What the heck. There are threads on the other candidates so one more won't hurt.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 10-22-2011).]

Voters are giving Newt a second look.
http://dailycaller.com/2011...grich-a-second-look/

quote A few months ago, Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign looked all but dead. The former House Speaker had alienated conservatives by calling House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget plan “right wing social engineering”; he was lampooned for running up a $500,000 credit line with Tiffany’s; and he had been ridiculed for taking time off of the campaign trail to cruise around the Greek isles with his wife. Most of his campaign staff ultimately abandoned him, his campaign had racked up $1.2 million in debt (with less than a third of that sum of cash on hand), his poll numbers were in single digits, and one Iowa Republican even told Gingrich to his face that he ought to get out of the race before he made an “even bigger fool of yourself.” Now, things appear to be changing for Gingrich. Last week several polls showed him rising into the top tier. His supporters have started a Super PAC and his campaign brought in $1 million in the past week. Republican primary voters are clearly giving Gingrich a second look, and many like what they see.

Read the rest of the article by clicking on the link above.

Newt is clearly the smartest and most qualified of the GOP field. I wish people would realize that and get behind him.

quote Originally posted by rpro: Newt is clearly the smartest and most qualified of the GOP field. I wish people would realize that and get behind him.

Cept for all that baggage. I like the guy when I hear him speak, liked the Contract with America bit.. But he's a politician to the core.

He's pushing the right buttons with the Conservative crowd, and the independents (He's got game)
His record shows a deal maker, that will support bad policy if it gets him a win on another front.. (Washington 2 step)
Throw in the multiple marriages, divorce of a woman on her death bed (Stuff that only applies to Republican candidates)

Tough call.. Still think the "Machine" is still going to give us Dem Light Romney as the R candidate.. I'll say it now.. If Romney is the candidate, I'm voting for "other" and willing to let Obama have a second term just to watch things burn.

Go ahead, let Van Jones, and the OWS dictate policy. My debts are paid in full, I don't own a house, have multiple skills.. O is only going to be able to blame Bush for so long.. He's on what Easement 3 now, and pushing for another stim pkg? Buddy Corazine just bilked millions out of his firm, Fast and Furious? Solyndra and other Green failures?

Sure.. lets give him another round.. Sure he'll get it right this time.

quote Originally posted by Uaana: Go ahead, let Van Jones, and the OWS dictate policy. My debts are paid in full, I don't own a house, have multiple skills.. O is only going to be able to blame Bush for so long.. He's on what Easement 3 now, and pushing for another stim pkg? Buddy Corazine just bilked millions out of his firm, Fast and Furious? Solyndra and other Green failures? Sure.. lets give him another round.. Sure he'll get it right this time.

Are you planning to leave the country?

Personally, I like Newt, I'm not real sure he's electable but, I think he is by far one of the most experienced, brightest and most qualified to take on the Presidency of those currently running. Will he get the chance, most likely not. But, only time will tell.

------------------
Ron
The key thing is to wake up breathing! All the rest can be fixed. (Except Stupid - You can't fix that)

quote Originally posted by rpro: Newt is clearly the smartest and most qualified of the GOP field. I wish people would realize that and get behind him.

I agree on the first two counts, but I'm not ready to "line up."

Newt has no interest in being President; this is all a big ploy to sell more books and DVDs.

What was he doing yesterday? A book signing and DVD sale. BTW you get a discount if you buy both! LOL

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Newt has no interest in being President; this is all a big ploy to sell more books and DVDs. What was he doing yesterday? A book signing and DVD sale. BTW you get a discount if you buy both! LOL

He went into debt for 1.2 million dollars(if I rmember correctly) to sell books and DVD's? If so, he'd be a perfect President. All presidents for the past century (except Clinton) have been spending more than they take in.

I don't care about any "baggage" any of the candidates might have, unless it will affect how they run the country. We all have to be weary about how the media spins the candidates. They will try to convince us to elect the one they want. Right now it seems that Romney is the one they are pushing for. We might as well vote for Obama again, if that is the case, as he won't be any different.

The liberal media is pushing for Romney as the GOP candidate because the left thinks he will be the easiest to beat. When Cain started surging in the polls, the media started smearing him. Cain is falling off and now that Newt is on the rise, the media has turned to smearing him. BTW, I believe the wife he divorced on her deathbed is still alive. They are basically leaving Romney alone; saving all his dirty laundry for when/if he faces off against Obama (who will again receive a pass on his past/mis-doings/current record).

