Gingrich Gets Big New Hampshire Endorsement

CatholicCrusader · Nov 27, 2011

Gingrich Gets Big New Hampshire Endorsement
Published November 27, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/27/gingrich-gets-big-new-hampshire-endorsement/

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has received the coveted endorsement of the highly influential Manchester Union Leader in New Hampshire, a boost for the 2012 Republican presidential candidate and a blow to rival Mitt Romney.

The endorsement of the conservative newspaper's editorial board places an exclamation point on Gingrich's impressive surge from has-been GOP contender to frontrunner, and sets him apart as the new anti-Romney candidate among his competitors

"Newt Gingrich is by no means the perfect candidate. But Republican primary voters too often make the mistake of preferring an unattainable ideal to the best candidate who is actually running. In this incredibly important election, that candidate is Newt Gingrich," the editorial board wrote in Sunday's edition.

The Leader added in a banner headline across the front page that the former Georgia lawmaker has something the rest of the candidates don't -- a track record of success in Washington..........<SNIP>

Rest of story: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/27/gingrich-gets-big-new-hampshire-endorsement/

DodgeFB · Nov 27, 2011

I think the paper just added more mud to the water.

CatholicCrusader · Nov 27, 2011

I am voting for Newt, so I am happy with the endorsement

DodgeFB · Nov 27, 2011

CatholicCrusader said:
I am voting for Newt, so I am happy with the endorsement

Good luck with that. I just don't think he can be elected president. And I was a fan of his for years. I really think we are going to blow a great chance for a new president. But look at the retreads and clowns we have put up.

CatholicCrusader · Nov 27, 2011

DodgeFB said:
Good luck with that. I just don't think he can be elected president. And I was a fan of his for years. I really think we are going to blow a great chance for a new president. But look at the retreads and clowns we have put up.

You may or may not be right. Its hard to say. There are pros AND cons in a Gingrich/Obama match-up.

DodgeFB · Nov 27, 2011

CatholicCrusader said:
You may or may not be right. Its hard to say. There are pros AND cons in a Gingrich/Obama match-up.

I would love to have just one that I believe with all my heart was "the one". But if we as Republicans have such mixed feelings how can we expect independents and a Democrat or two to join us?

Patrick · Nov 27, 2011

CatholicCrusader said:
I am voting for Newt, so I am happy with the endorsement

You're aware, aren't you, that he approved the illegal alien "path to citizenship" in a recent debate? Also that he got real cozy with Pelosi on GW? He's morphed into a RINO in his old age.

CatholicCrusader · Nov 27, 2011

Patrick said:
You're aware, aren't you, that he approved the illegal alien "path to citizenship" in a recent debate? Also that he got real cozy with Pelosi on GW? He's morphed into a RINO in his old age.

Yes, I heard him. I usually agree with your posts, but here you are wrong.

The laws of the land need to be enforced, yet at the same time discretion needs to be used. How many of us have been pulled over for speeding and gotten a break & just a warning by the police? Does that mean the officer ignores the law? Of course not. And did we complain? Hell no. Newt is saying that we need to seal the border and deport the criminals, but at the same time we need to excersize a little common sense when it comes to a family that may have lived here 25 years & works & pays their taxes, especially since it is impossible to deport 11 million people anyways. Some of THOSE families are actually better Americans than our own welfare-loving Occupy-Wall-Street citizens. Who would you rather boot out of the country: OWS vermin who just happen to be citizens? Or church-going, tax-paying, hard working members of the community who failed to get properly documented?

Newt is talking about common sense. If you think even the most purist, perfect, conservative president is going to try to deport 11 million people then you are nuts.

The common sense approach is: Tightly seal the border first, deport the bad elements second, and figure out how to have the good people maybe pay a fine or something as punishment but allow them to stay.

Patrick · Nov 27, 2011

CatholicCrusader said:
Yes, I heard him. I usually agree with your posts, but here you are wrong.

The laws of the land need to be enforced, yet at the same time discretion needs to be used. How many of us have been pulled over for speeding and gotten a break & just a warning by the police? Does that mean the officer ignores the law? Of course not. And did we complain? Hell no. Newt is saying that we need to seal the border and deport the criminals, but at the same time we need to excersize a little common sense when it comes to a family that may have lived here 25 years & works & pays their taxes, especially since it is impossible to deport 11 million people anyways. Some of THOSE families are actually better Americans than our own welfare-loving Occupy-Wall-Street citizens. Who would you rather boot out of the country: OWS vermin who just happen to be citizens? Or church-going, tax-paying, hard working members of the community who failed to get properly documented?

Newt is talking about common sense. If you think even the most purist, perfect, conservative president is going to try to deport 11 million people then you are nuts.

The common sense approach is: Tightly seal the border first, deport the bad elements second, and figure out how to have the good people maybe pay a fine or something as punishment but allow them to stay.

Why don't we apply that to theft? You pay a fine or something but can keep what you've stolen. We'll have to agree to disagree - I don't think lawbreaking invaders are "better americans". Amnesty leads to more illegals. Reagan signed the 1986 amnesty for about a million illegals. At the time, he spoke the same way Newt is now - that it was humane. Result? 25 years later we have 20 million illegals (at least before the recession, and the ones who left will be back after it's over.) How many other laws should we ignore on the basis of "common sense"? Why should the people who get in line and follow the immigration laws be made to look like fools for following the law? Why reward people based on how long they have successfully evaded the law? There's no way you're ever going to "tightly seal the border" - it's 1500 miles long, and the canadian border is thousands of miles long. The way to solve the problem is take away the incentive for being here - jobs that americans should be doing. To compete in the world, we need high-IQ asian and european immigrants, not serve as the dumping ground for illiterate mexican peasants.

