Newt Gingrich is making some news because he told someone at a campaign event to vote for Obama. Really.
Okay, here’s what happened. At a Gingrich rally in Oskaloosa, Iowa, a gay Democrat Obama supporter got into a “cordial” one-on-one with Gingrich, that ended with Gingrich telling the questioner to support Obama:
Gingrich: “I think those for whom the only issue that really matters is the definition of marriage, I won’t get their support. I accept that as reality. On the other hand, for those to whom it’s not the central issue in their life, if they care about job creation, if they care about national security, if they care about a better future for the country at large, then I think I’ll get their support.”
Q: So what if it is the biggest issue?
Gingrich: Then I won’t get their support.
Q: How do we engage if you’re elected. Then what, what does that mean?
Gingrich: Well then you engage in every topic except that.
Q: Except it’s most important (some crosstalk).
Gingrich: Well, if that’s most important to you then you should be for Obama.
Q: I am, thank you
Now, personally, I’m fine with what Newt said. I’m not talking about my agreeing or disagreeing with his stance on gay marriage. I’m talking about his standing his ground and telling the gay Democrat Obama supporter the same thing he tells his own lesbian sister. That’s unusual for a politician to tell someone “go vote for the other guy.”
But, apparently, that’s not what a candidate is supposed to do. A candidate is supposed to pander to all the little piss-ants and ass-clowns that crash a campaign event and come up to him. The candidate is supposed to say whatever it takes to make them happy — even if the clown is going to vote for the other candidate anyway.
Newt Gingrich isn’t doing that. And I like that about him. But, of course, standing firm and not backing down for what you believe is a bad thing, to hear the media, Democrats (but I repeat myself), and most other Republicans and their supporters talk. Except Ron Paul supporters. They like that their candidate has been consistent for years. They don’t like it when Newt Gingrich is consistent. It shows how much he’s part of the establishment … though all of the Washington establishment has come out against Gingrich.
Wait. We’re looking for someone who the Washington establishment doesn’t like? Yet someone who knows how Washington politics works? And someone who can balance a budget? And someone who, when he makes a mistake, can admit it? Even big mistakes?
I better stop now. I’m finding that I’m liking Gingrich more and more. And I don’t think I’m supposed to.
Yes, sometimes he is right on the money. If the most important thing in the universe to a voter is what he does with his nether regions, then the idiot might as well vote for Obama.
Yup. On the other hand, you could vote for Romney because at some time, at some place, he’s had every opinion it’s possible to have — kinda like an infinite number of monkeys conducting an infinite number of interviews.
Lately, Romney’s been channeling Kerry, but in opposite bizarro world. (Even in bizarro world Romney doesn’t have a goatee.
Newt makes perfect sense here. He’s telling the guy that if he has to have a president who is going to do the wrong thing then he needs to vote for the other guy because I’m not going to do it. What else would he honestly say? “OK, OK, even though I don’t believe in redefining a term and a ritual which has defined heterosexual relationships for over 5,000 years, I’ll change my mind so one schmuck will vote for me.”
Another day, another non-controversy over a GOP candidate drummed up into a controversy.
What I wish a Santorum or Bachmann would figure out is why Newt had a surge, he is bold and positive and is explaining conservatism as though it’s the only philosophy that makes any sense, which ofcourse it is. Plus, he has been consistent in the 487 debates about going after Obama and liberalism, not the other pubs. Recently he started going after some other pubs and that has hurt him, I think.
But if Santorum weren’t such a weenie on stage, he could get the conservatives to support him.
It’s also nice to hear someone talk a conservative message who sounds like he has spoken in front of a crowd before.
The question on Newt will be does he really mean it and will he actually see it through.
Clemsnman:
You’re correct. Santorum is closest to my brand of conservative policies — not exactly, but closest — and I was hoping he’d catch fire. Turns out that, unless he pulls a big surprise in the Iowa caucuses (which is still important for some unfathomable reason) we’re down to Newt, Mitt, and RONPAUL!!!1! And if I have to choose between those three right now…
Ann Coulter sure doesn’t like the guy.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48291
hwuu:
Of course, Ann Coulter’s idea of the perfect candidate is Chris Christie, who, if he lived in Georgia, would be a flaming liberal Democrat. A fun one, but a liberal Democrat nonetheless. In Georgia (where he went to high school and taught college), Newt is thought of as a conservative Republican.
