Gingrich to Gays: Vota for Obama

[Kidd]

Newt Gingrich told a gay man and longtime resident of Oskaloosa here today that he should vote for President Obama. "I asked him if he's elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama." said Scott Arnold, an associate professor of writing at William Penn University. "It doesn't inspire hope at all."

Newt Gingrich to gay Iowan: Vote for Obama | Iowa Caucuses

I'm only posting it because I know there are people on EC who plan to vote for Newt...

Thinking positively though, if Newt keeps this up he definitely won't be the nominee...

[Mogget]

Sadly, this is exactly the sort of behavior a good portion of the GOP base wants from their nominee.

[Lexington]

I know several gay folks who would consider this a good sign to vote for Newt, to be honest.

Lex

[RedState]

"Arnold, A DEMOCRAT, said he came to the event...with an open mind".

I'm sorry..am I the only one that caught this?

An open mind my ass. Please, this is one of the oldest tricks in the playbook. I say this because I personally have sent GOP activists to Democratic events to confront a candidate while presenting themselves as "a Republican but I am completely open minded about this race".

The fact that anyone still falls for this is...well...laughable. But, some people still do...especially reporters.

It's called an ambush....and from a political standpoint, it was an expedient answer to give. Unless I am completely mistaken, I don't believe the majority of Iowa's gays will be attending the GOP Caucuses. If I was advising him I would have told him to say something similar...meaning "don't waste your time with a set up, tell him simply to vote for someone else".

[Kidd]

Oh, I don't think there will be many gays at any of the GOP conventions, especially after the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage ran them all out.

To stay on topic though, I really don't think these qualify as "gotcha" questions.

"Do you still cheat on your wife?" "Did you enjoy marijuana when you routinely smoked it during your graduate studies?" "Do you still flip-flop on your Libya position?"

I think those are "gotcha" questions. How exactly a presidential candidate will represent and engage several million Americans are fair game in my opinion. It's a question that political candidates are asked by their constituents all the time. If routine questions are considered "ambushes" these days, I think it says a lot about the quality of our politicians.

[RedState]

Originally Posted by Kidd

Oh, I don't think there will be many gays at any of the GOP conventions, especially after the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage ran them all out.

To stay on topic though, I really don't think these qualify as "gotcha" questions.

"Do you still cheat on your wife?" "Did you enjoy marijuana when you routinely smoked it during your graduate studies?" "Do you still flip-flop on your Libya position?"

I think those are "gotcha" questions. How exactly a presidential candidate will represent and engage several million Americans are fair game in my opinion. It's a question that political candidates are asked by their constituents all the time. If routine questions are considered "ambushes" these days, I think it says a lot about the quality of our politicians.

It was set up to cause a reaction just like it has gotten...I don't see what the big deal is. Not very genuine, but it happens all the time.

It would be like me walking into an Obama primary rally (considering he had one) with a "completely open mind on the Presidential race" mind you, and asking The President "why do you consider people making $200,000 millionaires? And why do you think government is the answer and not the problem a lot of the time?"

A legit question...but what do I expect him to really say? I don't expect him to give an answer that will flush votes from his base, nor would I blame him for doing so.

Gingrich is running in a GOP primary...what do you expect him to do? wear a rainbow flag label pin and break out into "Everything's Coming Up Roses" from "Gypsy"?

The majority of GOP primary voters favor "traditional" marriage--whatever that means...and so he answered accordingly. I fail to see why this is newsworthy.

No one ever said politics is about doing the right thing...politics is about winning, and doing whatever it takes to accomplish that goal...anyone that brings a hapless idealistic view into that realm will get picked apart like a piece of bread.

[jargon]

Stating your position on gay marriage is one thing. Telling a person not to vote for you just because you asked about it is another. Its quite possible that a president who opposes gay rights issues could still govern the country so well as a whole that a gay person's life is better than it would be under an ineffective gay-rights-supporters presidency.

However strongly opposed to gay rights you are, any representative should be concerned with the general welfare of citizens. If that doesnt include letting gays marry, fine. But its a tad scary if a candidate wants to imply that if your gay you will be better off under the opposing candidate, regardless of all the other political outcomes.

[RedState]

Originally Posted by jargon

Stating your position on gay marriage is one thing. Telling a person not to vote for you just because you asked about it is another. Its quite possible that a president who opposes gay rights issues could still govern the country so well as a whole that a gay person's life is better than it would be under an ineffective gay-rights-supporters presidency.

However strongly opposed to gay rights you are, any representative should be concerned with the general welfare of citizens. If that doesnt include letting gays marry, fine. But its a tad scary if a candidate wants to imply that if your gay you will be better off under the opposing candidate, regardless of all the other political outcomes.

gah! you know..you people never fail to amuse me...carry on

[Emberstone]

dont worry, gingritch will get board with his floundering campaign, then pick up another whore to slut around with him behind his current wifes back, before divorcing her to marry his mistress, who would become his mistress-mistress-mistress wife (seeing as callista is already his mistress-mistress wife). Sun rise... Sun set.

