New Super PAC Ad Touts Gingrich as a ‘Proven Conservative’
- Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:35pm by
Christopher Santarelli
- Print »
- Email »
With the latest Iowa polls showing a decline nearly as steep as his recent surge, a “Super PAC” for GOP presidential candidate New Gingrich has released a new web video touting the former speaker’s “proven conservative leadership.”
The video presents Gingrich as having “stood with Ronald Reagan” and “stood up to Bill Clinton.” Glimmering banners cut between messages that the candidate’s conservative values have been tested as he slashed taxes and “created millions of jobs.”
USA TODAY reports that independent groups supporting the Gingrich campaign are ramping up their spending on ads in key early voting states. The group that produced the video, Winning Our Future, was formed earlier this month to help Gingrich whose fundraising has lagged behind GOP rival Mitt Romney.
Polls released within the last 24 hours by Public Policy Polling and the New York Times show Gingrich’s support in Iowa declining significantly, falling outside of the lead and behind Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 710 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 561 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 382 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 373 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 364 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 373 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 382 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 311 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 373 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (133)
blamelessace5
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:33pmI cant believe that this guy honestly calls himself a conservative when hes perfectly fine with the gov. stepping in and arresting judges who are radical this power is only accessible to the judicial arm of the country for a reason not the president or congress… who are they to say whether a judge is too radical that would only be based on there views not law …look if we don’t like a judge we the people will vote him out …i dont want another obama…Gingrich conservative ? probably not
Report Post »spreadthefaith
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:43pmI’m a “conservative” and I’m fine with congress enforcing the constitutional right to enforce judges to act within their boundaries.
Report Post »blamelessace5
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:00pmI bet u wont be happy when dem`s get a crack at it ,and than where will u stand if theyres a bunch of Nancy pelosi`s running around and or Obama`s crying out for the arrests of judges that they think are radical where actually they share mine and your views ,where will u stand than ? we cant forget that this goes both ways
Report Post »blamelessace5
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:04pmbesides this guy states that he models himself after the Wilsonian era !!!!!! and that his favorite president was FDR yes the same guy who put thousands of Japanese Americans into internment camps which by the way none were ever found to be guilty not one ! its these kind of people that make us conservatives look bad .
Report Post »DrFrost
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:16pmJefferson did it. And he’s not the only one.
What would you do if the president abused his power and used the military to shut down elections?
What would you do if congress abused it’s power and started nationalizing industries? Oh wait…. you didn’t do anything… forget that question.
The point is, when a branch of government abuses it’s power the other two branches have an obligation to correct the situation. Does this have the potential for abuse? Absolutely. Just like making the president the commander and chief has the potential for abuse. Just like giving judges life time appointments has the potential for abuse…
Dealing with out of control judges has precedent going all the way back to Jefferson. The founding fathers characterized activist judges as one of the biggest threats to our nation. Big problems require big solutions.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:22pmSaying the Super PAC touts Gingrich is the same as saying “Gingrich touts Himself”
How is this news?
You want to know Gingrich?
2012 Presidential Candidates – Gun Owners Of America
http://www.gunowners.org
Ron Paul A+
Rick Perry A
Michelle Bachmann A
Rick Santorum B-
Newt Gingrich C
Mitt Romney D-
Links to back up facts on DOZENS of subjects: “So you think you know Newt Gingrich?
Report Post »http://www.landthieves.com/board/showthread.php?20533-So-you-think-you-know-Newt-Gingrich
Vechorik
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:23pmspreadthefaith
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:43pm
I’m a “conservative” and I’m fine with congress enforcing the constitutional right to enforce judges to act within their boundaries.
——————————-
Report Post »So you’re fine with Obama overturning everything GOOD conservatives try to get done?
Jeesh!
Heaven help us (and the Constitution).
ashestoashes
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:25pm@SPREADTHEFAITH… I agree with you…the case that comes to mind is Terri Shiavo…she couldn’t speak and had become disabled in a wheelchair and her husband Mark Schiavo was a nurse..Terri‘s nurse had said she caught Mark in Terri’s room with a needle.. Terri was responsive with eye movements,,could sit up and had lots of emotion in her eyes..but Mark went to a judge who was about the equivalent of a traffic judge and got him to agree with this evil looking doctor who said that Terri was brain dead..Of course by this time..Terri’s husband had acquired for himself a girlfriend and had 2 kids and he wanted Terri dead.. Her family desperately wanted her,,but good ole husband Mark got his wish and Terri was denied food and water for 3 weeks until she died.. I believe that even the President at that ttime..George Bush tried to intervene and he had no superiority over that fruit loop evil judge..and it was odd how so many that I encountered would say things like..:”Oh.. if I couldn’t have my hot tub and my martini every day..might as well pull the plug on me.” They weren’t Terri..She told her friend that where there was life there was hope. Her husband Mark lied and said she’e told him she would want to die.. Yes..Higher powers should be able to intervene..
