Newt is a master media manipulator, I heard the bit this am he was to announce. Now its to announce that on Wednesday, he's gonna announce, that he's gonna give a speech on Friday to announce he's planning on running for president.

Question, will the speech on Friday be another intent to form a committee to explore the probability?

Gotta love Republicans like Newt. He's been married three times, and the primary reason for this is that he had affairs while married to wives #1 and #2. His current wife is 23 years younger than he is, and I've gotta think that it's only a matter of time before he cheats on her as well. Newt explained away his infidelities by saying that he "worked too hard." Well, good thing presidents don't have to work hard, right? Oh wait. And before some of the new members point out Clinton's infidelities, I know, I know. He put his willy where he shouldn't. But he never claimed to be a moral paragon of virtue like Newt. People know that they might be electing a philanderer when they elect a Democrat (Clinton, Edwards). They don't expect the same when they elect a conservative, evangelical Republican.

I know that hypocrisy isn't exactly uncommon among evangelicals, but are they really going to embrace someone like this? I also know that anti-Mormonism runs STRONG within parts of this country. Indeed, the primary (no pun intended) Mormon haters are found in the ranks of evangelical Christians. It will certainly be interesting to see which way Republican primary voters (of which 70% will probably be evangelical) go with this.

On the one hand, you have someone who slapped Jesus in the face twice by cheating on both of his former wives.

On the other hand, you have a guy who by all accounts has always remained faithful to his ONE wife, but he happens to belong to an apostate religion.

My guess is that they'll back Romney. Romney may be religious, but he isn't evangelical, so he'll pick up the more intelligent Republican primary voters and the Wall Street-types that vote in more moderate states like NY and CA. Gingrich and Huckabee will chop up the South with Santorum pulling a few percent (maybe) from this hardcore nut-job demographic as well, despite the fact that he also belongs to an apostate religion (Catholicism) in the eyes of some evangelicals.

This is clearly Romney's race to lose. I think Pawlenty is too soft.

Newt cheated on his wifes because he loves America too much. That must be redeeming.

Sometimes when you really love your country and you work so hard for its prosperity sacrifices must be made.

You have to admit that there's something appealing about it. You can act like a scumbag, seek forgiveness from Pat Robertson and his disciples on CBN, and all is forgiven. It doesn't hurt his cause that he carries water for their entire agenda.

If bin Laden genuinely repented for all of his sins in the minutes before his death at the hands of SEAL Team Six, and accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior, then according to most Christians, he is in heaven right now. No one is too evil to be saved.

On the other hand, according to these same people, this person would be in hell: a gay American, who spent his free-time volunteering in AIDS clinics and adopting and raising 6 wonderful children, yet never repented for his active homosexual conduct.

Who has caused more harm? Who is more deserving of hell?

I'm not too familiar with Newt, but describing him as an evangelical is a huge stretch no?

He had been a Southern Baptist (evangelical Christian) since graduate school, but he did convert to his wife's faith (Catholicism) in 2009. For the entirety of his career in public service and during both of his affairs, he was an evangelical Christian.

Bill Clinton is also a Southern Baptist but he never embraced the evangelical agenda like Gingrich (obviously). Pro-choice, pro-gay civil unions, pro-gays in the military, etc.

Right, and under that kind of working definition, Obama is an evangelical, and that doesn't seem right.

Again, I'm not too familiar with NG here, but I've always associated him with the budget side of the party instead of the evangelical wing because he was powerful in the former but not the latter.

There are far better people to make this argument against imo.

flip-flopper imo.

But seriously: shouldn't this be something that could be spun as a huge negative: not sincere in his faith, blabla. Of course there is always the "hardcore christians will always vote Republican anyway" meme, but people often forget that elections are also about mobilizing the base. If Romney and this guy will make a "meh" impression on a part of the population that is normally easy to motivate into hardcore volunteering for Republicans, then it's still a negative.

Disagree:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...ional-security

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich focused on social issues and national security during a speech in at the Conservative Principles Conference in Des Moines on Saturday.

"Some people may tell you that we should stay away from values and stay from social issues," Gingrich told a crowd of conservative activists.

"I'm here to tell you if you don't start with values and you don't start by establishing who we are as Americans, the rest of it doesn't matter. Life is not just about money."

That's a direct slam at Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels, who called for a truce on social issues.

You remember him from the budget battles because he was instrumental in the government shutdown, but he's hardly a one-trick pony.

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Newt_...vil_Rights.htm

Here are some of Gingrich's quotes on social issues:

"The views by the media-academic-legal elite are completely at odds with the overwhelming majority of Americans. Once five justices decided we could not pray in schools or at graduation or could not display the Ten Commandments, we lost those rights. If five justices decide we cannot say that our nation is “under God,” then we will also lose that right.

They are not only arbitrarily rewriting the law of the land but are usurping the legitimate rights of the legislative branch to make the laws."

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.132-133 Dec 31, 2006

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200811170014

I'm going to quote the sometimes-biased Media Matters now but all I'm going to quote is Gingrich's exact words from November 2008, and not Media Matters' interpretation of those words:

Gingrich appearing on The O'Reilly Factor:

"I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion."

--------------------

Still doubtful, ike?

Gingrich the congressman was not focused on social issues. He identified as an intellectual, not an anti-intellectual -- frequently referencing his credentials as a professor.

He may well have moved since, but its not who he was when he was famous.

Nobody that favors gay rights was going to vote republican anyways so it's pointless for them to radically change their positions or ignore it. What the republican candidates need to do is get the independents that are apathetic towards gay rights but are passionate about something else such as smaller government or whatever. I'm kind of contradicting myself here but even if the republican nomination goes to someone who's softer on gay right they would still get the evangelical vote using the same reasoning that liberals are still going to vote for Obama even if he's not what they expected.

A quote I heard today about Newt, "He's bright & smart, he has 20 ideas a day" then the other panelist "Yeah, but 19 bad ones each and every day"

He's divisive and vindictive, and if 2012 were a slam dunk GOP year, his base would follow him to the gates of ........He can't grab the moderates, nor the independents, no matter how intellectual he may be.

Dick Armey and Phil Gramm were also professors. Both taught economics for quite some time. But it's not like these guys can't multi-task. I agree that guys like Armey or Gingrich weren't as focused as social issues, but they definitely held far-right views on them, and derived a lot of the support from the Christian voting base in their districts.

I disagree. I think that if Republicans nominated a candidate who is moderate on social issues, it would most likely lead to a somewhat strong third-party challenge from the right that would pull votes from the Republican nominee.