Iowans for Christian Leaders in Government has released its second anti-Newt Gingrich video. Their first ad hit Gingrich on his personal life, while this one focuses on his position on climate change. This is the same Iowa group responsible for anti-Newt fliers trashing the former Speaker for his multiple marriages.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Max,
Interesting how easily- after 2-3 years of spewing toxic venom at these types of people- you incorporate them so easily into your cause.
Before, you’d just relentlessly mock their intelligence and geneaology, call them “Christianists,” and talk about how they’re ruining the party and civilization.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
It’s going to be a long 4 weeks for Gingrich’s camp. I’m not sure if he’ll be able to get people to caucus for him. I know his organization is weak, but also he’s not going to have much of a chance to respond to these negative attacks that are coming out of the woodwork. If he wins Iowa, then will he be too damaged to win the nomination? If he doesn’t win Iowa – who does?
December 5th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Ouch! This is a pretty powerful ad to knock Gingrich down and attack some of his liberal positions. Gingrich will fall and will fall hard.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
The NEWT-A-BUST is coming……mark my words!!!
December 5th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
It begins.
Gingrich will be destroyed by Christmas. Cain will look like a statesman afterwards, by contrast.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
After Gingrich’s vetting, Huntsman will look utterly conservative, by contrast.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Wow. Paul is not pulling any punches on Newt either. Check out the update at the bottom. This is going to be a very interesting couple weeks.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69792.html
December 5th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
5 Right now Cain is saying to himself, “I just pulled a Pawlenty – I pulled out of the race too soon.”
December 5th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Max is this ad actually running in Iowa or is it just a web ad?
If it is running, how big is the ad buy?
December 5th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
It seems like everyone and their brother is coming out AGAINST Newt Gingrich now. It’s becoming a very lonely world if you support this guy. Even people like Glen Beck, and Michael Savage are rejecting him (choosing Romney over Gingrich). The Democrats all over the place are popping the champagne corks right now over this.
In our 24/7 modern news cycle today, I don’t see how he survives the next 4 weeks.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
It’s interesting these so-called christians won’t reveal themselves. I bet the money trail leads to Utah.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
11.
You think Huntsman is behind these ads? Interesting.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
8- lol
December 5th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
11. Really? …Really? Interesting when people do this to Romney they are called Christians but with Newt they are So-called Christians and are supposivly from Utah?
Go figure.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
I’m serious : the effect of the Gingrichcalypse will be to an important shift of perception regarding Huntsman
From a diplomatic moderate, he will look like an actual conservative : deep convictions like Reagan, and clean life.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Newt is firing back at Pelosi’s threat (from an earlier thread…I hope it’s okay to post this here)
http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-fires-back-at-pelsoi-bring-it-on/
“First of all I’d like to thank Speaker Pelosi for what I regard as an early Christmas gift. If she’s suggesting she’s gonna use material she developed while she was on the ethics committee, that is a fundamental violation of the rules of the House and I would hope members would immediately file charges against her the second she does it.”
…
Not sure threatening her to keep her silent will really help him politically….
hmmmm
December 5th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Romney is the kind of guy that will start a new era of Presidential politics in America – one that cools the rhetoric and brings people together. His life has been led like that from day one.
I, for one, am sick and tired of the partisanship this country has been having for the past decade or so. Bush alienated the left, now Obama alienates the right. What we need is a leader who calms things down and gets things done – a person who brings back optimism to the American way of life.
Don’t let your anger against Obama give us another four years of heated partisanship. I know it is tempting because it would feel good to give the current administration a good kick in the butt, but the results would be far more devastating to this country than taking a cool, collected approach to solving the problems in the USA.
Mitt Romney does this for America.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
15. I thinks that’s way out on the limb. The Grigrichcalypse probably will benifit Perry more than anyone.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Conventional wisdom is wrong : Huntsman doesn’t need Romney to collapse, he only needs time for all the clowns to flame out.
He will be the last conservative standing. Against Romney.
I know this sounds crazy to the sheeps.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
17. Amen.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
16.
It won’t.
And the web ad above is dumb.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
16
…maybe not (help him politically), but what does he have to lose? Unlike what Cain went through, we all at least know where the op dump’s coming from.
Frankly, as a Christian, I am seriously ashamed of the group that’s doing this. He has, after all, admitted on a Christian-based network (CBN) that he is now leading a different life after finding “forgiveness but not understanding” from God.
Whether one wishes to believe Newt’s current spiritual situation is another issue entirely, though it’s too bad that this group wishes to hold Newt’s presumably-forgiven past as a means of brow-beating him.
Sometime you have to ask: with presumed friends like this, who needs enemies?
Besides — where in the Constitution does it say that you have to live a completely virtuous life in order to be eligible for the presidency? This isn’t an excuse for previous bad behavior; rather, it’s a call to take a candidate at their word until they’ve proven themselves otherwise.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
18- Perry has been rejected. No possible comeback.
he has shown he couldn’t beat Obama, which is GOP’s main objective.
