Oh my: Gingrich’s lead increasing in final hours before South Carolina vote? Update: Gingrich by 14

posted at 10:05 pm on January 20, 2012 by Allahpundit

Normally I wouldn’t build a post around a single tweet but this one from PPP is too tantalizing to ignore. Polls open in SC tomorrow bright and early at 7 a.m.:

Newt posted his best numbers of our 3 day field period tonight

On Wednesday, they found Gingrich with a six-point lead. Yesterday they found the same. Today it’s … greater than six, although they haven’t posted the exact numbers yet. Jed Lewison of Daily Kos, which uses PPP as its pollster, guesses it’s now Newt by nine or 10 points, which makes sense if you assume another little boost from last night’s debate plus Perry dropping out and endorsing Gingrich. The exact numbers are less important, though, than the fact that Newt’s apparently putting distance between himself and Romney as time runs out. Hard to see how he doesn’t win now — dirty tricks notwithstanding. (He’s at 82 percent on InTrade, up more than 10 points from this afternoon.)

Via Newsbusters, here’s Scarborough claiming that all of the “conservative movers and shakers” he’s spoken to recently are angling for a brokered convention. You know who that benefits? Right: Ron Paul. Exit quotation from Dan McLaughlin: “Basically, if Romney sees Newt’s shadow tomorrow, it means six more weeks of primaries.”

Update: The numbers are out. Over the course of three days, his lead averaged out to nine points. But tonight? Double digits:

Gingrich’s lead has actually increased in the wake of his ex-wife’s controversial interview with ABC. Although one night poll results should always be interpreted with caution, he led the final night of the field period by a 40-26 margin. One thing that continues to work to his advantage are the debates. 60% of primary voters report having watched the one last night, and Gingrich has a 46-23 lead with those folks.

The other reason his ex-wife’s interview isn’t causing him much trouble is that there’s a lot of skepticism about it. Only 31% of voters say they think her accusations are true while 35% think they are false and 34% are unsure. 51% of voters say that they have ‘no concerns’ about what came out in the interview.

However:

piece today for Huffington Post about ‘expecting the unexpected’ tomorrow is well worth a read. Gingrich will probably win tomorrow- but there’s a higher than normal chance for a surprise given everything that’s gone down in the last 48 hours.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 12 13 14 15 16

I’ve noticed that supporters of the very moderate Romney are very fond of accusing you of being a liberal if you don’t support him.

It’s a little weird.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM

I would bet every Romney supporter will support the republican nominee whoever that is.

jazzmo on January 21, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Riiiiight, which is why they’ve been working overtime to slime everyone but Romney.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM

I think Romney is even uncomfortable with your nose being so far up his rear end.

Dr. Tesla

Yet another reason to not value your opinion. You seem to lack ethics as much as Newt- who was sanctioned for his ethic violations. Has Romney ever been sanctioned for his ethic violations? Or is his crime that he was successful, and without breaking ethics?

How’s that Fannie May and Fannie Mac cash working out for Newt? Do you think he put his nose somewhere where it didn’t belong- or is that fine with you too?

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Yet another reason to not value your opinion. You seem to lack ethics as much as Newt- who was sanctioned for his ethic violations. Has Romney ever been sanctioned for his ethic violations? Or is his crime that he was successful, and without breaking ethics?

How’s that Fannie May and Fannie Mac cash working out for Newt? Do you think he put his nose somewhere where it didn’t belong- or is that fine with you too?

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM

RomneyCare was an ethics, freedom violation. If you are into big government, Romney is your guy. I’m not.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 1:50 PM

I get the feeling you are trying to use me to get some attention for yourself.

Get some real problems and come back to me.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 1:41 PM

It’s not all about you. That was a narcissistic statement. Go back to page 9, read how little of it had to do with politics, consider your role in it, and then consider whether maybe there are a few thousand other people on this site sharing the same bandwidth as you, and maybe your comments should reflect the privilege of having a political voice, instead of using Hot Air as a bulletin board for your personal issues and hogging the bandwidth day after day.

Now, I’m going to set an example for you and let you have the last word.

cane_loader on January 21, 2012 at 1:51 PM

If you think Romney knows what’s best for you, he’s your candidate.

Intelligent people don’t need Romney in their healthcare decisions. It’s that simple.

He had no problem sticking his nose into people’s medical decisions in Mass. Don’t tell me to vote for this guy.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM

… Newt- …. ethic violations…Romney …successful,

…How’s that Fannie May and Fannie Mac cash working out for Newt? …

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Is smearing and sliming all that Mittbots can do? Really now. You’re starting to look so much like O-bots it’s creeping me out.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM

It’s not all about you. That was a narcissistic statement. Go back to page 9, read how little of it had to do with politics, consider your role in it, and then consider whether maybe there are a few thousand other people on this site sharing the same bandwidth as you, and maybe your comments should reflect the privilege of having a political voice, instead of using Hot Air as a bulletin board for your personal issues and hogging the bandwidth day after day.

Now, I’m going to set an example for you and let you have the last word.

cane_loader on January 21, 2012 at 1:51 PM

You are so weird. You are obsessed with me. Just comment on the topic and leave me alone, or go do something else.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I know that. But what I was trying to understand was where this “enthusiasm” of Romney supporters is coming from, and why they are so angry that others don’t share this same enthusiasm.

I’m just saying that telling us to get all excited and go all in for someone who… probably won’t even beat Obama anyway, isn’t exactly a strong argument, you know?

tkyang99 on January 21, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Its not enthusiasm for Romney at all. It making the logical choice when left with the field we have.

jazzmo on January 21, 2012 at 1:53 PM

We are on page 14, and this loser wants me to go back to page 9 and reflect on what a naughty boy I was. Geez.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Yet another reason to not value your opinion. You seem to lack ethics as much as Newt- who was sanctioned for his ethic violations. Has Romney ever been sanctioned for his ethic violations? Or is his crime that he was successful, and without breaking ethics?

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM

To this day Romney makes money off of the backs of aborted babies, yet you consider him ethical? That’s a hoot.

flyfisher on January 21, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Gingrich file:

The truth was that while the triumph in 1994 was a huge shock to the pundits, it was eminently predictable, because the ground was set via redistricting, the Bank Scandal, and other trends. How can I say it was predictable? Because two weeks after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, with Republicans also having been shellacked for the House and Senate and collectively stumbling around like a whipped puppy, I wrote a memo (I still have it) explaining why the GOP was more likely than not to finally gain the majority two years from then in 1994, and why Gingrich would be the likely first choice for Speaker — and why he wouldn’t last, because he was too volatile, unreliable, etcetera.

