Can Newt Gingrich, with his well-known personal baggage, win over conservatives? From my piece on the homepage today:
Richard Land, director of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, is more skeptical, saying that Gingrich’s candidacy will be a “hard sell” for many voters. Land has been doing informal focus groups among Southern Baptists for the past two years on Gingrich’s candidacy, as he expected Gingrich to run and be a serious contender. He found that women are especially wary of Gingrich.
“He’s got a gender problem,” Land says. “His toughest audience is going to be evangelical women. Evangelical men, depending on what Newt does and says, are more likely to give him the benefit of the doubt.” Women, on the other hand, have told Land that they would vote for Gingrich “under no circumstances.” If the general election comes down to Gingrich and Obama, they say, they may just not vote.
Land was one of the more dubious of those I talked to about Gingrich’s prospects; other evangelical and social conservative leaders tended to see the issue as settled or as only needing to be addressed when questions about it were directed to Gingrich.
If Gingrich wins the nomination, I will stay home on election day 2012. Sorry, but he's just another lying, conniving, philandering "idea man" who only criticizes the system when it's working against him personally.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou voted for Obama in 2008. Come on. Admit it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot at all. But Gingrich has managed to destroy two marriages through adultery, one of which was conducted while simultaneously pursuing a perjury conviction for then-President Clinton in Congress. The adultery could be overlooked in a politician (they're mostly in the business of doing that to people anyway), but I'm sure the rank hypocrisy of that while railing on Clinton for lying about the same will serve as a leitmotif for the movie that is the campaign.
He's supported the idea of death panels in the past, and found a great deal to like in Nancy Pelosi. He offers no change with regard to our ongoing involvement in useless foreign wars, and now we find out he was getting paid ridiculous sums to "consult" for Fannie and Freddie (having attacked others for doing the same on a smaller scale).
On top of that, you get a guy who is as enamored of his own mind and voice as the current President. Just imagine the finger-wagging speeches we could get with Newt! Sort of like a grating, higher-pitched version of the same ones we get now.
Frankly, I don't see what the guy brings to the table beyond a reputation as an "idea man". I can't get past the stink enough to pull a lever for him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was going to say you're welcome to withhold your support for any candidate you find unacceptable--I, myself, refused to support McCain, and won't support Romney if he's nominated. But then you made the absurd allegation that its hypocricy for Newt (or anyone) to object to perjury while being guilty of adultery. They're not the same. Not even close. And no genuine conservative could be confused about the difference. So I have to conclude that your either a shill or a troll.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI dunno about "shill or troll."
Perjury = lying, betrayal of vow (to tell truth)
Adultery = lying, betrayal of vow (to be faithful)
I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Besides--he was on the money with the other 9 criticisms... :-)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlease. So what if Gingrich didn't add lying under oath to his own nasty behavior? He and Clinton behaved in the same way -- abused their offices in the same way, and even both arranged their affairs in order to make their lies plausible -- and then Newt pursued Clinton for lying about *his* affair while Newt remained busy making sure no one found out about his own.
And Newt is not a hypocrite?? I wonder how those who have to depend upon your "genuinely conservative" brand of honesty would feel about your analysis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBased on that description I don't know how you could vote for any politician.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't believe this. I don't care what evangelical women might say, there is no way they are too stupid to see how much better Gingrich would be than Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wouldn't assume that to be true. Based on the comments I read here, there are plenty of self-identifying conservatives who would seem to prefer Obama to Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour argument is a non-sequitur, unless we all agree that Gingrich and Romney are indistinguishable by any means. Of course, that is silly--Gingrich is enjoying his current success precisely because he is so completely different from Romney. He is, in fact, the reining "not Romney."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich is better than Obama, but, although I am a conservative, I would support even Romney over Gingrich.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy is personal baggage unrelated to performing the job of President - as well as none of our business - when it belongs to a Democrat, but an important consideration when it belongs to a Republican? Evangelical women who vote for Obama or don't vote at all (which is tantamount to voting for Obama) rather than vote for Gingrich and his baggage are taking an unreasonable and irresponsible approach to the 2012 election. I'd love to hear from these women how they think Gingrich's baggage will negatively impact his decisions on those issues that are most important to them, such as the economy and national security. If they believe President Obama's decisions on those issues would be more in line with their views than those of President Gingrich, then they are even more clueless than the left believes they are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama's "personal baggage" of Bill Ayers, Rev Wright and his "church", etc apparently was not an issue for voters back in 2008, or even Bill Clinton today who is hailed as some kind of elder statesman, but Gingrich's three marriages, to include an affair, oh the horrors.
Gingrich's arrogance is just that but Obama's arrogance is "cool." Yeah, no doublestandard here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Why is personal baggage unrelated to performing the job of President - as well as none of our business - when it belongs to a Democrat, but an important consideration when it belongs to a Republican?"
Uh, because we Republicans don't get to choose the Democrat? We think character is important, they don't -- simple as that.
As individuals, most of us -- not all, as we see on this board -- are entirely consistent. We thought Clinton was a lying creep who debased his office and should have been impeached; we think Gingrich is a hypocritical cad who debased his office and doesn't deserve to be elected. And we thought Obama was a socialist who consorted with unrepentant former terrorists, so we didn't vote for him. By the way, I fail to see in any of these cases how character is irrelevant to the office. To the contrary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich, like Herman Cain before him, is just a momentary distraction. He won't be able to win Evangelicals over. He won't be able to win any category of Republican voters over in significant numbers. He is spectacularly ill-suited to lead the GOP in 2012. A few days, or weeks, of good polling does not a serious candidacy make.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe more I think about it, electing Gingrich president just might be the single most unifying act this country's pulled off in ages. Having the most gut-level obnoxious occupant of the White House in modern memory may be just the trick to galvanize both parties of Congress and 50 state governments to do anything and everything to solve problems out of view of King Newt's condescending gaze and Santa Ana-like lecturing.
We could do worse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis can't be true. According to the left, evangelical women would only stay home on election day if their husbands refuse to let them put on their shoes and leave the kitchen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think too much is made of Newt's supposed "personal baggage." At this point, it's baked into the cake, to the extent it even exists. Ultimately, his candidacy will succeed or fail on the basis of whether he can stay disciplined and avoid his penchant for exposition emanating from the wrong end.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not sure that's the case. Newt has personal baggage, but we haven't been hearing much about it recently, so most people have forgotten about it, or it's slipped to the back of their minds. If Newt becomes relevant again then his opponents are going to remind everybody of Newt's (not insignificant) personal failings... very loudly, and very often.
I don't look forward to this election at all. It's going to be dull and repetitive... the same few (stupid) points being made by stupid people over and over and over again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"to the extent it even exists"
What a laugh. Are you actually arguing that he has no baggage? Get hold of yourself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse