Search This Blog

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Newt the Crybaby for President

No more Mr. Nice Guy for Newt Gingrich. He has his limits. For example, he could NEVER vote for Ron Paul. Principled Newt, however, had no problemo endorsing a radical pro-abort Republican, Dede Scozzafava in New York. Remember her? She was running against a pro-lifer who won the nomination and Dede threw her support to the Democrat. That made sense, actually, since she is a liberal Democrat in philosophy and voted like one. But that didn't keep Newt from going to bat for her and act like the party hack he is -- support the Republican no matter how morally bankrupt or unprinicpled. No wonder columnist Joe Sobran always called Republicans the "stupid party." Not ony that, many, like Newt, seem incapable of learning.

But, as I said, Newt does have his limits and he absolutely would not vote for Ron Paul. Paul is just too...too... whatever...for him. (Personally, I don't agree with Ron Paul on a number of issues, but it would be refreshing to have a decent man in the White House for a change. Just think of it, somebody one who has been married to the same woman for over fifty years without a hint of scandal, delivered thousands of babies, believes in limited government, doesn't support the U.S. war machine, and refuses his government pension.)

Who has more integrity? Newt or Ron? Hmmm....is that a trick question or a no-brainer?

Mr. Newt sounds to me like a cry baby who has a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. How dare the Virginia Republican Party keep him off the state ballot? Why should his campaign be organized enough to meet the qualifications by getting 10,000 signatures on a petition? (I got a robo-call at the last minute with locations to sign the ballot petition.)

Look...everybody should just recognize that Newt is THE candidate and let him get on with the business of beating Obama. He realized it while he was on that cruise around the Greek islands. And how dare his home state expect him to meet their unreasonable requirements to make the ballot. Don't they know who he is?

All I can say is, "Get over it, Newt!" (And you too, Perry.) Do you really think whining is an attractive qualification for president?

23 comments:

Ray Schneider said...

Well I like Newt more than that. He was instrumental in turning the U.S. Congress around back in the 1990's and he was the driving force behind the contract with America.

The American War Machine is not the problem. The problem is those operating it and using it when it should not be used. If you don't think it is needed then buy some good books on how to speak and write Chinese.

As for Ron Paul, he seems like a nice enough guy, but not someone I'd put in charge of much. He's an extreme libertarian and dropping him into the White House would be a recipe for not much. He'd manage to unify the Republicans and Democrats against him I think.

The system is definitely broken. But politics is the art of the possible and Newt has made the machine work in the past while Paul has never made the machine work.

I'm more of a Perry/Gingrich or a Perry/Bachmann, Gingrich/Bachmann but I don't like Romney or Paul for anything.

Anonymous said...

Someone just asked me if I liked Newt because he was Catholic...

I replied that I had no idea he was Catholic! Certainly not representative of the faith.

Anonymous said...

Well, Newt is different now that he is a Catholic. Wife number 3 (you know her, she;s the one he was cheating on wife number 2 with when wife number 2, you know her, she's the one he was cheating on wife number 1 with when wife number 1 divorced him so he could marry wife number two and she could divorce him for cheating with wife number 3) is a Catholic and so he became a Catholic. Just goes to show you how RCIA and the rest of that Vatican II c*** works. I don' know but give me Pius XII, old time Catholicism, and Harry Truman. I know he was a Democrt but at least unlike Ike he didn't cheat on his wife

Anonymous said...

Ray,

I could't disagree with you more.

The American War machine is the problem.

When are conservatives going to get it in their minds that the Republican Party was not "the war" party 50 years ago?

When are we going to realize that just because somebody is Libertarian does not mean they are liberal or have liberal ideas.

George Bush I and George Bush II were Republican, but they too helped establish socialist and Marxist governance in this country during their watches.

If Clinton and Obama hadn't stopped Bob Dole and John McCain, we would have gotten more progressives in the White House? And way? Because we think the Republican Establishment is evil when they are in the White House, but when they run for President, they are automatically saints?

I will vote for Dr. Ron Paul, and I invite any conversation that tells me I am doing something irresponsible.

I used to be a neo-conservative,and I was ashamed that I had to put John McCain's sticker on my car (3 years ago). I have watched this man become more and more progressive as the years go by. How is he different from Romney or Santorum--except for the fact that Santorum might be genuinely pro-life (but he'll have to explain why he endorsed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey) but, being pro-life does not cut it any more because people like Santorum and Bachmann (whom I used to support) are willing to open up the constitution for modification in order to pass social laws. If Republicans do that, what next will the democrats do? It is what we have done in our Church. We tinkered with the Canon at the mass and then in came the confusion at Vatican II. Don't you see such ideas are progressive?

