I'm calling it: Gingrich/Rice in 2012

[sjfcontrol]

Newt and Donald -- Does anybody else think this is starting to sound like a Disney Cartoon?

[OldCannon]

Donald and Newt would be a landslide, IMHO

Worst. Pair. Ever.

Elevating Donald Trump into political office would be like throwing a school bully into a blood-filled shark tank. Even the toothless ones would line up to gum him to death.

Hmm...guess I can'be be more plain-spoken than that

[mamabearCali]

I am not a Donald Fan, but you don't think he is smart/tough enough to handle it? Just curious.

[The Annoyed Man]

Donald and Newt would be a landslide, IMHO

Worst. Pair. Ever.

Elevating Donald Trump into political office would be like throwing a school bully into a blood-filled shark tank. Even the toothless ones would line up to gum him to death.

Hmm...guess I can'be be more plain-spoken than that

I agree with this. The Donald's participation turns everything he touches into a circus. He will kill the party, no matter who's running, if he doesn't but out.

[OldCannon]

I am not a Donald Fan, but you don't think he is smart/tough enough to handle it? Just curious.

Not in my opinion. I've learned that really successful businesspeople don't tend to have the stomach for politics (more accurately: Find themselves ineffective at getting things done in the models they're accustomed). I also have absolutely no faith that he can disconnect himself from his core values and business enterprises sufficiently to function as a VP, nor as a POTUS. Again, emphasis is that it's my _opinion_.

[mamabearCali]

Politics has always been a BRUTAL business. Like I said I am not a fan of Trump, and him saying he will endorse someone tends to make me preclude any desire to be VP. I don't really trust him anyway, I tend to think he looks out for #1 and that works well for business, but politics is not really supposed to be like that (though it often is). I don't know that I would ever be sure that he was not looking out for his own self interest. Besides why would Trump do that, he has got a good thing going for him right now. Setting all that aside I think there are way better candidates out there that whoever is our nominee will be looking at seriously. There is a thought (here in VA) anyway that our govenor McDonald might get a close look. There are several other governors and senators that would make great VP's without the drama and doubt that Trump would bring.

[Ameer]

I think Trump would make a good Ambassador to whatever country annoys us this week.

[mr surveyor]

I think Trump would make a good Ambassador to whatever country annoys us this week.

Ambassador to China

[The Annoyed Man]

A sober assessment of the morality issues that have dogged Gingrich:

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/cal-thoma ... -adultery/
By Cal Thomas · Tuesday, December 6, 2011

We live in a bipolar culture. We allow ourselves to be drenched in sexual images in movies, on television and on the Internet and then defend First Amendment protection to even the most graphic of them. Then, when a politician acts out what culture promotes, we criticize him, especially if he's conservative, branding him with the equivalent of a "scarlet letter."

In our not too distant past, a feeling of shame made people go into hiding after an adulterous relationship was exposed. Now they go on television to talk about the sleazy details.

{snip}.....

"Forsaking all others" is the phrase contained in the Christian marriage vow. Divorce has become widely accepted (though not to the Author of marriage) as a sometimes "necessary evil," but adultery remains for most people what it has always been: a betrayal.

It's not just a religious concept. Ask a person who is married but does not believe in God how he or she would feel about a cheating spouse and you most likely would get the same response you would receive from one who does believe in a higher power: anger and profound disappointment.

{snip}.....

Ultimately, what voters must decide is this: Does a presidential candidate's personal flaws rise (or fall) to a level that inhibits his ability to do the job of president? Put another way, if you are about to have surgery, do you care if the doctor is a cad, or do you care more whether most of his patients are alive and well?

Cal Thomas, for those who are not familiar with him, is a long time conservative political commentator.

CAL THOMAS WEBSITE

Thomas does not seem to be directly endorsing Gingrich (he has written about Romney equally dispassionately), nor does he skewer him, but this thoughtful article does ask a question which conservatives have to answer for themselves if Gingrich is to become the republican nominee—can they put aside their visceral reactions to his marital history if they think that he is otherwise qualified to lead?

Food for thought.

[mamabearCali]

I am not really worried about his marital indiscretions. It appears to me that he has grown past them and is a decent man today. He like all Christians are sinner saved by God's amazing grace. End of story for me.

