Browse > Home / Archive by category 'Competitors / Gingrich'

| Subcribe via RSS

***Ads Do Not Necessarily Represent The Opinions of the Staff of comMITTed to Romney***

***Support comMITTed to Romney by visiting our sponsors***

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

Newt as Veep? Newt’s Opinion on Race Today; Florida

Flag Waving

The following excerpts of the transcripts from the Hugh Hewitt show were taken from here. Hugh Hewitt interviewed Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House.

Several people in this blog have asked about who Governor Romney should choose for Vice President, should he be the Republican nominee. I have said many times that very few first term Presidents in the last 75 years did not include either the Prez or VP from a southern state (maybe one).    Gingrich is definitely very bright and though he has baggage, his conservative credentials are outstanding. Here is his answer as to whether he would consider the Veep job:

HH: Mr. Speaker, a lot of people would love to see you in the number two slot on the ticket. Are you open to that?

NG: Well, Ronald Reagan once said that he was hoping that Gerald Ford would not ask him in 1976, because a citizen would have a very hard time turning it down as part of their duty. And I always thought that was a wise admonition. And so I can’t quite imagine a nominee foolish enough to offer it, but I would have to consider it seriously if somebody did.

And what is Gingrich’s opinion about Governor Romney, Mayor Giuliani, and John McCain? Their chances?

NG: John McCain is John McCain. He’s a very stubborn, very self-righteous, very indignant guy who really believes what he believes, and frankly, if you don’t like him, that’s your problem. And yet he’s also courageous and hard working and has great integrity, and is a true patriot. And so, he’s…and it really helped him in New Hampshire, because that was exactly the kind of cantankerous personality that kind of fits the New Hampshire tradition.

HH: But you know, Mr. Speaker, in your book, Real Change, one of the things that really resonated with me on Page 89, you call for cheerful persistence for change. And you cite FDR. And you know, that’s so crucial to governing, and I don’t think Senator McCain has any cheerful persistence for change in him, does he?

NG: I didn’t…listen, you asked me what I would advise each of those three guys, and I told you what I’d advise them. Look, I’m not defending any of the three. Each of them has great strengths, each of them has great weaknesses. That’s why no one has broken loose yet. And Florida become really important in part because either McCain or Giuliani has to win Florida to keep the nomination open. If Romney wins Florida, I think he’s on the way to becoming the nominee.

So, Florida. What do you think about Florida? Is Governor Romney going to win Florida? Those are big delegates down there! Remember this: No Republican has been elected President without winning Florida.

I say win!

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Ann Marie Curling
Ann Marie Curling

Bigotry at its very best…

November 7th, 2007 | 12 Comments | Posted in Bigotry, Evangelicals, Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Pat Robertson

Check out this post at DryFlyPolitics.

There isn’t much more you can say about the Robertson endorsement of Giuliani. What other reason could he have but bigotry?

Here are some Famous Quotes from Mr. Robertson.

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of John Cronin
John Cronin

The Prescription For Defeat

In the past few days we have all observed a resumption of the defeatist talk among some segments of the Evangelical Right that basically says, “Give us a fantasy candidate who is absolutely perfect in all his ways and who has been absolutely perfect in all his ways since birth, or else we’re bolting the ranks and going third party.”

The Clinton “war room” operatives must be rolling on the floor with laughter at the prospect that the religious right is contemplating shooting itself in the foot, again.

Polling research has shown that in the 2006 election some of the evangelical right “sat out the election” in protest of the corruption of some members of Congress and the general policy drift of the Bush administration. It’s one thing to be unhappy with the performance of our elected officials in Washington but it is something far worse to “sit out an election” and let the left populate Congress with people who have already said they will insure a defeat in Iraq, appoint pro-abortion judges to the SCOTUS, raise our taxes and in general do everything they can to remake the United States of America into a dreary European socialist state.

One of our readers asked this question in the comments section: “Will we allow a Clinton victory by default because of our religious bias against an LDS candidate?” (paraphrased)

I hope the answer to that question is a resounding NO!