Disclosure : I stand to make over 100k if Huntsman’s the nominee. This might affect might thinking, or something.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
17. That’s what W. Bush intended to do with his ‘compassionate conservatism’ and new tone after the contentious Clinton years. The other side won’t have any of it…and you are foolish to believe that fairy tale.
Mitt will be hated and vilified in the complicit left wing press 24/7. Wake up!
This is what moderates just don’t get. We are in an ideological war and the other side is the aggressor.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Makes me wonder who really paid for this ad.
Asking Wife For Divorce While She Was In The Hospital Dying of Cancer.
This story is a vicious lie. It was first reported by a left wing magazine in the 1980s based on hearsay and has survived in left-wing chat rooms on the Internet until today. It is completely false.
Recently, Newt’s daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear. The column reveals that 1) It was her mother that requested the divorce, not Newt, and it was months before the hospital visit in question; 2) Her mother was in the hospital to remove a tumor, but it was benign, and she is still alive today; 3) Newt visited the hospital for the purpose of taking his two children to see their mother, not to discuss a divorce.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Funny how the nationally widely discussed “Mitt vs. Mitt” ad never made it to the front page and this one has.
Awfully curious.
If we’re going to discuss every negative ad it would make sense to start with the one that is actually shaping public opinion.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
22.Phil_GA Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
16
…
Frankly, as a Christian, I am seriously ashamed of the group that’s doing this. He has, after all, admitted on a Christian-based network (CBN) that he is now leading a different life after finding “forgiveness but not understanding” from God.
Whether one wishes to believe Newt’s current spiritual situation is another issue entirely, though it’s too bad that this group wishes to hold Newt’s presumably-forgiven past as a means of brow-beating him.
Sometime you have to ask: with presumed friends like this, who needs enemies?
Besides — where in the Constitution does it say that you have to live a completely virtuous life in order to be eligible for the presidency? This isn’t an excuse for previous bad behavior; rather, it’s a call to take a candidate at their word until they’ve proven themselves otherwise.
===
COMMENT OF THE DAY
December 5th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Why does Newt want to keep the dirt they dug up on him as part of an ethics investigation out of the public record? What exactly is he hiding, and why do politicians get to decide these things behind closed doors? So much for transparency.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Lovin’ the new rules..
#23 You are over your limit..ding! ding! ding!
#24 Bingo!
#25 Bingo!
#26 Bingo!
December 5th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
17.
Whatever his faults as a President, I think its unfair to say that Bush did much to inflame the left. Starting with the election of 2000, the left went on a jihad against Bush that manifested itself in what was commonly known as Bush Derangement Syndrome. The vitriol that was thrown at him and then by extension anyone on the right was relentless.
I blame a lot of this on the Clinton administration with Carville and crew who lived the politics of personal destruction. Remember Hillary and her Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? The push back on Obama has been tame by comparison, mainly because the left and the msm attribute any criticism of Obama to racism and have covered for him every step of the way.
The Tea Party was a very useful movement a few years back to organize the anger at DC and their out of control spending and policies. But they need to recognize that those of us who don’t agree that running the angriest candidate regardless of their policies or electabilty is not a winning strategy.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
24 – it’s more than ideological war!
Cronyism is destroying the country. Not ideology : right out theft and corruption.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
24
Even if you were right about that, what does going full-bore with “ideological war with the other side”, as you put, accomplish? Do you actually think that more legislation would get passed through Congress and the Senate if we have an angrier, more partisan, President.
Like it or not, our Constitution still requires the other party’s support to get things done. Yelling and screaming at them, while it may make you pump your fist in the air and shout, doesn’t get our country back on track. People supporting the not Romney, “angry” candidates are simply looking at this situation one-dimensionally. They are not seeing that angry, heated, rhetoric only gives you an “emotional” victory, not a literal victory which can only be found by passing good legislation that advances the ball in a more Conservative direction.
Like I said, I AM SICK AND TIRED of your “war” you have been waging against the left in this country. You’re only damaging our ability to progress and fix America’s problems in the long run. We’ve tried your way with people like George Bush and Sarah Palin and look where we are at. It’s time to let the adult come in and clean the mess up you have left us.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
recognize that TRASHING those of us who don’t agree
December 5th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Gingrich responding to Pelosi by telling her not to dare is a horrible response. All it does is make people think Pelosi has the goods on Gingrich. He should have said that if she had anything to release she would have released it instead of talking about it. Then he could say next she’s going to claim that she can’t release it due to congressional rules.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
#1. MWS
Whether he using it for his cause or not has no significance on whether or not he SHOULD use it or bring it to people’s attention.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
If Obama is reelected, I hope you guys will stack up gold, guns and food.