Gingrich was great at rabble rousing. He was awful at actually managing things. That’s why, again, in the single campaign where he was clearly, unambiguously unchallenged as the architect of national GOP campaign strategy, in 1998, he took a lay of the land that virtually every pundit in the land thought would create at least a 15-seat Republican net gain in the House (Gingrich himself predicted as much as a 30-seat gain), and turned it into a five-seat loss that came within a hair’s breadth in about four races of blowing the entire House majority.

Meanwhile, how can people say he has “changed” or “grown” or “matured”? It was less than a year ago that he was trashing Paul Ryan’s budget as “right-wing social engineering.” It was as recently as 2010 that he was still endorsing a version of the individual health-care mandate. It was just last week that he was attacking Bain Capital from an extreme, left-wing position. Sorry, but that ain’t maturation — and it might explain why he took a 20-point lead in Iowa and a tied-for-lead in New Hampshire and, within about three weeks time, turned them into, respectively, fourth- and fifth-place finishes there. Only in his own backyard, in a state (South Carolina) neighboring his longtime Georgia home, could he hope to be competitive. Even if you give him credit for 1994, Gingrich has been involved in just eight heavily contested elections so far (for the House in 1974, 1976, 1978, and 1992, for the national House elections of 1994 and 1998, and for Iowa and New Hampshire this year so far) — and he has won just three of them. He effectively lost in 1974, 1976, 1998, Iowa, and New Hampshire. And this is the standard bearer who supposedly is going to slay Barack Obama via a series of Lincoln-Douglas debates that of course will never happen anyway?!? I think not.
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/20/bill-clinton-of-the-right-minu

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 1:56 PM

From Page 9, on which I apparently did unspeakable acts, I said this:

If I’m Obama, I want Romney because ROmney can’t hurt Obama on Obamacare without a lot of intellectual dishonesty.

Plus, Romney fits in with the liberal stereotype of rich white Republicans who don’t care about the poor, greedy capitalists (see Bain photo with Romney and company with money in their hands and stuffed in their coats. Who can make 10,000 dollar bets like it’s nothing, other than this out of touch Republican named Romney?

Romney is Obama’s best matchup for sure, outside of Ron Paul and his racist newletters.

I still think Romney can beat Obama, but so can Santy and Newt. It’s going to come down to the economy, and I think a majority of Americans want somebody else with some kind of experience doing something.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 3:04 AM

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I would bet every Romney supporter will support the republican nominee whoever that is.

jazzmo on January 21, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Riiiiight, which is why they’ve been working overtime to slime everyone but Romney.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM

jazzmo is correct here… ddrintn

Almost everyone that is a Romney supporter would back OUR nominee over Obama that I have seen post here and other places…however, it is not reciprocal from other supposed conservatives.

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Gingrich file:

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 1:56 PM

I don’t like Gingrich either, but the Mittbot myrmidons harping on this constantly shows how utterly weak Romney is. He can’t win on anything but sliming. Gingrich didn’t take the lead by going after Romney, you’ll remember. It was only after Gingrich took the lead that Team Romney had to go into carpet-bomb-Newt mode.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Who cares what American Spectator, National Review thinks? They don’t have a lot of readers.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Romney’s the guy who goes negative first but everybody still thinks is classy. He’s like the guy who fouls you in basketball but the refs call you for the foul when you hit him back.

It has everything to do with the way he looks and his mild mannered personality. He uses his whole choir boy look to get away with murder.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 2:01 PM

jazzmo is correct here… ddrintn

Almost everyone that is a Romney supporter would back OUR nominee over Obama that I have seen post here and other places…however, it is not reciprocal from other supposed conservatives.

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Yeah, right. All the Mittbots will say that in all their piety while they still think that their guy is the prohibitive favorite. So if Gingrich is so damn horrible, how can you in good conscience vote for him?

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 2:01 PM

If I’m Obama, I want Romney because ROmney can’t hurt Obama on Obamacare without a lot of intellectual dishonesty.

Plus, Romney fits in with the liberal stereotype of rich white Republicans who don’t care about the poor, greedy capitalists

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 3:04 AM

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Doc…Romney ACTUALLY HELPS the economy by helping businesses become stronger thus hiring more people! You have some liberal talking points coming out there that need to be taken care of…

PS I am headed to bed now if you do not see me reply it is not because of a lack having a comeback!

Good nite from the Hindu Kush!

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Yeah. THe “ham sandwich can beat him” theory is right if unemployment rises past 9 again. If it dips close to 8 then all this “ham sandwich” talk is junk. I still meet plenty of people who like Obama enough and hate republicans.

Exactly. Mittbots like to call Newt supporters stupid and irrational, but the fact is that we’ve thought this through a lot better than they have.

tkyang99 on January 21, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Unfortunately, plenty will. My 24-year-old daughter is smart but considers herself “independent” and “moderate.” Mitt turns her stomach as does Gingrich. She told me she would “take the poison she knows over the poison she doesn’t know” and vote for Obama. I can only hope she will study the issues more seriously as the time draws near and that she will objectively evaluate the Republican candidate. There’s a chance she will. There’s a chance many will not and will just “vote their gut.” All three of our top candidates (Romney, Gingrich, Santorum) provoke a turn-off reaction in many people. For some reason many still find Obama “likeable.” Go figure.

wordmum on January 21, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Then you really need to push the truth on her. Seriously. Tell her about Rev. Wright, Ayers, Franklen Marshall Davis.

Talk about Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Sun Power, the Pipeline, and how Obamacare was pushed onto us.

If someone who is not a socialist and really wants individual liberty looks at the facts, they will not vote for Maobama.

LevinFan on January 21, 2012 at 2:02 PM

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 1:58 PM

If you’re deployed halfway across the world, why aren’t you asleep?

kingsjester on January 21, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Almost everyone that is a Romney supporter would back OUR nominee over Obama that I have seen post here and other places…however, it is not reciprocal from other supposed conservatives.

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Frankly, I think you have that backwards. In 2010, establish Republicans openly tried to sabotage Tea Party candidates, after the primary.

On the other hand, conservatives have fallen in line decade after decade to support RINO candidates. You can’t have it both ways.

TitularHead on January 21, 2012 at 2:03 PM

It’s an attack on capitalismn to point out that Obama is going to use Bain to make Romney out as a greedy wall streeter.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I respectfully disagree that Newt can beat Obama. As I said on another thread:

I know it’s cliche to say, but I really do like Newt. The problems, however, with his candidacy in the general could be calamitous. For all the issues about Mitt not being conservative enough, Newt has even more, and it’s from this perspective that I highlight some of the issues team Barry0 will carp about relentlessly.