The primary thing that concerns me about Newt is I don't know where he stands on issues like the 4th amendment and the gov't spying on/assaulting it's citizens willy nilly. I heard him say he wants to strengthen the Patriot Act--so what part does he want to strengthen? I have heard that he is good on gun rights--that is good, I have heard that he is pro-life--another plus on my account (actually in my book you could be 100% on everything else and if you are not here I don't vote for you because I have to stand in front of God someday and answer for what I stood for in my life), I have heard that he is supportive of homeschoolers and does not want the feds involved so much in education--good too. What about the gov't leaving honest, decent, hard working people alone. Where is he on that?

[tbrown]

Is it too late to change my vote back to Perry?

[VMI77]

What about the gov't leaving honest, decent, hard working people alone. Where is he on that?

He's a big government Statist, just like Romney. He will increase the power and size of the government. At best, if it's him versus Obama, he may be the lesser of two evils. His only potentially positive quality as a president is that his version of a big government and a powerful State may be marginally less noxious and destructive than Obama's.

[The Annoyed Man]

What about the gov't leaving honest, decent, hard working people alone. Where is he on that?

He's a big government Statist, just like Romney. He will increase the power and size of the government. At best, if it's him versus Obama, he may be the lesser of two evils. His only potentially positive quality as a president is that his version of a big government and a powerful State may be marginally less noxious and destructive than Obama's.

I'm not sure I would agree 100% with your assessment of Gingrich, but I will concede that he possesses the fatal flaw of assuming that government can fix things—when the best answer is that things would fix themselves if government would just stop meddling.

But all of that said we really on have three very stark choices:

1. Vote to reelect Obama. Of course, this implies that you like most of what he has done, and would like to see more of it. I think it is safe to say that this does not describe the majority of this board's membership. Two things can be said about this:
   
   1. Obama has pledged to fundamentally transform America. He has a running start at it, and he has already made some hugely significant changes (i.e. healthcare bill, etc.)
   2. If he wins reelection, he will have no more reason for any vestige of moderation. Example: until now, all of his anti-gun agenda has been put forth in stealth mode, such as implementing Fast & Furious as a pretext to asking for stringent gun controls—which has been confirmed and even reported by the liberal media. This is an incontrovertible fact. If Obama wins reelection, look for things like this to become overt rather than stealthy, and it won't just be in the area of guns, either.
2. Vote for whomever the GOP nominates, regardless of whom that turns out to be, and regardless of their "brand" of conservatism. There are three things which can be said about this:
   
   1. We will either end up with someone who is barely conservative (Romney), sort of conservative (Gingrich), or "libertarian" conservative (Paul).
   2. Whichever of these three gets elected, we will be better off than with another four years of Obama. How much better off is a merely matter of degree, and your perception of how much better off will depend on whether you're a progressive, conservative, or libertarian republican.
   3. All three of these candidates have pledged themselves to the dismantling of Obamacare—one of the most evil, poorly conceived, and non-transparent bills ever passed, which has taken over 1/6th of the world's largest economy. Under any three of these candidates, the domestic market and unemployment should improve because a conservative would restore some market certainty and economic policy certainty which is clearly lacking at this point.
3. Vote for a third party/write-in/Pat Paulsen candidate. Lord, where to start.....there are so many things wrong with this—not eternally wrong, but wrong at this very time in our history.......
   