As a member of that segment of the electorate that identifies itself as the religious right, I can tell you that Mitt Romney has the values and the policies that I want to see in the White House. I have followed MR’s candidacy very closely and I can not think of one of his major positions that I do not agree with.
How perfect does that man have to be to please some of these folks who are threatening to bolt the Republican Party and thereby roll out the red carpet for Hillary and her minions as they march into Washington and systematically destroy everything we have worked for over the course of this past decade. If we lose this election, Hillary gets to nominate the next couple of Supreme Court justices. If you are a conservative and that doesn’t scare the hell out of you, then you just haven’t been paying attention for the last 15 years or so.

If we lose this election, there will almost certainly be a humanitarian disaster in Iraq, a power vacuum in the Middle East that will be filled by Iran, they will control the oilfields and our economy will return to a level it hasn’t seen since the Depression.

I know some will say that I am being a alarmist, all these things didn’t happen when Bill Clinton was president. Bill Clinton was president before 911 and he treated terrorist attacks as crimes, not as acts of war. He wanted to issues arrest warrants for criminals who hid in caves in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Many people have made the case that it was Bill Clinton and his feckless response to the Trade Tower bombing in 1993 and his abject failure to take Osama Bin Laden out when we had him in the cross hairs and his lobbing of cruise missiles at empty aspirin factories that led the Jihadists to the conclusion that America is a paper tiger that can be attacked with glee and abandon.

I might also point out that Hillary’s bungled health care initiative that proposed to commandeer 17% of the GDP and turn it into another socialistic bureaucratic quagmire helped pave the way for Newt Gingrich and his supporters to wrest control of Congress from the Democrats for the first time in 50 years. So, the reason all these terrible things I have alluded to didn’t happen in the Clinton administration is that there was a vibrant, loyal opposition to this president and his zany proposals (and his wife’s zany proposals). If we lose anything like the numbers that are currently being predicted, then that “vibrant, loyal opposition” will not exist this time to put the brakes on an out of control Washington.

It’s time to leave the fantasy realm and return to the reality realm and to realize that Mitt Romney is our very best hope to keep the White House in conservative hands.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

Gingrich “AWOL” on Fred Thompson?

October 3rd, 2007 | No Comments | Posted in F. Thompson, Gingrich, Mitt Romney

Tonight on my drive home from work, I dialed Jeff Fuller’s cell phone (prominent GMR supporter and blogger from Iowa — now residing in Louisiana) to talk about the early states of IA, NH, and SC. Jeff’s insight is amazing and I have tremendous respect for his opinions. The conversation meandered to my asking his opinion about FT. He reminded me of Gingrich’s stated, strong support of Thompson back in July and referred me to a post by Tommy Oliver over at Race 4 2008. I looked it up when I got home. Oliver actually posted several similar “support” pieces featuring the Gingrich/Thompson connection.

It is now hard for me to tell who has been more coy these last four months: Thompson or Gingrich. So now that we have all the water under the bridge: FT has announced and NG is not going to run for President, shouldn’t Gingrich be announcing his full-blown support for Fred Thompson? Isn’t this the time when he would announce his official endorsement of Fred Thompson? What is left for Gingrich to know or understand for him to officially back and endorse FT?

For me, Gingrich’s silence on the Thompson is quite conspicuous. Not only has he not come out in strong support of Thompson, in recent TV interviews this week on Fox, he has spoken highly of Romney’s and Giuliani’s chances when almost ignoring Thompson in the discussions. Why is that? It seems that now is the ideal time for Gingrich to come out with his official endorsement of Fred Thompson. Could it be that Gingrich only wants to be associated with the winning team?

Since July, what has changed for Gingrich to cool so much?

Here is the entire post from Tommy Oliver’s July 25, 2007 piece:

I have refrained for posting about this, as I had no confirmation besides internal sources, but have known this for a while, and have given a few subtle hints. Gingrich has been involved in Thompson’s policy briefings lately.

From Politico:

Newt Gingrich’s long, slow striptease over whether he will seek the presidency in 2008 looks like it might come to an unexpected conclusion: a date with Fred Thompson.

Publicly, Gingrich has been sending signals making clear that a presidential candidacy for him is becoming less likely. Privately, he and some of his closest advisers have been meeting with — and, in at least one prominent case, going to work for — the lobbyist-actor and former Tennessee senator.

The same day that Gingrich made his comments, his former communications director, Rich Galen, disclosed that he had signed on as an adviser to Thompson’s campaign in waiting. In an interview, Galen termed the coincidence “an unfortunate confluence of events,” denying that there was any link.

