in Iowa evangelicals have more than their share of influence. I firmly believe religion should be kept out of the process. I don’t believe saying “I’m sorry” or confessing erases past deeds. Newt has shown by his second and possibly third marriage, that he did not learn very much from his first’error of judgment’. As more and more of his background is divulged, we may see that his errors of judgment are not limited to his dealings with wives. I consider his account at Tiffany’s an error of judgement for a man who wants to be elected to public office as much as Michelle’s exotic vacation in Spain in a time of recession in the US.
I am not a Republican anymore either the hypocrisy of the NotMitt campaign is just too much for me. I can’t be part of this party anymore.
I can support Romney, but the rest are far too flawed…
Maybe there will be a third choice but I probably won’t vote… or I might vote against someone as fake as Newt… I don’t’ know.
My guess is there will be many fewer Republicans since Romney has been treated like this.
In fact I bet those churches lose members too. It is such transparent bigotry no one wants to be party to this.
Evangelicals have done what the Democrats have tried to do for years… destroy the Republican Party.
Newt is leading the polls now but it’s difficult for me to believe he will be the last man standing. Newt could debate Obama very easily but I don’t want a smooth-talker for president again. Look where that got us. I want a conservative leader. Newt ain’t it. And then there’s that unfortunate wife. LOL
Newt’s personal past interests me less than his future plans to restore the country. I watched him present his explanation of his plan for America on CSPAN about a month ago and was impressed.
Full Disclosure: I support Michele Bachmann. Read her book before making your final decision.
It strikes me that Newt Gingrich might have a bit of trouble with evangelicals (I am not an evangelical Christian BTW). Newt was a protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism. There are some Protestants who still live in the Middle Ages who hate Catholics (see Chick, Jack). They might have trouble with Newt because not only is he Catholic, he converted to Catholicism which is considered worse by some bigots.
Imagine the difficulties a voter would have if they hated Catholics, Mormons and blacks. Just on predjudice alone they have rejected Huntsman, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Cain.
To make this 100% clear I do not hold or approve of this sort of mindset.
I’ve been telling this joke for a few weeks now. Although I support Bachmann, I get a laugh out of the idea of Cain running against Obama because it would destroy the Ku Klux Klan. Every member’s head would explode at the very thought.
Real Evangelicals know that Christianity is about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not what where you have your church membership.
Want proof? Look at how Billy Graham spoke to people of all kinds of churches, even Catholics.
Of course, that doesn’t mean you won’t be able to find someone who calls himself an Evangelical, but who ignores Scriptures he finds inconvenient behaves in a way that brings discredit on Jesus. The Bible says the future for such people is going to be worse than for unbelievers. So, if you are an unbeliever, don’t use them for an excuse.
Forgiveness of Newt belongs to God and his wife.
His past behavior is the best indication of his future behavior that we have.
Newt did nothing to me, I can’t forgive him for that , but I can vote against him because of his past behavior.
After you finish Bachmann’s book try reading some of Gingrich’s books. Try Rediscovering God in America or A Nation Like No Other or Drill Here Drill Now or Saving Lives and Saving Money. Gingrich isn’t perfect but he is ready to be president. Bachmann isn’t.
Evangelicals have more in common with a Conservative Catholic than a Liberal Protestant (or an LDS member).
Like Huckabee, Cain would have been the best match, but Cain appears to be faltering enough to make many Evangelicals consider it prudent to move to Gingrich.
No surprise here to this guy who grew up closer to Billy Graham’s Alma Mater than to his high school.
#3 Libertyship 46: “And if Newt is smart, he may want Rick Santorum as a running mate……” The majority of the American electorate is centrist to slightly right. Santorum is a far-right religious socialist. Among other things, he wants to mandate teaching of only abstinence-based sex education in the schools.
#6 seanmahair: “I want my elected officials to have religion…..” I’d prefer that they have a focus on jobs, the economy, etc. And if one supports the US Constitution, there is that section about no religious tests for office.
#16 donna quixote: thank you for your thoughts about interference of evangelicals in elections. Reminds me of a quote from a long deceased; hard core traditional conservative; friend: “I voted for Reagan to get government off my back. I did not vote for Reagan to put government into my bedroom or for government to tell me what my religious beliefs should be.”
He’s the only candidate that talks about the growing persecution of Christians in the Islamic world, saying the Arab Spring is becoming an “Anti-Christian Spring.”
The United States of America should not EVER enter into war for RELIGION. Not EVER. The USA is a Judeo-Christian country, founded by same. To stay true to the founding, and the Constition, we cannot openly prefer one religion over another several thousand miles away.