Newt supported a cap-and-trade plan to reduce carbon emissions, and the 1989 Global Warming Prevention Act which called for global population control– Hence the infamous couch commercial with San Fran Nan. Population control is also the operative here.

Supported a health-care plan with an individual mandate. In his own words in 2007 he called on Congress to: “require anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year to purchase health insurance or post a bond.”

He took $1.6 million from Freddie Mac and said it was for his analytical services as a historian.

Launched his campaign with six figure debt to Tiffany’s.

Extramarital affairs bonanza. He brought a yellow legal pad to work out the details of his first divorce while his wife was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery.

Supported the TARP bailout.

In his own words, he said that child labor laws are “truly stupid.”

After congressional members of his own party forced him out, he resigning from the House in 1998 after being fined $300,000 for ethics violations.

Criticized Paul Ryan’s budget plan last June.

Publicly opposed drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.

Was intrigued by stem-cell research (per WSJ)

His own words, his language can be “careless.” Language which can be red meat that wins ovations, but can also amount to shooting from the hip and hitting his own foot.

His stance on immigration includes the gem from the last debate about how we shouldn’t just deport illegal aliens who happen to be grandparents.

Slainte on January 21, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Slainte on January 21, 2012 at 2:03 PM

however, it is not reciprocal from other supposed conservatives.

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 1:58 PM

I will vote for Romney and hold my nose if I have to. Right now I’m for Gingrich, although I have concerns about him. I was just about to give up on this whole cycle until Newt started surging. Now I have some hope that we will win or at least go down fighting–not like last time with McCain.

wordmum on January 21, 2012 at 2:03 PM

jazzmo is correct here… ddrintn

Almost everyone that is a Romney supporter would back OUR nominee over Obama that I have seen post here and other places…however, it is not reciprocal from other supposed conservatives.

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Yeah, right. All the Mittbots will say that in all their piety while they still think that their guy is the prohibitive favorite. So if Gingrich is so damn horrible, how can you in good conscience vote for him?

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Because just like the candidates themselves that drop out and endorse another candidate they have been attacking we all know the ultimate goal is to remove Obama from 1600 Pennsylvania. That is why I will vote for anyone on our side.

Good nite. :o)

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 2:04 PM

I don’t see why it’s illegal to criticize Paul Ryan’s Plan. Paul Ryan has ditched his own plan, and he’s a fiscal liberal basedon his voting record. He voted for TARP, the auto bailout, and a lot of other liberal legislation. How is it logical to use Paul Ryan as a weapon against Newt? I dont’ get it.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 2:05 PM

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 1:58 PM

If you’re deployed halfway across the world, why aren’t you asleep?

kingsjester on January 21, 2012 at 2:02 PM

haha I am trying but this freakin’ HA is like Coke or something…haha

It is 11:32pm (23:32) over here and I am going to bed now! Stop sucking me back in….Awwwwwww!!!

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Is smearing and sliming all that Mittbots can do? Really now. You’re starting to look so much like O-bots it’s creeping me out.
ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Hmm. Does that mean you really will vote for a guy who has ethic violations – and trust him- instead of voting for someone, with NO violations and who has promised to return health care issues to the state? Isn’t that hypocrisy?

No wonder Republicans have been called ignorant.
I’m an Independent but you guys are losing my vote.

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Newt can’t win the nomination against Obama if he doesn’t agree 100% with Paul Ryan’s self promotion plan? Geez.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Because just like the candidates themselves that drop out and endorse another candidate they have been attacking…

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 2:04 PM

The Mittbots and Team Romney haven’t just been attacking Gingrich, they’ve been going carpet-bomb scorched-earth, setting up another Worst Person In The World to go along with Sarah Palin. The Romney supporters are starting to remind me of the worst of the Clinton years as well as of O-bots.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Who died and made Paul Ryan king of the GOP? I never voted for that guy.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 2:07 PM

jazzmo is correct here… ddrintn

Almost everyone that is a Romney supporter would back OUR nominee over Obama that I have seen post here and other places…however, it is not reciprocal from other supposed conservatives.

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 1:58 PM

It is called a false flag operation. Romney is not conservative. To help bolster their credibility Romney supporters by default must argue that they are conservative and to prove it they will say they will support who ever the nominee is.
It rings totally hollow and is an argument without any merit anyways. No one can verify who you vote for, whether you are a registered (R) unregistered or registered Socialist.
It rings hollow because Romney supporters are some of the worst at using nuclear attacks against friendlies. I do not see this as erroneous, but part and parcel of their campaign.
It rings hollow because Romney is not conservative, was never conservative, and the one true conviction he has in his entire political repertoire is Romneycare. Romneycare!

astonerii on January 21, 2012 at 2:08 PM

I don’t see why it’s illegal to criticize Paul Ryan’s Plan. Paul Ryan has ditched his own plan, and he’s a fiscal liberal basedon his voting record. He voted for TARP, the auto bailout, and a lot of other liberal legislation. How is it logical to use Paul Ryan as a weapon against Newt? I dont’ get it.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 2:05 PM

I criticized his plan because at the end of the day Ryan raised the deficit. Sometimes cuts aren’t actually cuts.

flyfisher on January 21, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Then you really need to push the truth on her…

If someone who is not a socialist and really wants individual liberty looks at the facts, they will not vote for Maobama.

LevinFan on January 21, 2012 at 2:02 PM

The problem is she listens to NPR. They have more soothing voices than Rush and Hannity! I need to keep slowly presenting her with the facts–Solyndra, etc. But it has to be very low key to get through to her. Too much listening to Rush in the car when she was little–she can’t tolerate it now!

wordmum on January 21, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Hmm. Does that mean you really will vote for a guy who has ethic violations – and trust him- instead of voting for someone, with NO violations and who has promised to return health care issues to the state? Isn’t that hypocrisy?

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 2:06 PM

My state doesn’t vote for a while yet. I don’t know who’s even going to be on the ballot by then.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM

@toddstarnes
Team Romney delivers cake to Newt – marking 15th anniversary he became first Speaker reprimanded for ethics violation #lowclass

Flora Duh on January 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM

This is from the headlines *Poll Analysis* topic.
ROMNEY SUPPORTERS-please explain to me why your guy will not fight in public but always resorts to sneaky, behind the scene tactics. This just drives me nuts. He always tries to come across as the *good guy* in public when deep at heart he’s a weasel.

AZgranny on January 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Obama is very vulnerable. However, in order to defeat him decisively–that is, a repudiation, not just a cosmetic change and a few EO repeals–you must attack him. Heavily. Viciously. You must go for the kill. The attack must be relentless and must include his propaganda machine in the media.