Defeating Obama is incredibly important. He’s a complete fool, at the very least. I don’t know if he’s nefarious, but he’s dangerous.
I predict Teledude will soon admit that Gingrich can’t possibly defeat Obama.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
At the risk of causing undue consternation on this board (especially after only very recently beginning to post comments here), here’s something else that this particular group needs to prepare for.
Are they just as willing to vociferously attack Romney over his belief system (which is clearly outside the mainstream orthodoxy of Christianity (about as positive a statement as I can make about Mormonism without going against newly-established comment rules)) as they have against Newt?
Somehow I don’t think this same group is going to intersperse images and video of Mitt Romney amongst those of Joseph Smith or other aspects of Romney’s belief system which, of course, makes this group an even bigger hypocrite than Newt could ever try to be.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
This is called VETTING.
Obama’s attack will be extremely negative and MSM and Hollywood produced and diffused
GOP candidate have to be able to survive them and beat Obama.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
28.
If Pelosi does, then she’s not only in violation of house rules, but will be in for a real surprise. All the ethics violations were filed by the Democrats, who tainted the process.
Eighty four politically motivated ethics charges were filed against Newt when he was Speaker of the House regarding the use of tax exempt funds for a college course he taught titled “Renewing American Civilization.” Eighty-three of the eighty-four charges were found to be without merit and dropped. The remaining charge had to do with contradictory documents prepared by Newt’s lawyer supplied during the course of the investigation. Newt took responsibility for the error and agreed to reimburse the committee the cost of the investigation into that discrepancy. In 1999, after a 3 ½ year investigation, the Internal Revenue Service (under President Bill Clinton, nonetheless) concluded that Gingrich did NOT violate any tax laws, leading renowned CNN Investigative Reporter Brooks Jackson to remark on air “it turns out [Gingrich] was right and those who accused him of tax fraud were WRONG.”
December 5th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
MWS
I’m simply reporting what’s happening. The fact that a Christian group is both attacking Gingrich and Vander Plaats is important in terms of how the Iowa Caucus pans out. If they succeed in swaying Vander Plaats it could severely damage Gingrich’s chances.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
37.
That might be true if these Christian groups in Iowa had already made it very clear that nominating a Mormon is not acceptable to them.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Katechon, you really need to put in sell orders on Huntsman at 9.99.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
P.S. I’ve called just about every turn in this race correctly, including most recently the rise of Newt.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
11. I think it is the same group in Iowa that sent Vander Plaats the letter letting him know that his secret meetings to crown someone as immoral as newt, would not fly with them. Notice how this group did not endorse anyone, but they are saying ‘not newt’. this road does not lead to Utah, but leads right to ground zero in Iowa.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Sure. This ad is important
But when the DNC highlighted Mitt’s multiple choice on immigration at exactly the same time as Gingrich’s campaign did, and all of that effectively forced Mitt to stop pretending to be Mr. Tough Guy on immigration (because everyone saw how he was full of it), somehow the Mitt vs. Mitt ad (which made the rounds on all the cable shows) wasn’t important enough to be highlighted on the front page of Romney 4 2012 .
Ok.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Gingrich has so much baggage- he will fall and fall hard very soon. We need a leader who has the experience and know-how to turn this economy around. Romney will get ‘er done.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
And by the way, Vander Plaats isn’t going to do ANYTHING that will help Romney.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Phil_GA Says:
Are they just as willing to vociferously attack Romney over his belief system (which is clearly outside the mainstream orthodoxy of Christianity (about as positive a statement as I can make about Mormonism without going against newly-established comment rules)) as they have against Newt?
….makes this group an even bigger hypocrite than Newt could ever try to be
========================================
And why should we assume you are Christian, your not acting like one…
December 5th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
46. Obama has more baggage, but he still won against McCain.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
43 – except you thought Christie would run.
You might be right regarding those sell orders.
But I’m not feeling it. Now Romney + Huntsman = 58%.
Those are the sole viable candidates.
I’m shorting Gingrich in Florida over 50% and in Iowa over 55%. I like it a lot!
Im not selling my Huntsman. Fundamentals are too good
December 5th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Mitt has plenty of baggage too. Let’s not kid ourselves here. Every “weird” thing that happened anywhere close to Mitt would be “vetted” as well in a general election.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Katechon Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
43 – except you thought Christie would run.
You might be right regarding those sell orders.
But I’m not feeling it. Now Romney + Huntsman = 58%.
Those are the sole viable candidates.
I’m shorting Gingrich in Florida over 50% and in Iowa over 55%. I like it a lot!
Im not selling my Huntsman. Fundamentals are too good
———————————————————-
You stand to make a lot of money, if I was a gambler, I would do the same. I don’t think Huntsman is going to win, but you gotta love those odds. I would even think Perry has a much better shot than Newt.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Newt and the tea party have duped the entire republican party.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
GOP needs a candidate able to beat Obama. That’s the bottom line.
