Topic: Newt Gingrich SC Speech 1/21/12

[charlesoakwood]

Newt Gingrich South Carolina Primary Night Speech


The biggest thing I take away from the campaign in South Carolina is
that it is very humbling and very sobering to have so many people who
so deeply want their country to get back on the right track.
So many people who are so concerned about jobs, about medical costs,
about the everyday costs of life and who feel that the elites in Washington
and New York have no understanding, no care, no concern, no reliability
and in fact do not represent them at all.  

In the two debates that we had here in Myrtle Beach and in Charleston
where people reacted so strongly to the news media I think there was
something very fundamental that I wish the powers that be in the news
media would take seriously.  The American people feel that they have
elites who have been trying for a half century to force us to quit being
American and become some kind of other system.  And the reaction,
people completely misunderstand what's going on, it's not that I'm a
good debater it is that I articulate the deepest held values of the American
people.

You know, this a remarkable system, what makes us different from virtually
every other country in the world is that we are free and because we are free
we can produce leadership from an amazing range of places.
...
The key to this election is American exceptionalism versus Saul Alinsky.

Click link for complete exceptional speech.

[Libertas]

Vintage Newt, he's fired up.  Look out Florida, here he comes.

[Predator Don]

After 3 marriages...I certainly hope he's learned a thing or two.

[IronDioPriest]

After 3 marriages...I certainly hope he's learned a thing or two.

I saw a photoshop today that said: "Family Values: Using daughters from your first wife to convince everyone that your second wife is lying about your first wife."

That about sums up the cognitive disconnect that social conservatives must wade through to support Gingrich with anything approaching enthusiasm.

[Pandora]

After 3 marriages...I certainly hope he's learned a thing or two.

I saw a photoshop today that said: "Family Values: Using daughters from your first wife to convince everyone that your second wife is lying about your first wife."

That about sums up the cognitive disconnect that social conservatives must wade through to support Gingrich with anything approaching enthusiasm.

Here's something I heard the other day that I believe is worth considering:  the 60s and 70s were brought to us by the Left; free-love, if it feels good do it, sex/drugs/rocknroll, abortion, feminism, turn on/tune in/drop out, "social justice", "civil" rights, anti-God, and many were swept away for a time.  Some are still there.

Now, it's the very same Left that turns around and points the finger at almost any at all with closet-skeletons -- Gingrich? -- who lost their bearings and "went with it", but not at their own.  Oh no!  The Left gets a pass from the Left because with them it's not a matter of personal morals, but does the individual work for the Left's goals, which are, STILL ...

........... free-love, if it feels good do it, homosexuality, sex, abortion, feminism .....

The Left climbed all over GW's former alcoholism -- how many times did I hear him referred to as a "dry drunk" -- wanting their questions answered about cocaine use and what other drugs did he use -- and have totally ignored the fact that Duh Wun admitted, in writing, his.

As of now, for all we know about Rick Santorum, he's a straight shooter, but the Left is now asking suggestive questions about Mrs. Santorum's former boyfriend.  Where are the suggestive questions about Duh Wun's non-existent former girlfriends, more to the point, the investigation into his former boyfriends?

Bill Clinton used a stupid young lady for a humidor -- in the White House -- two products of the same times past that bring us a twice-divorced, cheating, Newt Gingrich and it's expected he should be held to a higher moral standard despite the stinking decades that cast a moral pall on a lot of the country, and which some of us could not uphold in our own pasts.

I'm not making excuses, I'm just sayin'.

[Libertas]

I'm enthusiastic about ABR and AWAL (anyone who attacks leftists).

[Libertas]

"I'm not making excuses, I'm just sayin'."

I hear ya.

[charlesoakwood]

I'm enthusiastic about ABR and AWAL (anyone who attacks leftists).

"I'm not making excuses, I'm just sayin'."

I hear ya.

 

[Pandora]

Furthermore, one last thought -- we will not be finding and electing more morally-grounded representatives until we get our hands around the the throats of the educational and other cultural institutions and strangle them.  They continue to corrupt and degrade our young people despite the pushback against them by good parents and the few churches that haven't been perverted.  Until we can do this, we will have to go to war with the army we have.

[IronDioPriest]

In my haste to transcribe the anti-Gingrich photoshop, I mistakenly posted, "Family Values: Using daughters from your first wife to convince everyone that your second wife is lying about your first wife."

It was supposed to read, "Family Values: Using daughters from your first wife to convince everyone that your second wife is lying about your third wife."

And Pan, I agree, when the Left wails and gnashes its teeth over the sins of conservatives, the double standard rears its head, and Saul Alinsky smiles from hell as we are compelled to hold our side to our own standards.

I think the idea of requiring our nominees to be saintly is unrealistic and unnecessary. What we need are nominees that will fight in the political arena for conservative values. Character matters, and matters a great deal. I have a hard time trusting someone who would betray his closest loved ones. But my decision making doesn't end there. And it appears that for a helluva lot of "values" voters, their decision making doesn't end there either, because they came out in droves for the serial adulterer in order to defeat the liberal Republican.

I s'pose that's a good sign.

[trapeze]

When I think, though, of Newt's moral failings I cannot help but remember this:

Abraham Linclon took notice of this man in the west, a man who fought, and when those jealous of Grant's success and recognition tried to curb his advancement, claiming Grant had been drinking, and calling for his removal from command (vicious rumours mostly fueled by Grant's rivals), President Lincoln flatly stated, "I cannot spare this man! He fights!".