Mitt is too weak to do this. He’s a get-along, reach-across-the-aisle standard blow-dried moderate Establishment Republican politician. His strategy versus Obama would be to recite the incumbent’s failures and say how he would do it better. (On Obamacare, of course, he would have no credibility whatever.) He might win, narrowly. The Dear Leader is a failed president. But it will be close. And the Romney Administration will only slow the march to socialism and economic collapse, because Barry & Co. will be back in four short years.

Santorum is not ready for the headliner position. He is probably being courted for VP now by both Mitt and Newt, but his lack of cash and a backfield showing in SC will prompt his exit from the race, one way or the other. He needs seasoning, and a stint as veep is just the thing for him. (He’d better deliver PA, though.)

Ron Paul is a disgrace and cannot merit any consideration.

Can Newt be trusted? I’m going to have to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is clearly the best candidate for the job. Whether he will stay the course is an open question, but one thing is certain: the liberals hate this guy with a passion, and that’s all the confirmation you really need.

spiritof61 on January 21, 2012 at 2:12 PM

AZgranny on January 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Exactly. Pretty cheesy for a guy who had a position of authority in his church,

kingsjester on January 21, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Basically Republicans, in today’s voting, are showing the degree to which the values that they claim to have- well – they don’t rally have them after all. It was just noise

1. If Newt was a woman- he’d be called a whore or a slut or a home-breaker.
But because he’s a man, he’s ‘presidential material.” Come to find out- all that family value stuff that ‘conservatives’ go on and on about- – well that was just talk.

2. Newt has ethic violations. If he were a democrat, conservatives would be in an uproar if he were a candidate for president. Evidently conservatives are ‘pretend conservatives’ because when it comes to actually practicing what they preach- all that preaching goes down the memory hole

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 2:14 PM

AZgranny on January 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Weasel indeed. He pays people to do his dirtywork so he can appear above the fray. At least does his does his own wetwork.

flyfisher on January 21, 2012 at 2:14 PM

ROMNEY SUPPORTERS-please explain to me why your guy will not fight in public but always resorts to sneaky, behind the scene tactics. This just drives me nuts. He always tries to come across as the *good guy* in public when deep at heart he’s a weasel.

AZgranny on January 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Romney and his supporters know he can’t win without tactics like that. It’s why as soon as Gingrich took a lead over Romney they immediately went into attack mode. They’re like libs.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Basically Republicans, in today’s voting, are showing the degree to which the values that they claim to have- well – they don’t rally have them after all. It was just noise

1. If Newt was a woman- he’d be called a whore or a slut or a home-breaker.
But because he’s a man, he’s ‘presidential material.” Come to find out- all that family value stuff that ‘conservatives’ go on and on about- – well that was just talk.

2. Newt has ethic violations. If he were a democrat, conservatives would be in an uproar if he were a candidate for president. Evidently conservatives are ‘pretend conservatives’ because when it comes to actually practicing what they preach- all that preaching goes down the memory hole

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 2:14 PM

In my book, your guy has baby blood dripping from his hands. Whatever mistakes Newt has made, I am unaware of anything he has done in his public life that contributed to the deaths of unborn babies. He has not supported murder rhetorically or legislatively. And I am unaware of Newt profiting from baby murder. I know Newt is flawed, but your guy is not the righteous man you believe him to be.

flyfisher on January 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM

the liberals hate this guy with a passion, and that’s all the confirmation you really need.

spiritof61 on January 21, 2012 at 2:12 PM

You may also want to add in there the fact that all the long time in power established (r)s hate newt with a passion too. The people who cave every opportunity they can to support big government that just so happens to give them more power over the citizens of the country.

astonerii on January 21, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Weasel indeed. He pays people to do his dirtywork so he can appear above the fray. At least NEWT does his does his own wetwork.

flyfisher on January 21, 2012 at 2:14 PM

flyfisher on January 21, 2012 at 2:17 PM

To this day Romney makes money off of the backs of aborted babies, yet you consider him ethical? That’s a hoot.

flyfisher on January 21, 2012 at 1:54 PM

That’s a valid concern. But every time Gingrich and Santorum voted for a foreign aid package in congress, they were knowingly or unknowingly giving money to nations that fund abortion out of their government budgets. They’re not innocent of funding abortions.

You’re right though. It’s impossible to give a penny to Planned Parenthood without funding abortions.

TXGOP on January 21, 2012 at 2:17 PM

I know Newt is flawed, but your guy is not the righteous man you believe him to be.

flyfisher on January 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I don’t know about Romney himself, but wow, his supporters are really starting to look like sewer rats.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 2:19 PM

jazzmo is correct here… ddrintn

Almost everyone that is a Romney supporter would back OUR nominee over Obama that I have seen post here and other places…however, it is not reciprocal from other supposed conservatives.

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 1:58 PM

It is called a false flag operation. Romney is not conservative. To help bolster their credibility Romney supporters by default must argue that they are conservative and to prove it they will say they will support who ever the nominee is.
It rings totally hollow and is an argument without any merit anyways. No one can verify who you vote for, whether you are a registered (R) unregistered or registered Socialist.
It rings hollow because Romney supporters are some of the worst at using nuclear attacks against friendlies. I do not see this as erroneous, but part and parcel of their campaign.
It rings hollow because Romney is not conservative, was never conservative, and the one true conviction he has in his entire political repertoire is Romneycare. Romneycare!

astonerii on January 21, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Sucked back in again…grrrr….

Astonerii…I am a STRONG CONSERVATIVE and get tired of you and ANYONE else questioning my credentials as a conservative. I am LDS and originally from Utah. Here is some Utah History:

“Utah became a state in January 1896, the last 19th-century addition to the U.S. map. Utahans voted for Democrat Franklin Roosevelt four times (1932 through 1944) and for his successor Harry S. Truman in 1948. Aside from that period, the state has only voted for Democrats twice, the last time being in 1964. Like many other Rocky Mountain states, Utah is solidly Republican.”

Utah is so RED that it even made Clinton come in third place when he ran for office! Utah per capita votes MORE conservative than any state in the Union typically. Why is that? Because LDS values align strongly with conservative values.

Please quit the freakin’ questioning of Romney supporters. We are conservatives. Tea Party members. AND we like Romney! I personally am voting for him because of his Economic experience and I saw FIRST HAND what he did with the Olympics fiasco…truly a miracle. Recall also this was right after 9-11 as well.

Okay, good night again…don’t tell kingjester I posted again. ;o)

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 2:19 PM

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 2:14 PM

1. As a man with 2 ex-wives myself, divorces are a lot more complicated than you make them out to be. And Marianne is nothing more than, to quote Ms. Cindy Munford, a homebroken Homebreaker.

2. 83 out of 84 of those charges were dismissed.

