Will Mr Gingrich's multiple marriages be issues in the 2012 GOP POTUS nomination?

[ProfJohn]

McCain was the most electable which, in a year that Democrats are expected to win big, means a lot to GOP primary voters..

The GOP has a history of picking the most electable candidate.

Going all the way back to 1952 the GOP has only nominated 3 people who didn't win at least one election. Goldwater, Dole and McCain. Four if you include Ford, but there were a lot of things in that election that weren't his fault so its hard to pass judgement on him.

Based on the GOP track record I am not too worried about us nominating a candidate who can't win in 2012. Doesn't mean that we WILL win, but we will certainly put forth a candidate who has a chance.

 

[zsdersw]

The GOP has a history of picking the most electable candidate.

Going all the way back to 1952 the GOP has only nominated 3 people who didn't win at least one election. Goldwater, Dole and McCain. Four if you include Ford, but there were a lot of things in that election that weren't his fault so its hard to pass judgement on him.

Based on the GOP track record I am not too worried about us nominating a candidate who can't win in 2012. Doesn't mean that we WILL win, but we will certainly put forth a candidate who has a chance.

Are you a card-carrying Republican? I thought you were smarter than that.

 

[fskimospy]

Gingrich's horrible ideas, generally unlikeable nature, and association with the catastrophic government shutdown will keep him from winning the nomination, not that he got married a few times.

If you look at McCain's marital record, it's pretty shady too. Nobody cares.

 

[ProfJohn]

Are you a card-carrying Republican? I thought you were smarter than that.

Registered, but don't have a card... where can I get one??

Better than being a Democrat and thinking that I can get anything I want for free via the government.

 

[zsdersw]

Registered, but don't have a card... where can I get one??

I don't know. I'm not registered with any political party.

Better than being a Democrat and thinking that I can get anything I want for free via the government.

That's like saying crashing your car at 100mph is better than crashing it at 110mph.

 

[fskimospy]

Registered, but don't have a card... where can I get one??

Better than being a Democrat and thinking that I can get anything I want for free via the government.

Yes, clearly Democrats believe this. I heard one tell me while he was on his way to his government mandated gay orgy/abortion party.

 

[ProfJohn]

eskimo, you can't deny that a LOT of Democrat voters believe in exactly what I said.

The idea that you can raise taxes on the rich and then enact programs for the 'poor' is a core belief of many Democrat voters, especially the poor and lower educated ones.

 

[Lemon law]

Going back to the original thread question, will Gingrich's multiple marriages be an issue in the election of 2012, I think its safe to State they will not be issue.

Simply because Newt will not run for POTUS in 2012. Every year Newt threatens to run, but is unable to disassociate himself from his lobbying activities, meaning by current election law, Newt cannot legally run.

But just like Lieberman before 2008, it lands Newt soapboxes on various Sunday news shows, and keep him in the public eye. Where he can expound on his unified field theory of whats wrong with American politics. The real Newt watcher can note he has a brand new theory every few weeks, and then comes up with another new incompatible idea next week. Such people can never become effective leaders, because they can never stay going in the same direction.

To some extent Joe Biden has the same fault, but I will stack Biden family values against Newt's any day of the week, year, and decade.

 

[her209]

It will be an issue in that he was doing the opposite of what he talks about: family values.

 

[fskimospy]

eskimo, you can't deny that a LOT of Democrat voters believe in exactly what I said.

The idea that you can raise taxes on the rich and then enact programs for the 'poor' is a core belief of many Democrat voters, especially the poor and lower educated ones.

Uhmmm, yes I can. Of course you can tax the rich and enact programs for the poor, but not only is that not 'getting anything you want for free from the government', but it betrays a basic lack of understanding of the economic and sociological underpinnings of the modern industrialized welfare state.

If you really believe that's what Democratic voters think, then it's a perfect explanation as to why your politics are so extreme. You've completely lost touch with what your political opponents actually think, so you're left fighting furiously against a caricature.

Also, why do you use political epithets in reasonable discussion? I know you've been asked this over and over again, but I mean it just makes you look bad.

 

[ProfJohn]

Uhmmm, yes I can. Of course you can tax the rich and enact programs for the poor, but not only is that not 'getting anything you want for free from the government', but it betrays a basic lack of understanding of the economic and sociological underpinnings of the modern industrialized welfare state.

Let me think...

Free healthcare, check!
Free food, check!
Free housing, check!
Free child care, check!

The amount of free items our government offers to citizens is pretty immense and yet there are people who would like to see more.

People who think that the rich make and have too much money and that it's the right of the government to take that money from them via force in order to 'give' it to someone poorer.

Currently government spending is at its highest level since WW2 and yet we never hear people on the left talking about cuts to spending (besides defense of course) At what point does it stop?

The federal government now controls 25% of our entire GDP when you add state and local governments the number reaches over 40%. How much more money do we need to give government before the left is happy?

 

[fskimospy]

Let me think...

Free healthcare, check!
Free food, check!
Free housing, check!
Free child care, check!

The amount of free items our government offers to citizens is pretty immense and yet there are people who would like to see more.

People who think that the rich make and have too much money and that it's the right of the government to take that money from them via force in order to 'give' it to someone poorer.

Currently government spending is at its highest level since WW2 and yet we never hear people on the left talking about cuts to spending (besides defense of course) At what point does it stop?

The federal government now controls 25% of our entire GDP when you add state and local governments the number reaches over 40%. How much more money do we need to give government before the left is happy?