   1. If the republican candidate wins and the election is even remotely close, democrats will sue. They will obfuscate. There will be claims of irregularities, hard to understand ballots, hanging chads, etc., etc., etc. It's what they do. A republican victor has to win by a convincingly large margin or democrats will not accept that the nation rejected their candidate and their radical platforms, and they will do all that they can to disrupt the orderly transition of power from the outgoing administration to the new one. They care more about their power than they do about the stability of the nation. There will be a gnashing of teeth, and they will never graciously accept the defeat and graciously move on and start planning to win things back the next time.......unless they lose so badly that the loss cannot be explained away as anything else but a thorough repudiation of the party by the electorate.
   2. I could be wrong about this, but it is my perception just from taking part in numerous of these types of forum discussions that in the general election, Romney supporters would be likely to vote for Gingrich or Paul if one of them wins the nomination; Gingrich supporters would be likely to vote for Romney or Paul if either of them wins the nomination; but Ron Paul supporters are more likely to A) "protest vote" by writing in Ron Paul, B) vote for a third party candidate, or C) protest by not voting at all than they are likely to vote for either Romney or Gingrich as the republican party nominee.
   3. If my perception is correct, then this is not without national consequences of a horrific nature. Is there any rational person on this board who, having observed this promised "transformation" of Obama's, actually believes that another four years of an Obama administration wouldn't be one of the most calamitous things that could happen to the nation? In case you have doubts, imagine (if you're old enough to remember...I am) another four years of Jimmy Carter, and factor that by at least 2, and you begin to have a picture of what another four years of Obama would be like.
   4. To those conservatives who eschew voting for republicans I have this to say: of the two major parties, the republican party is the closest thing to your natural ally......even if it is not ideologically pure enough for your satisfaction. Every one of those conservatives who protests by either not voting or by voting third party/write-in is a vote drained away from the republican nominee, and not from Obama. Thus, it hurts the republican party more than the democrat party. If this is you, the democrats already didn't have your vote, and their message is not targeted at people like you. You are a write-off to the democrat party. They don't know you, or care about you. One of the third parties may be more ideologically pure to your satisfaction, but also that third party doesn't have a snowball's chance in hades of ever getting their candidate elected president. It just isn't going to happen, because for better or for worse, libertarian conservatism is just not a big enough slice of the conservative pie.
   5. Democrats outnumber republicans, but republicans tend to vote in higher percentages. (Personally, I believe that this is because part of the democrat constituency is made up of those who are too irresponsible, immature, or entitled to exercise their rights of citizenship. If they were more responsible, more mature, and less entitled, then they might give consideration to conservatism, and they might be willing to look at alternatives to the democrat party, but that's a story for another day.) In any case, the fact that republicans tend to vote in higher percentages is the only thing that keeps presidential elections even remotely close. When conservatives protest/write-in/3rd party vote, the republican party is the one that is weakened, not the democat party.
   6. Frankly, I do not understand a conservative who would rather see Obama win than vote for a less than perfect republican who might not be great, but will be better than Obama.

I don't mean to be insulting.....these are just my perceptions. But I see an analogy in the world of gun advocacy. The NRA would be analogous to the Republican Party, and GOA would be analogous to third party protest voters. No, the NRA is not perfect. Yes, on rare occasion, the NRA puts its foot wrong. But overall, the NRA has done more good for gun rights than any other organization. The fact that we continue to be allowed the expression of those rights is almost entirely attributable to the NRA. But just the other day, an acquaintance of mine said he doesn't support the NRA any more and he takes his information from GOA. I appreciate that the GOA claims to stand for gun rights, but my impression of the net effect they have on the discourse is to try and separate the NRA from its membership, without producing much in the way of expanded gun rights to offset that weakening of the NRA. In short, GOA does more harm than good. I'm sure that is not their intent. I am equally sure that is not the intent of their membership. But it doesn't really matter what their intent is, because the practical result of what they do is to damage the reputation of the single most important and effective gun rights organization in the world. In the end, instead of furthering the cause of gun rights advocacy, GOA ends up indirectly helping the Brady Bunch by sniping at the NRA. Don't for a minute imagine that the Brady Foundation doesn't smirk when they see it happening, and don't for a minute think that they wouldn't try to twist that into some bogus headline like, "Many gun owners disagree with NRA about gun control" or something like that. All it does is give ammunition to the enemy. This is an illustration of what happens when conservatives split off from the GOP.

One of the things I look forward to in heaven is the lack of politics. But here on earth, it is a hard reality that has to be dealt with, and we need to be very very smart about it or the consequences can be more than we would want to bear. Small groups of conservatives banding together outside of the GOP, out of concern for a perceived lack of ideological purity within the GOP, is the political equivalent of taking your toys and going home. I understand the motivation, and I might even agree with your frustrations, but I just can't agree with the tactic of leaving the GOP. Not here. Not now. Not in THIS election. You may call it standards. I think those standards an indulgence we can ill afford.

As I have posted earlier, I may reregister as an independent after the elections because the GOP will not be able to count on my support going forward if they do not get the wagon out of the ditch. But during this particular election, I just really believe that we are at a watershed, and I'm unwilling to contribute any further to the GOP's decline because I fear the alternative worse than I fear a GOP president.

[rp_photo]

I think the writing is on the wall here. In spite of many personal issues and some shady dealings, Newt has consistently come off as the sharp one in debates, and holds a lot of political savvy. He's got a LOT of personal baggage, but the fact that he's staying in the fight shows that he intends to win it now. I think his attitude has changed significantly from when he first started

Obama has a lot of baggage as well, but the adoring media ignores it.

