Newt Gingrich Secures Endorsement of Manchester Union Leader


Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich just scored the endorsement of New Hampshire’s most prominent newspaper, The Manchester Union Leader. This is a coup for the former Speaker who has been rising in the polls slowly but steadily against the once-presumed nominee, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Here is recent media coverage of the endorsement detailing today’s announcement.

YouTube Preview Image

Another great clip of Newt explaining what value(s) we have left behind and why it is so important:

YouTube Preview Image

Comments

  1. True Conservative says:

    This is very interesting, and I confess I’m not sure what to make of it.

    Politically, it is a huge win for Newt, it certainly demonstrates to the (R) nation that he is man that can be taken seriously by the mainstream media.

    Intellectually, I think Newt has the best debate skills in the mix and will put Obama on the run. However, Newt is gaff prone and he has several flip-flops already on the books for this campaign. Add in some personal history that makes him, at times, seem like a do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do kind of guy.

    Value voters will get past these issues, they have no choice. They will never vote for Obama, so Newt’s base is secure (should he prevail in the primary). I worry, however, how the mainstream voters, the right of the left and the left of the right, will process that information.

    The key is for Newt to become Clinton-esque: have people vote for him because he is most likely to get them, the voters, to that place in the American dream they desire.

    (You may recall that Clinton won the support of Chicago’s Cardinal even though the two disagreed over the right to life. The Cardinal stated that Clinton gave him 80-percent of what he wanted, whereas Bush Sr. gave him less, even with a pro-life stance.)

    • Conservative American says:

      NOTICE: The above poster, “True Conservative”, is a same-sex marriage liberal posing as a conservative.

      • True Conservative says:

        NOTICE: Cyberharrasment is a crime in Arizona. ARS Section 13A-11-8.

        I would genuinely prefer it not come to that.

        Do whatever it is that you need to do to calm yourself and then rejoin the conversation as a civil participant.

        • Seriously? You are threatening legal action to stifle free speech here on this blog?

        • Conservative American says:

          Go for it, LOL! :-)

          Oh, I’m quite calm. I’m calmly informing readers that you are a same-sex marriage liberal, which is fact.

        • Conservative American says:

          When we go to court, we’ll be operating under the rules of the court. You won’t be able to hide behind your “policies” and you can be compelled to answer questions. When we’re done, it will have been proven in a court of law that you are a same-sex marriage liberal. I like it! :-)

        • Conservative American says:

          Oh yeah, and don’t forget that when you testify in court that you’ll be under oath. If you fail to testify truthfully you will become subject to a charge of perjury. Perjury is a Class 4 felony in Arizona so, if convicted, you would become a convicted felon.

          In most jurisdictions, being convicted of a felony results in automatic disbarment. You would lose your law license and be unable to practice. So, you won’t be able to play your games on the witness stand. You will be compelled to tell the truth or risk losing your law license. Nice!

          Have a nice day, TC! :-)

      • CA, how is that about this article?

        You should actually comment about the story, not continue a creepy obsession, it really makes you look petty.

      • Tom McCaffrerty says:

        Don’t let his childish stalking bother you, it’s just making him look foolish.
        Barry Goldwater would be called a liberal in this crowd.

        • Yeah, CA is the most threatened poster I’ve ever seen, complete nutter. But, on a site that publishes unsourced pictures, claims someone is an illegal alien, attacks a politician for selling ping pong balls, and always rushes to print whatever unsourced, unproven dreck they can get (Lewis steals from kids!), he fits in. He is emblematic of what has happened to the Republican party, its turned into the ignorant “Gomer” party.

    • ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
      True Conservative says:
      November 27, 2011 at 8:06 pm
      The key is for Newt to become Clinton-esque: have people vote for him because he is most likely to get them, the voters, to that place in the American dream they desire.
      :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

      ⊙.☉ ⊙.☉ ⊙.☉

      THAT’s “Conservative” opinion? Sell ‘em snake oil, blame Conservatives, do a Clinton?

      • True Conservative says:

        No, it’s explain that he’s the best opinion for getting people to the American Dream.

        Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

        • You assume we need a president to lead us Stalin-style to our “dream,” when what Americans need is for government to get out of the way so we can work on the “pursuit of happiness” by ourselves.

          • True Conservative says:

            Huh?

            Where did I write anything such as that?

            I specifically did not use the word “lead.” I discussed how people elect a leaders that represent the “best option” by which people can achieve the American Dream.

            For me, that includes getting government out of the way of the people.

            I’m not sure if it’s your reading comprehension that is off, or that you suffer from the delusions of confirmation bias, either way its interfering with your ability to process information properly.

            • Conservative American says:

              Being married, starting a family and raising your biological children is part of the American dream. That can only happen, however, if marriage is defined as being exclusively the union of one man and one woman.

              Share with us your conservative definition of “marrige”, TC.

              • So, I guess hetero adoptive parents and children are not part of the American Dream?

                What about us hetero childfree adults?

              • Conservative American says:

                They are a good substitute for the full dream. Sometimes people have to do the best they can in the circumstances in which they find themselves. Others reach out to help those who have no home or family. That’s a good thing.

                Klute wrote: “What about us hetero childfree adults?”

                The term is “childless”. Childfree makes children sound like something bad to be avoided like smoking.

                What about hetero childless adults like you? If the life you have chosen were the American dream to be aspired to, America would die out in a single generation.

              • “They are a good substitute for the full dream.”

                So, you’re of the opinion that adoptive parents and children are less than biological parents and children.

                “The term is ‘childless’. Childfree makes children sound like something bad to be avoided like smoking.”

                Childless implies I’m missing out on something.

                “If the life you have chosen were the American dream to be aspired to, America would die out in a single generation.”

                Or maybe there just isn’t one American Dream? That it’s more than just the little cookie cutter one you see.

              • Conservative American says:

                I’m of the opinion that those who have to adopt, because of reproductive issues, do, in fact, miss out on the full American dream.

                Klute wrote: “Childless implies I’m missing out on something.”

                Oh! BEAUTIFUL, Klute! NOW we have a REAL insight into the thinking of a supporter of homosexual marriage!

                You think that by not having children you are not missing out on anything! NOW we can clearly see what you think of children and how little you value them. That makes an airtight case for why tradtional marriage, the union of one man and one woman, must be preserved AND why homosexuals should be banned from adopting children. Thanks for that!

                Klute wrote: “Or maybe there just isn’t one American Dream? That it’s more than just the little cookie cutter one you see.”

                Let’s see. Frist you want to redefine marriage. Then you want to redefine family. Now you want to redefine the American dream. In other words, you want to destroy everything which makes America America and replace it with an amorphous mish mash where anything goes. Sorry, no sale!

                If you don’t like the American definition of marriage, if you don’t like the American definition of family, if you don’t like the definition of the American dream, then get your sorry liberal butt to some country whose definitions you DO like because you aren’t going to remake, tear down and destroy America, buddy!

              • “I’m of the opinion that those who have to adopt, because of reproductive issues, do, in fact, miss out on the full American dream.”

                You really are monstrous, aren’t you?

              • Conservative American says:

                Klute wrote: “Childless implies I’m missing out on something.”

                You really are monstrous, aren’t you?

              • I don’t look down at anyone and think less of them because God or nature decided they can’t reproduce. Truly, I am the monster.

              • Conservative American says:

                I don’t look down on anyone and think less of them because they can’t reproduce either. Where did I say, quote me, that I look down at and think less of people who can’t reproduce?

                Yet once again you are being disingenuous, attempting to put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. Fortunately, every comment in this blog is written, a matter of record and can be referred back to. So, you can’t get away with that left wing, liberal tactic here. Sorry about that, Klute!