[charlesoakwood]

I think the idea of requiring our nominees to be saintly is unrealistic and unnecessary. What we need are nominees that will fight in the political arena for conservative values. Character matters, and matters a great deal. I have a hard time trusting someone who would betray his closest loved ones. But my decision making doesn't end there. And it appears that for a helluva lot of "values" voters, their decision making doesn't end there either, because they came out in droves for the serial adulterer in order to defeat the liberal Republican.

This is not 2008 and purity's requisites have been redefined. 
In their quest for said purity evangelicals secured the presidency for Obama.
They have since discovered that St.Huckabee is no more pure than the rest
of the '08 candidacy.  It may be said, they shunned a Mormon and received
a Muslim. 

Now in 2012 evangelical leadership have shown themselves to be as
weak and fallible to their followers as anyman.  Early on they rallied
behind Perry and when he stumbled they did not stand by him and
bolster him but trembled like little girls and called for another meeting. 
To add insult they meet in his home state, forsook him, made modest
support for his opponent then went their merry way each leader
endorsing their own personal favorite.  This was, to say the least, not
Christian leadership.

This stalwart fortitude by evangelical leadership was rewarded in kind.
Exit polls indicate that evangelicals voted as individuals taking no direction
from leadership. It may be a decade before evangelicals become a unified
force.   

I think a majority of all voters realize that this may be "the last election"
and the single issue they are most concerned with is securing a president
who shares that opinion and is most capable to deal with it.  Save the nation;
we can cull out the thorns later.

[Libertas]

When I think, though, of Newt's moral failings I cannot help but remember this:

Abraham Linclon took notice of this man in the west, a man who fought, and when those jealous of Grant's success and recognition tried to curb his advancement, claiming Grant had been drinking, and calling for his removal from command (vicious rumours mostly fueled by Grant's rivals), President Lincoln flatly stated, "I cannot spare this man! He fights!".

Good quote Trap.  I think that sentiment is what coalesced in SC.

[AmericanPatriot]

Just read on Red State this morning that the DC establishment has teamed up with the evangelicals to raise money for Santorum

[charlesoakwood]

Sounds like DC is in ABBN mode.  No, not really, they want
to float Santorum in order to draw votes from Newt.

[Libertas]

The Congresscritters are afraid of their own shadow, especially the punks at the top of the leadership, if they're nervous then I am happy!

[charlesoakwood]

Yeah, they are a perfect weather vane.

[Predator Don]

I think the idea of requiring our nominees to be saintly is unrealistic and unnecessary. What we need are nominees that will fight in the political arena for conservative values. Character matters, and matters a great deal. I have a hard time trusting someone who would betray his closest loved ones. But my decision making doesn't end there. And it appears that for a helluva lot of "values" voters, their decision making doesn't end there either, because they came out in droves for the serial adulterer in order to defeat the liberal Republican.

This is not 2008 and purity's requisites have been redefined. 
In their quest for said purity evangelicals secured the presidency for Obama.
They have since discovered that St.Huckabee is no more pure than the rest
of the '08 candidacy.  It may be said, they shunned a Mormon and received
a Muslim. 

Now in 2012 evangelical leadership have shown themselves to be as
weak and fallible to their followers as anyman.  Early on they rallied
behind Perry and when he stumbled they did not stand by him and
bolster him but trembled like little girls and called for another meeting. 
To add insult they meet in his home state, forsook him, made modest
support for his opponent then went their merry way each leader
endorsing their own personal favorite.  This was, to say the least, not
Christian leadership.

This stalwart fortitude by evangelical leadership was rewarded in kind.
Exit polls indicate that evangelicals voted as individuals taking no direction
from leadership. It may be a decade before evangelicals become a unified
force.   

I think a majority of all voters realize that this may be "the last election"
and the single issue they are most concerned with is securing a president
who shares that opinion and is most capable to deal with it.  Save the nation;
we can cull out the thorns later.

There is no doubt we are becoming inundated with liberal leaning evangelicals. I remember a certain well know preacher ( wrote "The Purpose Driven Life") who invited the devil into his church and legitimized him to his flock. So Barack Hussian Obama secured enough evangelical vote to win his election. I will never forgive rick warren for it. As far as i'm concerned, he is a traitor to this country. We got a muslim indeed.

We now have many social justice "preachers" and churches. Who knows where thier alligence lies. They are now colluding with Washington establishment because of their own weakness in supporting a more conservative candidate....As far as I'm concerned, they made thier bed, let them wallow in it. I expect more from our religious leaders..... I mark those who are too weak to make a stand. There is a lot of weakness today.

And I concur. The people have seen the weakness of religious leaders and political leaders, can't make the hard stances, will moderate their beliefs in some sort of all inclusive crap to supposedly gain support from groups who will never support them. What does it get us? The latest cave gave us no new pipeline.
So the people, apparantly, understand this may be our last election to save this nation....and Newt certainly looks like the only candidate capable of righting the ship and guess what, he will be beholden to no one but the people...not washington, not religious leaders, no one but the people. well...maybe a couple of ex wives.

[Pandora]

... and Saul Alinsky smiles from hell as we are compelled to hold our side to our own standards.

That's just the point; he and his (and the one to whom he dedicated his book) so demeaned and eroded people's wills to uphold any previously-held standard and now they jeer at the victims of their evil.