Hypocrites hang together I suppose.
The irony of this will not elect him President
You can’t beat Obama’s corruption with an even more corrupt politician! This is ridiculous.
Enough, for God’s sake with religion and past marital sins. Is Gingrich today, in the Fall of 2011, a champion of economic and social conservatism? Is he the sharpest knife in the drawer among all the candidates? Would he clean Obama’s clock in any debate?
The answers are yes, yes, and hell yes.
Sit home and nurse your delicate feelings about moral sensibilities and religious doctrines. I, for one, see this election as a last chance to save this country, and I want a champion who can crush this godless socialist and all his corrupt sponsors.
In the same breath, “enough with God…” and “crush the godless socialists”!
Why, bless your little heart! We’re just a bit confused, aren’t we?
Surely it is up to God to forgive; or not to forgive. God forgives on repentance; which necessarily entails reformation. So, when Newt quits is adulterous marriage, see Mt.19.3-9, God will forgive him.
But thats not the point. look, please, into the publicized details of the series of broken relationships in his wake, and see if this is the kind of person you want to make the most powerful man in the world. If you share his brand of morality; go for it! If not, the remaining option is to keep looking for someone more suitable. I’ll keep on looking.
People have short memories sometimes. In 1998, Newt resigned from Congress. The power struggle within the Republican Party would have forced him from the Speakership…He decided to step both down and out. This followed the ethics violation which, while much ado about nothing (tax exemption and the college courses at Kennesaw St Univ)…tarnished him…Ironically, the IRS cleared the course exemption a year later…and too late for Gingrich.
Nevertheless, the media will no doubt resurrect the turmoil of Newt’s departure from Congress..complete with headlines about how he had many enemies on both sides of the aisle at the time.
Newt would be a tremendous Secretary of Commerce…if not Secretary of State. He is the right brain in the wrong politician…replete with a warehouse full of baggage…and basically unelectable as President.
The reason that conservatives have decided to give Newt more than a passing glance is because they don’t want to vote for Romney or Perry and they know Bachmann and Santorum can’t get the traction needed to win either the primary or the general election.
From the polls you listed, it is impossible to tell if Cain has indeed fallen as far and as fast as we are being told to believe. In fact it is impossible to tell anything from those polls; throwing them onto paper does not a statement make.
I think that the left and their RINO enablers had the ephiany they were helping Cain get noticed with the retarded accusations against him and thus have returned to their strategy of “Cain is a nobody”.
Gingrich is not rising because evangelicals are stupid and will forgive him and vote for him because he says what they want to hear. Rather the evangelicals, (and conservatives in general) are interested in Newt because, unlike Perry and Romney, Newt is championing conservative causes and has a past track record of success.
At this point, I’m still leaning toward Cain. I don’t think Newt can win a general election. I do think that Cain can win it handily. Character, qualifications and electablity matter to me. Telling me that “others” think Cain is not qualified is not an adequate reason in my book. Unless someone can show me substance to back that up the claims that Cain will not represent my interests, then I see no reason to change my mind.
If conservatives really wanted a “conservative” candidate, then why have they mostly ignored Bachman and Santorum? I read these threads and shake my head.
As for myself, I am a red blooded, God fearing, young American lady. I see no future with the politics of the Obama administration. Our country is on economical life support. Also the whole Middle East and Africa are inflamed due to this administrations policies. A 15 trillion dollar debt has us on a solid course to a full blown 3rd world status.
I will gladly vote for Romney or Newt. I will not look for their faults because I am overwhelmed with the faults of our current leadership. My only judgement at this point is my adamant disdain for Obama and the rapid destruction of America that he is causing.
The man in the Oval Office is unqualified and needs to be removed.
I work and live around liberals who say the same things I am reading here. How sad. There is not one person that can predict with 100% accuracy how Mitt Romney nor Newt Gingrich will lead. Rest assured though, we CAN predict how Obama will continue to lead. If that doesn’t scare you, then you obviously like Obama more than you are willing to admit.
I am going to work hard for our candidate whomever he/she may be and I will not feed negative words on any forum to help the other side. They already have enough power.
“if conservatives really wanted a ‘conservative’ candidate, then why have they mostly ignored Bachman & Santorum….”
My perspective is that when one closely examines their platforms, neither is a true conservative. Yes, they both have an amount of fiscal conservatism and I like that. What turns me personally off from both is their religion. I have good friends who are Christians. But none of them; unlike these two candidates; have a need or inclination to convert everyone to their beliefs; or to impose their personal religious views on other citizens. Using the power of big government to impose certain religious beliefs is not conservative, but rather is socialist. Perry, Cain, Gingrich fall into the same boat.