But that was not the only evidence of a possible Thompson-Gingrich alliance in 2008. Gingrich and his wife, Calista, had dinner with Thompson and his wife, Jeri, at the former senator’s home in McLean, Va., on July 16, according to two Republican sources close to both men. A Thompson aide would say only that “a good policy discussion” was had over the meal.

If a Gingrich endorsement of Thompson happens, it probably won’t be until at least October. For one thing, Thompson isn’t likely to formally announce his candidacy until after Labor Day. But Gingrich has also said repeatedly that he would hold off any decision until after he marks the 13th anniversary of the Contract With America — the manifesto that spurred the GOP takeover of the House in 1994 — by holding an online policy seminar in late September.

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Nathan W
Nathan W

New Iowa Poll & Gingrich

September 29th, 2007 | 3 Comments | Posted in 2008, Announcements, By State, Competitors, Gingrich, Iowa, Polls

A new Iowa poll was conducted by Newsweek. Romney is still holding strong in the hawkeye state.
Check out the results here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21036143/site/newsweek/

Republican Candidate Preference

Total

 

Likely Republican Caucus-Goer

25

Mitt Romney/Lean Romney

24

16

Fred Thompson/Lean Thompson

16

15

Rudy Giuliani/Lean Giuliani

13

7

John McCain/Lean McCain

9

6

Mike Huckabee/Lean Huckabee

12

3

Tom Tancredo/Lean Tancredo

3

3

Sam Brownback/Lean Brownback

2

2

Ron Paul/Lean Paul

5

1

Duncan Hunter/Lean Hunter

1

1

Other candidate/Lean other candidate

*

21

Total Undecided

15

In other news, Newt Gingrich will not run for President in 2008. It appears he does not want to give up the chairmanship to the American Solutions group he founded.
More info here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21047953/

Enjoy,
Nathan W.

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of John Cronin
John Cronin

Strong Support For Romney In St. Louis Straw Poll

I spent this past Saturday and Sunday morning at the Presidential endorsing convention of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies.

My own estimate of the crowd is about 600-700 delegates from around the country.

I was fortunate to get to meet and speak with some of the leading personalities attending the event. Among them were former Majority Leader, Congressman Tom Delay (a very gracious person), the Secretary of the California Republican Assembly, Gwen Dyrud, John Putnam, State Director of the Missouri Fair Tax organization, Janet Renner, Founder of Missourians Against Illegal Immigration, a staff member from Rod Jetton’s office (who was very enthusiastic in his support for Mitt Romney), three staffers from the conservative website VANGUARD.ORG, which I understand has been around for about a year and is currently under construction and several others whose names I was not able to get.

By the way the, VANQUARD.ORG site is touted as some real competition to the liberal site and George Soros surrogate, MoveOn.org.

This weekend was the most fun that I have had at a political meeting in a long time. I entered the air-conditioned tent where they had closed circuit coverage of the speakers as well as space for the vendors and the political booths. I literally was not in the tent 60 seconds before the first of many conversations that day started. The first people I spoke with were two very well informed women from Missourians Against Illegal Immigration. They were also Tom Tancredo supporters. We quickly found out that we were very much in sync with each other on the issues. Their hot button, was, of course, the Immigration issue. What struck me was the perception of both of them that MR was not very strong on immigration. I asked them a few more questions and directed them to this site. I said that one of my more recent posts dealt with the subject and that a 30 second Romney ad that is airing in Iowa concentrated on securing the border. Their reaction was very moving. They had not realized what Romney was saying about illegals in this country and they became very elated by the fact that a top-tier candidate was carrying their banner. I don’t mean to be presumptuous, but I think we just may have won two more backers.

From there, I spoke with two members of the Fair Tax organization. I told them from the outset that I was not familiar with the subject at all. So I listened and learned. We then covered a wide range of subjects and had a great time discussing various conservative positions.

As I worked my way around the tent, I spoke to person after person who ranged from respectful to enthusiastic in their reaction to my talking about MR. I was struck by the fact that no one had anything bad to say about Mitt. And believe me, that was not the case when it came to several other candidates. I realize that I am biased in MR’s favor, but I came away from the meeting with the impression that MR is widely respected within this organization.

