Herman Cain suspended his campaign today. Not sure what that means, but I think it is clear – he’s not going to be president.
I’m not sure we know the truth now or whether we will ever know the real truth. Did he sexually harass women and carry on a long-term affair with another woman or is he the victim of another character assassination by the hit-and-run media in America (and perhaps a political hit by campaign rivals)? I don’t know.
But the political nomination process has become a bloodsport that produces one winner and a lot of broken lives. Is this the way we really want to do politics?
Now, I still don’t know who to vote for to replace our current president in 2013. Will any of the Republicans survive the bloodbath?
Romney? Can’t really get into that, but we if it comes down to him or Mr. Obama, I guess I’ll do it.
Newt? He’s a smart guy and a good politician. But his record in marriage leaves me distrustful of his moral fiber.
Perry? I was going to say something about him, but I had a brain freeze and can’t remember what I was going to say.
Bachmann? Not been impressed so far.
Ron Paul? Puh-leese. Dangerous foreign policy.
So, anyone have any insights on Rick Santorum?
His wife’s name is Karen, as is mine. It would be cool to have a Rick and Karen in the White House.
Well, that’s as good a reason as I’ve been able to find to support one of these guys so far.
An insight into RICK SANTORUM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7LyoAEIskw&feature=relmfu
what a beautiful tribute to his little daughter, Bella
Republicans might not have ‘impressed’ with this man, but I am.
You want someone who has compassion for those who cannot help themselves in the White House? You might do worse than this man . . . a lot worse.
My goodness, I hope people who are Republican reconsider him.
. . . ‘WE are ‘the disabled ones’ . . . ‘
he ‘gets’ it and he learned it from his little daughter, Bella.
That is wisdom indeed.
I did not know about his daughter L’s. Thanks for the information. Obviously the man has true grit and so does his wife.
Cain hit his high water mark weeks ago. Today’s announcement was a foregone conclusion. Apart from his recent difficulty with women, he has demonstrated not to be presidential timber. Call it blood sport if you wish. The sexual harrassment filings were factual and his 13 year friendship with the woman is troublesome. I like the guy. He never had a chance save for perhaps VP.
Bachmann lost her titanium spine on immigration, where courage would have her not deporting illegals who have been in the country for decades, speak only english, and are good non-citizens. She will not answer a straight question, the hard one, on immigration. Goodbye Michelle.
Santorum is a footnote.
Never was so much anticipated about a candidate who has repeatedly proved to be not up to the task: Rick Perry. So long, guvna.
Huntsman, number two Mormon in the race.
Paul, love his principled view of everything. Libertarianism is not a governing philospohy but may be a good antidote to any which are.
No chance.
Which leaves Newt and Romney.
I’m not joining the SBC re-elect Obama club which will prove successful if we don’t vote for Romney because of religious bigotry against Mormons.
Gingrich isn’t pristine, but is he preferable to the wonderful family man, terrible president Obama? Of course. Does his sordid marriage and family background prove he would be a bad president? Of course not.
I talked with a 30something who said she voted for Obama in 08 but would vote for Gingrich in 12. That gives me some hope for his defeat.
Okay, you may be right about Santorum, but I’m wondering if there might be a conservative Christian groundswell for him. Iowa Republicans tend to be very conservative and Christian.
That means we want an anti-Romney because of his Mormonism. Newt Gingrich’s history of repeated adultery doesn’t exactly play well, so there will be a lot of people not caucusing for him. Whose left? Santorum is the only one who hasn’t had the rise and fall.
Wouldn’t shock me to see a little groundswell for him in Iowa.
Newt would have to self-destruct and Romney to flee the country for Santorum to gain any traction, and all that within a month since you guys caucus in early January.
What happens in Iowa probably won’t matter. See Huckabee.
Shifts can take place pretty quickly here. Santorum has spent a lot of time in Iowa. I know its not real likely, but I keep hoping.
My problem is that my politics are leaning a little to the pragmatic over the ideal. My priorities are:
1) Someone who can increase the unemployment ranks in DC by 1.
2) Someone with whom I agree and whom I deeply respect.
Sorry Dave,
I appreciate your trust and confidence and all of that, but:
1. I ain’t runnin’
2. I don’t want to coach the Washington Redskins.
I’m leaning towards Gingrich from a very practical viewpoint: he can debate. He also has good experience leading, has been to the wilderness from a national leadership perspective, and understands–truly understands–conservatism as a philosophy across the board INCLUDING social conservatives.
His adultery is problematic as Cain just proved. But if we’re going to get hung up over that, we ought to rip the book of Psalms (not to mention most of Genesis, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles) out of the Bible. There is no such thing as perfect people. They don’t exist. The only thing you have when you have a politician without fault is you have someone who is not mentioning is shortcomings. ANYONE can do that.
Bachman is too shrill for me. Romney’s problem is there isn’t enough difference between him and the true left on healthcare. He’ll get rolled by the left and moderates in Congress since he likes being liked. Perry isn’t going to win this round. He just isn’t.
That brings us back to Gingrich: he’s flawed. He’s bombastic. He’s a flip flopper. And he is capable of beating Obama. Pick any of the above and if they fail to beat Obama, remember you read it here. We tried moderates: Dole and McCain. Nothing to vote for. Nothing to get excited about. Nothing there. Pick someone who believes something.
P.S. I’ve promised to vote for Perry. If he’s over 10% at caucus time I probably will. Otherwise, like I said, I’m leaning towards Gingrich. I hate living in Iowa, btw: I feel responsible to pay attention. I am praying that God convicts the rest of you to pay attention, too. 😉
In my current thinking, I won’t really caucus for either Romney or Gingrich. If Santorum starts seeing a bump, I might go to the caucuses and speak for him. But if its basically Romney and Gingrich, I’ll probably sit it out and let what happens happen.
But I will certain support either against the man currently in Oval Office. Saw a great pic this week of Jimmy Carter sitting at a desk smoking a cigar. The caption read, “They can’t say I’m the worst president ever anymore.”
“And he is capable of beating Obama.”
FOX NEWS is behind Gingrich big-time and very down on Romney, so I guess the nominee is Gingrich, that is, if he can keep from being so bombastic that he self-implodes . . .
can he beat Obama ? no, I think not
Good to have you back Christiane. You said something nice about a conservative above, and it made me think you might be ill or something.
Fox News does not and has not endorsed a candidate. Individual hosts might have a preference, but the network does not pick a candidate like that.
Thank you, DAVID
my comment about Rick Santorum was heart-felt . . . I think he is a person of faith and family, as I am
Here is a gift, for the ‘keeping of Christmas’ and for all little ones like little Isabella Maria Santorum, who teach us wisdom through their simplicity and unconditional love:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJSbw8Ea2Os
English translation:
‘Salvation is created
in the midst of our Earth
Oh God, O Our God . . .
Alleluia ! “
Hmm… I may just have to vote for Ron Paul this year.
Now why would you want to go and do something like that?
I have more substantial agreement with his positions than the other candidates. I don’t agree with him on everything, of course, but I will have to compromise no matter who I vote for. I’m far from hopeful about his chances for winning, though.
Had Urban Meyer not taken the job at OHIO STATE, he would have made a good candidate for president. He does have SEC experience you know. It is a man with that caliber of leadership experience we need. These governors, senators, and pizza salesmen just ain’t cuttin’ it.
Oh, boy.
Gingrich is the BEST candidate in the race; hands down. He KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS the Constitution. It is really amazing to me that THE most important job in the country requires the least experience. Gingrich’s age and maturity today and hopefully his experiences have taught him some lessons… he has NO DOUBT made poor choices in the past; the question is did he learn from those poor choices and can he be a great leader at one of the most critical times in the history of this country. I beleive he is the BEST man for the job.
><>”
Poor choices? Twice leaving his wife for other women? I think that goes beyond poor choice, Bob.
I really don’t want Republicans to do a Bill Clinton redux.
Look up Gingrich’s support for NAFTA in the 90’s.
Look up Gingrich’s environmentalist views in the early 2000’s.
Now I know people can change with out “flip-flopping” but no one is asking him about these views. Everyone is labling him a great conservative who “knows and understands the Constitution”. But his past (not even going into his personal life), tells us that is not the case. Gingrich is a life long member of the Republican Establishment. And while I will gladly vote for him over President Obama, he is not the best candidate in the race. That was Herman Cain.
The Republican race is all about finding a “not-Romney” to lead the party. Romney is a Mormon who conveniently switched a lot of his beliefs just as he left office in Mass and began to think about national office. Convenient? You make the call.
The search for the not-Romney started with Bachman, but that that romance cooled quickly.
Then, we turned to the Great Evangelical Hope from Texas, and his underwhelming performance amazed millions.
So, we turned to Cain and he got taken out in the he-said, she-said allegation war.
Now, the latest not-Romney is Gingrich. Is the last one? They are telling us its Romney or Gingrich. But is there time for another not-Romney to surface? (The only one left is Santorum, hence my interest.)
Way back when the candidates were first announcing, I remember Steve Lemke posting on his facebook status that this was the man he’d be pulling for. (Dr Lemke was a professor of mine at NOBTS a little more than a decade ago.)
That made no sense with just a pronoun…. Rick Santorum was the one he mentioned.