Report Post »blamelessace5
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:29pmi think big problems are solve by simple solutions…its not rocket science
Report Post »blamelessace5
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:41pmforget higher powers intervening …is it to say that the people cant intervene and have the case turned or go onto the state court for review why is it that with every issue its just to complicated we need the gov. to intervene? all im saying is that what is the point of voting for or against judges when they do wrong or protesting when the gov. is just going to step in ya know children big daddy’s here il make everything work out ….like they’ve made anything right in the past 4 years …here forget politics for a second philosophically is major gov. intervention not usually the lead cause to a true totalitarianism and possibly an progression to eliminativism? why does the gov. always have to step in ? and yes this issue does go back as far as Jefferson , its in the constitution and the federalist papers however in this time when the u.s federal government owns 40 percent of the us stock market and has already seen and stepped in on behalf legally of the black panther group when they blocked those poles ..those guys never even got served papers to appear in court it was just dismissed..so do we really need more bureaucracy stepping in to take care of us ? im pretty sure the people can weed out the bad ones from the good ones…
Report Post »DisarmoniaMundi
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:43pmthe rule of law is the Constitution, I’m perfectly okay with Congress calling judges to defend the Constitutionality of their decisions. We do technically live in a judicial dictatorship now.
This is an ideal safeguard against progressives seizing the Supreme Court and going any further with their agenda.( IE, could Roe vs Wade have been argued to be constitutional? I don’t think so, you’re removing the right to life no matter how you look at it. )
Considering the judicial insanity I’ve observed in the news over the years, I’m absolutely OK with this.
Report Post »The obvious safeguard to prevent some type of whimsical removal of appropriate, sane decisions by progressives is the Constitution as the measuring stick.
blamelessace5
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 4:18pmi already fully understand where yall are coming from however …do u feel ok letting the dems. having a turn with this if down the road they got elected again that’s all i want to know, because god help us if we get another president like Obama hypothetically 8 years from now would u feel safe that not only can he could judges because they don‘t believe they’re way but also now has the power to actually physically do something about it ? even the supreme court has no ties to politics no re elections nothing of the sort for a reason … is it not possible for the American people to take care of it themselves ?
Report Post »blamelessace5
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 4:26pmand what judicial dictatorship iv gone to court before and i have never been treated more like a person than really ever and it was fair the law was truly blind… see this is why i like philosophy better than politics because atleast now a days people are more into pointing the finger say well if only it was my way things would be better …….our founders hated that they believed at looking at the big picture ..because you believe that if only this law wasnt here tha i could subject my view “the correct view ” what if obama had that power ?? look im center for a reason im a conservative but i refuse to get bent over by any party ..and i dont see how congress has the right to subject theyre opinion and call it law ?? when the gov. as a whole cant even run the country …but let me guess this law is only for when were in office right ?? it goes away as soon as the majority is dem. or progressive right …..i wont trust any politician with my rights sure as hell not congress
Report Post »blamelessace5
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 4:32pmbut seriously imagine if they had this power …remember when they were calling all of us radicals and terrorists , etc. this would literally give them the right to legally change the law to a more progressive state if need be… would it not ?
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 4:37pmJust who is this “SuperPac” trying to convince?
I’ll never vote for that neocon trash.
Ron Paul 2012.
Report Post »spreadthefaith
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 5:02pmThis nation has become paralized and a nation of cowards. We are afraid to take risks and afraid of new ideas. In the name of safety we have taken away play sets on playgrounds and kick balls. No more hurt feelings after the soccer season even the losers feel like winners when they get their trophy.
Report Post »Due to a few bad presidents “conservatives” are now driven to vote for the “safest” candidate, one who will not give any new ideas, just keep us the same and secure. The earliest Americans had to take risks, risks that could cost them their lives. Some chose to stay loyal to the British out of security and fear. Others decided to take risks on new ideas and trust a leader(S) who were not themselves perfect but they did believe in the right to life,pursuit of happiness and liberty.
Know the difference between those that want America to be morally weak, without inventions, world followers and beggars instead of world leaders, dependent on government instead of God and ignorant of any sort of truth. None of their ideas are big or great,just contradictory to God and American values. This country screams with individualism,but without individual responsibility which blinds us from seeing and taking good risks.
Communist and those others who do not believe or live as God fearing men cannot progress, they are blind and do not know what direction is forward so they stay stagnant. Don’t pick a candidate out of fear but because the candidate shows respect for God,his family, his
rocketwrangler
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 5:13pm@Blameless I’m with you Newt is the conservative he claims to be, but FYI, the judges that he is talking about holding accountable are appointed – not elected.
Report Post »…”look if we don’t like a judge we the people will vote him out”
Mike N
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 5:39pmOur President, Representatives and judges all are permitted to make mistakes; after all, they are human.