I don't remember asking for an extreme right wing ideological rant. The percentage of our economy the government makes up has nothing to do with why the welfare state exists. Why on earth did you even bring it up? Do you read what other people write? It's clear from your writing that you DON'T understand the basis for these programs. For someone who talks about politics as much as you do, that's very troubling.

Words like 'immense' also are generally used as relative terms. As compared to similar countries, what our government offers is actually quite small.

Seriously man, go educate yourself. Get off the extreme right wing websites and go out and actually try to see what people who disagree with you think.

 

[jonks]

Gingrich's horrible ideas, generally unlikeable nature, and association with the catastrophic government shutdown will keep him from winning the nomination, not that he got married a few times.

If you look at McCain's marital record, it's pretty shady too. Nobody cares.

Yeah but Gingrich's are really shady. Two affairs, the first while his wife had cancer, the second with a 23-year younger staffer during the Lewinsky scandal, while simultaneously condemning Clinton for having an affair. I think that opens him up really wide. All he has to do is say the word 'values', 'hypocrisy', 'family', 'fidelity', 'duty', 'responsible'...etc. etc, and the opposition ad writes itself.

Multiple marriages I think can be stomached, but the level of sleeze here is high. I mean I was all ready to vote for the guy but not with this on his plate

 

[her209]

Newt blames his passion of country for cheating on his wife. Can't make this shit up!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20041100-503544.html

Newt must be bi-patriotic!

 

[First]

Newt should definitely run, he'd get creamed in a debate because, despite his education, he's so damn partisan that he ends up being as dumb as a stump.

 

[werepossum]

Newt blames his passion of country for cheating on his wife. Can't make this shit up!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20041100-503544.html

Newt must be bi-patriotic!

ROFLMAO! I cared too much about my country, which made me work so much and get so tired that I stumbled and my dick went into my assistant. No big deal, could happen to anyone every other day (and twice a day after Bob Dole got me the Viagra prescription.)

Can't call it adultery though, 'cause I'm pretty sure Number Three was built in a factory in Stepford, Connecticut.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yeah but Gingrich's are really shady. Two affairs, the first while his wife had cancer, the second with a 23-year younger staffer during the Lewinsky scandal, while simultaneously condemning Clinton for having an affair. I think that opens him up really wide. All he has to do is say the word 'values', 'hypocrisy', 'family', 'fidelity', 'duty', 'responsible'...etc. etc, and the opposition ad writes itself.

Multiple marriages I think can be stomached, but the level of sleeze here is high. I mean I was all ready to vote for the guy but not with this on his plate

Does this mean that the Democrats are the new Party of Family Values?

 

[piasabird]

Gingrich Resigned so he is no better than Pahlin. They are both quitters.

 

[umbrella39]

I'm not throwing a fit. I love it.

Same here. I really don't care to see Obama get a 2nd term but with names like Newt and Palin getting tossed around I don't see any other outcome.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Newt blames his passion of country for cheating on his wife. Can't make this shit up...

Callista had better watch out; what's more passionately patriotic than a Republican presidential campaign? Poor Newt may find himself forced to lapse yet again.

 

[trenchfoot]

ROFLMAO! I cared too much about my country, which made me work so much and get so tired that I stumbled and my dick went into my assistant. No big deal, could happen to anyone every other day (and twice a day after Bob Dole got me the Viagra prescription.)

Can't call it adultery though, 'cause I'm pretty sure Number Three was built in a factory in Stepford, Connecticut.

LOL, no kidding. Just looking at that pic of Newt and his wife gave me the same notion. She looks totally animatronic. Just looking at her hairstyle makes me think that 'do can withstand a CAT5 blow out of the Caribbean.

It looks to me like Newt and Ralph Nader have some things in common IRT the roles they like to play in the Pres. elections.

 

[HomerJS]

ROFLMAO! I cared too much about my country, which made me work so much and get so tired that I stumbled and my dick went into my assistant. No big deal, could happen to anyone every other day (and twice a day after Bob Dole got me the Viagra prescription.)

Can't call it adultery though, 'cause I'm pretty sure Number Three was built in a factory in Stepford, Connecticut.

Isn't it odd that if Newt had diddled a guy the right wouldn't tolerate him

 

[CallMeJoe]

Isn't it odd that if Newt had diddled a guy the right wouldn't tolerate him

But they would have saved him being an adulterer by denying him the right to wed...

 

[werepossum]

Isn't it odd that if Newt had diddled a guy the right wouldn't tolerate him

Not so much odd, the right mostly doesn't understand homosexuals but does understand the urge to bang the hot assistant.

When I was young I was a far left Democrat but also very anti-homosexual. The only open homosexuals in my county were some retarded kids in Vocational Advancement class. Up until sophomore year of high school I really didn't believe that homosexuality existed except in defective humans. Sophomore year I had an obviously homosexual teacher (he denied it, but when your boyfriend comes to school for lunch and you suck ketchup off of each other's fries . . .) That gave me the first glimmering that one might be an otherwise normal, functioning human being and be homosexual. But it wasn't until, in my twenties, I made friends with a guy who was gay and about the same time two lesbians (both feminine, both smokin' hot) that I really looked at homosexuals as normal people. Even now it seems pretty abnormal to me, but I've learned to accept that homosexuality is normal for some people (and not contagious.) My acceptance of gay marriage came a bit earlier, but that's my libertarian views that government should not have that kind of power over individuals even if the majority wishes it. So I completely understand the right's lack of understanding of homosexuality, having lived the same experience.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Newt blames his passion of country for cheating on his wife. Can't make this shit up!

Does this mean President Clinton was persecuted for his Patriotism? How much Love-of-Country would it take to drive you to Monica Lewinski?