from a political perspective, I dont have a problem voting for a Mormon like Mitt.

[alanmolstad]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;105740]

And you think Newt is a man of integrity???

I believe Newt, for all his personal flaws, is actually a conservative at his core.

I believe that Newt's core views drive him into politics in the first place.
When Newt takes a political stand on an issue, its based on his core views of right and wrong...good and bad...


With Mitt on the other hand, I get the feeling that a guy just off stage had whispered to him what point of view to have depending on the audience he was standing in front of.

[alanmolstad]

Oh, and Julie,

I noticed that the topic that had your name in it (and against the forum rules) has turned up missing?

I tried to warn people....LOL

I tried to tell them that they are breaking the rules, and that when their topic gets removed its going to be seen by us as them being bent over a knee and publicly spanked.

But some kids have to learn the hard way i guess.

Oh, and did you notice how when i pointed out that it's against the rules to aim by name a topic at another member I was accused of being a Mormon sympathizer?

Thats the way some people are...they cant permit anyone to even slightly disagree with them....so when i stood up against what i saw was wrong, it was immediately branded "Satanic" in their minds....

Some people!>>>I just dont get.

I really do feel ashamed for the way some people of my faith went on and on with their false accusations.

It never seems to come to some people, that they dont make their faith look better to the Lost, by breaking the rules and thinking they can get away with it because "they are Christian, and the other person is not"

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Oh, and Julie,

I noticed that the topic that had your name in it (and against the forum rules) has turned up missing?

I tried to warn people....LOL

I tried to tell them that they are breaking the rules, and that when their topic gets removed its going to be seen by us as them being bent over a knee and publicly spanked.

But some kids have to learn the hard way i guess.

Oh, and did you notice how when i pointed out that it's against the rules to aim by name a topic at another member I was accused of being a Mormon sympathizer?

Thats the way some people are...they cant permit anyone to even slightly disagree with them....so when i stood up against what i saw was wrong, it was immediately branded "Satanic" in their minds....

Some people!>>>I just dont get.

I really do feel ashamed for the way some people of my faith went on and on with their false accusations.

It never seems to come to some people, that they dont make their faith look better to the Lost, by breaking the rules and thinking they can get away with it because "they are Christian, and the other person is not"

I appreciated you standing up for me. I also appreciate the fact that criticism against the Mormon faith is felt so strongly that anyone who tries to defend us is seen as "satanic." *sigh*

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I appreciated you standing up for me. I also appreciate the fact that criticism against the Mormon faith is felt so strongly that anyone who tries to defend us is seen as "satanic." *sigh*

the ones who were against me got spanked...

But I doubt they learned their lesson...

I bet they are watching for the next time I stick my neck out and try to defend the right thing to do ....

but I dont care all that much,

, I was right, and proved right in the end,
they were always wrong and now are proven wrong for all to see.

[BigJulie]

Alan--can I honestly say that if evangelicals are so close-minded to a Mormon being president that they would rather vote for someone who believes in mandates, has believed in global warming, has numerous ethics violations, has received a ton of lobbying money and has been investigated and fined for his violations regarding his lobbying, has cheated on not one, but two wives, and believes in child labor, etc...well, I don't know if I can ever vote along with the "evangelical right-wingers" again.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Alan--can I honestly say that if evangelicals are so close-minded to a Mormon being president .....

While the "Mormon thing" is big news right now, trust me, it will fade into the background if Mitt plays his cards in the correct manner and allows the issue to fade.

About the only thing that can really bring that up again is if there are any video recordings of Mitt as a younger guy going door to door, or if there are any recordings of Mitt saying or doing something in connection to the Mormon religion, or with the Mormon temple ceremonies that get out.

If that happens this close to Iowa, Mitt would be finished...


The deal with Newt is that he is not now, nor has he ever been the conservative top choice for the ticket.

What Newt is?.....he is the last guy standing that is even slightly a conservative.