Where our system falls down in the current discussion, is the heavy reliance on precedent judgements for future rulings. Judges DO NOT make laws, and other judges and lawyers should acknowledge, when prudent, that a decision was flawed, and should not necessarily be the basis for ruling on a new case. Rulings should always be regarded as case-specific.
If the people want a new law enacted to reflect the outcome of a specific case, the law still must be written and passed by Congress. Nothing else is a law. Let’s never forget that . . . neither us nor the judges.
You may not like the taste, but you know it’s the right medicine . . . Newt Gingrich for President.
Report Post »bhohater
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 5:43pmThe problem is that we can’t vote Federal Judges in or out. They are appointed for life and the only way to get rid of the rotten eggs is for congress to impeach them. That’s Constitutional, and that is what Newt proposes to do to the ones who legislate from the bench.
Report Post »Publius Novus
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 5:49pmAs far as a subpoena for a judge to appear before Congress, there is no difference, in my opinion, between Eric Holder being called before Congress to explain the DOJ/DEA “fast & furious” debacle or a radical judge (whatever his political affiliation) be asked to explain a ruling, if it seemed unjust or completely “out of touch” with the majority of opinion or legal precedence. The case he referenced on CBS this weekend had to do with a judge threatening to have a school district superintendent arrested if the Pledge of Allegiance referenced “One Nation, Under God”, in said school district. The Judge ruled that the “Under God” part could not be recited & must be removed. I think that judge would be a good first candidate. The President, however has and should not have any power to call any judge before him, only the legislative branch has this authority under the Constitution.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 6:10pmBy “stood with Reagan,” they mean, “next to.”
By “stood up to Clinton,” they mean, “played partisan games to make it appear there was a difference between he and Clinton without acting in a consistant fashion with his own words.”
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and
policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish
idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two
parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw
the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive
shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years
if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but
will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”
~Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope
Report Post »T ParT
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:10pmI have never voted for a democrat, Ronald Reagan is the greatest President in the last 160 years, and Newt is a conservative.
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:45pmNewt is fine by me. So are all of the other candidates. My dream candidate Jim DeMint did not run, what a shame.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 8:14pm@BHOHATER “The problem is that we can’t vote Federal Judges in or out. They are appointed for life and the only way to get rid of the rotten eggs is for congress to impeach them. That’s Constitutional, and that is what Newt proposes to do to the ones who legislate from the bench.” Newt is slick and he is intelligent..I have learned a little by listening to him..However after seeing what he has been into..there’s no way I will ever vote for him..he has been doing a lot to move this country into Communism..however one thing that I learned from him is I believe he said that the Senate can vote not to pay say like the 9th Judicial District Judges thereby rendering them jobless. But these are the disturbing things about slick Newt. Scoll down
Report Post »and you will see the URLs and headlines
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2818630/posts
CitizenVetUSA
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 9:36pmNewt along with Thomas Jefferson in 1802 have got it right. The 1958 ruling needs to be corrected.
Report Post »maryslittlelamb
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 10:39pm@blameless I salute your wanting to save the country but you and many of your Tea Party compatriots are testiment to the truth of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” You’re railing against a man who almost single-handedly set the progressive agenda back at least a dozen years give or take. Here is a compendium of some of the things Newt ACTUALLY did for America during his Speakership: http://www.newsmax.com/Ruddy/Ruddy-Gingrich-genuineconservative-/2011/12/11/id/420581
Here is his then-press secretary on how Newt managed to do so much for us in so little time: http://townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/2011/12/14/newts_past_and_future_leadership/page/full/
I’ve railed against our slide into socialism for 50 years and all I got for my effort was shunned. Where were you then? Newt’s was the only sane voice in the wilderness in the 90s and since. You would do well to reconsider your position.
Report Post »maryslittlelamb
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 11:05pm@blameless I salute your wanting to save the country but you and many of your Tea Party compatriots are testiment to the truth of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” You’re railing against a man who almost single-handedly set the progressive agenda back at least a dozen years give or take. In the 90s and since, Newt’s has been the only sane voice in the wilderness. The coyotes at the trough didn’t like their cushy scams being overturned and set about to rip him to shreds.
Do yourself a favor and go directly to the horse’s mouth – newt dot org – and see if you can come up with better solutions than Newt has proposed!
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 11:12pmSpread the Faith, The Constitution already has it in place to impeach a justice. One problem I see everyday reading posts by many on The Blaze is everyone just expects the government to handle everything. It is We the People that are supposed to have the power through our representatives. If a justice is doing something wrong, or they are interpreting the Constitutionality of many laws wrong, the people can write, call or e-mail your representative and voice your opinion of having the justice impeached. You see, freedom is not free. You have to continue to participate in the process, and I do not mean vote every couple years, but really keep up on what is happening in government. If enough constituents were to notify their perspective representative, the House would have to bring forth impeachment procedings against the justice. You cannot have one man make this decision. If you allow this, you create a type of Dictator. It really seems to me that a lot of The Blaze posters on here talk big, but have never really read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Sad. The Constitution has always been the answer, but too many are too lazy to actually abide by it faithfully. Ron Paul 2012.