    • choicefreedom says:

      I’m bringing the “conversation” back to the subject matter… Newt
      For anyone interested in this man’s history and who doesn’t want to spend hours doing research. The following website contains the best expose’ that I have seen to date…

      http://therepublicanmother.blogspot.com/2011/11/thank-you-newt-for-ethanol-gas.html

  2. Gee, what a shock. Gingrich vomits amnesty in the GOP debate and now picks up a union endorsement. Who will be next, La Raza? It will be interesting to see how long the pro-illegal media keeps him on life support before he joins the ranks of Rick Perry; or will he be spared that fate by elite powdered-ass Republicans that believe Gingrich’s personal brand of treason is purer than others and/or has the smell of that “intelligence” he is renowned for? Maybe they will open their wallets to keep him afloat for a few primaries to see if manure really sticks to the wall. No doubt liberals want him in the race which will guarantee another Obama term. The theory that the two-party oligarchy is simply trading off eight-years terms is beginning to look a lot less like theory.

    • True Conservative says:

      FWIW: The Manchester Union is a newspaper, it is not a labor union.

      • facepalm

        geez…how hard is it to understand that the Manchester Union is a newspaper?

        Wingnuts…constantly living down to a stereotype…

        • I meet Democrats who think Egypt is a pueblo, and I am NOT making that up. Why would anyone around Arizona automatically know the name of a newspaper in New Hampshire?

          That’s a lack of information of something that’s 3,000 miles away, not an indication of intelligence levels, so put your moth-eaten stereotype back in in the drawer.

          • First sentence in the story, “Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich just scored the endorsement of New Hampshire’s most prominent newspaper.”

            Reading is fundamental, quit making excuses by coming up with some anecdotal “they did something stupid too” argument.

    • Zoo, I am not crazy about his stance on immigration, but what I really like about it is not a pathway to citizenship and can never vote. But I still want the Supremes to rule on birthright citizenship, if these people are coming here for jobs because their country is so dysfunctional then why do they want citizenship for their kids?

      • Proposing that amnestied Mexicans could never vote is absurd, voter rolls throughout the country are loaded with illegals already. The 9th District Court (two of a three-judge panel including Sandra Day O’Liberal) ruled one year ago that Arizona’s 2004 Prop 200 provision requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote “unconstitutional.” A citizen’s group in Washington state reviewing voter rolls found over 2,000 illegals registered who, when called for jury duty, claimed immunity because they were not citizens.

        The checked-pants profit-sucking Republicans with tax loopholes up their spincters supporting amnesty couldn’t care less about the nation-killing tax burden for importing and legalizing poverty. Adding to the SCOTUS-mandated $10-20K annual K-12 cost for each invader brat and the incalculable price tag for entire-household-healthcare would be the infamous Earned Income Credit, sending billions in refunds to every invader abode with 2,5, or 10 invaderettes on their dependant list. The entire concept of amnesty for Mexico’s conquest is criminally insane as is Newton Leroy Gingrich.

  3. Ugly Facts says:

    SW wins this week’s contest for most ambiguous headline.

  4. Mike Triggs says:

    I have several gay married friends who have biological children by way of a surrogate mother. And in one instance the sister of one of the partners actually was the egg donor. Sure sounds like a family to me.

    And I would be willing to bet it won’t be long before their family status will be recognized nationwide. Maybe not this year or the next but time is on the side of those of us who support equality.

    • Which then begs the question as to why the kids of these families are forming “support groups.” Something ain’t right in paradise.

    • Conservative American says:

      Correction, MT. Two people of the same sex are incapable of producing biological children. One of the adults having custody of the child did not contribute any genetic material whatsoever.

      • Well, gosh, adoptive parents have zero genetic connection to their children, so…

        “Conservative American, November 28, 2011 at 1:26 pm”

        “Being married, starting a family and raising your biological children is part of the American dream.”

        Are adoptive parents part of the American Dream?

        What about childfree couples, are we part of the American Dream?

        • Conservative American says:

          Those who have to adopt because of reproductive issues absolutely miss out on the full American dream.

          It’s not “childfree”, it’s “childless”. You make chidren sound like something to be avoided like smoking.

          Childless couples, without doubt, miss out on the full American dream.

          • “Childless couples, without doubt, miss out on the full American dream.”

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

            That’s the American Dream and I live it every day I draw breath. I pursue happiness (I even catch it on occasion), and I don’t need your dictatorial vision of what the “American Dream” is to guide me along my path.