I know it’s a rough day for you. Need a Kleenex?

kingsjester on January 21, 2012 at 2:20 PM

He took $1.6 million from Freddie Mac and said it was for his analytical services as a historian.

This keeps going around, but as I understand it, Gingrich himself earned only $35,000 per year for 6 years from the relationship. I think Romney’s company earned $65 million for closing down that steel mill in SC that declared bankruptcy. Accepting $65 million in consulting fees for a company that you end up not protecting from bankruptcy–which means many creditors probably went unpaid–seems like a more serious offense to me than Newt’s accepting 1.6 million over six years from Freddie.

wordmum on January 21, 2012 at 2:20 PM

To this day Romney makes money off of the backs of aborted babies, yet you consider him ethical? That’s a hoot.
flyfisher on January 21, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Really?
Please tell….

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 2:20 PM

<blockquoteI don’t see why it’s illegal to criticize Paul Ryan’s Plan. Paul Ryan has ditched his own plan, and he’s a fiscal liberal basedon his voting record. He voted for TARP, the auto bailout, and a lot of other liberal legislation. How is it logical to use Paul Ryan as a weapon against Newt? I dont’ get it.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 2:05 PM

I didn’t like the language Newt used. “Right wing social engineering.”

He walked it back, but it was wrong to characterize it that way.

LevinFan on January 21, 2012 at 2:21 PM

the memory hole

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 2:14 PM

.

Things we are told to forgive and forget.

Mitt vs Mitt

tonotisto on January 21, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Mitt’s new line of attack on Gingrich today. Release the contract all materials concerning freedie mac. This actually could be quite effective if Gingrich backs down.

rubberneck on January 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM

<blockquotePlease quit the freakin’ questioning of Romney supporters. We are conservatives. Tea Party members. AND we like Romney! I personally am voting for him because of his Economic experience and I saw FIRST HAND what he did with the Olympics fiasco…truly a miracle. Recall also this was right after 9-11 as well.

Okay, good night again…don’t tell kingjester I posted again. ;o)

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 2:19 PM

You can ask all want but it ain’t gonna happen.

If you support the guy who’s still proud of Romneycare you ain’t no conservative.

Utah is such a great bastion of conservatism they elected Huntsman!

LevinFan on January 21, 2012 at 2:24 PM

rubberneck on January 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Has he released his tax returns, yet?

kingsjester on January 21, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Basically Republicans, in today’s voting, are showing the degree to which the values that they claim to have- well – they don’t rally have them after all. It was just noise

1. If Newt was a woman- he’d be called a whore or a slut or a home-breaker.
But because he’s a man, he’s ‘presidential material.” Come to find out- all that family value stuff that ‘conservatives’ go on and on about- – well that was just talk.

2. Newt has ethic violations. If he were a democrat, conservatives would be in an uproar if he were a candidate for president. Evidently conservatives are ‘pretend conservatives’ because when it comes to actually practicing what they preach- all that preaching goes down the memory hole

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 2:14 PM

You clearly have no idea what “values” conservatives cherish.

Here you go: Smaller government.

If Mother Theresa was alive, running for prez and could shrink the size of government, I’d vote for her. On the other hand, if electing her would grow this bloated mess even more, I would encourage her to serve elsewhere.

You can kick your straw-men to death, but it’s just that simple.

TitularHead on January 21, 2012 at 2:25 PM

the liberals hate this guy with a passion, and that’s all the confirmation you really need.

spiritof61 on January 21, 2012 at 2:12 PM

You may also want to add in there the fact that all the long time in power established (r)s hate newt with a passion too. The people who cave every opportunity they can to support big government that just so happens to give them more power over the citizens of the country.

astonerii on January 21, 2012 at 2:17 PM

That’s exactly right. The reason John Sununu is doing a hatchet job on Newt is because he’s holding a grudge. He hates Newt for not backing the Bush 41 tax increase. Newt was doing the conservative thing, protecting the taxpayers from greedy government while Sununu and Dick Darman and Bush 41 were sticking it to us. Romney has yet to endorse the Bush 43 tax cut package.

From the Club for Growth White Paper on Romney:

Governor Romney’s history on tax policy is also scattered with inconsistencies. He opposed Ballot Question 1 to eliminate the state income tax and proposed an auto excise tax on SUVs and a greenfields tax on the development of ocean space. In 2003, the Governor refused to endorse the Bush tax cuts, earning the praise of Massachusetts liberal congressman Barney Frank, and was even open to a federal gas tax hike. His strident opposition to the flat tax is most curious and difficult to explain since Romney wasn’t a political candidate at the time. In 1996, he ran a series of newspaper ads in Boston, New Hampshire, and Iowa denouncing the 17% flat tax proposed by then presidential candidate Steve Forbes as a “tax cut for fat cats.” In 2007, Romney continued to oppose the flat tax with harsh language, calling the tax “unfair.”

flyfisher on January 21, 2012 at 2:25 PM

He walked it back, but it was wrong to characterize it that way.

LevinFan on January 21, 2012 at 2:21 PM

It was foot in mouth. There was no reason for him to say any of that. That was the undisciplined Newt at his worst.

BoxHead1 on January 21, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Mitt’s new line of attack on Gingrich today. Release the contract all materials concerning freedie mac. This actually could be quite effective if Gingrich backs down.

rubberneck on January 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM

It looks more like desperation flop-sweat to me.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 2:26 PM

We are for the most of the time values voters here in the upstate but we like a good fighter that does not back down.We see that in Newt for the most part.We also carry concealed weapons and don,t back down from doing the right thing.Just last night at a local waffle house in Spartanburg a CWP customer was sitting down eating his meal in came 2 thugs with guns The CWP customer drew his large cal.weapon and told both they were being held for the police .One ran away the other turned and pointed his gun at the customer .One gun shot rang out. The thug hit the floor dead as dirt.

logman1 on January 21, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Okay, good night again…don’t tell kingjester I posted again. ;o)

g2825m on January 21, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Your statement was generalized and not specific about you. It was not an attack at you, just an explanation about how the statement that every person who supports Romney says they will support who ever is nominated does not necessarily mean they are conservative and the supposed conservatives who actually have ideological basis say they will not support Romney in the general are actually the conservatives.