That’s why Huntsman will be the last conservative standing. Against Mitt.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Sojourner Truth Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Mitt has plenty of baggage too. Let’s not kid ourselves here. Every “weird” thing that happened anywhere close to Mitt would be “vetted” as well in a general election.
============================================
He already was Vetted in 2008… Sorry, but if Mitt has any problem it is being squeaky clean. Even Saturday Night Live portrayed Romney as being very very squeaky clean.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
55 – No. He wasn’t. McCain was “vetted” in 2008 too.
And guess what?
When he made it to the GENERAL ELECTION his “vetting” reached a whole new level.
If anyone has already been “vetted” by national Democrats, it’s Newt Gingrich.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
This reiterates what I have been saying. Newt as the nominee presents more opportunities to Team Chicago than probably any other candidate in terms of whacked-out, crazy things he has said. (And done.)
I think we would have a difficult time nominating a more flawed candidate than Newt.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
51.
First, there is nothing inconsistent about Romney’s illegal immigration policy. Even MTP had to admit yesterday that when they played the full 2007 clip there was no difference in his policy from now which is no special treatment for any group of illegals. Everyone goes to the end of the line and applies for a green card or citizenship like everyone else. In other words, follow the law. And there is no reason for Mitt to hammer Newt on amnesty when Bachmann and Santrorum are doing a fine job of it. Romney can continue to run against Obama just as he has been the whole campaign.
Second, I know you and a couple others have been on this “weird” thing for a while now. Please list all the weird things that “happened anywhere close to Mitt”. I’m unaware of them and would like to hear them.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
48
“And why should we assume you are Christian, your not acting like one…
First, I never asked anyone to assume anything about me. I very specifically stated that I am a Christian.
Secondly, if pointing out that Mormonism is outside mainstream orthodox Christianity makes me unchristian, then I have no problems being characterized as such.
In other words, while I don’t require others to validate my belief system in order to have a belief system, I think that Romney would absolutely rhetorically whither under the same brazen attacks by this same group that they’ve just done — twice — against Newt.
Newt’s already said he welcomes the vetting; Romney’s already demonstrated he’s not willing to undergo the same latex glove exam.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Is this an OPEN thread? Seems several have gone past the 4 post limit.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
When will there be an another tell all story or article from wife #1 or wife #2 about Newt and his character. The most recent that I’m aware of was with wife #2 back in the summer of 2010. It has long since been buried and forgotten by many. I want to see another from 60 minutes or CNN or something where they interview them.
If his wives can’t trust him, how can he expect the American public to trust him.
And I hope this isn’t a violation of Kavon’s new rules where we inject a candidates family into the discussion. Most folks (except Newt fans) feel like his past marriages are a relevant issue.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
58 – Mitt’s a dirty rotten amnesty supporter. None of the people here illegally should be given citizenship because they broke the law. Mitt thinks that some of the 11M already here should be allowed to stay and apply for citizenship because “we’re not going to round people up”. That’s right from the horse’s mouth.
And guess what? In the eyes of conservatives who care about this stuff, there’s not a nickel’s worth of difference between Romney and Gingrich on the issue.
Bachmann and Santorum were criticizing Perry on immigration too. It didn’t stop Mitt. Mitt stopped because he knew his tough guy act wasn’t working and his denial of changing position or even admitting to conveniently changing tone and emphasis makes him look shifty. THAT is something that doesn’t help and THAT is why we haven’t heard much from Mitt on immigration over the last week or two.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Phil_GA Says:
Secondly, if pointing out that Mormonism is outside mainstream orthodox Christianity makes me unchristian, then I have no problems being characterized as such.
=======================================================================
True, Mormon’s (or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), following the organization that Christ put together and the teachings of the Old and New Testaments. Now, i don’t want to lower myself to your level with further comment on other religions.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Seriously – look – the four post limit is just stupid. I’m not following it. Let’s have a discussion.
If I’m banned over it then I’m banned over it.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
60- there’s a Limit?
December 5th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Not to be a rag, but Sojo is at 6 posts and Katcheon is at 13. Is this rule going to be enforced or not?
Mitt’s “baggage” pales in comparison to Newt’s. If his dog on roof, illegals on lawn, and “who let the dogs” out line is their worst, we’re going to be in pretty darn good shape against Obama in 2012 if Mitt’s the nominee.
With Newt, you have a treasure trove of crap that can be used against him. Worst of which will be when Gloria Allred starts coming out with alleged victims (real or imagined) to Newt’s infidelity and womanizing.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
59,
Except the adultery charge doesn’t apply to romney in any way shape or form. Both have similar issues dealing with the positions.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
45. SoJo, you already said that. No need to repeat yourself on the same thread.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Sojourner Truth Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Seriously – look – the four post limit is just stupid. I’m not following it. Let’s have a discussion.
If I’m banned over it then I’m banned over it.