The problem with Newt is that I just don’t trust him. If tomorrow he thought there was a net advantage in him supporting gay marriage he’d find a way to rationalize support for it. His positions are, I think, based on political calculation rather than principle – witness his enbrace of the “green movement” and subsequent spurning. I feel exactly the same way about Mitt.
DamnCat:
That’s a legitimate concern. If you followed one of the links, you’ll see his sister isn’t sure if he really feels that way about gay marriage (he did send a gift when she and her girlfriend married, but didn’t attend) or if he’s simply staking out political ground.
I can’t vote for Ron Paul. If that leaves Newt and Mitt, we’re stuck with a couple who are alike on a lot of issues. Two big differences: 1) the Republican establishment (and the media) love Mitt and hate Newt; 2) Newt actually balanced the federal budget. That’s two in Newt’s favor.
Unless another viable option presents itself…
A hint of (reluctant) support for Newt from an IMAO representative. His candidacy is doomed.
Yeah, I’m poison. Newt’s only hope is for Frank J. to endorse Romney.
If his own sister can’t figure out if he’s sincere how can I?
That said, I’d take Newt or Mitt over Paul in the primary and Obama in the general.
What Republican establishment hates Newt? You mean the conservative Republican establishment?
As an independent, I’m genuinely curious.
MarkiMancuso:
You got me. I just assumed since the establishment is backing Romney, they didn’t like Newt.
Well, clearly if the choices are Mitt, Newt and Ron Paul, you going to pick Newt out of that group. But considering that no votes have been cast in even one primary (or retarded caucus), I don’t see why you’re limiting the field to those options. There’s still several other (and better IMAO) candidates in the field, and I refuse to give up my first choice before the votes have been cast.
By the time Indiana gets around to voting, the nomination will probably already be locked up, but for now I’m still pulling for Perry as the best combination of conservative (fiscally and socially), experienced, and “doesn’t come across as a total D-bag.”
Ernie Loco:
We’re all looking for the Not-Mitt-That-Isn’t-Ron-Paul. Maybe Perry can come back. Maybe Santorum can finally mount a charge.
Maybe.
When you consider it, a charge by Santorum is possible. The not-Romney votes have gone from Bachman to Perry to Gingrich with a split to Paul, with side trips to Christie, Palin and Trump.
I think Perry is done. For him to surge now, a lot of people would have to admit they were wrong.
Paul is likely to implode or mebbe even explode. If Gingrich takes a slide, that leaves a lot of not-Romney votes.
I wouldn’t say this is likely, but it could play out.
If you honestly think “gay marriage” is more important than anything else going on in the world, you not only shouldn’t
be allowed to get married, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote and you should be deported to Saudi Arabia.
I’ll bet if you asked 1000 Obama voters if he’s for “gay marriage”, 990 would say yes.
The press will attack anyone who makes a move to the front of the pack.
The last one to be officially deemed ‘damaged goods’ by the drive-by media will win the nomination, if recent trends continue.
(Duck and cover, Rick! This is a war of attrition.)
Still, he’s been working Iowa hard, and may surprise the experts once the votes are cast.
Gingrich would be a fine Kamikaze candidate if you just wanted to shout truth to power and then flame out in a spectacular fashion but he’d have to run a zero-mistakes campaign to overcome the visual deficit.
(fat, old, white-haired white guy vs slim, fairly young, grey-haired black guy.)
If they have a debate, Newt should insist it be on the radio, not television.
Rick Perry once flew fighter jets – Everyone who’s seen Independence Day knows how important that is for the qualifications to be president – he should re-qualify and do a barn storming tour in a F-18. (It couldn’t hurt!).
Possible Rick Perry campaign slogan, “I wouldn’t start any war I wouldn’t be willing to lead from the front!”
Mitt Romney should change his first name to “Not”.
For fun, ask a supporter of the ridiculous farce called “homo marriage” why one type of sexual deviancy should be celebrated at the expense of all the other types. After all, don’t these assclowns believe in equality?
Good luck getting a rational response.