I wish Phil Fulmer would run. He’s a great guy. He can lead. He can recruit. He’s loyal to a fault. I wish I could vote for Fulmer.
David 🙂
If Republicans get behind Newt Gingrich (who is, admittedly, the smartest of the bunch) then we will have, rightfully, forfeited any pretense of being the party of “family values”. If there was a democrat in the race who had cheated on his dying wife, the conservative media would be screeching about it 24/7.
Hard to assail your logic, sir.
The magnitude of Gingrich’s sins just make it hard for me to get behind him.
Indeed. A man who will betray his wife will betray anyone or anything. Gingrich is a traitor and cannot be trusted with any government office.
He’s not a traitor.
Traitor – a person who is guilty of treason or treachery, in betraying friends, country, a cause or trust, etc.
That word has a specific meaning in the political realm – its actually a death penalty offense.
And it also means one who betrays another.
The GOP did that back in 08.
You might google “Gingrich dying wife” and get your facts straight on that old slam. The dying wife is still alive today. Their daughter disputes the familiar account.
Ronald Reagan was divorced. Obama is a great family man. Carter was, is a great family man. McCain declared to be not born again and had lots of women problems.
Some of us might consider voting for someone competent to govern and not someone whose picture we can hang on the wall and feel good about. It’s a secular office.
Twice, he has ended marriages to begin other marriages. Okay, his first wife was only sick and in the hospital when he walked in to announce plans to divorce her (according to her story).
This is pretty egregious behavior.
I don’t buy the “secular job” thing completely. A man acts according to his character and Newt has demonstrated some serious holes in his. I’m certainly not advocating that we are electing a pastor-in-chief, but I’m not convinced Newt has the requisite character to handle the office.
I will certainly support him against Obama if Republicans elect him, but I think that his nomination would likely result in a second Obama term.
Dave, google it. You are repeating false information on Gingrich and the old divorce/hospital story.
Does Obama have the ‘requisite character’ sufficient to handle the office? If yes, then your character/performance argment is blown up.
Politics is almost as much fun as college football.
I have googled it. One article says one thing, the next says another. Details seem to be hard to fix. Sites sympathetic to Gingrich say the story is not true while those less sympathetic seem to maintain that it is true.
“Does Obama have the ‘requisite character’ sufficient to handle the office? If yes, then your character/performance argment is blown up.”
Exactly!
I did hear Gringrich’s daughters statement concerning the hospital/divorce story as not true. Still….three marriages? The first one was to his high school teacher, strangely enough. I have always thought Newt to be a great back bencher. I fear he has Potomac fever now. But he will be better than the current empty suit.
The ability of a man to twice betray a person he has sworn fidelity to sort of speaks to his character, and ought to give one pause when they swear fidelity to the country and constitution.
I’m not saying Republicans won’t or shouldn’t elect him. But let’s drop the pretense that we care more about morality than our opponents.
Three words:
abortion on demand
Perhaps Gingrich has repented of betraying his former wives when they were sick with cancer . . .
Years ago my oldest friend suffered breast cancer and had surgery and chemo . . . her husband ‘couldn’t take seeing her suffer’, so he left to go to NYC to be in a friend’s off-Broadway play.
I suppose men aren’t always as strong as women . . . my friend told him to go and live his dream. Recently, he passed away. She was there at the end nursing him . . .
there are different kinds of strength . . . some people
can’t be around sickness and seek escape, I guess.
Other people stay.
You know what Vol? You may have something there.
Maybe if we could get all the living current and past SEC head coaches to form a Council of some kind. Maybe call it the Wishbone Council or Power I.
Maybe such a group of upright and honest men could turn this country around.
VOL . . . don’t encourage C.B.
Many throw the “terrible foreign policy” tag on Ron Paul and yet it is an undisputed fact that he has more support from Military officials than any other candidate. Explain that?
That is a great point Matt. The media has, from the beginning, propagated the “Ron Paul can’t win” myth. However, when you look at his campaign and his achievements you see a different picture; a picture of a viable opponent to Obama.
1. Straw poll wins in Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, and California as well as placing high in other states.
2. Campaign has raised over 40 million dollars.
3. Has received more money from members of the U.S. military than any other candidate.
4. Polls strong when matched against Obama in 2012.
The “Ron Paul can’t win” narrative is hardly a reality but what we hear DAY AFTER DAY.
It’s not so much that he cannot win, but that he should not win.
Are you guys going to get around to mentioning his drug legalization positions…just for the record here?
I support Ron Paul’s drug legalization positions 100%.
And I probably do also, though I haven’t seen the details. I don’t think that the evangelical Paulistas know about this facet of libertarianism.
Buckley was on this two generations ago. Time has proved him to be prescient on the issue.