            “The place you are right now, God circled on a map for you.” – Hafiz

            • Conservative American says:

              That’s not the American dream. That is the Declaration of Independence. Those are the principles which allow us to live the American dream. Duh!

              Obviously you DO need my “dictatorial” vision of what the American dream is because you can’t tell the difference between that and the Delcaration of Independence, LOL!

              “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.” Leviticus 18:22

  5. Mike Triggs says:

    I’m thinking a Gingrich/Huntsman ticket has a nice ring to it. They are clearly the two smartest men in the race. And the mix of Old School/Young Gun, Conservative/Moderate, Catholic/Mormon, Top 1%/Top 1%, Naghty/Nice has a nice ring to it.

  6. Mike Triggs says:

    Wanumba – it t only takes two of anything to form a support group..and that’s not necessarily a bad thing! And burlesque for you but a truly loving family would Hecuba picture most people would see.

    • Conservative American says:

      Two gay people having custody of a child or children does not constitute a “family”. It constitutes a tragedy.

      • Thank God attitudes like yours are dying out.

        And whether we do it by public vote, judicial fiat, legislative vote, or presidential order – doesn’t matter.

        But I’m sure you’ll find some lovely friends in Qom and Havana who agree with your point of view, so hey, at least you’re not alone, ConAm.

        • Conservative American says:

          Dying out? When has homosexual marriage been put to a vote and passed? Dream on!

          • Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka wasn’t voted on either, and probably wouldn’t have passed if it had been voted on in Alabama either. Tough luck for George Wallace.

            • Conservative American says:

              Homosexual marriage WAS voted on in California and it lost. It was voted on in Maine and it lost. Tough luck for Tim Gill, LOL!

              • Yeah, people denied their equal rights, that’s hilarious.

              • Conservative American says:

                What “rights” might those be? The Supreme Court of The United States has not found homosexual “marriage” to be a constitutional right. So what “equal rights” are you talking about???

              • So you don’t believe rights are granted by God, but by man. ConAm does not beleive in the freedom other than what he is told he has. Got it.

              • Conservative American says:

                “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” Matthew 22:21

                Nowhere is it written that homosexual “marriage” is a God-given right. It is not and will not be a legal constitutional right unless and until the Supreme Court of The United States rules that it is.

                Now if you don’t like the way our court system works, either seek to change it or go to some other country with a court system that you do like.

  7. Mike Triggs. says:

    CA- in your twisted way of looking at the world, I’m sure it is. Of course you have never met the family. And parental DNA has never been a requirement of being a family as every adoptive family will attest.

    • Conservative American says:

      Twisted? It is homosexuality which is twisted. Homosexual behavior is abnormal and sexually deviant. As an adult you are welcome to do as you please but to put children in the care of homosexuals constitutes child abuse.

      • Do you actually know any homosexuals, ConAm?

        • Conservative American says:

          Yes. Do you?

          • Yes. Mostly other poets. An ex. A few family members.

            Now, these homosexuals that you know, do you tell them they are twisted, and deviant, and abnormal to their faces?

            • Conservative American says:

              Nice try at gross distortion, Klute. Let’s look at what I acutally wrote rather than what you are attempting to imply that I wrote.

              “It is homosexuality which is twisted. Homosexual behavior is abnormal and sexually deviant.” That is what I actually wrote.

              Where in what I wrote do you find that I said that homosexual individuals are twisted? Show me where I said that. Quote me.

              Where in what I wrote do you find that I said that homosexual individuals are deviant. Show me where I said that. Quote me.

              Where in what I wrote do you find that I said that homosexual individuals are abnormal. Show me where I said that. Quote me.

              I said that HOMOSEXUALITY is twisted, NOT homosexual individuals.

              I said that HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR is abnormal and sexually deviant and NOT that homosexuals are abnormal and sexually deviant.

              For someone who is an author, you certainly don’t pay very close attention to what you read. Need glasses?

              • I’m not gong to play your semantic games, ConAm and I pay very close attention. I know exactly what you mean. I’m sure you love the sinner, hate the sin, pay all the lip service you’re required to pay to give yourself cover for your twisted little soul.