It does not matter if the laws favor the Church or not. Once we start, there will be no stopping.

When I vote Dr. Ron Paul, I am voting for preserving what should be preserved, which is the rule of law.

Roe vs Wade should be repealed, simple. It should not be discussed. The Supreme Court should have never heard the case. It is violence against a human life i.e. murder--that is a states issue.End!

If you vote for any of the other candidates, then come to terms with being a neo-conservative (which is a modified/new conservative, if you do not know what it means) and a progressive, because it is progressive to want to change the laws.

Plus, God will exact judgement on us if we endorse preemptive strike against another country. It is not moral. The moral thing to do would be to talk and agree to disagree.

We ended the cold war that way, didn't we? We prevented a Russia strike against us in 1962, didn't we? Are we now to compare Iran with Russia? No. Not to say Iran is not capable of a suicide act, but we will not be the ones to be called to judgement by striking them--especially since the intel we are getting is just like the one we got in Iraq!

I am no liberal, just a tempered constitution scholar. What would Thomas Aquinas do? You will quickly find out that his views are being echoed by Dr. Ron Paul.

I am not alone in my views. Many other traditional Catholics are voting on principles as defined by our faith, not our political parties and alliances, by endorsing Ron Paul.

Perhaps this video will help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

Here is what veterans say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo

Leo
Leoxiii@me.com

Anonymous said...

I am for anyone running against Obama - I am especially for the most electable candidate. My least favorite is Ron Paul but I would even vote for him against Obama. No staying home for me....

Romney if elected would be forced to dance with the one he went to the ball with...he would be forced to appoint someone decent to the Supreme Court - remember Harriet Myers.

He obviously would be better than Obama on the economy. My family was one of the underemployed for 2 1/2 years - business my husband worked with for over 20 years sold - upper management let go with 2 months severance. He is working in a good job now but if the economy keeps tanking will that last

I personally gave Gingrich the benefit of the doubt about his conversion. I do believe that there was some sort of change in his core system when he converted.

If I had my real choice Bobby Jindal would be running for president. He is the one of the most dedicated, honest and hard working politicians in the country. He is the real thing - and is actually really smart - not pseudo-smart like Obama.

If Romney gets the nominee - the person he should ask to run with him is Bobby Jindal. That would be a winning ticket. But most of all it would put in place the best man to run this country.

Ray Schneider said...

Seems as though the anonymi have glommed a whole lot of unrelated issues together ...

Ron Paul is a nut! I don't have time to make that obvious statement clearer. He's also an old nut. I've been watching him for years. He may be a nice old nut. His biggest problem is if he were by some miracle able to get the nomination and by a bigger miracle get elected he would find he was unable to govern.

The big federal government didn't get big by not having the support of both sides of the aisle. Assuming that Ron Paul tried to do what he say he want to (doubtful frankly) he'd find both sides of the aisle aligned against him. But he can't get elected I believe.

The American War Machine is not what is at fault. We need and should continue to support the biggest, baddest military in the world. Peace through strength should be our goal. Unfortunately there are too many politicians, most never having served in the military, who are prepared to go on military adventures. That should stop. Blaming the instrument for its use is neither honest or true to the facts. The U.S. military has spent a lot of money to make weapons that are surgical and minimize collateral damage. Most militarys don't bother.

We have plenty of enemies and while people love to pretend that it's because we're some sort of global bad guy, it's more because we are the envy of the world. We play into the hands of our enemies if we disarm. We live in the world of "come as you are" wars because of the speed of modern warfare. If you're not ready you lose. End of message. We don't have the luxury of living in the pre-WWII world where no-one could attack a distant target easily.

As for libertarians, I know exactly what they are. They are basically nuts that think we would do just fine with essentially no government. Original sin kind of iced that argument. I'd like a whole lot less government but that isn't something you can get all at once. The dynamic won't allow for it unless you want to have economic collapse (something we seem headed for anyway).

We live in troubling times. I think Bobby Jindal is likely not constitutionally eligible to be president. I have not advocated preemptive strikes against anyone. Iran has been saber rattling however. The same argument that makes "come as you are" wars necessary if you want to survive, puts preemptive strikes on the table.

Those who are not prepared to deal with reality are more likely to end up on the wrong side of it.

