The Republican establishment in 2008, believing they knew better than us common folk, chose and pushed their golden-child on us, and he got annihilated by Obama. If they get their way again, Obama will win again.
The way Conservatives win elections is by running on and standing firm on their Conservative principles. Newt Gingrich's Conservatism has been proven time and again by his record, receiving an American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 90 percent. He was part of the Reagan team, Nancy Reagan having said at the 1995 Goldwater Institute dinner "Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt..." He has endorsements from proven Conservatives ranging from Michael Reagan to J.C. Watts.
At the same time, as Speaker of the House under Bill Clinton, he has proven he can work in a bipartisan manner to achieve much needed results while standing firm on his principles, sometimes taking on members of his own party to do what was right for the American people. He is a great thinker with bold ideas, and has proven he can convert these ideas into real working solutions, contrary to the inaccurate charges stating otherwise from his past disgruntled colleagues whom he had to take on in some issues. As far as Newt's "baggage", it has been out in the open for many years, thoroughly scrutinized and discussed. There are no surprises to be found here. Also important, Newt is strong in the debates. He will take Obama to the proverbial woodshed anytime.
Charles Purvis
Jackson, Ga.
Arizona Willie posted at 11:59 am on Wed, Feb 15, 2012.
Why is the EVT publishing a political advertisement / endorsement from someone who doesn't live in Arizona?
Why would anyone support the ethically challenged morally bankrupt Newt?
Would you really really want a person who had been forced to resign from Congress in disgrace and was fined $300,000 for ethics violations and who had divorced two wives who were fighting cancer as leader of the Free World?
In my opinion, anyone who says yes to that is declaring that they also have no ethics or morals so Newts lack of them is no problem for them.
Newt has more baggage than Southwest Airlines.
But I'm wondering --- who is this Charles Purvis from Georgia? He wouldn't be a paid employee of Newt's campaign by any chance?
Surely not.
Everybody in Georgia reads the East Valley Tribune.
So, by publishing this endorsement of Newt in the Vent section is the EVT endorsing Newt?
Why doesn't the EVT tell us the whole story?
They withhold the information that one of their contributors is a director of the Goldwater Institute and publish letters that are probably from Newts campaign people without fully indentifying the author. I suspect there is far more to Charles Purvis than we are being told.
StotheizzE posted at 12:52 pm on Wed, Feb 15, 2012.
This letter did not run in the print version of the Tribune, only online. It's that time of the year where political letters run everywhere and if this guy sent it to the Tribune, so be it. Feel free to write your own letter.
Crown posted at 1:16 pm on Wed, Feb 15, 2012.
Willie, you sir are exactly who Charles whoever he is was talking about. You watch CNN, ABC, FOX, NBC, CBS and refuse to get your information from any credible sources. That is why our country was duped in 96 and 08 and put forth less than best candidates because everyone listened to who the media wanted instead of making up their own minds based on facts. So I encourage you to go do your own fact check instead of just spouting off Romney talking points and you will probably find that Romney is the one who is morally incapable of being President as he has refused to be honest throughout the campaign.
Newt was not forced to resign, fact check it.
Newt did not pay a fine, fact check it.
Newt was cleared of all ethics charges by Democrats, they hated him the most and had to clear him on all charges, fact check it.
I seriously doubt the Newt campaign has the money to pay people to post remarks on newspaper sites.
Newt did not request a divorce, his wives did.
Ronald Reagan was previously married, Ronald Reagan was predicted to lose to GHW Bush in 80! RR was the red headed step child of the conservative movement but he was the only one out there fighting it. He won big and the RINO lost, then when GHW Bush ( said RINO) was given the nod on a silver platter in 88 he ruined it for himself by becoming moderate and losing to Clinton, then moderate Dole lost to Clinton in 96 and moderate McCain lost to Obama in 2008! Say what you want, believe what you want, I'll stick to facts! And what does it matter who Charles is? Are you so close minded that you are unwilling to accept an opinion from someone outside of your state? None of these candidates are running for President of Arizona, the are running for President of US. Grow up, and actually learn something along the way!
truth posted at 3:36 pm on Wed, Feb 15, 2012.