We have been through this argument a billion times. The establishment wants to pick the socialist that they think is more electable. The base wants a conservative the establishment decries is unelectable. The establishment argues that they will support the conservative if they win, but in the end they continue to snipe at them up to years after the election. Sorry, we are tired of the heads we win/tails you lose BS that your side keeps putting us in. I WILL NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES SUPPORT YOUR “ELECTABLE” NOMINEE. I do not care what you take from that.

astonerii on January 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Governor Romney’s history on tax policy is also scattered with inconsistencies. He opposed Ballot Question 1 to eliminate the state income tax and proposed an auto excise tax on SUVs and a greenfields tax on the development of ocean space. In 2003, the Governor refused to endorse the Bush tax cuts, earning the praise of Massachusetts liberal congressman Barney Frank, and was even open to a federal gas tax hike. His strident opposition to the flat tax is most curious and difficult to explain since Romney wasn’t a political candidate at the time. In 1996, he ran a series of newspaper ads in Boston, New Hampshire, and Iowa denouncing the 17% flat tax proposed by then presidential candidate Steve Forbes as a “tax cut for fat cats.” In 2007, Romney continued to oppose the flat tax with harsh language, calling the tax “unfair.”

flyfisher on January 21, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Good point. And Mittens supported the Stimulus!!!!

LevinFan on January 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM

We are in a bar fight on the wrong side of town.

Right now the guy who runs with U.S. is Newt, and he went in first for a few drinks. A bunch of frat boys with daddys money (RNC elites, Karl Rove etal) came in and sat down on the bar stool where Newt was drinking a beer. They poured it out and laughed at him as he was doing a debate with a local RINO and winning.

The rest of U.S. just showed up to meet him.

Are we going to back him up or smile and try to get a job mowing the rich guys daddys yards?

Once this fight is over the next bar we and Newt have to put in at is in South Chicago that has full time capos for bouncers.
Clear it is that it will end up out in the parking lot with the lights out,and brass knucles will be about.

Will we back up Newt then for as we know now he is going to make a fight of it.

Best this Apache can tell it is up to U.S. to fight with him or turn tail and bug our or as some Apache did back in the day, sign on as scouts to show the Blue Coats where the women and children were camped.

Life is like that.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 21, 2012 at 2:30 PM

To this day Romney makes money off of the backs of aborted babies, yet you consider him ethical? That’s a hoot.
flyfisher on January 21, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Really?
Please tell….

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Okay, I will say this one more time. I’ll break it down for you.

1) Mitt Romney still has millions of Bain holdings
2) Bain makes money via their investment in Stericycle
3) Stericyle makes money from disposing of the bodies of aborted babies. They do this for Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics
4) Mitt Romney receives income from Bain.

Stericyle profits are filtered through Bain before they flow to Romney (and his various family entities), but that does not clean the money anymore than laundering drug cash removes the taint. It’s still blood money.

flyfisher on January 21, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Good point. And Mittens supported the Stimulus!!!!

LevinFan on January 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Didn’t he call for an even larger stimulus at one point?

He’s a typical Keynesian.

flyfisher on January 21, 2012 at 2:32 PM

It looks more like desperation flop-sweat to me.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 2:26 PM

True. No one cares about Mitt’s returns right now. That was last week. Mitt was exposed in the debates as being highly fallible and the ABC interview was a huge overplay. Also, Palin’s endorsement added a few % pts.

Mitt needs to concentrate on restoring his previously unflappable and presidential image, not attacking Newt. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing…

BoxHead1 on January 21, 2012 at 2:33 PM

2. Newt has ethic violations. If he were a democrat, conservatives would be in an uproar if he were a candidate for president. Evidently conservatives are ‘pretend conservatives’ because when it comes to actually practicing what they preach- all that preaching goes down the memory hole

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 2:14 PM

You obviously have no morals at all. Using a shame to our country witch hunt trial that was aimed at Gingrich as a hammer to continue the injury shows just how much character you have. You have none that is worthy of any praise anywhere in your soul. So this post is not aimed at you, your lost cause. But to educate others…

http://ethics.house.gov/committee-report/matter-representative-newt-gingrich

Well, after a 3.5 year probe, after Newt paid the $300,000 fine, the IRS announced on February 3, 1999, that it found NO IMPROPRIETIES IN THE TAX FILINGS of Gingrich and the sponsoring Progress and Freedom Foundation. The IRS said the principles taught in the course were not of use only in political campaigns. “The … course taught principles from American civilization that could be used by each American in everyday life whether the person is a welfare recipient, the head of a large corporation, or a politician.”

In other words, the ethics charges David Bonior filed against Newt were ALL bogus. Every single one of them. In the end, what was Newt’s “ethics problems”? One of the papers filed by his lawyers had an error and Newt didn’t catch it. That little oversight cost $300,000.

astonerii on January 21, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Whatever mistakes Newt has made, I am unaware of anything he has done in his public life that contributed to the deaths of unborn babies. He has not supported murder rhetorically or legislatively. And I am unaware of Newt profiting from baby murder. I know Newt is flawed, but your guy is not the righteous man you believe him to be.

flyfisher on January 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM

In truth, Newt did support population control vis a vis his support of the 1989 Global Warming Prevention Act which called for global population control. He was one of only a handful of Republicans to support the bill. The bill’s summary includes a section that states: “World Population Growth — Declares it is the policy of the United States that family planning services should be made available to all persons requesting them. Authorizes appropriations for FY 1991 through 1995 for international population and family planning assistance.”

In this way, it could be argued that Newt did contribute to the “death of unborn babies.”

I’m not trying to convince you or anyone else to support or not support any candidate. I just feel that both Mitt and Newt have similar issues that can be used as fodder from their respective pasts.

Slainte on January 21, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Mitt needs to concentrate on restoring his previously unflappable and presidential image, not attacking Newt.

BoxHead1 on January 21, 2012 at 2:33 PM

That’s like saying McCain shouldn’t have supported TARP. Then he wouldn’t have been McCain. Romney can’t back down from the attacks. It’s been his m.o. for years now.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Slainte on January 21, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Well, that’s not good. I still won’t vote for Mitt, but I don’t like that.

flyfisher on January 21, 2012 at 2:37 PM

^ In other words, Mitt was “unflappable” and “presidential” while he was cruising in the polls. Let him have some competition and the sewer-rattiness comes out.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 2:39 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/stephen-colbert-herman-cain-to-hold-joint-event-in-south-carolina-today/2012/01/20/gIQAFMheDQ_blog.html

Herman Cain doing this pathetic stunt with that clown Colbert is disgusting.

Much worse than any of the allegations that took him down (for which I defended him).

WTF is wrong with him?? Making a mockery of this process and joining forces with this waste of space!!

You disgust me Herman.

LevinFan on January 21, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Meanwhile………….

They vote (and vote and VOTE)

GO Newt!

golfmann on January 21, 2012 at 2:40 PM

That’s a valid concern. But every time Gingrich and Santorum voted for a foreign aid package in congress, they were knowingly or unknowingly giving money to nations that fund abortion out of their government budgets. They’re not innocent of funding abortions.