I could care less about the personal baggage of Newt. Lots of people have been divorced. It won't affect hi ability to govern.

Newt is my first choice but, if Romney or someone else gets the nod, I'll vote for them because anyone is better than Obama.

I remember when Newt and Pelosi got together and did a video supporting NAFTA. I don't think NAFTA has been a good thing for our nation, not then and not now.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: He went into debt for 1.2 million dollars(if I rmember correctly) to sell books and DVD's? If so, he'd be a perfect President. All presidents for the past century (except Clinton) have been spending more than they take in.

Uh, actually, it was NEWT, who was speaker of the house during the Clinton Administration who balanced teh Budget and he dragged Clinton along kicking and screaming about it at the time. Now Clinton takes credit for it when, as those of us who understand that Congress controls the money know, he had nothing to do with it.

quote Originally posted by Uaana: Tough call.. Still think the "Machine" is still going to give us Dem Light Romney as the R candidate.. I'll say it now.. If Romney is the candidate, I'm voting for "other" and willing to let Obama have a second term just to watch things burn.

I hope your kidding. This is would be just plain reckless and stupid.

quote Originally posted by G-Man: I could care less about the personal baggage of Newt. Lots of people have been divorced. It won't affect hi ability to govern.

No one has more baggage than the president, and that don't seem to bother many.
In fact you could do an A-Z list with a little Googling!

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: I hope your kidding. This is would be just plain reckless and stupid.

Explain how? Driving off he cliff at 60 vs 100?

Sorry Romney is more of the same. Washington 2 step

He went into debt for 1.2 million dollars(if I rmember correctly) to sell books and DVD's? If so, he'd be a perfect President. All presidents for the past century (except Clinton) have been spending more than they take in.[/QUOTE]

Clinton? I guess you forgot, that if not for Gingrich as the speaker, and his insistent positioning, he FORCED Clinton ( the impeached one) to balance the budget and developed our current welfare reform. WIth these great ideas imposed, Clinton received a cause and effect vital economy! Bring back Gingrich. The USA needs his keen intellect.

Cordially,

kevin

I don't know if Newt could beat Obama, but even if he doesn't and we get a GOP POTUS, I'd hope he stays involved. I like the fact that he's a student of history and knows what failed or succeeded in the past. It's a perspective that seems to be lacking in government.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I don't know if Newt could beat Obama, but even if he doesn't and we get a GOP POTUS, I'd hope he stays involved. I like the fact that he's a student of history and knows what failed or succeeded in the past. It's a perspective that seems to be lacking in government.

Wouldn't it be fun to see him in a Lincloln/Douglas debate with the Prompter-in-Chief?

quote Originally posted by Uaana: ... Throw in the multiple marriages, divorce of a woman on her death bed (Stuff that only applies to Republican candidates) .....

Common Liberal attack (Not necessarily calling you a Lib, just that it's where the attack originated and continues to foment).

By Newt's daughter, Jackie: http://townhall.com/columni..._straight/page/full/

Why would people suddenly be looking at Newt? because he shut up long enough to let the other guys talk.

Yeah, Michelle, that's awesome you are on Newsweek.

Herman...how the ladies treating you?

Rick man, quick! name some departments you'd axe.

Herman Cain was on Letterman the other night, and it was AWFUL. It was quite obvious that Letterman didn't like him, and I thought Cain was doing a good job of doing a 'comedic' interview, which a lot of politicians can't pull off but his answers were horrible, including basically admitting to sexual harassment blaming it on it being before sexual harassment was a buzz word.

The slate of republicans are horrible. Each and every one of them.

The only one that is actually somewhat decent is Romney, and he's not being taken seriously because he isn't hardcore far right enough to please the country bumpkins "guns,god and gays" crowd in the flyover states.

So people start looking at Newt. At least he's been in Federal politics, and knows what he's doing.