Why should we care what a serial adulterer has to say about the 'sanctity of marriage'?

[Kidd]

Originally Posted by RedState

It was set up to cause a reaction just like it has gotten...I don't see what the big deal is. Not very genuine, but it happens all the time.

It would be like me walking into an Obama primary rally (considering he had one) with a "completely open mind on the Presidential race" mind you, and asking The President "why do you consider people making $200,000 millionaires? And why do you think government is the answer and not the problem a lot of the time?"

A legit question...but what do I expect him to really say? I don't expect him to give an answer that will flush votes from his base, nor would I blame him for doing so.

Gingrich is running in a GOP primary...what do you expect him to do? wear a rainbow flag label pin and break out into "Everything's Coming Up Roses" from "Gypsy"?

The majority of GOP primary voters favor "traditional" marriage--whatever that means...and so he answered accordingly. I fail to see why this is newsworthy.

No one ever said politics is about doing the right thing...politics is about winning, and doing whatever it takes to accomplish that goal...anyone that brings a hapless idealistic view into that realm will get picked apart like a piece of bread.

Regardless, this was a really poor answer from Gingrich. He could have at least did what Santorum did a while ago. A reporter asked Santorum how gay republicans could possibly support him and he said (I'm paraphrasing); "You know, we obviously disagree on social issues but there are much more pressing matters and my platform extends so much beyond that issue, and there's so many that we do agree on..." Telling someone to vote for the other side and that you don't want/need their vote is just senseless.

[RedState]

Originally Posted by Emberstone

dont worry, gingritch will get board with his floundering campaign, then pick up another whore to slut around with him behind his current wifes back, before divorcing her to marry his mistress, who would become his mistress-mistress-mistress wife (seeing as callista is already his mistress-mistress wife). Sun rise... Sun set.

Why should we care what a serial adulterer has to say about the 'sanctity of marriage'?

You know, I might actually start taking you seriously once you start spelling correctly.

It's Gingrich..not GINGRITCH...Jesus, does your computer not have spell check? Your spelling is not only horrible it provides me with amusement..and you say you are a writer?? I'd hate to be the editor that that piece of work..so thank you..it really lets me know what I am up against.

I don't know Emberstone, maybe GINGRICH should be a Democrat...since he has sluted around with everyone in in the world, like Bill Clinton, maybe he is better suited for your party, since you seem to put people like that in such high regard.

Next.

[Emberstone]

Originally Posted by RedState

You know, I might actually start taking you seriously once you start spelling correctly.

It's Gingrich..not GINGRITCH...Jesus, does your computer not have spell check? Your spelling is not only horrible it provides me with amusement..and you say you are a writer?? I'd hate to be the editor that that piece of work..so thank you..it really lets me know what I am up against.

I don't know Emberstone, maybe GINGRICH should be a Democrat...since he has sluted around with everyone in in the world, like Bill Clinton, maybe he is better suited for your party, since you seem to put people like that in such high regard.

Next.

inappropriate behavior is not tied to any one politcal affilation.

also, spell check does not deal with names, especially odd and uncommon ones.

Also, welcome to the internet. few people actually take the time to read through repeatedly and spell check each and every post, status, and tweat they put out. When you are multi tasking, getting the point across is more important than polishing everything to a gleam.

There are vast difference between the writing a random post on the internet, and taking time to sit down and write, rewrite, revise, and rewrite again a novel or a short story.

[RedState]

Originally Posted by Emberstone

inappropriate behavior is not tied to any one politcal affilation.

also, spell check does not deal with names, especially odd and uncommon ones.

Also, welcome to the internet. few people actually take the time to read through repeatedly and spell check each and every post, status, and tweat they put out. When you are multi tasking, getting the point across is more important than polishing everything to a gleam.

There are vast difference between the writing a random post on the internet, and taking time to sit down and write, rewrite, revise, and rewrite again a novel or a short story.

ahhh..."multi-tasking"...so that is the excuse...why, you liberals just have an excuse for everything..don't you? After all, it's the keyboard that makes you misspell..isn't it? Ok chief..whatever you say...and I'm not just talking about a random post of yours..I'm talking just about EVERY one of your posts...my God have you ever read them? It's Economy..not Econamy..

By the way..that little red line that appears under a word...that means you have misspelled it..just to let you know for future reference.

[Emberstone]

RedState, the topic at hand is not my spelling. Why don't you take your compulsive obsession with making personal attacks aganst members of these forums that have no relation to what the thread is actually about, and go to 4chan where that behavior belongs.