=================================================
I actually agree with you here. I think we may be miss interpreting what he was saying, I think he doesn’t want someone to post basically the same thing over and over.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
62) – must part of the bots’ settings!
December 5th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Can someone please explain? Apparently Newt just dropped below 30% on Intrade. Does anyone have any idea why? He was over 35% last night as I recall. What has happened today that accounts for the plunge?
December 5th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Newt has so much political baggage that we don’t have to go after his marriage problems. I know we need to defeat Obama and I never understood the Newt surge it was for his debating skills alone in my opinion.
Romney can not entice the Evangelicals it seems. I guess I will just stick with the one I have supported from the beginning, Governor Perry.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
62.
>>And guess what? In the eyes of conservatives who care about this stuff, there’s not a nickel’s worth of difference between Romney and Gingrich on the issue.
I’m a conservative and I care about this stuff and I think there is a big difference between selectively offering amnesty to some group of people that a local citizens council will decide on and enforcing the current law. We will have to disagree.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
62. SoJo, you KNOW that’s not quite Mitt’s policy. You’re skewing it.
There’s a difference between giving illegals special treatment or preference for becoming citizens (or just giving them some other legal status) and telling them they MUST apply for citizenship just like anyone else.
The only difference is he’s not suggesting we ship them all home, first, which is totally impractical.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Incertitude generates volatility.
If I had more cash, I would sell go Gingrich a lot. Lot.
Somebody might have decided to pull the trigger. Gingrich is a sell.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
64. SoJo
I can live with that!
AAAANNNNNDD, that’s my limit. cya
December 5th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Even when a group is taking a shot at an opponent and it could benefit the candidate I support, I still feel ill at ease when it is some sort of shadowy, unknown entity. Isn’t there some way to go beyond whatever label they give themselves and get the actual names of the people involved?
December 5th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
75 was for 71
December 5th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Phil_GA:
That’s great that he has now committed to living a wholesome life. But I think ones past should be relevant in seeking the highest office in the land. Obama did a 180 on his church 4 years ago and most thought it was for political expediency. Being a Christian isn’t just about what brand of faith you are or which building you choose to worship in, but also about how you conduct your life.
Do we really want a repeat of what we saw with Herman Cain to play out all next summer (where woman after woman steps forward to dish details about her time with Newt). Couldn’t our party do better to elect someone who is much, MUCH less likely to have those skeletons? YES!!!
I don’t want someone who gave speeches to family values groups while continuing a 6 year affair (while married to someone with MS) to be our nominee even if he has sought forgiveness with God. His salvation is his business, his being elected is my business and I don’t want that!!!
December 5th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Watchinitall Says:
December 5th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Even when a group is taking a shot at an opponent and it could benefit the candidate I support, I still feel ill at ease when it is some sort of shadowy, unknown entity. Isn’t there some way to go beyond whatever label they give themselves and get the actual names of the people involved?
=====================================
I can agree with that. For all we know they could are really democrats or Rick Perry… We really don’t know.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Gingrich is going down along with his left wing socialist agenda.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Katechon, Gingrich has major electability problems, yes. Remember O’Donnell, Angle, Miller?
The base doesn’t give a rip about electability right now. Gingrich has a real shot.
Huntsman does not, and it’s entirely due to his personality.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
At least when the DNC pointed out Romney’s….uh… evolutions, you knew it was coming from the DNC.
Who is “Iowans for Christian Leaders in Government?”
December 5th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
This ad also underlies the point that if Newt Gingrich is the nominee, the Republican Party is no longer the party of family values.
Newt does not stand for traditional marriage, nor biblical marriage. Newt stands for the idea that any man can put the most holy asunder. Newt represents a bigger threat to traditional marriage than gay marriage or other alternative lifestyles. Newt is the serial adulterer who thinks they can throw down a relationship sanctioned by God and start a new one any time he wants.
Many have rallied behind Newt and stated that he is a changed man. I hope they are right, and that’s between him and God. But the problem Newt has is that repentance and forgiveness do not erase the temporal consequences of sin. Because of his adultery and multiple marriages of convenience, Newt has completely forfeited the right to represent the party that stands up for traditional family values.
There is a scene in O Brother Where Art Thou, after Delmar and Pete have been baptized, when they act genuinely confused that the police would still be after them since they had just been baptized. The dialog is as follows:
Pete: The Preacher said it absolved us.
Ulysses Everett McGill: For him, not for the law. I’m surprised at you, Pete, I gave you credit for more brains than Delmar.
Delmar O’Donnell: But they was witnesses that seen us redeemed.
Ulysses Everett McGill: That’s not the issue Delmar. Even if that did put you square with the Lord, the State of Mississippi’s a little more hard-nosed.