Mitt is liberal,,,thats just a fact.
The chick in the race does not seem on top of her game.
Perry and Paul keep shooting themselves in the foot.
Cain is history.

The others in the pack just never caught on and have run out of steam.

That leaves right now only Newt to carry the banner "Anyone But Mitt" that the conservatives will support....even if they have to hold their nose when they get close to Newt.

I think we are less that 600 hours until Iowa is over.....so we shall see how things pan out in the end.

I do know that by the time North Dakota gets to vote it will be all over by then.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;106390]

The deal with Newt is that he is not now, nor has he ever been the conservative top choice for the ticket.

What Newt is?.....he is the last guy standing that is even slightly a conservative.

If you say that, then you haven't paid attention to his voting record, nor his record for ethical violations. Or in your mind, does conservative equate with someone who makes a boat-load of money in ethics violations for lobbying?

Mitt is liberal,,,thats just a fact.

He is a moderate--I will give you that, but he is a financial conversative in regards to letting businesses work.

The chick in the race does not seem on top of her game.

You must like provoking me with this sexist comments.

That leaves right now only Newt to carry the banner "Anyone But Mitt" that the conservatives will support....even if they have to hold their nose when they get close to Newt.

Yes, but when you compare their stated beliefs---Mitt and Newt are not that dissimilar other than one has character and one doesn't. And that is when I go---wow, this party is made up more of bigots than anything else and I have to question if I really want to endorse that.

[alanmolstad]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;106431]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

If you say that, then you haven't paid attention to his voting record,

.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ve-credential/

The voting record is very clearly conservative.
In fact, under Newt the whole congress turned the tide in the 90s and it was in no small way all because of Newts leadership...

So from a Conservative point of view, I will have no trouble at all supporting Newt over Obama should Newt win the ticket.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Or in your mind, does conservative equate with someone who makes a boat-load of money in ethics violations for lobbying?

.

Newt does seem to have some trouble filling out foarms, but all his problems seem to be more with House rules than anything else, so i cut a guy slack for that stuff.

My view of conservatism is that all men can work hard at their ***s, and can expect to try to earn as much as they can...

Its about freedoms to both seceded and fail.

So I got no issues at all with any money Newt has earned in and out of Washington.
If Newt got a *** talking or handing out advice, then that would be what I expected given that seems to be what he does best.

[alanmolstad]

The only concern I have is if Mitt starts to act like a guy in 2nd place, and hitting the TV talk shows and sending out his supporters to cause harm to other conservatives.

There is something to be said for not opening himself up too much.

I think that there is still time for Mitt to **** his chances if he starts to act like a guy who thinks he is going to lose.

If he starts to attack other in the race, the media will be more than happy to go after him.
The "Mormon thing" right now is a sleeping dragon that seems for the most part to be off the radar screens of Conservative voters.

But if Mitt starts to get desperate, and do things that remind people a little too much that he is "Not like us"
Then, Im sure the Mormon question will awake up in the minds of many Christian conservatives,and that will end Mitt chances.

The weird thing is, that while there is a chance that the "Mormon thing" might doom Mitt's chances if he starts to act desperate and do things that push that issue forward in the minds of the voters, that this might actually help other Mormons in the race and in the future....it would sorta get us all "over the hump" of voting for non-Christian people for president.

So while Mitt is clearly in the lead and has a lot of support from Party Leadership, there is still the unknown future to deal with, and at this point everyone is only one slip-up from being tossed out of the race, or tossed into the lead...

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

But if Mitt starts to get desperate, and do things that remind people a little too much that he is "Not like us"

In the above Im thinking of the last debate, where he reached out his hand to make a public $10,000 bet over some wording in a reprinted book.

To me, this strikes me as just the type of stuff a guy who is just not very confident in his chances anymore would do.
It also seems to just be in very bad taste to do on National TV....

It will turn up in ad after ad should Mitt go up against Obama.