And yes, I don’t want Obama to be the next President. But at this time, I don’t see anyone within the crop of Republican candidates other than Jon Huntsman for whom I would vote. Or maybe Gary Johnson. Huntsman is also religious; but at least he gets basic economics, understands science, and is a strong conservationist in the tradition of Goldwater and Reagan.
I am not looking for a candidate that can feed nor starve my soul. I am looking for a leader and we currently don’t have one. You should have no fear Steve, none of the republican candidates will attempt to drag you to the alter nor send the boogeyman looking for you.
If Huntsman or Johnson is your only choices, then vote accordingly. If you think none of the other candidates can beat Obama, then I might suggest you review the stats. I do believe Truman was the only sitting president to win re-election with a 47% approval rating. Obama can’t seem to rise above the mid 40′s. When over 70% of the American people say the country is heading in the wrong direction, then I think it is more than fair to say: someone is going to get fired. Let’s not forget the unemployment rate. I hardly doubt those fifteen million unemployed people are going to rush to the polls to vote for Obama.
May the best man win. I am optimistic it will either be Romney or Gingrich.
Debbie: regarding your comment about “being dragged to the altar,” suggest you visit this web site: http://www.au.org . Some of the stuff coming from the more radical evangelicals is downright scary. I was raised Catholic and know all about altars.
God, I hope Newt is not the ‘conservative’ choice. If I wanted to vote for a leftist, inside the beltway politician, I would vote for Romney.
Let’s hope he is simply the flavor of the month and will go away soon. Just because he is smart and politically experienced does not make him my candidate. If Newt or Romney are selected I will write in my choice.
Speaking from THE GREAT WHITE NORTH (Canada)…
I has occurred to me the parallel between Newt Gingrich and Winston S. Churchill…
Churchill had vast experience in government as well but had never been considered as a Prime Minister prospect….indeed he began public life as an elected Liberal and “walked across the floor” many times. At the momment of the declaration of war, he was sitting as an independant….
No one will deny Churchill had many many faults, not the least his part in the failed Galipolli/Dardinelles offensive….but was without doubt the man of the hour during Britain’s greatest peril.
IMNSHO…both are/were vastly experienced, intelligent, great orators (no teleprompters needed) and formidable debators…..and unrepentant anti-socialist/anti-communists.
I suspect that much as Churchill was indispensable for the Battle of Britain that Newt Gingrich is indispensable for the Battle for America…
It warms the Democrat’s heart that Newt could possibly be the next Republican presidential hopeful. Christians digrees over what true forgiveness is as if they know the thoughts, intentions or motives of the individual. Newt’s a classic “self-worchiper” has been all his career. His bloated sense of himself has been and always will be his weakness. You Christians always talk about foregiveness but never talk about how much an arrogant or haughty person is offensive to true spirituality.
Tim
PLEASE VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE THAT BEST REPRESENTS AND ARTICULATES YOUR VALUES. It has always been a failure when our folks voted for “someone who can win”. I have always liked Rick Santorum and I suppose I will vote for him in the primary. I plan to WORK for the winner of the nomination. EACH of them is a forceful advocate of many if not all of my opinions and beliefs.
Too bad Newt isn’t conservative. The Whitebread Retread sure does make himself look good though, when he isn’t stabbing us in the back.
I’m a Southern Baptist and former Catholic. To me there is not much difference between Catholicism and Mormonism. My church (which used to be Newt’s church as well) sends missionaries to Utah to convert Mormons and also to Latin America to convert Catholics. I have no problem voting for a Mormon, Catholic, Jew, etc. I do have a problem with voting for someone who lacks character. Newt carried on affairs and cheated on two of his wives. One affair went on while he was pushing the impeachment of Clinton, who cheated on his wife. I really can’t stand the hypocracy. Newt very suddenly and conveniently converted to Catholicism so he could wangle an annulment from the Catholic church so he could marry wife #3. Many Catholics and evangelicals will have a problem with this. Newt also unfairly dissed fellow Republican Paul Ryan for coming up with a brilliant solution to the Medicare fiasco. True Newt has repented of his adultries etc. but forgiveness does not involve me voting for him. His sins were against God but also against his fellow Americans. Romney is certainly not perfect, and his theology is not much better than Newt’s and at least he is the husband of one wife and has shown himself worthy of the country’s trust. Newt can appear as contrite as he wants, but I’m not ready for another president that has a “zipper” problem.