That sums Newt Gingrich up perfectly.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
What group is this really??? Is it because he converted to Catholic Christianity??? Or is an opponent behind this ad??? Newt is still the best guy to be tough enough to defeat the lies of the MSM, the DNC and Bama and his ilk in the Senate and House. I would like to see the credentials of this Group. As a retired pastor of a conservEvang. church, I wonder why we keep shooting our wounded. Do not these purists realize that the Dems will go after any choice that is made with the same hate and venom? Apparently they do not want a unified group of TEAS , Reagan Dems, GOP, Libertarians, and Indies and would rather put forward St. Francis of Assisi . Yikes. The enemy is Obama not Newt, or even Mitt or the Ricks.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Wait a minute now. Gingrich found Jesus, so to speak, on his infidelity.
Are you of the opinion that people can’t improve themselves, that they can’t “see the light?”
Because if that’s what you think, then Romney is a pro-abort.
Let’s be consistent here.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Glenn Koons, LB, Ca. Says:
The enemy is Obama not Newt, or even Mitt or the Ricks.
============================================
Well spoken, but we still need to vet the candidates so we can put the best candidate forward.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Rob- very well said.
Gingrich’s repentance and baptism in 2009 (before he made a run at the White House) might have made things right between he and the Lord but it doesn’t give him a pass with the American public.
To imagine him speaking to family values groups about values, and lecturing Clinton about his immorality while continuing his 6 year affair with a young women, while his wife was home with MS. It disqualifies him for the highest office in my book.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
22:
Sure, he maybe forgiven, but forgiving and forgetting are different things. Bernie Maddoff maybe forgiven if asks for it and repents, but that doesn’t mean forgetting, giving a pardon and making him a Secretary of Treasury or chairman of the federal reserve.
Power corrupts. He doesn’t need to prove that he is now really Christian or good man, that’s between him and God. There is no religious litmus test for presidency, however there must be secular tests. After such a moral failures in personal and professional life, he can’t be expected to be trustworthy of the top job without having had any real political job, not just “retired politician” jobs. Presidency isn’t starter level job, he must show that he is capable to wield power in a moral way, without becoming corrupt, that is required for “forgetting”. He hasn’t passed the secular test that is needed after such a moral failures. I don’t care how degenerate life someone has lived in his earlier life, if he has shown capability and moral in other jobs that really test the moral, however Gingrich has hold only political retiree jobs. Most people separate forgetting and forgiving in this kind of sensible way, so Gingrich is not electable.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Changing ones position on abortion is different than changing ones position on fidelity to marriage. Mitt said he was pro choice but, when the issue of life came to his desk as Governor, he made the right decision and came down on the side of life.
Newt said he was for “in sickness and in health, till death do us part” and when it came down to that in his marriage- he said never mind and bailed…
December 5th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
89:
To further continue. Since Gingrich hasn’t taken the secular test required for “forgetting” that he can handle political power without becoming drunken with it, he shouldn’t become president.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Says you. Some could easily argue that disposing of a life is far more important than choosing with whom to share a bed.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
90. It wasn’t even ProChoice that was Romney’s stance, but government’s involvement in abortion. Should the government have the right allow or disallow abortions? Romney himself was Pro-Life, but he adheres to the laws of the land and the law of the land is based on the people’s voice, and the people’s voice (the SCOTUS) has made a statement.
You are correct, when it came down to it, Romney went with Life. And he gets slammed for this. Go figure.
Romney is being held to a MUCH higher standard than any of his opponents. But that is fairly normal for a person of his stature.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
You have never accepted mitt’s change on abortion.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
I think this group is going to turn out to be an individual Ron Paul supporter.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
I think the limit was intended to make the same people that get into shouting matches can it and be more judicious in their commenting.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Sojo, Romney was never in a position where a woman he impregnated had an abortion. I am fine with Gingrich finding Jesus, I hope he has. In fact, I even believe him when he says he has. I have no interest in judging Gingrich’s present relationship with God, and I would never stand in the way of anyone seeing the light, as you put it. If Gingrich had one infidelity, and then spent the rest of his life being faithful to his wife, I would feel differently. But he went beyond that, way beyond that, and made it the pattern of his life, and even publicly called out others for engaging in the same behavior. (No, I am not convinced by his website where he says he only called out Clinton for the perjury, and not the sex.)
It is one thing for a person to have an indiscretion where a person learns from it and moves on. It is quite another thing entirely to live the vast majority of one’s life the way Gingrich did, and then to say he wants to represent the party that is supposed to stand up for traditional family values.
If you want to equate being pro-choice for a time, while never engaging in the type of behavior that results in abortion, to the type of behavior Gingrich took part of, be my guest. I’m not demanding perfection from any of the candidates, just that they not be so flawed as Gingrich is.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
90- Zactly
December 5th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Romney campaigned as “personally pro-life”, Romney vetoed a bill that would have forced private hospitals to have morning-after pills available, the 85% Dem legislature overwrote this veto though. Also in MassCare the abortion was put in by courts, but on the other hand during the first two year of MassCare abortions went down by 1.5%, teen pregnancy abortions went down by 9.5%.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
95,
You’re right. I confess…IT WAS ME! j/k but i wouldn’t be surprised if you were right. But what a courageous person to take down someone that would doom us to 4 more years of obama.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
82 – let’s see how it unfolds.
