Newt Gingrich and the Republican Presidential Primary
Posted by Mike Sylvester - 1/24/12 @ 12:33 am - Filed Under Featured, National Politics
The Republican Presidential Primary of 2012 has been vibrant and erratic to say the least. Three different candidates have won the first three states. Four candidates remain in the race.
I think the race has been so erratic because all of the candidates have some relatively major flaws and the Republican electorate really wanted a candidate who was less flawed. The Republican primary voters are changing who they are voting for on a regular basis as they get discouraged with one candidate after another.
Currently it looks like either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich will get the nomination. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul realistically have little and no chance respectively; however, they do not feel that way and with the chaos that has ensued to date they may be right. Santorum has a minute chance and it would take a miracle for Ron Paul to win.
The more I watch this race the more discouraged I have become. There is a growing chance that President Obama could get re-elected and that would be a disaster. I cannot imagine how much harm he might do to the country as a lame duck President.
In this post I will just discuss Gingrich and Romney since they are the two with by far the best chances of winning the primary.
I am not a fan of Romney; however, if push comes to shove I could vote for him in a General Election. The good about Romney includes: He does understand Wall Street, he did turn around the Olympics, he does understand the private sector at least somewhat, he does not seem to have lots of personal baggage, he “looks” presidential, and he does OK in a debate. His weaknesses include the fact that he has flip flopped on many issues, he comes across as being rich and out of touch, and he does not seem genuine.
I truly do not like Newt Gingrich and I would not vote for him in the General Election if he is the nominee; I would likely vote third party or leave it blank. His strengths include: He is an excellent debater, he has a strong grasp on history and politics, and he knows how to appeal to the Republican base. His weaknesses include: He has an immense amount of personal baggage, he is a serial adulterer, he has flip flopped on a large number of issues, he is a progressive, and he is not like-able.
When I decide who to vote for character matters. It matters a lot to me. I am honestly surprised and disappointed that it does not seem to matter to many Republican Primary voters.
I think Romney and Gingrich are both flip floppers. I think this reflects negatively on both of them. I want a candidate who sticks to his or her convictions rather than say what is politically expedient.
Newt Gingrich really fails as far as his personal character and morals are concerned. He has admitted that while married to his 1st wife he had a long term affair with a woman who became his second wife. He further admitted that while married to his second wife he had a long term affair with a woman who became his third wife. This is a deal breaker for me. I think I MIGHT (but probably could not) be able to look past one affair. I certainly cannot and will not look past two. Newt Gingrich got married and committed adultery multiple times. That is not what I am looking for in a person I would vote for to be the President of The United States because character matters to me.
I truly do not understand how so many evangelical Christians support a serial adulterer. I do NOT get it…
I am not at all religious. I am an Agnostic. Many evangelicals seem to believe that Newt Gingrich has realized that he has sinned and repented and embraced God. For that reason they have decided they can support him.
Once again I am not religious so please keep that in mind. I think character matters and I do not trust the character of Newt Gingrich. I think he will say and do anything to further himself.
Mike Sylvester
Comments
4 Responses to “Newt Gingrich and the Republican Presidential Primary”
Leave a Reply
If you look at the total number of votes each candidate has received so far, Romney (294,616) and Gingrich (282,727) are pretty much tied for first place. Then you have Paul (160,877) and Santorum (155,256) basically tied with each other with a little over 50% of what the top two have. Finally, you have about half as many as this (77,676) who have voted for candidates other than these four. So I will agree with your basic analysis that this is quickly becoming a two man race.
Something to be considered, though, is that this early in the contest a person’s vote may be more about which candidate they want to continue exerting influence on the process rather than who they actually want to win. I think Gingrich has been much more aggressive towards Obama than Romney has. It could be that the S. Carolina win was intended as a message to Romney “Better liven up - or else,” rather than an actual endorsement of Gingrich.
And while I agree with much of your analysis of Gingrich, I am far less perplexed about why he has support. Despite what people say, I think the evidence proves that most people (religious or not) are driven more by economic self-interest rather than moral ideology. And on this account, I think the differences between Gingrich and Romney pail in comparison to Obama’s differences with either of them.
Incidentally, Paul is the only one I would definitely vote for over Obama. I would give some consideration to Romney. And I would not even consider Gingrich or Santorum.
Is there a perfect politician out there? There is a song about the perfect man “doesn’t exist” or the perfect woman “doesn’t exist.” Just the facts.
Both of the two Romney and Gingrich have flip flopped. In my opinion Romney does not have the slightest clue on Medicare or Social Security. But then neither does any politician, including Ron Paul.
Mitch’s reply to the Presidential Address to the Nation also shows he is out of touch with reality, but at least he recognizes the immense problems we face; he just believes there is a solution. I guess I would compare all these politicians to the Italian Captain of the cruise liner that sank; failure to lead and take charge when a crisis is happening now.
I really do not like either one and will wait to make my decision.
You summed up my thoughts on each of the 4 really well — I’m bummed that we Republicans let this happen to us again. After ‘08 with McCain, I felt sure we’d have our act together better with candidates this time …
“After ‘08 with McCain, I felt sure we’d have our act together better with candidates this time”
This begs the question “Who decides who is to run for office?” Is the decision an individual, group or party decision? I would hope it is not a party decision. In fact I would love the party’s to stay out of primaries all together.
In the past two weeks I have been called many times to answer a poll concerning the 2012 election. Most of the questions are absurb showing an uneducated or ignorance of the subject.
It is my opinion the media distorts candidates’ issues and ask irrelevant questions. Too much information, too many lies, too many distortions and there really is no way to verify it in a timely manner.
I think it is because of the above that good candidates will not run. Susan what would you suggest republicans do to have “better” candidates run? Go back 30 or more years; were those elected any better or was it we just did not know about all the baggage? Maybe due to the growth in government we now have something that in unmanageable? From basically Defense we now add Department of Transportation, TSA, SSA, Medicare, Food stamps, Unemployment, NRC, Energy, Education, Homeland Security and a lot more.