[VMI77]

What about the gov't leaving honest, decent, hard working people alone. Where is he on that?

He's a big government Statist, just like Romney. He will increase the power and size of the government. At best, if it's him versus Obama, he may be the lesser of two evils. His only potentially positive quality as a president is that his version of a big government and a powerful State may be marginally less noxious and destructive than Obama's.

I'm not sure I would agree 100% with your assessment of Gingrich, but I will concede that he possesses the fatal flaw of assuming that government can fix things—when the best answer is that things would fix themselves if government would just stop meddling.

But all of that said we really on have three very stark choices:

1. Vote to reelect Obama. Of course, this implies that you like most of what he has done, and would like to see more of it. I think it is safe to say that this does not describe the majority of this board's membership. Two things can be said about this:
   
   1. Obama has pledged to fundamentally transform America. He has a running start at it, and he has already made some hugely significant changes (i.e. healthcare bill, etc.)
   2. If he wins reelection, he will have no more reason for any vestige of moderation. Example: until now, all of his anti-gun agenda has been put forth in stealth mode, such as implementing Fast & Furious as a pretext to asking for stringent gun controls—which has been confirmed and even reported by the liberal media. This is an incontrovertible fact. If Obama wins reelection, look for things like this to become overt rather than stealthy, and it won't just be in the area of guns, either.
2. Vote for whomever the GOP nominates, regardless of whom that turns out to be, and regardless of their "brand" of conservatism. There are three things which can be said about this:
   
   1. We will either end up with someone who is barely conservative (Romney), sort of conservative (Gingrich), or "libertarian" conservative (Paul).
   2. Whichever of these three gets elected, we will be better off than with another four years of Obama. How much better off is a merely matter of degree, and your perception of how much better off will depend on whether you're a progressive, conservative, or libertarian republican.
   3. All three of these candidates have pledged themselves to the dismantling of Obamacare—one of the most evil, poorly conceived, and non-transparent bills ever passed, which has taken over 1/6th of the world's largest economy. Under any three of these candidates, the domestic market and unemployment should improve because a conservative would restore some market certainty and economic policy certainty which is clearly lacking at this point.
3. Vote for a third party/write-in/Pat Paulsen candidate. Lord, where to start.....there are so many things wrong with this—not eternally wrong, but wrong at this very time in our history.......
   
   1. If the republican candidate wins and the election is even remotely close, democrats will sue. They will obfuscate. There will be claims of irregularities, hard to understand ballots, hanging chads, etc., etc., etc. It's what they do. A republican victor has to win by a convincingly large margin or democrats will not accept that the nation rejected their candidate and their radical platforms, and they will do all that they can to disrupt the orderly transition of power from the outgoing administration to the new one. They care more about their power than they do about the stability of the nation. There will be a gnashing of teeth, and they will never graciously accept the defeat and graciously move on and start planning to win things back the next time.......unless they lose so badly that the loss cannot be explained away as anything else but a thorough repudiation of the party by the electorate.
   2. I could be wrong about this, but it is my perception just from taking part in numerous of these types of forum discussions that in the general election, Romney supporters would be likely to vote for Gingrich or Paul if one of them wins the nomination; Gingrich supporters would be likely to vote for Romney or Paul if either of them wins the nomination; but Ron Paul supporters are more likely to A) "protest vote" by writing in Ron Paul, B) vote for a third party candidate, or C) protest by not voting at all than they are likely to vote for either Romney or Gingrich as the republican party nominee.
   3. If my perception is correct, then this is not without national consequences of a horrific nature. Is there any rational person on this board who, having observed this promised "transformation" of Obama's, actually believes that another four years of an Obama administration wouldn't be one of the most calamitous things that could happen to the nation? In case you have doubts, imagine (if you're old enough to remember...I am) another four years of Jimmy Carter, and factor that by at least 2, and you begin to have a picture of what another four years of Obama would be like.
   4. To those conservatives who eschew voting for republicans I have this to say: of the two major parties, the republican party is the closest thing to your natural ally......even if it is not ideologically pure enough for your satisfaction. Every one of those conservatives who protests by either not voting or by voting third party/write-in is a vote drained away from the republican nominee, and not from Obama. Thus, it hurts the republican party more than the democrat party. If this is you, the democrats already didn't have your vote, and their message is not targeted at people like you. You are a write-off to the democrat party. They don't know you, or care about you. One of the third parties may be more ideologically pure to your satisfaction, but also that third party doesn't have a snowball's chance in hades of ever getting their candidate elected president. It just isn't going to happen, because for better or for worse, libertarian conservatism is just not a big enough slice of the conservative pie.
   5. Democrats outnumber republicans, but republicans tend to vote in higher percentages. (Personally, I believe that this is because part of the democrat constituency is made up of those who are too irresponsible, immature, or entitled to exercise their rights of citizenship. If they were more responsible, more mature, and less entitled, then they might give consideration to conservatism, and they might be willing to look at alternatives to the democrat party, but that's a story for another day.) In any case, the fact that republicans tend to vote in higher percentages is the only thing that keeps presidential elections even remotely close. When conservatives protest/write-in/3rd party vote, the republican party is the one that is weakened, not the democat party.
   6. Frankly, I do not understand a conservative who would rather see Obama win than vote for a less than perfect republican who might not be great, but will be better than Obama.