That’s what great about Intrade : you win cash when you’re right. Or lose!
December 5th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
That’s right. And I never claimed to.
But Rob asserted that Gingrich be disqualifyed because of his past. Pro-lifers could argue that Mitt’s indifference on the sanctity of life is more disqualifying.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Gingirch has repeated ethics amd moral transfressions over and over. Sometimes you forgive, but you learn anout the individual as well. Heck, Newt was lobbying for anti-conservative causes just a few uyears ago, and being paid handsomely for it. It goes to character, that Newt continues to throw conservative principles under the bus just for self gratification
December 5th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Romney and Gingrich really aren’t able to attack each other on much.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Newt is the kind of person that says and does anything for personal gain (whether that be for money or physical pleasure). He is quick to turn his back on expressed principles, if there is something in it for him.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Romney looked the other way. And the results of his indifference was the fact that his UNNECESSARY health care legislation when his state’s residents were already almost unanimously insured, allowed pro-choicers to set the terms of who would be covered and Romney’s signature resulted in a policy which increased the availability of cheap abortions. Those are facts.
Some could argue that Newt’s dishonerability never reached that level.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Salient point.
Except that Newt could argue that he fought for conservatism and has the war wounds to show for it.
Advantage Newt.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Romney can attack Gingrich on profiting from anti-conservative causes (lobbying). Gingrich stuck his thumb in the eyes of conservatives when he personally lobbied congressional members for big-government policy. Romney has never made money by eschewing conservative principles.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
#85 Of course, Obama and the Dems are the enemy and they will take no prisoners, show no mercy. So, we have to ask ourselves (1) Who would be the best Pub in the White House? and (2) Who can best stand up to the Obama slime machine?
(1) Newt in the White House is a HUGE gamble, IMO. His life has been dysfunctional: a long record of sexual promiscuity (including oral sex in a car w/his neighbor where his children and other children might have observed him if they had been taller–Bill Clinton, anyone?) A long record of self-indulgence as witnesses by his over-sized gut. Well known over-sized ego, self-righteousness and hypocrisy. A history of being disorganized and undisciplined. A history of ignoring the counsel of others in his own party. A history of shading the truth (Freddie Mack, anyone?), a history of cheating on wives when they are seriously ill (John Edwards, anyone?) A history of poorly managing his personal finances (his second wife claimed doing the family finances “overly stressed him” and she had to take care of it. A history of flip/flopping and doing dumb things (Nancy and Newt, sitting on a sofa and much more).
Newt’s mother suffered from manic/depression. Newt though intelligent shows many signs of mental health/personality disorder. The nation and indeed the entire world are depending on GOP primary voters to get this right. When you take a clear look at Newt, doesn’t he scare the beegeebers out of you?
My money’s on Mitt. He may have changed stances and contradicted himself in the past (some in the long distant past), but he has remarkably consistent in the last few years. He is known for making 100 campaign promises in Mass and having fulfilled everyone of them. There is no reason to believe Mitt would not move heaven and earth to effect his programs he has put in writing this campaign.
There is no reason to believe anything Newt promises. He’s not known for keeping promises. Yeah, he can say, I’ve changed, and maybe he has. However, there’s no reason to roll the dice on Newt when we have a sure thing in Mitt.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Romney tried to veto non-prescription morning-after pills, and law forcing private hospitals to have them (this was before MassCare, unrelated to it). MassCare despite abortions put in by court reduced abortions in two year by 1.5%, teen pregnancy abortions by 9.5%. So his record was pro-life.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
110 – Turning over the Commonwealth Care board to appointees from a pro-choice attorney general and signing the bill into law guaranteeing Planned Parenthood a seat on that board is not pro-life.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Teemu reminds us above what we all learned in high school: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Newt has proven himself to be corruptable over and over. And on the tax payers’ dime. He has been an integral part of the system we need to clean up. Fox and henhouse, anyone?