Report Post »marion
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:10amThe basis of it, just as Jefferson pointed out in the Federalist papers, the country is based on the Rule of Law, thus a judge in question has to justify his/her position based on the Constitution. You can’t tell me a judge is in his/her right mind and following the Rule of Law or Constitution when they intend to throw a person in jail if they say benediction, let us pray, please stand, etc.. The same way they can change the voting results of a definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, in California, we the people voted it should be, but a liberal judge overturned it, twice, so yes, this needs to be questioned and answered for. It does go both ways, but if it is the Rule of Law and not activist decisions, I have a lot less fear of things being changed for the worse.
I guess there are some that have short memories, as I recall Newt being the one with the ****** to stand up to the Dems/Libs, liked or not, he was in the middle of a lot of good things, and when he was gone, out of the middle of a lot of bad things. Think about it. His negative has been forgiven, we need someone to repair the damage done over the past three years, and I think he will do it better and faster than the others, love them or not.
Report Post »Clara88
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 2:34pmGo away Newt…you already had your chance in Washington>>Mr Speaker Of The House
Report Post »^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Veterans are supporting a VETERAN….Gov Rick Perry
Our military deserves a Commander In Chief they can be PROUD of and RESPECT
GOD BLESS OUR BRAVE MILITARY AND OUR BELOVED BRAVE VETERANS
http://www.rickperry.org/veterans/
AND..he doesn’t golf…he likes guns *SMILE*
GOD BLESS THE 2ND AMENDMENT
sWampy
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:23pmThe needs independents and democrats is just *********, they just need to turn out, and vote, and make sure the democrats don’t vote the dead and those in nursing homes. The independents are about as big of swing vote as the queers, completely insignificant.
Report Post »Treaty
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:28pmIf Ron Paul runs as an Independent then watch out cause all bets are off.
Report Post »DrFrost
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:55pmIf Ron Paul runs as an independent he’ll hand Obama the election.
The simple facts are that the democratic base are going to vote for Obama. Period. End of discussion. The liberal voters are not going to be split in 2012. They’re going to have one person to vote for (ok… ok… unless Romney gets the nomination). That gives him ~35% of the vote if he doesn‘t win a single independent’s vote.
A significant portion of the conservative base are afraid of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. If he get‘s the party’s nomination they’ll vote for him, but they certainly aren‘t going to vote for him if he’s running as an independent.
I’m not going to say Ron Paul is not electable. His foreign policy scares me but at least I understand the principals they’re based on. His domestic policies are exactly what I‘m looking for and he’s polling fairly well among independents. If he wins the nomination and runs a smart campaign he can beat Obama. (The one thing Obama has show proficiency at is running a campaign. Don’t think for a second that the republican nominee is a shoe in, regardless of who wins the nomination.)
If, on the other hand, he run’s as an independent – he’ll lose. Obama will grab a quarter to a third of the independents along with his 35% base. The rest of the independents and the conservative vote will be split between Ron Paul and the republican nominee and…. that will be all she wrote.
Report Post »WAKEUPUSA2012
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 4:31pmDrfrost.
Im a paul supporter. And I tend to agree with what you just said. I beleive Iran is a threat. (enen tho they havent invaded/attacked anyone) But you are right this country is broke and we are in such a mess. Ron Paul has the plan that will start to fix America. We can disagree on polices but my previouse statement is FACT. Thank you for putting some points foward and not just saying Ron Paul is a kook. God Bless
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:21pmRon Paul has said that he won’t run as a third party candidate, but his devotees have said that they will write him in. Now that is blind devotion, not to mention just plain stupid! Prove your loyalty when picking your beer, smokes and sports teams. Did Y’all get your first choice of spouses to? Yeah right! Or were you more realistic with that choice?
Remember that other nutty RP, Ross Perot? He siphoned off 17% of the vote and gave us Bill Clinton. Some idiots never learn.
No Clinton , no gays in the military, no 9-11, no war in Iraq or Afghanistan. No Ginsberg or Breyer, a 9-2 SCOTUS, etc; etc; If you third party idiots need more, Google it and learn why we have a 2 party system, morons!
Report Post »blamelessace5
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 10:21pmi was talking about local judges but ok …
Report Post »modilly
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:20pmNow that the electorate is wise to what’s been going on, everyone is now a conservative!
I like the paraphrase of that old country song “I was Conservative when Conservative wasn’t cool”.
Report Post »blamelessace5
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:16pmvery nice i agree
Report Post »DrFrost
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:57pmI just wish more of the republicans in office were really conservatives….