The response is too easy for every American to fill in in their minds "I dont make that kind of money Mitt"
and suddenly everyone in the country is looking at Mitt like he is "One of them, not one of us"

And to be elected you have to appear as "one of us"

The debate error was not enough to doom him.
But it does show that there are some cracks in the armor...there are some situations where even if I believe Mitt has it locked up , that he could do or say things that totally screw up his chances.....

[BigJulie]

Well, Alan---you can keep touting Newt. Here are a few comments posted on the web:

His favorite president is big government Teddy Roosevelt. He praises huge "national greatness" federal spending boondoggles (rail, c****s, NASA). He's championed goofball techno-mystics and called for a world governing body to help people deal with all the confusing technology that surrounds us. He lobbied for FANNIE (despite his lies). He's an enviro-nut***. He supports expanding medicare. He's a protectionist who supports huge ethanol subsidies. He's an imperialist who giggles at the thought of launching new wars. If that's what it means to be "clearly conservative", then Obama is George Washington. (Edward Cox)

Newt is intelligent, but he is a 'liberal' who supported a single payer mandate, climate change legislation (along with 400 other co sponsored bills with Pelosi), the forming of the uncons***utional department of education, the irresponsible loans from Freddie and Fannie (in fact, while Ron Paul warned of the danger caused by these loans, Newt attacked him). Newt has been a friend to lobbyists and special interests (even bragged about it). His spending and domestic policy match Obama's quite nicely. What is Newts plan to cut spending? He doesn't have one! (Scott Larson)

Moreover, Gingrich's main rival is Mitt Romney, of the Mormon faith. In 2008, Huckabee successfully played on the negative feelings held by many evangelicals toward the Church of Latter Day Saints. And resistance to Romney's faith is still greater than anyone admits. (Washington Post)

I'm hoping that the Republican electorate does not come out of its Newt coma until he is the nominee...*he's the holy grail of candidates for Democrats.*..(Huffington Post)

So, the hunt for the Anti-Romney continues, and it is now sniffing Newt... the contracadictory, didactic, ethically "poorly boundaried*' lifelong pol with a capacity for rhetoric and ideas, and a capacity for antagonizing those who stand too close. Wonder how long he will last before his past catches up to him? Long enough to squash his campaign? (Huffington Post)

All I know is that if I have a choice between the union thug (Obama) who has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars to protect his union buddies or this lobbying crook (Newt) who has not only cost taxpayers millions of dollars but many ***s as well--

Well--truth is, I will sit this election out. If this country is going to be destroyed further, it will not be at my hands. And I am one of those swing voters who see problems with both sides. But I honestly can't say that Newt would be better than Obama; in fact, I think he may be just as dangerous. So, if the abortion issue, and not the "political crook" issue is how the GOP is going to decide their candidate---I'm out.

[alanmolstad]

I support NASA....

thats one of the main places that troubles me with Mitt.

Newt supports NASA and has spoken out about the dreams he has for NASa in the future.

Nad Mitt?

,nothing.... and Mitt has no vision at all for the future of NASA....

[alanmolstad]

and the abortion issue will work to be one of the main reasons conservatives vote in the first place.

I have a feeling that by next year the economy will be seen as on the mend, so that issue will be more or less off the table.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

and the abortion issue will work to be one of the main reasons conservatives vote in the first place.

I have a feeling that by next year the economy will be seen as on the mend, so that issue will be more or less off the table.

Okay, so you think the economy is on the mend? And what about "big government" and corruption that Newt is in the middle of? You are okay with that?

[alanmolstad]

NASA is part of the big government Im very much in support of....

[alanmolstad]

The military is another part of Big Government I fully support...

[BigJulie]

I am also a large supporter of NASA and the military (especially in light that my family are engineers who design for NASA and missile defense, etc. ), but that said, Newt's propensity for corruption is something that over-rides this for me.