You’re right though. It’s impossible to give a penny to Planned Parenthood without funding abortions.

TXGOP on January 21, 2012 at 2:17 PM

You are absolutely correct. But, there’s this:

Like it or not, we are living in a world that at this time does not value human life, have a dimishing belief in a power greater than man and where ‘higher education’ is a euphemism for ‘communist indoctrination’. Because of all this, it is unrealistic to think that ALL of it can be fixed in just one election.

In my view, we do what the liberals did…..make as many small or significant changes as possible EVERY cycle and do all you can to gain popular support for conservative issues. IF WE ARE CONSISTENT, we may yet see the U.S. turn away from the brink….even if it takes 40 years or more. That’s what the liberals and socialists (difference?) did and it works.

In this election cycle I will vote for the GOP nominee….whoever that is. I will support any and all conservatives who run for the senate or house from any state. I will do the same the next cycle. IMHO it’s what we all should do.

This ‘one issue is a deal breaker’ will be the death of conservatism and of this Nation as we know (or remember) it.

IMHO.

Anti_anti on January 21, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Herman Cain doing this pathetic stunt with that clown Colbert is disgusting.

LevinFan on January 21, 2012 at 2:39 PM

He and Bachmann were big wastes of time and energy this go-round.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM

You disgust me Herman.

LevinFan on January 21, 2012 at 2:39 PM

I was told that I single handily took Cain down by my statements on this very site. I am glad I was able to save you from voting for him.

I think they also said I took Perry down as well. I actually kinda liked the guy. I just wanted him to change two things for the better.

astonerii on January 21, 2012 at 2:42 PM

It’s still blood money.

Wow that was a lot of gymnastics to make a point. (Totally typical response tho from a chauvinist pig.)
But, all in all, Good job flyfisher.
You’ve lost my vote.
And you’ve lost me as a reader after 5+ years.

If Newt were a woman he’d be a whore. To me- he is a whore. Have I made my feminist view clear?

I’m damned tired of men deciding what women can and cannot do.

If a woman wants an abortion- she should decide- not some male moron in a slick suit in some sequestered legislature. A woman shouldn’t have to slink off to some other state like a criminal or have it done in some back alley. My grandmother died from a self-induced abortion. Choice is essential, otherwise you’re just another dictator lording your power over women. I’m pro-choice, and pro-adoption. My daughter is adopted from a woman who wanted an abortion but decided to put the baby up for adoption.

Frankly, Newt’s lack of ethics makes me ill. But maybe it’s a feminist thing and I just need a better explanation as to “what is is. “

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 2:45 PM

This is one Romney supporter who will vote ABO.

The trouble w primaries is that you fight w people on your own team, and we will need each other later.

That said, I will make the case for Romney without tearing down his GOP opponents.

1. Obama must be defeated. We accomplish nothing by nominating someone who cannot win.

2. Romney has the money, organization, infrastrucutre, leadership, execution, and strategic plan for winning the general.

3. The Obama people are terrified of Romney because he will appeal to the middle. Independents, moderates and soccer Moms are looking for a safe and reassuirng alternative to Obama.

4. Romney will govern Right-Center consistent w his mandate. You dance w those who brung you in this business. Romney has to govern Right or he would risk a fatal primary challenge in 2016. Is he perfect on every issue? No. But can we take the chance of losing this election? This nation cannot survive 4 more Obama years. The Supreme Court is at stake.

matthew8787 on January 21, 2012 at 2:45 PM

astonerii

You work with Prof. Michael Mann full time?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 21, 2012 at 2:46 PM

That’s like saying McCain shouldn’t have supported TARP. Then he wouldn’t have been McCain. Romney can’t back down from the attacks. It’s been his m.o. for years now.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 2:37 PM

In most cases negative works but Mitt’s other m.o, being steady, presidential and super electable, is now badly damaged. He needs his positives somewhat restored in order to effectively go negative on Newt. Otherwise, like you wrote, he looks desperate.

The worst thing in the world for Mitt is to look like he’s the underdog trying to bring down the top guy. Mitt needs to be the inevitable guy at all times. He cannot run as the underdog.

BoxHead1 on January 21, 2012 at 2:46 PM

rubberneck on January 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Has he released his tax returns, yet?

kingsjester on January 21, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Are you saying he’s a cheater? We all know who the cheater in the race is.

rubberneck on January 21, 2012 at 2:46 PM

He and Bachmann were big wastes of time and energy this go-round.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM

That’s funny since I went from supporting Cain to Bachmann.

I just want the best conservative. Bachmann had the best record of anyone in the race.

Just shows how messed up things are. Real conservatives don’t stand a chance while the most far left clown in history gets elected!

LevinFan on January 21, 2012 at 2:47 PM

matthew8787 on January 21, 2012 at 2:45 PM

When has Mitt ever governed Center-Right before?

Romneycare certainly is not Conservative.

kingsjester on January 21, 2012 at 2:48 PM

In my book, your guy has baby blood dripping from his hands. Whatever mistakes Newt has made, I am unaware of anything he has done in his public life that contributed to the deaths of unborn babies. He has not supported murder rhetorically or legislatively. And I am unaware of Newt profiting from baby murder. I know Newt is flawed, but your guy is not the righteous man you believe him to be.

flyfisher on January 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM

As a big supporter of foreign aid, Newt gave your tax dollars to countries that funded abortions from their government budgets. He was right in line with Patrick Leahy, who expressed it shouldn’t be a problem in 1998 on the house floor –

“Does that mean that because abortion is legal in Israel,” he asked, “we should shut off aid to Israel because other Israeli government funds are used for abortion?…Should we stop funding nuclear safety programs in Russia because abortion is legal there and…performed at government hospitals?…Maybe we should cut off aid to any State in the U.S. because abortion is legal.”

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/01/3/gr010301.html

Newt also cosponsored a bill to repeal parts of the Mexico City policy. But he’s apologetic about it on newt.org.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_wrld.htm

TXGOP on January 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Islamic men make the decision on abortions by foot and fist power.

Me I’m a simple Apache who gives the deal off to the weakest one still in the womb.

I will not make the decision nor should a women after a one nighter.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Mitt’s new line of attack on Gingrich today. Release the contract all materials concerning freedie mac. This actually could be quite effective if Gingrich backs down.

rubberneck on January 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM

It looks more like desperation flop-sweat to me.

ddrintn on January 21, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Don’t you want to know for yourself what Gingrich said to them? Supposed he totally agreed with what they were doing, and advised them to keep giving the loans. You want to put that type of guy in the white house?