Report Post »fishstx777
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:08pmGingrich is a conservative is as believable as Obama is the 4th Best President ever.If you believe Gingrich is a conservative you also would believe custard had said right before the attack at Little Big Horn “those are friendly Indians”., Gingrich smooching with Nancy Pelosi would make a great Christmas card for every progressive”.A little global warming to warm youre heart during the holidays Sincerely yours Nancy and Newt”
Report Post »spreadthefaith
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:18pmIs it his pro-life stance, pro-traditional marriage, pro-capitalist, pro- religious freedoms, pro-school choice, anti-judicial abuses that are too progressive? He shares the same ideals as Reagan, Santorum,Bachmann are they progressives too?
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:21pmCustard attacked Little Big Horn? Was it vanilla ot tapioca?
Report Post »spreadthefaith
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:42pmHe’s not a “progressive” however he would like to bring this country toward better conditions. Santorum,Bachmann may approach the issues in a different way,but to call him a “progressive” when he shares the same American values as the other candidates is nonsense.
Report Post »fishstx777
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:44pm@spreadthefaith Yea shares with Reagan amnesty for illegals,will do it again. Nafta , Supported Bailout for wallstreet,Married 4 times,Resigned as speaker of the house. ethics violations . healthcare, Global Warming ,you want me to keep listing them.Does that sound like a true conservative.
Report Post »spreadthefaith
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:58pmI forgot is repeal Obama care to progressive? Perhaps not giving illegals citizenship rights is too progressive too. He maybe not right on the way you would like issues to be solved , but don’t go overboard-he’s far from the “progressive” 20th century party. He’s a catholic -unlike some people who like to point fingers at other peopl’s sins ,we believe people should be forgiven and allowed to move onto leading a better life. Instead of blaze and people calling him a progressive and abusing the term,why not say Rick or michelle are better choices because of their solutions. It more credible.
Report Post »blamelessace5
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:09pmnice…lol
Report Post »blamelessace5
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:11pmthe judicial system is actually very good compared to what it was like it was overhauled and reformed in the 70s ……idk why we need more politicians involved in law
Report Post »blamelessace5
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:13pmsee fishstyx777 has got it ..the guy can call himself whatever he wants …its his record that we need to look at that determines his legitimacy.
Report Post »BelievinginAmerica
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:19pm@SpreadTheFaith, Newt is just saying he believes all those wonderful Consevative things now…..remember when he wasn’t a Conservative? I do, and I won’t ever forget! I didn‘t like him as Speaker of the House then and he surely WON’T get my vote in the primaries. Newt is BIG GOVERNMENT, always has been and always will be! He’s about as conservative as Obama…lol!
Report Post »blamelessace5
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:24pmhow is he far from the 1920s progressive ?????? he says he wants to idolize them !?!?!?!?!?! where am i not getting through here ??? the guys history while in office is progressive in nature …”we need to work with the green party’s of America??” look were not calling him a Nazi or a bigot here il leave that to the OWS yahoos but you can be a progressive and call yourself rep. or dem. they have only one agenda all it is , is a mask ..and his political views are fine but if he wants a second chance be a mayor thats not to high risk ..asking for your second chance to be at the white house no way
Report Post »fishstx777
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:31pm@anonymous t irrelevant thanks for correcting me,Custer.You must teach English or History?Any run on sentences?
Report Post »READRIGHTHERE
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:56pmSpread,
Do you actually listen to Gingrich, and I don’t mean just since July 2011? He is the epitome of a power hungry career politician. He loves the government and feels that all solutions to all problems lie therein. He doesn’t get it. And when the public notices his deviation from the right, he apologizes and changes his stance. He is an adulterer, not only in his marriage relationships but also in his relationship with reason and reality. He wants the title, the office, and the power. He foresees greatness not for his country and for its citizens but for himself.
Honorable is as honorable does. He has not been honorable, and it really is that simple. Just because he is astute enough to “campaign on the issues” and ignore the jabs about his past doesn’t change the ugly truth that he is a liar and a cheat. Use the man in a brain-trust by all means, but don’t trust him with the single most important job in the free world.
Watch the videos, the C-Span moments constitute priceless information, and then quickly turn away from his support. Beck doesn’t call people names repeatedly in a vain effort to see if it will stick, he looks into their very public past and concludes how they should be labeled accordingly. Newt is a progressive, who envisions a world without the Political Entity known as the United States, and as is the case with most narcissistic individuals, fantasizes about his role in the ruling class of the future.
From such turn away.
Report Post »The-Real-Enrico
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:07pmSure Newt has been proven to be more conservative than Obama, but what about the other candidates.
No more big government rhinos! That goes for Romney too!
Anybody can win if YOU support them(with words, actions and/or money).
Report Post »spreadthefaith
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:45pmRick Santorum Bachmann all great too. We have some great choices and really any three would be good for us and our country.
Report Post »The-Real-Enrico
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 4:05pm@SPREADTHEFAITH
I think you are missing my point. I believe and know that Newt/Romney are more conservative then Obama, but so is Bill Clinton.
Why in the world a conservative want to elect Newt Gingrich or Romney? They are the big government rhinos!