CatholicCrusader · Nov 27, 2011

Patrick said:
Why don't we apply that to theft?........

We do. We apply it to almost all crimes.

People with good records and good community ties often just get probation and released for shoplifiting. Others who have bad records and are a flight risk often get jailed for the same exact crime.

As I said, discretion and common sense is called for

Patrick · Nov 27, 2011

CatholicCrusader said:
We do. We apply it to almost all crimes.

People with good records and good community ties often just get probation and released for shoplifiting. Others who have bad records and are a flight risk often get jailed for the same exact crime.

As I said, discretion and common sense is called for

"Common sense":

- import illegals when 16% of americans are out of work
- help push up medical system costs with people who loot the system
- import millions of future democrat voters to ensure permanent political control by people like obama.
- balkanize the country so we end up like canada
- pull in the lowest quality immigrants just at the time the world has become super-competitive.

COMMON SENSE

CatholicCrusader · Nov 27, 2011

Look Patrick, you need to start from an absolute and procceed from there. And one absolute is: We cannot deport 11 million people. It simply will not happen. So an alternative must be found for those we want to keep, and then we can deport the rest.

Plus, we seal the border so that no more come, and thats that

Patrick · Nov 27, 2011

CatholicCrusader said:
Look Patrick, you need to start from an absolute and procceed from there. And one absolute is: We cannot deport 11 million people. It simply will not happen. So an alternative must be found for those we want to keep, and then we can deport the rest.

Plus, we seal the border so that no more come, and thats that

"11 million"??

Spare me the lib media fiction, I get enough on the nightly news, thank you.

Your very choice of words shows you don't get it. By "deport" them, I imagine you mean find them, arrest them, put them in detention, put them up for an immigration hearing, etc etc, which is indeed impossible. That you are saying that shows you're not paying attention to what I said - probably doing a quick scan of my posts and then just repeating yourself. Try real hard to pay attention for just a few seconds, OK?

In TAKING AWAY THE INCENTIVE, namely JOBS, the invaders become SELF-DEPORTING, which is very effective.

PS: You advertise yourself as catholic. May I ask what your connection is with the catholic church? Are you just a regular church member? Official? Some kind of activist?

CatholicCrusader · Nov 27, 2011

Patrick said:
"11 million"?? Spare me the lib media fiction, I get enough on the nightly news, thank you.

I am not married to the number. So how many are there?

Patrick said:
........By "deport" them, I imagine you mean find them, arrest them, put them in detention, put them up for an immigration hearing, etc etc, which is indeed impossible. That you are saying that shows you're not paying attention to what I said - probably doing a quick scan of my posts and then just repeating yourself. Try real hard to pay attention for just a few seconds, OK?

In TAKING AWAY THE INCENTIVE, namely JOBS, the invaders become SELF-DEPORTING, which is very effective..........

So you are saying to fire them all so they have no work? You would do that to a church-going family who has been here for decades and has strong community ties? They will just go on welfare and go from being a contribitor to the system to being a drag on the system.

And what of the other less respectful ones? They might just turn to the underground economy, or maybe crime.

Patrick said:
..........PS: You advertise yourself as catholic. May I ask what your connection is with the catholic church? Are you just a regular church member? Official? Some kind of activist?

Just a regular church member, but one who takes it seriosuly.

Patrick · Nov 27, 2011

CatholicCrusader said:
So you are saying to fire them all so they have no work?

Yes - they are working here ILLEGALLY. What part of "ILLEGAL" don't you get?

You would do that to a church-going family who has been here for decades and has strong community ties?

What's wrong with them going back to Mexico, where the vast majority of them have strong family and other ties? Are the churches in Mexico still open?

They will just go on welfare and go from being a contribitor to the system to being a drag on the system.

No, if they're GONE, which they will be if there are no jobs for them, they won't be a drag. They're a drag >>>NOW<<<.

And what of the other less respectful ones? They might just turn to the underground economy, or maybe crime.

They've ALREADY turned to crime - eg 1/4 of the huge california prison system inmates are illegal aliens.

Just a regular church member, but one who takes it seriosuly.

Why I wondered: the Church is big illegal alien invasion supporter. The Church officials look at lots of empty pews, and the difficulty in recruiting young men for the priesthood, see the overwhelmingly catholic illegals as replacements, and become yet ANOTHER corrupted constituency which supports the invasion. Others are of course the manual labor intensive industries and agriculture, the building industry, the hotel and restaurant industry, and worst of all politicians - all finding an angle of how they can profit from wrecking our country.

CatholicCrusader · Nov 28, 2011

Patrick said:
.......Why I wondered: the Church is big illegal alien invasion supporter.........

This is really a subject for another thread, as there are much deeper issues involved here, and its not as simple as you are making it out to be. When I gather my thoughts I'll start a thread and let you know.

David · Nov 28, 2011

Patrick said:
What's wrong with them going back to Mexico, where the vast majority of them have strong family and other ties?

Civil war?

Abbott Presley · Feb 6, 2021

Abbott Presley · Feb 7, 2021

Gingrich Gets Big New Hampshire Endorsement

Similar threads