Most of the evangelicals I know who support Paul are well aware of it and support it. Granted, I know a revolutionary group!
The drug stuff is mild compared to his views on foreign policy. Republicans have been giving Obama you-know-what for his clearly chilly relationship with BiBi Netanyahu.
Paul isn’t exactly what GOPers would describe as pro-Israel. That is evident by the fact that the Jewish Republicans coalition refused to invite Paul to their upcoming debate-forum
As to Newt, I think he has way more problems than Romney. No way Newt can beat Obama. He’s self-destructive.
I don’t agree with Sen. Tom Coburn on much of anything. But I think he’s a principled guy, lots of integrity. He had some harsh words for Newt today on Fox News Sunday:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69731.html
Matt,
I don’t really know for sure, but maybe some of the attraction is due to:
1. He is one of the two Vets running.
2. He is for V.A. reform and has spoken to that issue on several occasions.
3. He is no fan of the United Nations. Here is a quote from him regarding the UN:
“Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.”
A lot of US Armed Forces Vets dislike the UN.
“”He had some harsh words for Newt today on Fox News Sunday:”
Harsh words? All he said he is lacking in leadership. He did not give specifics but alluded to some guys do this and that. Were those guys Newt? Surely you can do better….?
My goodness, Obama is the poster boy of lacking in leadership. Congress had to set the agenda for his presidency.
Listen to us! We have elected the biggest empty suit in the history of our country…a bonafide socialist/fascist who is arrogant with no real experience leading anything substantial……a former community organizer embedded from one of the most corrupt cities in the country…who ran on the empty platitudes of hope and change…which really meant no hope and horrible change……who trashes our country while visiting other lands…who bows down to tyrants…..who has a history of barbarian policy when it comes to the little babies….
…..and we dare be so picky? I am not so sure we can turn back the clock as it is…..and 4 more years of this arrogant but ignorant socialist/fascist man could do us in– in terms of his revolution by bookkeeping and lawmaking not to mention Supreme Court and other judge nominees and appointments. That is where serious damage really shows itself years later.
I cannot stand Romney and think he is Obama lite. You know, he has been liberal on many things up to his first Prez run then he ran conservative. But he has no gravitas on leading the dismantaling of Obamacare. His record is pretty liberal and I am not sure he can beat Obama because of it. And if we do not piece by piece dismantle Obamacare, we can forget about REAL economic growth.
We are fast approaching the last hour where we decide if we are going the way of Europe where most people work for government and less for private companies. Obamacare will take care of that for us. Your doctor will be indirectly employed by and controlled completely by Uncle Sam.
Obama has proved that fascism and socialism are on the same side of the coin once and for all with the massive bailouts and “government” venture captial for environmental startups.
I try to keep this in mind when I am being so picky. And I will hold my nose and vote AGAINST the aspiring dictator. Cain was the free enterprise candidate. That dream is over. And yes, if Romney is the candidate, I will vote for him but I doubt he can beat Obama who has raised a billion. (George Soros again?)
My point. We will have to rally around the “conservative” candidate whoever that is. Quite Frankly, Bill Clinton’s economic policies are preferable to this empty suit we have now who let congress lead his first year because he was clueless! So if the candidate is Newt, let’s just go back to the archives and pull out all the Carville one liners. We will need them.
Rant over. :o)
Here is the money quote of the week and it is only Sunday:
“And if we do not piece by piece dismantle Obamacare, we can forget about REAL economic growth.”
Gosh, Lydia, I hope you feel better! 🙂
I think it may in the long run be a blessing in disguise that there is no candidate that Evangelicals can really pin their hopes on. We don’t need to pin our hopes on politicians and human leaders so much anyway. I think it gets us sidetracked from the main thing(s) we are to be about.
When the time comes to vote, i will study the platforms of the various candidates and vote for the one who most matches my own views on the issues. In the meantime, I am not going to lose much sleep worrying about who that might be.
David Rogers , I couldn’t have said it better myself .
Amen, David. The way some of “us” evangelicals politicize things, you’d think they expect Jesus to throw His hat into the ring–and if He doesn’t, they expect Him to send a proxy in, it’s just a matter of discerning which Republican he is. I don’t put any ultimate hope in the political process–US or elsewhere–and relatively little hope of any kind in it.
John
I find it amusing (well, disgusting really) that some (not all, not most) of the people who cry the loudest “Christians should not politicize everything. Focus on the gospel” are those that vote with left wing political agendas on at least some issues.
The only thing that matters in this election is getting Obama out of office. He is the most pro-abortion president that there has ever been. Abortion takes priority over any and all other issues (i.e. immigration reform [no need for it anyway], ending our war on terror [we have every right to strike preimptively]) and Christians have a responsiblity to vote anti-abortion. Always.