People are too blind to see what Newt does. All Newt does is slam and tare down with great wit and logic the left and liberal thinking and then right after then propose a moderate rhino like position like McCain or Bush.
Newt and Romney are self proclaimed progressives! Please don’t do this again. We actually have choices. Are we so stupid that all we care about is flash more so than substance.
Substance first! Flash is just the icing on the cake.
Report Post »cjd16585
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 4:35pm@Spreadthefaith. Yeah Michelle and Rick are great choices except for the fact they can never get enough independents to beat Obozo in the general election.
Report Post »Treaty
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:05pm“WINNINGOURFUTURE” just picked a loser LOL. I‘m as hardcore Republican as they come but ain’t no way in Hades I’m voting for Romney or GinGrinch.
Report Post »sub veteran
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:03pmAccording to Rush today (1:50 PM) Newt plans to release a book in 2013 which has a chapter on global warming written with the help of a global warming proponent. Ho’s that for being a “prpven conservative” How about a progressive
Report Post »Unshod
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:35pmI heard that too so I did a quick search on youtube and saw what Newt said about man made global warming. He said humans can’t compare to the sun when it comes to climate change. Sounds like a conservative to me.
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9mTRDhWTJM&feature=fvsr
spreadthefaith
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:49pmFor now,Newt is not sure he believes in global warming. I respect someone who likes to know the facts first.As long as he is pro-life first we have nothing to worry about because pro-lifers do not put extreme environmental ideas before human good.
Report Post »John 3:16
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:03pmI’m still disappointed with the IOWA TEA PARTY straw poll that I participated in. I expected the Tea Party First Brigade people to be wiser than this. The good side is that Bachmann took 2nd place behind just 3 points below Mr. Shamwow Newt.Wake up Iowa TEA PARTY Please search for honesty and trust, forget everything else for now.
Report Post »whatthecrazy
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:18pmNewt is begining to give me the heebee geebees…………..
Report Post »jacquecustard
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:02pmRush Limbaugh just alledged that Newt has a book being published and it has a chapter promoting Global Warming, amazing for a so called conservative. Wish Palin was in the race cos these jokers sure ain’t Constitutional Conservatives:(
Report Post »sub veteran
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:59pmAccording to Rush today (about 1:50PM) Newt is planning to release a new book in 2013 which has a chapter on global warming written with the help of a prponent of global warming. How’s that for being a proven conservative.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:26pmSounds like Newt spent too much time on the couch with that other progressive Pelosi.
Report Post »andredegas
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:58pmSorry Newt, but your record proves you’re not! Nice person, very smart but not conservative
Report Post »MonkeyBeagle
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:02pmI agree Newt is no conservative, he is indeed a rhino. Just like the link Conscharlie posted. I dont think I could change my opinion on Newt even if I was being tortured. He is what he is, that is a Rhino. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAmpOKaU7pc
Report Post »kaygee
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:56pmhow can any one be conservative who not once but 3 time cheater ……
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:25pmI don’t understand it either. Poor Hermain Cain gets run out of town, there’s Gingrich saying “I’m the best man.”
Report Post »jscottu
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:53pm“We are at the end of the Reagan era…” Newt Gingrich. No thanks.
Report Post »demsrjackwagons
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 5:56pmApparently we are ,I really as hell wouldn’t consider George HW Bush,Bob Dole,George W Bush,John McCain or Mitt Romney conservative.I don’t understand all the hatred for Gingrich.So he has been married three times,Reagan was married twice himself.Also one of Reagans’ favorite Presidents was FDR.Romney will get the nomination and get pounded like McCain.God help us.At least Beck will have old Jim Beam.
Report Post »WAKEUPUSA2012
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:53pmLOL this ad is so funny. What it should say is
“Newt G proven big goverment gun grabber, who believes in shreding the constution, open boders, and takes money from F&F”
Vote Newt 2012 to speed up the decline of America
Report Post »John 3:16
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:51pmNewt has done many good things for Conservatism over the years,however, He is still a RINO and cannot be trusted. He is a politician from the old guard. I still can see him sitting on Pelosi’s lap. He will always be a flip flopper not a true steadfast Conservative. Please folks find someone who has not flip flopped. TRUST is the most important thing we need in a candidate and Newt is not the guy.Please vote for someone who has not flip flopped for money right Fanny Newt? He has kissed Obama‘s ring once that’s enough to sicken anyone who wants honesty.
Report Post »bhelmet
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:56pmConservativism should never have a capital “C” – what has Newt done for conservatism – outside of the govt? That’s the rub – Newt does nothing for the individual outside of the government realm – therefore he only serves the “people”. Please let’s start to understand the difference between republican and Republican, People versus the person, and State against state. BIG-TIME differences.
Report Post »andredegas
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:57pmVery rarely do I reply to anyones comments but this time I must, you hit the nail right on the head. Thanks you for being a thinking American
Report Post »DisarmoniaMundi
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:08pmThis is true, I can’t bring myself to honestly “trust” almost anyone in the GOP field.