              • Conservative American says:

                Really? You know what I mean?

                No, you don’t know what I mean. I know what I mean and I know what I wrote.

                What I wrote is a matter of record for all to see. Any meanings you try to read into it are totally irrelevant. That’s the nice thing about putting things in writing.

                Klute wrote: “…for your twisted little soul.”

                ROFL, ROFL, ROFL!!!!!!!! :-)

                So I never said that anyone is twisted but YOU have no problem saying that my soul is twisted. Who is calling people twisted?

                If you don’t want to play what you call my “semantic games”, then don’t. Simply shut your fat liberal trap, LOL! It’s really that easy, Klute.

              • Con, your projection is very telling.

                BTW, I have friends that adopted 2 siblings and those kids are extremely normal, as are the parents, one used to be a very very powerful figure in DC working with people you see in the news most every day. It wasn’t an issue for them (republicans and democrats), because it was this person’s own business.

                But, I guess two gay parents is much worse to you than parents that beat and abuse their kids? Because its “God’s” way?

                Con, someone upthread pegged you as a monster, they were partially right, but monsters evoke fear, you just evoke unintentional laughter and a tiny bit of pity. You keep standing where you are, the world will continue to move past you, and folk like will become more and more insignificant and more fringe-like.

              • Conservative American says:

                There are gay “parents” who beat and abuse their kids too. It’s a matter of court record. So don’t try to pull that liberal crap with me. As ususal, you are being disingenuous by offering a false choice.

                Obviously you are confusing me with someone who cares what an anti-American, ultra-left liberal like you thinks. Sit on it, Pinko!

  8. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    True Conservative says:
    November 27, 2011 at 8:06 pm
    The key is for Newt to become Clinton-esque: have people vote for him because he is most likely to get them, the voters, to that place in the American dream they desire.
    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    Back to the subject of Newt.
    It’s a jaw-dropping concept that Newt has to go “Clinton” when Newt was the “Anti-Clinton” who upended decades of Democrat lock-grip on Congress with his “Contract With America.”

    Newt didn’t demonize ANYONE in that and stuck to Conservative principles and did VERY VERY well. That the Democrats and the media and the RINOs were enraged and pulled out everything they could to harass him at the time doesn’t make the principles less valid.

    What Conservatives have to learn is how to cut through all that assault and deliver the message INTACT. The public LOVES it when they get to review and consider Conservative principles without the fog, distortions and outright lying that are designed to confuse people.

    • True Conservative says:

      I thought you were going to post on-subject?

      My comments seem to have gone over your head. If I were to write Newt needs to be like Clinton, he needs to win more votes than his opponents, you’d come back with “no he doesn’t, he needs to have less votes because he’s not Clinton.”

      Because you lack the ability to think analytically about how politics and elections work (see also: Wanumba’s advice to Pearce on how to defeat Lewis) such that you can appreciate the political skill that Clinton displayed in winning two terms, let me dumb down my statement to your pedestrian level.

      Given Newt’s personal flaws – his divorces, his affairs, his financial scandals and his gaffs – he can still win. History has demonstrated that the electorate will look past such flaws if it is convinced the candidate will, despite his personal flaws, maintain the policies and style of governance they seek.

      I understand your dislike for Clinton, but just because the man said the sky is up doesn’t mean you have to immediately declare that it is down.

      • Newt’s already proven he can win by NOT being like Clinton.
        You do not have to call people obnoxious names and insults if it doesn’t harmonize with your analysis. I understood your point and I disagreed.
        Conservatives do not win by aping Democrats.

        If you were looking for a great communicator to buttress your point, why didn’t you pick the obvious Republican Conservative, Ronald Reagan instead of a disgraced Democrat whose legacy gets smaller and more taudry as the years go by?
        Strange advice then to encourage Newt to go that route.

        • True Conservative says:

          I didn’t pick Reagan not only because he is often mocked on this board by the far-right but also because Reagan’s sole “indiscretion” was being divorced. Not so much (so little?) for Newt and Slick Willy. It was an inept analogy.