I know that you have devoted a good portion of your life to a right wing political ideaology, pushing a movement that openly declares its desire to force you, yourself into second class citizen status. Thats your choice.

That does not mean that EC is your personal outlet for using random people over the internet as punching bags because you do not like that there are people who do not believe that someones whose practiced view of 'protecting marriage' is to find some woman to pork on the side behind his wifes back.

At least Romney is one his first marriage.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RedState

ahhh..."multi-tasking"...so that is the excuse...why, you liberals just have an excuse for everything..don't you? After all, it's the keyboard that makes you misspell..isn't it? Ok chief..whatever you say...and I'm not just talking about a random post of yours..I'm talking just about EVERY one of your posts...my God have you ever read them? It's Economy..not Econamy..

By the way..that little red line that appears under a word...that means you have misspelled it..just to let you know for future reference.

As a liberal, I take offense to your post. Emberstone is stating his opinion on Gingrich and has admitted that there are problems in both parties. You, on the other hand, appear to be angry and lashing out at the "opposing side." It would be nice if personal attacks could be avoided and instead argue objectively, thanks

[RedState]

Originally Posted by Emberstone

RedState, the topic at hand is not my spelling. Why don't you take your compulsive obsession with making personal attacks aganst members of these forums that have no relation to what the thread is actually about, and go to 4chan where that behavior belongs.

I know that you have devoted a good portion of your life to a right wing political ideaology, pushing a movement that openly declares its desire to force you, yourself into second class citizen status. Thats your choice.

That does not mean that EC is your personal outlet for using random people over the internet as punching bags because you do not like that there are people who do not believe that someones whose practiced view of 'protecting marriage' is to find some woman to pork on the side behind his wifes back.

At least Romney is one his first marriage.

As I said earlier Emberstone..if you want me to quit laughing at you and actually take what you say seriously..master the concept of spelling...then we will chat

As I said..note Bill Clinton...those what live in glass houses better be careful of the stones they cast.

Bye buddy..have a Merry Christmas and such

---------- Post added 22nd Dec 2011 at 11:43 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Muzzy

As a liberal, I take offense to your post. Emberstone is stating his opinion on Gingrich and has admitted that there are problems in both parties. You, on the other hand, appear to be angry and lashing out at the "opposing side." It would be nice if personal attacks could be avoided and instead argue objectively, thanks

>>As a liberal, I take offense to your post.

Well, sorry....deal with it..I take offense of liberals...but I deal...I suggest you do the same. Have a good day

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RedState

As I said earlier Emberstone..if you want me to quit laughing at you and actually take what you say seriously..master the concept of spelling...then we will chat

As I said..note Bill Clinton...those what live in glass houses better be careful of the stones they cast.

Bye buddy..have a Merry Christmas and such

---------- Post added 22nd Dec 2011 at 11:43 PM ----------

>>As a liberal, I take offense to your post.

Well, sorry....deal with it..I take offense of liberals...but I deal...I suggest you do the same. Have a good day

Really? I was nice, polite and courteous to you and you make that rude response? Haha, I was just asking you to argue with facts instead of attacking a person, but obviously that is beyond you. So please, continue being a prick, I can see it's the best we are going to get from you. (Oh no, now I've gone and sunk to your level of personal attacks...)

[Emberstone]

since RedState wont stay on topic...

Do we really want a president who will actively tell a whole group of americans they dont matter, their constitutional rights dont matter, and they should be converted/eradicated.

[RedState]

Originally Posted by Muzzy

Really? I was nice, polite and courteous to you and you make that rude response? Haha, I was just asking you to argue with facts instead of attacking a person. But obviously that is beyond you. So please, continue being a prick, I can see it's the best we are going to get from you. (Oh no, now I've gone and suck to your level of personal attacks...)

It wasn't a rude response..it was a response based on reality (which sometimes is painfully lacking on this board)...as yours was...which is fine.

If you want to get personal, that's fine..where shall we start?

Don't start with any jokes about my mother...because those are just mean.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RedState

It wasn't a rude response..it was a response based on reality (which sometimes is painfully lacking on this board)...as yours was...which is fine.

If you want to get personal, that's fine..where shall we start?

Don't start with any jokes about my mother...because those are just mean.

It was competely a rude response. Telling someone to "deal with it" could never be considered polite. Was I expecting an apology? Absolutely not. What I was expecting and hoping for was for you to stop personally attacking others that do not agree with you.

And it was not based on reality in my opinion. Reality would be to acknowlege that there are members of both sides on this forum. Reality does not mean that you have to be rude to each other. Regardless of whether or not people can agree, you should at least remain civil to one another.

On that note, I apologize for my earlier post, it was rude and not relevant to the topic.

I think that people on both sides should argue with facts and a calm head. When you have to resort to using personal attacks to justify your position, quite frankly, you've lost the argument.