Report Post »Gingrich and Romney are very similar in that respect, I FEEL like Gingrich is speaking his feelings but at the same time I really don’t know.
Bachmann and Santorum talk about themselves too much for me to trust them.
Romney generally regurgitates what the other candidates say…his duplicity is glaring.
Paul goes off the deep end on foreign policy to me, but I’d actually be able to trust him.
Huntsman is a clown Obamaite.
Rick Perry showed his true self in the first debate.
Gingrich could be a duplicitous sociopath who hasn’t changed at all. With that said, he isn’t 100% agreeable to me, either. His confidence bordering on hubris reeks. His affiliation with the CFR bothers me beyond belief.
onetruepatriot
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 8:41pm@disarmoniamundi-so basically what you‘re saying is let’s vote for Obama, because none of the GOP candidates measure up to your strict standards. Are you kidding me?
Report Post »bhelmet
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:50pmGingrich is as conservative as I am communist – Das Reagan heil – or whatever Mao would say.
Report Post »Wolf
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:32amIf Gnewt Gingrinch is a conservative, then I’m god.
Report Post »DisarmoniaMundi
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:49pmlulz@ all the Gingrich hate. It never struck me as odd that he comes from a progressive direction, given his academic background.
He’s been coming out of that pond for quite some time, it seems. The man isn’t an entity of the establishment, and he seems genuinely searching for solutions, IMO. I almost lost it when Beck told Napolitano that Gingrich was a result of big GOP machinery, yeah okay.
The guy had virtually no staff, and you have talking heads ranting against Gingrich constantly. Yet he’s a result of big GOP machinery. LOL.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:57pmPretty much my sentiments – the establishment hates Gingrich because he doesn’t play the game their way. He was the biggest thorn in Clinton’s side so of course the media hate him. He understands how to use progressive tactics to achieve a conservative outcome moving by little degrees.
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:39pmIt’s getting harder to pick a candidate, but Gingrich knows how to get things done, because he’s been there. He has also evolved. Many people have different ideas in their lives. You see snippets of Gingrich’s through history, but it doesn‘t mean that’s how he thinks now. I am still unsure whether to trust him or not, whatwith Rush talking about his 2013 book. the other candidates can’t seem to gain traction. Cain was my candidate and I sure as hell am NOT voting 3rd party. I kept hearing, or seeing written “Anyone, BUT Obama,” but it seems that that’s not so true anymore now that these guys are left. Are you all now “If it’s not my candidate, I’ll let Obama win?”
Report Post »ambrosia
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 4:48pmAny candidate the “Establishment” hates is already AHEAD of the political pack.
We don’t need them to pick the candidate, we are capable of doing that on our own.
Does it dawn on anyone that all the so-called Congressmen & Senators
who have quickly thrown barbs at Gingrich are envious ?
These are the same politicians that have stayed too long at the party,
never stepped up to do the right thing for the American People-
only what’s right for themselves, personally & professionally.
Say what you want about Gingrich,
he RESPECTS the Constitution-
“Of the People, by the People and for the People”.
When all others dismiss it, reinterprets it or defies it-
Gingrich holds true to it…..sacred to its original intent.
THAT is the key to GREAT American leadership…that is the BASIS of our liberty.
When America gets back to THAT….everything else will align & follow.
There is NO doubt that Gingrich will lead by the Constitution above all else.
Just as the American People don‘t give a rat’s azz
about all those inferior, do-nothing politicians……neither does he.
The POWER belongs to the American People…the Constitution SAYS so.
Don’t get so involved with all the self-righteous rigamarole
that you throw the baby out with the bath water.
America is hanging onto dear life-
Gingrich will be sure SHE and her PEOPLE are protected
in the very way our Founding Fathers saw fit.
Gingrich/West 2012
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 11:34pm@Disarmoniamundi, Kady, Irrelevant and Ambrosia. All of you have made great points. I am heartened to see at least a few here on this site who have not completely lost their brains.
I am tired of the GOP establishment and pundits choosing our candidates, based on time served or attempts made. Electability is another one of their faulty constructs. These are the same doofeses who gave us McCain, Dole, both Bushes, Ford, Nixon, none of whom were conservative. The only anti-establishment candidate was Reagan, look how great he turned out for the party and the country.
Cheers – Ookspay
Gingrich/West
Report Post »Gingrich/Rubio
bhelmet
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:47pmWOAH – that is the same pose I see from Obama – they are one in the same. i got a robo-call from newt’s people and politely told the woman i cannot vote for a real-politik Wilsonian or for a person who believes FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century – she was very polite.
Report Post »DisarmoniaMundi
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:57pmI don’t think he means these things in the context that you think he does. He may agree with a set of actions from these presidents, but I highly doubt he agrees with the New Deal, or Wilson’s Federal Reserve, etc.