George Washington said "In time of peace prepare for war." Blaming the U.S. military for wars is like blaming guns for shootings. You might want to back further up the causality tree to find the culprits. Preemptive warfare is not inherently unjust, by the way.
JUST WAR?

In any case one can hardly argue that the current crop of Republican candidates is optimal. I was supporting Herman Cain before he got Clarence Thomas'ed. I'm currently divided among Gingrich, Perry, and Bachmann and totally against Romney or Paul.

Anonymous said...

There is no Republican running for president who could make this independent vote for anyone other than Obama.

Crybabies, libertarians, and whackos (bachmann) included.

The Republican party is handing this election to Obama all wrapped up with a bow. Independent and undecided voters are not going to swing right.

Anonymous said...

Why would Bobby Jindal not be eligible to be U.S. President. He was born in Baton Rouge, LA

Yes, his parents had come here legally 6 months before he was born. But even illegal immigrant's children born in the U.S. are considered citizens.

Here is a website where Bobby Jindal released his birth certificate.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/05/gov_bobby_jindal_releases_his.html

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

And Obama has done what for the country (besides increasing the debt astronomically, expanding the war on unborn children, and hastening the destruction of the family) that would make you vote for him?

Anonymous said...

Obama is very pro-family and pro-middle class. Family to me isn't limited to the current Republican standard of the 1950s ideal, though he himself is certainly a role model for that as he is married, devoted to his wife, and a father of two. The health care program alone is enough to make me vote for him this time. It's saved us thousands of dollars. And I like that even though he is Christian, he seems to recognize that there are lots of US citizens who are not and who get very nervous when the current Republican candidates start talking about making this a Christian nation.

Ray Schneider said...

He's not a natural born citizen ... the provision about being a citizen if you were born in the country was put into law to ensure that the children of freed slaves were citizens and long after the natural born citizen provision was put in the constitution. We need a finding by the Supreme Court because the legal meaning of natural born citizen is a child both of whose parents are citizens. Not being a lawyer or a judge I'm just repeating what I've read elsewhere.

Anyone who can vote for Obama is someone who 1) doesn't understand economics at all and doesn't care, and 2) is comfortable with an anti-American marxist in the White House. Obama has increased the national debt in three years more than all the presidents in history have increased it. His associations are all with people who desire to overthrow the government and replace it with a marxist state. Good luck! It certainly looks like there are enough insane people in the country that you might just pull it off.

David said...

As a professor of Economics at a Big Ten university, I like Obama. He's a true capitalist, as is evident by the fact that he's made millions of dollars in selling his books. And as a fiscal moderate, socially liberal, patriot veteran... there is no one else who can compare. You can call me crazy if it makes you feel better, but rest assured that *you* will be the one considered crazy when I relate this story to my peers. Democracy and freedom of thought - what makes this country great!

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

I agree on the social liberal part, but a fiscal moderate? We must define words differently. And a patriot veteran? Or were you talking about yourself? As for "crazy"...well, you said it not me. LOL!

Ray Schneider said...

Apparently our Big Ten anonymous thinks that a true capitalist is a thief and a liar -- well I guess that's about par for anything "Big Ten."

Any economist that can applaud Obama's handling of the economy is not on my side of the economic table. The biggest debt run up in history is not a record to be proud of. And any disciple of Saul Alinsky is not to be trusted.

Unfortunately we live now in a country where most politicians can't be trusted. I'd say the same about most educators as well. Too many of them spent their youth on pot, burning flags and being hippies before settling into the only job that would have them, university professor. Obama's buddy Bill Ayers.

Anonymous said...

I can see the Obama trolls have already started. Really how many millions does he pay for people to comment on sites. The only time I had something political on my blog - a democrat operative from N.H. commented with pro-obama garbage (during the last election). I was able to track down who this bozo was....I am sure he was paid to find Obama criticism and counter it like he was pro-family, Catholic etc.

Really pro-family OBAMA?????

The middle class is being decimated because of him. He cares nothing about the un and under employed (that is the reason that the middle class is being decimated). Believe me I lived that nightmare and I know what his non-efforts look like standing in those shoes.