I don't mean to be insulting.....these are just my perceptions. But I see an analogy in the world of gun advocacy. The NRA would be analogous to the Republican Party, and GOA would be analogous to third party protest voters. No, the NRA is not perfect. Yes, on rare occasion, the NRA puts its foot wrong. But overall, the NRA has done more good for gun rights than any other organization. The fact that we continue to be allowed the expression of those rights is almost entirely attributable to the NRA. But just the other day, an acquaintance of mine said he doesn't support the NRA any more and he takes his information from GOA. I appreciate that the GOA claims to stand for gun rights, but my impression of the net effect they have on the discourse is to try and separate the NRA from its membership, without producing much in the way of expanded gun rights to offset that weakening of the NRA. In short, GOA does more harm than good. I'm sure that is not their intent. I am equally sure that is not the intent of their membership. But it doesn't really matter what their intent is, because the practical result of what they do is to damage the reputation of the single most important and effective gun rights organization in the world. In the end, instead of furthering the cause of gun rights advocacy, GOA ends up indirectly helping the Brady Bunch by sniping at the NRA. Don't for a minute imagine that the Brady Foundation doesn't smirk when they see it happening, and don't for a minute think that they wouldn't try to twist that into some bogus headline like, "Many gun owners disagree with NRA about gun control" or something like that. All it does is give ammunition to the enemy. This is an illustration of what happens when conservatives split off from the GOP.

One of the things I look forward to in heaven is the lack of politics. But here on earth, it is a hard reality that has to be dealt with, and we need to be very very smart about it or the consequences can be more than we would want to bear. Small groups of conservatives banding together outside of the GOP, out of concern for a perceived lack of ideological purity within the GOP, is the political equivalent of taking your toys and going home. I understand the motivation, and I might even agree with your frustrations, but I just can't agree with the tactic of leaving the GOP. Not here. Not now. Not in THIS election. You may call it standards. I think those standards an indulgence we can ill afford.

As I have posted earlier, I may reregister as an independent after the elections because the GOP will not be able to count on my support going forward if they do not get the wagon out of the ditch. But during this particular election, I just really believe that we are at a watershed, and I'm unwilling to contribute any further to the GOP's decline because I fear the alternative worse than I fear a GOP president.

I don't like anything about Obama. I fear another Obama term in office. The media made an issue of GWB being divisive, but Obama is probably the most divisive president in history, and it's a deliberate strategy. I've become a one issue voter, an issue that is dear to me, but also I believe an indicator of moral judgement at the most fundamental level: the right to self-defense, from which follows, the right to own guns for a variety of purposes, the foremost of which is self-defense. Anyone who doesn't believe an individual has this right is a collectivist, and I consider collectivists to be my enemies. I know where Obama stands on this regardless of any media baloney to the contrary. The only question to me then is whether Newt sincerely believes in the right to self-defense and gun ownership. If he does, he will be a better choice than Obama, if he doesn't but still maintains the pretense without damaging gun rights then I guess he'll still be better --but if it's a pretense that he sheds for political reasons and facilitates a loss of gun rights, then I won't be able to see him as having been a better choice. I know Obama is anti-gun, I don't think Newt is, at least to the same degree, but I don't really know what his position is, and I fear he is one of these fine double barrel shotgun Republicans who don't see why anyone would need an "assault" rifle or a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.