My professor takes a similar approach, when he‘s addressing a topic he’d agree with that historical figure in that topic.
It’s sort of like how people(liberals) elsewhere have taken his Pales. comment out of context to say “Gingrich supports genocide”, when he’s taking a historical perspective.
Report Post »slvrserfr
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:47pmHe’s got that look like Obama had in his 2008 elections – that elitist, smug, proud progressive look.
Report Post »cjd16585
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:42pmFannie and Freddie.
Report Post »DisarmoniaMundi
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:42pmkind of surprised people haven’t fled Paul after his batzit stance on Iran.
Report Post »’tis a shame he has to go cwazy-time on such important matters.
Treaty
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:45pmThey haven’t fled Paul because he has the right stance. You’ve been brainwashed in to thinking that the US has to be the worlds police force brother.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:50pmThey haven fled, because the media hasn’t started their trash the leading Republican campaign yet, if he gets in the lead for any extended time, they will make pictures of him eating small children if they can’t find anything else.
Report Post »cjd16585
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:50pmThose who hold power in DC and our crushing debt are way more a threat to liberty than Iran any day.
Report Post »WAKEUPUSA2012
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:50pmBrainwashed
Report Post »DisarmoniaMundi
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:51pmNah, I don‘t want America to be the world’s police. It’s the fact that he dodged the hypothetical of Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz. He wouldn’t even entertain the idea of Iran even possibly blocking the Strait of Hormuz. It struck me as a head-in-the-sand approach, but I still respect his strict constitutionalism, and if it was RP vs Obama I’d vote Paul.
Report Post »DisarmoniaMundi
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:30pmantiwar radio
/tries not to laugh
I’m not even talking about nukes at this point. Hypothetically, if Israel bombed Iran because THEY perceived Iran as a threat, then Iran would likely block the Strait of Hormuz to hold the West hostage
RP completely dodged the possibility of Iran taking such an action. Not acceptable in my eyes.
I understand that he believes Iran is a nation that seeks prosperity and is only doing what it believes it has to do, but I think that is false given the religious identity of Iran’s leaders. They are not materialistic. They have a sectarian mandate of violence. Beck has discussed this before, so I won’t go into details.
It’s like the idea that Palestinians are freedom-fighters. This is false as well(BTW, I’m not saying RP said “Palestinians are freedom-fighters”, just using an example. RP takes a generally neutral-stance in regards to other countries, I understand this.)
Report Post »marion
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 2:45amThere are a surprising number of Isolatinists in this country, they just want to get along with everyone. Problem is, our Constitution stands in the way of One World Government. Funny thing is, if we followed RP’s foreign policy, what would happen to the rest of the third world? Would we be blamed for everyone else falling prey to others? Would we trade with other countries? Wouldn’t this make us richer than the rest of the world and these other countries would be even more envious of us? And what would be our response if we were attacked again and again, like Israel? Sorry we got in the way of your attack? Love the guy’s domestic agenda, outweighted by his horrible foreign policies so I won’t vote for him, but I would make him an economic advisor.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:42pmIf PROPAGANDA was POISON, we would all be DEAD!
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:41pmWe really need to outlaw all PACS, and limit all tax deductible contributions given to campaigns to the $1 you can donate on your tax forms.
Report Post »Treaty
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:41pmWatch out for them RINOs!
Report Post »randy
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:40pmGive it up Newt, you old fool. You’re Toast.
Report Post »Simonne
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:26pmProgressivesslayer, I wonder how you would feel if Obama would do the same with conservative judges. I don‘t like many of the rulings but I don’t want the white house to take over the judiciary either. Romney is the best candidate.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:11pmYou missed my sarcasm,I don‘t want anyone arresting judges for their rulings it’s something a progressive or Marxist would do.BTW I can’t get on board with Romney care,if he would come out and say he would repeal the disaster of Obama care I might vote for him.Whoever gets the nomination I‘ll vote for the republican and hope they’re conservative enough to stick to the constitution
Report Post »because Barry’s gotta go at all costs.
marion
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 2:33amFor some reason I would figure the Progressives would have less of a leg to stand on for changing an appointed judge’s decision based on the Constitiution and Rule of Law. Remember that extra Bill of Rights that FDR wanted to guarantee back in the 30s? Constitution said it couldn‘t be added because they were not inalienable rights so it wasn’t allowed, along with the WPA(?), crop dictation, price fixing, family and township relocation programs to populate and farm uninhabitable areas.
No, if a judge can show in the Rule of Law, based on the Constitution instead of the rulings based on precedence (started in the 30s also, laws and decisions determining laws, not direction based on Constitutional freedoms), then the judge has nothing to worry about. No way is the left going to bring in a judge based on his/her decision based on the Constitution. I can actually live with this, as it was a concern by our founding fathers, and to prove it is needed, if Obamacare is deemed Constitutional by the Supreme Court, it will prove it is necessary because we all know it is not Constitutional.
Report Post »