There were several nationally noted speakers, including Tom DeLay. Speaker DeLay said that he left Congress because his indictment precluded him from holding any leadership post in the House and because he thought he could be more effective outside of Congress, under the circumstances. He said that he “spent five weeks on my knees” praying for guidance after he left Congress.

One passage of his speech that struck me was when he said that we (Republicans) don’t realize the power of the Clinton machine. Democrats believe in grassroots efforts: ringing doorbells, phone banks, etc. He said that although he believes that the best think tanks in Washington are the conservative ones, we haven’t learned to put our ideas into action. “Real people, meeting real people, grassroots organizations on the ground, rather than E-mails and mailers, getting involved down to the local level.”

On a personal note, Speaker DeLay said that “a cameraman follows me where ever I go.” He didn’t say so, but I got the impression that he was referring to “opposition research.”

He left this final thought. “Hillary Clinton has everything she needs to win. She has the money, she has the organization and she has the discipline. If we don’t get our act together, Hillary Clinton will be the next President.”

The highlight of the event, for me, was the voting. As I said in a previous post, I wanted to get a feel for the level of support for MR within the party, the people who can influence hundreds, if nor thousands of other people because of their extensive contacts.

Since I went to the meeting not as a delegate, but as an observer, I was not knowledgeable about the mechanics of the actual voting. It is my understanding the the voting went as follows.

1. Fred Thompson……43
2. Mitt Romney……….20
3. Ron Paul……………18
4. Duncan Hunter…….13
5. Tom Tancredo……..13
6. John Cox……………. 8
7. Newt Gingrich………. 4
8. Mike Huckabee……… 4
9. Tommy Thompson….. 3
10. John McCain………… 2
11. Rudy Guiliani………… 1
12. Sam Brownback…….. 1
13. Chuck Hegel…………. 0

Because their was no plurality, the voting then was thrown into what would have been known on the national level as a “brokered convention”. When I left, my understanding was that Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson were tied.

Summing up, I think it was a very educational and fun weekend. I can tell you that our candidate was very much on the minds of the people that I spoke with. One of the leaders of the convention said that he thought McCain was done. He went on to say, “Mitt Romney is one of the most persuasive candidates that I have ever known. All he needs to do is get into a room and start talking and people become Romney supporters. I wish his schedule had allowed him to be here this weekend. I would have loved to see him work this crowd.”

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Ann Marie Curling
Ann Marie Curling

No to McCain-Kennedy, Yes to Border Security - Newt Gingrich

June 21st, 2007 | 1 Comment | Posted in Gingrich, Immigration, Mitt Romney

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

John McCain Concedes Weakness

June 12th, 2007 | 1 Comment | Posted in Gingrich, Immigration, John McCain, Mitt Romney

Somehow, I missed this part of the George Stephanopoulos interview of McCain Sunday. Earlier I posted this piece about McCain’s impulsive and uninformed decision to concede the Ames Straw Poll to Romney. In that same interview, McCain admits that Gingrich may be right about his assessment of McCain’s weakness. You gotta give it to John McCain for being candid! No matter how often he changes, you always know what is on his mind:

John McCain tells ABC News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich “may be right” for thinking that the Arizona senator’s immigration stance is a bigger hurdle to the GOP’s 2008 presidential nomination than former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s support for abortion rights.
—–
“He may be right, for all I know,” McCain said of Gingrich’s immigration claim, “but I went [to the Senate] to do the hard things. I went there to do something. The easiest thing for me to do is go there and say ‘no’ to things.”

Read the entire article here —-> ABC News

Thanks to Phil Kenny for bringing this great quote to my attention. Phil Kenny and buddies are the founders of a great new site called UltiMitt. They are accepting registrations there and without revealing any of their plans, you will be glad you registered with them!

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Ann Marie Curling
Ann Marie Curling

Sorry, but this is just humorous…

Ron Paul 2nd In Utah Straw Poll.

Here are the numbers, are you ready??? You sure you’re ready??? OK…!

Mitt Romney 1042 (80.46%)
Ron Paul 70 (5.41%)
Fred Thompson (write-in) 15 (1.16%)
Tommy Thompson 16 (1.24%)
Rudy Giuliani 57 (4.40%)
Mike Huckabee 12 (0.93%)
John McCain 54 (4.17%)
Sam Brownback 8 (0.62%)
Tom Tancredo 19 (1.47%)
Stan Lockhart (write-in) 1 (0.08%)
Newt Gingrich (write-in) 1 (0.08%)

comMITTed? Contribute here!