          Further, Clinton wasn’t a great communicator, he was a great politician. Comparing the mutual respect Reagan held with the electorate and the “hold-your-nose” relationship Clinton “enjoyed” is both intellectually and morally vapid.

          True conservatives and value voters will have to hold their noses for Newt, as will the right-wing of the (D) party, but he can be elected.

          At one point you seem to be agreeing with me – that voters will see past Newt’s problems to respect his principles – but then you go back to disagreeing with me because I invoked the lessons that come from Clinton. At the end of the day, Newt was forced out of office in scandal, Clinton was not. Newt needs to up his game.

          Again, I note that will claiming to understand my point, you demonstrate that you do not. When you write “Newt’s already proven he can win by NOT being like Clinton” you demonstrate that you are still hung-up on the false assertion that I am encouraging Newt to adapt Clinton’s personal, moral or philosophical approach. I am not.

          I am encouraging Newt to demonstrate that despite his personal failings, the people should trust him to deliver the style of governance they desire. I am also encouraging him, if he is nominated, to get more votes than his opponent. In both regards, I am encouraging him to be Clinton-esque.

          Perhaps you want Newt to get less votes than his opponent, just to prove he’s the anti-Clinton? We tried that when we nominated McCain.

          • Conservative American says:

            Like U. S. Senator Jim DeMint has done, provide is with you definition of marriage.

          • :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
            True Conservative says:
            November 29, 2011 at 8:07 am
            When you write “Newt’s already proven he can win by NOT being like Clinton” you demonstrate that you are still hung-up on the false assertion that I am encouraging Newt to adapt Clinton’s personal, moral or philosophical approach. I am not.

            I am encouraging Newt to demonstrate that despite his personal failings, the people should trust him to deliver the style of governance they desire
            ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

            Newt did all that with the CONTRACT WITH AMERICA which was pitted DIRECTLY against everything POLITICALLY Clinton stood for and continues to stands for.
            That’s POLITICS, not personal.

            The American public voted for it in DROVES and scared the daylights out of the Democrats who couldn’t win against those common sense and fair political priorities so they went for politics of personal destruction… Clinton terminology.

  9. Nordine Crub says:

    I’m guessing CA probably thinks Jerice Hunter, the biological mother of little Jhesseye Shockley should be the 2011 Mother of the Year.

  10. Nordine Crub says:

    Wanumba Honey – no lower than CA’s comment about two gay people having custody of a child or children constituting a tragedy or ccpnstituting child abuse.

    • Well, death is not possible to fix or debate, while the other is still open for discussion, isn’t that so? And CA hasn’t hurt anyone nor intends to … just ruffled some feathers in a debate.

      Not equivalent at all.

      And we have lot of kids in a lot of grades who tell us everything that goes on with their classmates and the lack of self-less parenting is appalling, plenty of heteros and gays both are guilty of putting selfish wants and vanities over the good of children. It’s like this generation thinks children are burdens that cramp their style or little trophies to parade around .. all to enhance the egos of the adults. The kids return the lack of caring with self-hating acts like cutting and drugs.

      Folsom STreet Fair in San Fran had a gay couple parading around with their adopted toddler in black with a black studded dog collar on. Gads! Then I witness a eight-year walking out of McDs farfar away and the little girls’ got literally half-assed pants on .. pants designed and manufactured by adults to show HALF the child’s rear end to the public… and MOTHER BOUGHT them and took her child out on the street and into a restuarant with them. THe 40 something mother was living vicariously thru her 8-year -old. How pathetic is THAT?

      It’s like a movie where you sit there dejected and disgusted and say, “There’s no one in this film I can root for.”

    • I think that any child being exposed to the crazy rantings by CA suffers child abuse.

      God really hates adoptive parents and those who can’t have kids. And especially those that choose not to have kids….

      Welcome to the fringe world of CA, better hurry to see it, because its getting smaller every day.

  11. Conservative American says:

    What? All I said was that homosexuality is abnormal, sexually deviant behavior and that it constitutes child abuse to place a child in the custody of a homosexuals. Now what could you possibly find wrong with that statement?

Speak Your Mind

*