[alanmolstad]

Like I said before....Iowa is a short time away for everyone except for Newt.

For Newt, Iowa is a long time from now because with every moment of every day he has yet another chance to once again say or do something that lands him out of the race....

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Like I said before....Iowa is a short time away for everyone except for Newt.

For Newt, Iowa is a long time from now because with every moment of every day he has yet another chance to once again say or do something that lands him out of the race....

Yes, that is my worry---that he will make it as the nominee---then it will be only a matter of time before he gets ****n out of the water by a true exposee into the real Newt Gingrich. Ron Paul has already somewhat begun.

[alanmolstad]

what is a bit unexpected is that Mitt now runs 3rd or 4th in Iowa polls.

He can lose as I have always said and it would not matter.

So he just needs to be close.
But 3rd or 4th is not close.

If Mitt comes in 3rd in Iowa he has to win the next week, or he might actually face a real uphill path for the next month.

However if he wins Iowa then he is all teed-up to win big, real big in the next State NH as well as the other few right after that.

If he comes in 2nd then all he needs is a very good finish the next week and he can wear the other guys in the race down with his cash.

But if he comes in 3rd in Iowa?
Oh then this is going to be a very fun thing to watch play out!

[BigJulie]

As noted, if Newt is the nominee, I will sit this election cycle out. If Ron Paul is the nominee, I will rethink my position even though I think Ron Paul is a little too radical for my taste.

[BigJulie]

From the National Review

Just as heartening, the White House seems winnable next year, and with it a majority in both houses of Congress, so that much of this conservative consensus could actually become law. A conservative majority on the Supreme Court, a halt to the march of regulation, free-market health-care policies: All of them seem within our grasp. But none of them is ***ured, and the costs of failure — either a failure to win the election, or a failure to govern competently and purposefully afterward — are as large as the opportunity.

We fear that to nominate former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the frontrunner in the polls, would be to **** this opportunity. We say that mindful of his opponents’ imperfections — and of his own virtues, which have been on display during his amazing comeback.

From Gingrich's mouth as reported by NR:

I’d vote for Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform; Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform is radical right-wing social engineering; I apologize for saying that, and no one should quote what I said because I was wrong; actually, what I said was right all along but nobody understood me. I helped defeat Communism; anyone who made money in the ’80s and ’90s owes me; I’m like Reagan and Thatcher. Local community boards should decide what to do with illegal immigrants. Freddie Mac paid me all that money to tell them how ****** they were.

[BigJulie]

From the New Yorker a list of conservative commentators regarding Newt;

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...s-vs-newt.html

Here is the first one:

1. “Gingrich … embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive…. There is almost artistic vulgarity in Gingrich’s unrepented role as a hired larynx for interests profiting from such government follies as ethanol and cheap mortgages. His Olympian sense of exemption from standards and logic allowed him, fresh from pocketing $1.6 million from Freddie Mac (for services as a “historian”), to say, ‘If you want to put people in jail,’ look at ‘the politicians who profited from’ Washington’s environment.”
—George Will

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...#ixzz1gYYPiLu1

[alanmolstad]

There is still around 3 weeks to go before Iowa, but the rise of both Paul and Newt seems to be firming up, and this is BIG trouble for Mitt.

Mitt has to finsih a nice close 2nd in Iowa to drive all the other names off the stage.

If Mitt come in 3rd or 4th in Iowa it will keep Rick Perry,Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum in the race to see what happens in NH.

And if Mitt cant win in NH after all the time and money he had used in that state, this would open the election to everyone else with enough cash to keep going.


Right now Mitt has to come in a close 2nd in Iowa to clear the field of the lower 3 people in the race.
If Mitt comes in 2nd in Iowa i would expect all 3 of the other people to drop out right away.


So as of right now....the poll numbers are not so good for Mitt.
Even after all this time he still does not seem to be able to get to 1st or 2nd in the polls.