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

Dr. Richard Land: “Kingmaker” & Romney as Statesman

From The Wall Street Journal - The Weekend Interview

Today’s Featured Article: “Who Would Jesus Pick?

“The religious right’s would-be kingmaker talks about the presidential candidates.”

null

Ms. Riley’s interview of Dr. Land is outstanding; Mr. Land’s points are thoughtful and intelligent. Richard Land is the highly respected ‘Southern Baptist Convention’s representative in Washington’ — his perspective and opinions of any presidential candidate are obviously influential. But more importantly, his insightful comments here cast an important light on the national debate regarding who should be the next standard bearer of conservatism and of the immutable Christian-Judeo values Americans expect their supreme secular leader to possess.
-
null
By Naomi Schaefer Riley
Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
-
Following are excerpts from this great interview (unless otherwise noted, these quotes are Dr. Land’s):

Mayor Giliani:

Rudy Giuliani didn’t score many points with social conservatives last week when he issued this impassioned endorsement of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a federal ban on “partial-birth” abortion: “I agree with it.” He certainly didn’t win over Richard Land, who has said he would never vote for Mr. Giuliani. . . “If he’ll lie to two wives, what makes you think he wouldn’t lie to you?” . . . we have Rudy Giuliani, a twice divorced, pro-choice, supporter of civil unions.
—–
But it seems there is just about nothing Rudy Giuliani could do to change Mr. Land’s mind about his candidacy. “Three is one too many spouses for most evangelicals,” he says. . . What bothers Mr. Land is the “circumstances of [Mr. Giuliani's] divorce and the fact that there is more than one of them.” It’s not exactly a distinction the Bible makes, as Mr. Land no doubt knows, but he may be right about how much spouse-hopping evangelicals will tolerate.

Governor Romney:

Mr. Land might, on the other hand, vote for Mitt Romney. He says that evangelical voters may be able to get over their problems with a Mormon. “Charitably speaking,” Mr. Land says, “they would call [Mormonism] the fourth Abrahamic religion. When they’re less charitable, they would call it a cult.” And they might even let him off the hook for his flip-flops on the social issues. “A lot of people in this country who are pro-life didn’t used to be.”

Mr. Land says that reporters have misunderstood what it means that Mr. Romney has changed his mind. “Why does the liberal media call it a flip-flop? Because they believe in the moral correctness of their pro-choice position. The only reason someone would move from the morally correct position, as they perceive it, to the morally incorrect position is because of political expediency. But religious conservatives believe that their position is the morally correct position. So they don’t see this as a flip-flop. They see this as a journey . . . as growth.”

“Hard-to-Get”:

Richard Land is a man waiting to be courted, and on behalf of religious conservatives he is playing hard to get. He wants “to make certain that we never become as taken for granted by the Republican Party as African-Americans have been taken for granted by the Democratic Party.” . . . With a bachelor’s degree from Princeton and a doctorate of philosophy from Oxford, he has often been credited with providing the intellectual heft behind the religious right’s political strategy.

-
null
Dr. Richard Land [Wikipedia]
President of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
-
Senator McCain:

John McCain, who voted against the gay marriage amendment and who crafted the campaign finance laws that have done much to damage the anti-abortion efforts of religious conservatives;

Senator Thompson:

. . . or perhaps Fred Thompson, who supported McCain-Feingold and says that gay marriage is a state issue. Mr. Land remains oddly upbeat, particularly about Mr. Thompson, the possibility of whose candidacy he finds “tantalizing.”

“The Unelectable Candidates”:

But he acknowledges the reality of his constituency’s situation: “Evangelicals would be very happy if Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback or Duncan Hunter were the nominee, but the problem with those three guys is they don’t give any indication they can win.” And he adds, “With Hillary Clinton looming on the horizon, electability is a very important issue.” . . . At the very least, the evangelical influence in the Republican primary will be diluted, with some religious conservatives thinking ahead to the general election and others going for the purest representative of their values. It is noteworthy that even among the unelectable candidates, evangelicals can’t make up their minds between a free-trade, open-immigration candidate like Sen. Brownback and a closed-borders protectionist like Rep. Hunter.