This man is the most in-experience detached so and so that we have ever had for president. Any republican would be better. And conservatives who don't hold their nose and elect whoever the republican nominee is will be re-electing Obama. THANKS!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

I am backing Senator Santorum. I know he backed Arlen Spector, but I think he has been punished enough for that one. Specter, of course, finally went to the party where he really belongs. I like the way Santorum treats his family, especially his love for Bella, their "special" child, and how he stood up and told the Barbara Boxers what abortion, especially so-called partial birth abortion, really is. It seems to me that he and his wife not only talk the talk but walk the walk. The Boxers (women such as Pelosi, Feinstein and Sebelius and some Republican women)and pro-abortion men wanted him out because he had seniority. His wife is also very pro-life, pro-traditional family. Of course, it might be too late for this country to choose the right person. If so, God help us because the chastisement will come, but as the prayer goes, "If the chastisement comes, O Lord, spare your children." Let us pray we are truly his children. Some say President Obama is faithful to his wife. Well he has already admitted that he would kill his own grandchild if the child were inconvenient for his daughter. Which is worse, adultery or the deliberate killing of the innocent? I would take Newt Gingrich over Obama. At least he says he is repentant. Obama just keeps on encouraging the killing, and then tells you how much he is helping the poor. I am sorry, but I do not believe him.

Maureen Oneill said...

I can't believe that so many of you think that being Republican makes you anti-choice. Abortion has been around since the beginning of time and will never go away, even if it is made illegal. Having an abortion was the absolute best decision I made in my young life and now as a mother and grandmother and "conservative" in most other ways, I have a hard time voting for someone who wants to make that an impossible choice for a young woman like I was.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

As a mother of two unwed moms who gave birth to my grandchildren, I am so thankful my daughters made the choice for life. I thanked them for not killing my grandchildren. My daughters were raised in an "anti-choice" household where we provided a shelter home for 13 unwed moms over the years. Thank God they never considered abortion. It is NEVER the only or the best answer for a problem.

And it's interesting to note that the only people who are pro-abortion are people who are already born.

As for abortion being around forever so has slavery and genocide.

Anonymous said...

About 49 years ago, I found myself unwed and pregnant. Abortion was illegal back then, but I knew from relatives about a doctor in my town who performed illegal abortions. I was only nineteen, and as I saw it I had a choice between that doctor and a Catholic doctor who had about ten children of his own. Well I now have three grandsons from that pregnancy, so you know whom I chose, and although it was hard, my future husband adopted my daughter and I have never regetted having given birth to her, especially when I look at the grandsons I would not have had. By the way, Senator Santorum just said on Fox News that the reason he supported Senator Arlen Spector was because Spector promised to vote for the conservative candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court. He said Spector voted for Judge Alito and another conservative more pro-life judge. In that case, maybe he did make the right decision. God does write straight with crooked lines as the saying goes.

Anonymous said...

In my last post at 10:17PM, I did not mean that I did not regret having my daughter out of wedlock. I just meant that I never regretted going ahead and having her in spite of the wrong conditions under which I conceived her. In other words, I will forever be greatful to God that he gave me the grace and fortitude not to make the situation worse by having her torn apart in the womb or burned to death by saline injection. Even when doctors operate on children in the womb, from what I have heard they give them anesthetic since they do feel pain, and the abortionist does not even do that.

Anonymous said...

Regarding some of my previous posts, God can forgive all sins, even the sin of abortion, but there must be true repentance and a turning away from that sin or encouraging and/or helping others to commit such sin. Some women, and perhaps men, are less culpable out of ignorance, or may not be culpable at all if they were forced into an abortion or lied to by medical people. Nevertheless, most in the President Obama administration know and have been shown what an abortion truly is. It does no good to go into denial and refuse to accept the facts to ease one's conscience. I think that is what Christ meant when he said, "They have ears and hear not and eyes and see not." Deliberately refusing to accept the facts and repent will not leave us with a clean conscience no matter how hard we deny the truth.

Anonymous said...

Pope Pius XII and Harry Truman,yes that is the two we need right now to straighten out the problem we are in today. Doesn't anyone believe in and want to put into practice the Ten Commandments. #6 Thou shalt not committ adultery. That commandment is important to obey. That is why St. Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians writes pray always, you know why we must pray always? Because the Devil never sleeps. We let down our guard he attacks.

Anonymous said...

I do not think anyone is saying adultery is not wrong and not a mortal sin, but signing the death warrrant of children in the womb and trying to destroy the conscience clause for medical personnel as President Obama's Administration has done is worse. Often, though, adultery leads to abortion. I do not want to pay for someone else's abortion under ANY circumstance. The Church allows the fallopian tube to be taken out with the child in it in an ectoptic pregnancy where both the mother and child will die if the woman's tube is not taken out. That is the only precedure where it is absolutely necessary to lose the child to save the mother, and it is not considered an abortion as it is not an intentional killing of the child because the child is going to die anyway, and the mother will die when the tube bursts as the child grows.