I would love to see Newt run against Obama. Some say we need more Christian values. Fact, Mississippi has the nation's highest rate of church attendance, and the highest murder rate . The liberal state of Vermont's murder rate on the other hand is 25 percent of the national average. Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, has the lowest divorce rate.[beam][beam]
In_God_We_Trust posted at 6:39 pm on Wed, Feb 15, 2012.
Even Newt would be better than the Obamanation we have now, but not my first choice.
sockratties posted at 7:49 am on Thu, Feb 16, 2012.
Well Charlie, which Newt would you like to see show up? Guess it’ll depend on who the audience is, because he will say whatever he thinks you want to hear. Look below regarding a whole passel of things:
Health-Insurance Mandate:
June 2007: "Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it."
May 16, 2011: "I am against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone because it is fundamentally wrong and I believe unconstitutional."
Cap-and-Trade:
February 2, 2007: "I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.”
April 21, 2008: "A carbon cap and trade system ... would lead to corruption, political favoritism, and would have a huge impact on the economy."
Climate Change:
April 10, 2007: "I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere."
November 8, 2011: “I actually don’t know whether global warming is occurring."
Paul Ryan's Budget Plan:
May 15, 2011: "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. .... [Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal] is too big a jump."
May 17, 2011: "I made a mistake. And I called Paul Ryan today, who's a very close personal friend and I said that. The fact is that I have supported what Ryan has tried to do on the budget."
Libya:
March 7, 2011: "Exercise a no-fly zone this evening ... Provide help to the rebels to replace [Qaddafi] ... All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes."
March 23, 2011: "I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi ... I would not have used American and European forces."
Criminal Court Trials for Suspected Terrorists:
November 22, 2005: "Well, I think if members of the Bush administration believe they have enough evidence to convict [Jose Padilla], going through the process of convicting him and holding him, I suspect, may be for the rest of his life without parole would not be -- would hardly be seen as a loss. I think this administration is still wrestling with what are the real ground rules for dealing with people who are clearly outside of normal warfare? They're not wearing a uniform. They're not part of an army. They are openly threatening to kill thousands or even millions of people."
January 4, 2010: "Why would you take a Nigerian national who just tried to blow up a plane over Detroit ... Why would you take that person, put them in the American criminal justice system, give them an attorney, read them their Miranda rights?
wdgnas posted at 8:20 am on Thu, Feb 16, 2012.
newt won in south carolina because he outspent romney in the negative advertising department. newt ,if he stays in, will win more southern state (bible belt) primaries with the same strategy and because romney is a MORMON. wait till the general election. the republicans will be whining about the amount of dollars coming from the democrats super pacs .
Arizona Willie posted at 10:08 am on Thu, Feb 16, 2012.
Crown, you marked yourself as a right wing nut job when you denied ABC, CNN, NBC etc. etc. as being credible news sources.
So I'm only going to waste so much time on you.
Here I have some quotes from the RIGHT WING NEWSMAX that covers the issue.
But, I'm sure, facts will not be able to penetrate your ideologically bound conciousness.
I'll even furnish the link.
---------
The report of the Select Committee on Ethics, titled “In the Matter of Representative Newt Gingrich,” was released Jan. 17, 1997. It stated that 70 people were interviewed during the investigation, and 150,000 pages of documents were reviewed.
The report stated that the committee, “by a roll call vote of 7-1, [is] recommending that Representative Gingrich be reprimanded and ordered to reimburse the House for some of the costs of the investigation in the amount of $300,000.”
Another quote from the same article:
" Peter Goss, the chairman of the ethics subcommittee that probed the matter, described the sanction as “[an] official reprimand and a $300,000 cost assessment to Mr. Gingrich as sanction for his violation of House rules and as partial reimbursement for the costs of the inquiry that ensued.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gingrich-refutes-ethics-fine/2012/01/25/id/425485
You can deny he was fined but he WAS ordered to pay $300,000. Some are calling it a " sanction " but you are playing semantic games when you claim he wasn't " fined ". He was ordered to pay $300,000 no matter what you call it. Some right wingers want to claim it wasn't a " fine " because it wasn't ordered by a court of law or other silly differentations.
Semantic games don't change the essence of the truth.
And, let's not forget Newmax is a right wing outfit whose purpose is to promote right wing politicos and ideology.
Not exactly an un-biased news organization.
Even they admit he was " sanctioned " to put the best terminology on it.