Governor Romney:

Mitt Romney is still a good possibility, but Mr. Land is waiting to see if the former Massachusetts governor will take his advice and give a major address on the way his faith influences his politics ( la JFK’s 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on his Catholicism).

Speaker Gingrich:

. . . Mr. Land wouldn’t vote for Newt Gingrich: “I am not a big enough hypocrite to have made character an issue with Bill Clinton and turn around and vote for men who broke their oaths to their wives.” Having been in his current position since 1988, Mr. Land has had more than enough opportunity to see Mr. Gingrich up close, and he has not been impressed: “When he was speaker, when they went into conference to negotiate, it was always our issues that got negotiated away and his economic issues that didn’t.” . . . Mr. Land suggests that Mr. Gingrich was good at paying lip service to evangelicals: “He always understood how important social conservatives were to the coalition.” But Mr. Land believes that many of them have learned their lesson: “I think most evangelicals still don’t trust him.”

Consequences of a Giuliani GOP win?

If Mr. Giuliani does somehow win the nomination, Mr. Land predicts that “you will see a drop in evangelical participation in the presidential election and in races below that.” Sounding more like a preacher warning of a coming plague, Mr. Land says, “even if the alternative is Hillary,” a lot of evangelicals will stay home.

Ms Riley’s entire Journal article is a must-read! Outstanding.

Notwithstanding Dr. Land’s perception of Fred Thompson, frankly he and the rest of the GOP candidates are literal light-weights when compared to Governor Romney’s long list of beefy credentials. One can argue about how Mitt Romney has grown more conservative as he has aged, but can any rational person actually think Governor Romney is inferior to any of the other candidates (Repub/Dem) when considering depth of executive experience, dozens of extraordinary business turn-arounds, and success at virtually everything he leads? Compare any of the men above to his intelligence, drive, determination, persistence, energy, capacity, etc. Some believe, if Romney is elected, he will be America’s most intelligent President ever - I do.

Romney has joint law and MBA degrees with Honors from Harvard, founded and ran what is arguably the most successful private equity firm in the world, got elected as a Republican governor in the most Democratic state in the Union (Massachusetts), has real values that he lives by (been married 36 years with five sons and 10 Grandkids), set an all time record for Republican Presidential fundraising (Q1/2007) by outdistancing by a wide margin John McCain and Rudy Giuliani (both of whom had huge advantages due to their name recognition) and brought the 2002 Olympic games from a $350 Million deficit to a $100 Million in profit while inspiring the nation with his presence, decisiveness, and commitment; and this as a three-year voluteer!

Mitt Romney is the only true leader and gifted statesman seeking the Office of President of the United States. His only ambition is to serve America in the family tradition which expects service to God, family, and nation.

No. None of the legislators and values-challenged politicians who attempt to compete with Mitt Romney even measure up to his stature.
.
~ RHR

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Nathan W
Nathan W

Contrasting Funds

Based on the link Jeff Fuller posted, I decided to do a little chart on total funds raised verses funds that came from maxed out donors. It’s quite telling:

Funds chart

I also enjoyed what Jeff pointed out in that Clinton and Giuliani have both maxed out more donors percentage wise than Romney despite what the MSM says.

Interesting how the MSM diss’ed McCain and praised Edwards even though they had relatively the same performance. Yet, McCain did not spend $400 on a haircut, doesn’t that count for something?

An interesting point is the difference in funds raised from the top three in each party verses the others. True, I didn’t include the other little guys from the democrat’s side ;-)

Nathan W.

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Mike Laub
Mike Laub

Rudy Giuliani on public funding of abortion: CNN, April 4, 2007

April 5th, 2007 | 2 Comments | Posted in Abortion, Gingrich

Yesterday Rudy reaffirmed his belief that there should be public funding of abortion. See the video here:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Abortion

~ Mike

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Ann Marie Curling
Ann Marie Curling

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich Acknowledges Having Affair During Clinton Impeachment

March 8th, 2007 | 6 Comments | Posted in Competitors, Gingrich

So much for “family values”. The only family values choice is Romney, period!

Edited by Matt: It’s so important he acknowledges it twice!

Share on Facebook


[ Copy this | Start New | Full Size ]