I think it’s a legitimate question. Newt has been demanding to see Romney’s taxes, and everyone in here is piling on.

rubberneck on January 21, 2012 at 2:50 PM

:confession:

*grumble*grumble* grumble*

First off, I’m a 100% Ron Paul supporter. I’m going to push as hard as I can for him, donate to his campaign, phone from home volunteer, play big part in the local Ron Paul\ TEA Party meet-up group, canvas, and have my car plastered with “Vote Ron Paul 2012”… until Ron Paul officially 1000% suspends his campaign. (Don’t ask about 3rd party
)
That being said… and barring any extraordinary circumstances… There is in NO way possible that I could EVER vote for Gingrich in 2012 or beyond… I seriously will protest vote not for Ron Paul, not for Gary Johnson, not any other 3rd Party, but, YES, for ZeroBama. I truly and honestly believe Newt will be the end of ANY GOP dominance in the foreseeable future (unless I’m really really underestimating the sheer ignorance and lack of attention span of the American people). Those of you who know what I’m talking about with Newt Gingrich, know exactly what I’m talking about… I don’t have the time to explain myself to dissenters about my opinion of Newt, so I’m going to leave it there. Just remember this is my opinion.

Oh yeah, the real reason I came here… Does anyone have a link or some info about Romney? What I’m looking for is the website arguing the case of Romney’s voting record and reasoning that juxtaposed the Massachusetts Constitution and some the US Constitution. From what I remember it seemed well researched with Founding Fathers quotes, writings, etc… I’d like to read it in its entirety and to ensure its validity. I WILL ALSO TAKE ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

I will be 100%(okay, maybe a little less than 100%) backing Mitt Romney *IF* he becomes the nominee and will urge, my friends, family, and colleagues to do the same.

*grumble*grumble* grumble*

:/confession:

hotairhead on January 21, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Are you saying he’s a cheater? We all know who the cheater in the race is.

rubberneck on January 21, 2012 at 2:46 PM

I just asked a question you did not want to answer.

Care to try another deflection?

kingsjester on January 21, 2012 at 2:51 PM

If a woman wants an abortion- she should decide- not some male moron in a slick suit in some sequestered legislature. A woman shouldn’t have to slink off to some other state like a criminal or have it done in some back alley. My grandmother died from a self-induced abortion. Choice is essential, otherwise you’re just another dictator lording your power over women. I’m pro-choice, and pro-adoption. My daughter is adopted from a woman who wanted an abortion but decided to put the baby up for adoption.

Frankly, Newt’s lack of ethics makes me ill. But maybe it’s a feminist thing and I just need a better explanation as to “what is is. “

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 2:45 PM

You’re choice huh?

You’re choice, but what choice does the baby have? Pretty selfish of you. It was the woman’s decision to open her legs, not the babies.

And we’re so far on the other side of the spectrum. Abortion will never be banned, but taxpayers are forced to pay for abortions! That’s sickening.
How about some personal responsibility instead of expecting taxpayers to pay for it so “you don’t have to be punished with a baby”?

LevinFan on January 21, 2012 at 2:51 PM

In this election cycle I will vote for the GOP nominee….whoever that is.

Anti_anti on January 21, 2012 at 2:40 PM

A courageous statement at this time, on this website, for this election. I salute you.

TXGOP on January 21, 2012 at 2:53 PM

If a woman wants an abortion- she should decide- not some male moron in a slick suit in some sequestered legislature. A woman shouldn’t have to slink off to some other state like a criminal or have it done in some back alley. My grandmother died from a self-induced abortion. Choice is essential, otherwise you’re just another dictator lording your power over women.

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, meet C.J. Ammenheuser. I know you’ll be very happy working together for women’s choices.

spiritof61 on January 21, 2012 at 2:53 PM

hotairhead

Thanks, you work at it until May, you and other Laup Nor’s show your support for Romney, that should pull Newt another 5% of support.

Some do consider the source.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 21, 2012 at 2:53 PM

And we’re so far on the other side of the spectrum. Abortion will never be banned, but taxpayers are forced to pay for abortions! That’s sickening.
How about some personal responsibility instead of expecting taxpayers to pay for it so “you don’t have to be punished with a baby”?
LevinFan on January 21, 2012 at 2:51 PM

hear hear

BoxHead1 on January 21, 2012 at 2:54 PM

The Obama people are terrified of Romney

matthew8787 on January 21, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Show me some evidence of this, my friend.

spiritof61 on January 21, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Spirit of 61: Romney is not McCain. McCain didn’t want to be president; McCain wanted to be NOMINATED for president. Mitt wants to be president, he hasn’t spent 6 years of back-breaking effort to lose. He will use his many talents to get this nation back on track.

Mitt will directly take the fight to Obama. Unlike McCain, Mitt can string 3 coherent sentences together and he doesn’t mumble. Mitt is good to excellent in a debate setting.

Mitt is the only candidate who has the money and organization to go the distance. He has been guarded – perhaps too guarded since NH – because he hasn’t wanted to throw red meat to the base w remarks that he’ll have to walk back in the general. This is part of the strategy for winning in November. We cannot nominate someone who is so bruised and marginalized that it becomes impossible to defeat Obama.

matthew8787 on January 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM

You’re choice, but what choice does the baby have? Pretty selfish of you. It was the woman’s decision to open her legs, not the babies.

And we’re so far on the other side of the spectrum. Abortion will never be banned, but taxpayers are forced to pay for abortions! That’s sickening.
How about some personal responsibility instead of expecting taxpayers to pay for it so “you don’t have to be punished with a baby”?

Exactly. My grandmother didn’t have the money to feed another baby. Sophie’s Choice I guess you could say. To save the two children she had, she aborted the third. After her death, her children were “sold” off as servants as a way to be fed.
I don’t approve of state funded abortion. In fact I’m extremely against it. You should consider using your brain before you insult someone

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Mitt is the only candidate who has the money

matthew8787 on January 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM

I quote the only part of your statement that I fully agree with.

spiritof61 on January 21, 2012 at 3:00 PM

You’re choice, but what choice does the baby have? Pretty selfish of you. It was the woman’s decision to open her legs, not the babies.

And we’re so far on the other side of the spectrum. Abortion will never be banned, but taxpayers are forced to pay for abortions! That’s sickening.
How about some personal responsibility instead of expecting taxpayers to pay for it so “you don’t have to be punished with a baby”?

Exactly. My grandmother didn’t have the money to feed another baby. Sophie’s Choice I guess you could say. To save the two children she had, she aborted the third. After her death, her children were “sold” off as servants as a way to be fed.
I don’t approve of state funded abortion. In fact I’m extremely against it. You should consider using your brain before you insult someone

c.j.ammenheuser on January 21, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 12 13 14 15 16