December 5th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Row Labels Count of Says
Katechon Says: 16
Sojourner Truth Says: 10
Thunder (Romney/Huckabee) Says: 7
Boomer Says: 7
aspire Says: 4
Phil_GA Says: 4
CF Says: 4
Husky Says: 4
Keith Price Says: 4
Micah Says: 3
Craig for Huck Says: 3
Teemu Says: 3
Republican 4 Life Says: 3
Rob Says: 3
Metro Says: 3
teledude Says: 2
Jman Says: 2
Machtyn Says: 1
Spenza Says: 1
SO Says: 1
Anybody but Newt 2 Says: 1
Glenn Koons, LB, Ca. Says: 1
MPC Says: 1
John2 Says: 1
Nancy Says: 1
asparagus Says: 1
PabloZed Says: 1
SteveT Says: 1
jarvis Says: 1
Max Twain Says: 1
Watchinitall Says: 1
Abe Says: 1
wateredseeds Says: 1
Matt “MWS” Says: 1
rightgal Says: 1
Grand Total 100
December 5th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
OOOO WOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! GUESS WHOS DOWN BY 7 POINTS ON INTRADE IN 2 HOURS:) yep, thats right, u guess it. NEWT IS FREE FALLING WITH NOTHING TO STOP ITT!!! newt going down down down!!! the country is safe after all
December 5th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Kavon, and aslo Max (who should be moderating right now)
It is not smart to come out with rules, and allow people to openly ignore them ON THE SAME DAY!
Either delete rule 5, or enforce it. It’s not fair to those who obey the rules.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
113. lol
December 5th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
107
Newt is the very definition of a Washington Insider. Mitt is a conservative businessman who is a definite outsider. That alone would be advantage Mitt. Everything else ON PAPER says that Mitt should be crushing Newt… but I’ll admit that the Not-Romney irrational rejection is definitely playing its part.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
113.
Put me down for a 4th by agreeing with PHIL from Georgia 100%!!!
December 5th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
7. You didn’t post the text with your link?
“UPDATE: A senior Paul campaign source emails to push back, and hard: “We agree, of course, with former Speaker Gingrich — this is a country of people of enormous talent. Those who deliver thousands of babies like Dr. Paul and those who spend their time focusing on promoting themselves for profit. We even have those who lobby, but don’t call it such because, as they say, they can make $60,000 per speech. While those of us in the Paul camp might disagree with Newt Gingrich about whether Donald Trump is the right man to host a serious political debate, we do agree New York is a wonderful place to go at Christmas. We are sure two average Americans like Speaker Gingrich and Donald Trump will have a wonderful time picking out gifts for their wives. We suggest a place called Tiffany’s, we hear it is quite nice this time of year and given their celebrity status they can probably get special deals and $500,000 lines of credit.”
December 5th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
118
Romney’s not “willing to undergo the same latex glove exam.”
So the candidate gets to dictate vetting now? And you seem to only be referring to mormonism… is that right? First off, I don’t care what Mitt thinks about heaven and hell. I care about his ability to get us out of the hell that we’re currently in. Any talk about “but he believes x, y, z” just makes me think you have some kind of bigoted agenda. A candidate’s religion should only be scrutinized to see what kind of values it manifests in the life of the candidate… and that’s it. Mitt’s been married once, has a picture perfect family, and gets made fun of for being TOO squeeky clean. ‘Nuff said.
December 5th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
[...] From News Source : http://race42012.com/2011/12/05/christian-group-blasts-newt-gingrich-in-new-ad/ [...]
December 5th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
120. Well said.
About the ad: very damaging. That is the information that will make people run from Newt in the primaries. It’s also the information (his relationship history) that will ensure he gains no more than 25% of the female vote in the general. This ad is more effective than the ad Newt produced yesterday, which was a very good ad.
The Newt slide has begun.
December 5th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
I never trusted Newt and I knew about his flip flopping before this commercial even came out, but I agree that if more of these types of statements are revealed he’ll lose his lead.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
The first ad (linked above) was much, much more damaging. The country has never elected a man with Newt’s messy private life but the irony is that it is the so-called “family values” voters that have propelled Newt’s rise and they seemingly are willing to accept his past.
I’m not bothered by Newt sitting on a couch with Pelosi. I actually think that act represents the kind of cooperation missing in Washington now that prevents resolution from occuring for many of the challenges facing country today. Thus, I don’t consider the Newt and Nancy ad particularly effective but the prior ad where he claims to be someone for whom the family is important is devastating. It’s most important element is that it doesn’t just use the women of The View as critics but also Limbaugh and voices that should be friendly to the Republican nominee, or at least the man who claims to already be the nominee.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
#25 Republican for Life,
I hear that defense often that Newt’s first wife actually asked for the divorce so therefore it was okay that A) the divorce happened, and B) that Gingrich brought the divorce paperwork to the hospital.
I won’t comment on the appropriateness of the paperwork at the hospital but I would just add that of course Jackie Battley-Gingrich asked for the divorce; most women do when they find out their husbands are cheating. To say that she asked for the divorce does not mean she was the cause of it.
December 6th, 2011 at 12:15 am
125. EXCELLENT point about asking vs being the cause.
December 6th, 2011 at 7:37 am
http://www.newt.org/answers — You folks clearly need to get your facts straight, and quit with the left-wing attacks.
December 6th, 2011 at 11:57 am
Newt Gingrich is surging in Iowa and all polls. Can this guy be stopped?
Find out at: Newt Gingrich: Democrat