[This message has been edited by Gridlock (edited 11-20-2011).]

the reports about newt & the x wife on her death bed are complete bull hockey,his ex wife is still alive ,this was reported by Mother Jones the communist democrat magazine & all the democrats jumped very high to report more more,, because they know the american public cares nothing for the facts
..Newts daughter is trying hard to inform the public that this is not a true story,,WONDER WHY YOU DO NOT KNOW THE STORY IS BOGUS.
..If Chuck Norris & G gordon Liddy did not run. Newt is my Fave,hes a little to left for me,but the smartest & brightest.but they need to bring the wagon train in to haul his baggage

Obumbles is a marxist,socialist, cash for clunkers, solyndra,wife hates america,20 year attendance at church that preached hate america,Chicago politician,corrupt,, fast & furious.czars,Holder,lybia,bows to tyrants,Bill ayers & bern DORN,,wrote the USA should be communist in college,who knows where he was born? probably a moslem. rejected christians once in office,tryed to shame the Israeli leader ,who is a better man than slime slitherer scum Obumbles will ever be..Obumbles is not fit to tie Netanyahus jesus sandles.
..Obumbles is the worst ever President,,worse than Jimmy Carter ,no republican could attend Rev Wright church for 20 years where they preached hate america & be elected dog catcher ..only serious massive lying,cover up & hidden past allowed this Chicago Mobster clownish Buffoon to be president..what clown hell do they find these incompetant devils in!!
..He got Osama bin Laden & nailed other terrs becuse he was falling drastically in the poles,, this has saved him
Our national press has shamed us .he could be re-elected, people want a check from the goverment
..after a few years of no Social Security increase ,retirees will recieve one starting in January,this is to make Obumbles look better, after all it is goverment money ..
Newt can not be elected because the national press will beat him up on every piece of baggage,,95% of americans firmly beleave that the death bed story is true..they only know the story because it was pounded into them..People will not vote for mistress Palin(whip me baby) they will not vote for Newt,because they were assasinated in the media repeatedly, the lies are repeated over & over especially on the T.V. womens talk shows..
..Newt & Palin?? ,I would love this ticket,,with my Master dominaxtrics Mistress Palin as President & moderate Newt as VP !
I dream of my Master Palin as my disiplinarian,I would screw up 10 times a day..hopefully after 10 to 50 strokes of the cane this strong dominant Lioness would minister to my bleeding welts..ooooooooooooooobaby,,I get no pleasure from the marxist beatings Obumbles gives us on a weekly basis,, they hurt,no cooling medicinal salve,,Im betting Goddess Palin would be free with the ointment

CASH FOR CLUNKERS ?? WHAT A FARCE

[This message has been edited by uhlanstan (edited 11-20-2011).]

I have to admit that if I voted Republican this time, Newt would probably be the one. However, I sure wish there was a viable third party alternative.

quote Tough call.. Still think the "Machine" is still going to give us Dem Light Romney as the R candidate.. I'll say it now.. If Romney is the candidate, I'm voting for "other" and willing to let Obama have a second term just to watch things burn.

Burn baby burn

Sure why not. At least we should let him finish what he started. (Sarcasm)

I for one, dont think we can take four more years of the anointed one, dear Leader, Comrade Obama.

Gingrich Casts Self as 'Braveheart' — 'Perfect' Tea Party Candidate

http://www.newsmax.com/Insi...al&promo_code=D8FD-1

IMO, he's unelectable. His baggage may not mean much to core conservatives, but the press and electronic media is going to have a field day with him, and that will be directed to those who will actually decide the election--independents. The same independents who were so easily conviced to elect Obama, and who--to a great extent--still support him, tho more subtely now than in the first 18 months of his presidency. Don't let their silence fool you--most are now still very much in awe of the President and could easily be swayed once again to cast their vote for him--IF they even have to be swayed at all. There's a REASON that most independents in congress caucus with the democrats--their constituent base leans decidedly to the left. Hasn't always been the case, but it is now.

quote Originally posted by Gridlock: Why would people suddenly be looking at Newt? because he shut up long enough to let the other guys talk. Yeah, Michelle, that's awesome you are on Newsweek. Herman...how the ladies treating you? Rick man, quick! name some departments you'd axe. Herman Cain was on Letterman the other night, and it was AWFUL. It was quite obvious that Letterman didn't like him, and I thought Cain was doing a good job of doing a 'comedic' interview, which a lot of politicians can't pull off but his answers were horrible, including basically admitting to sexual harassment blaming it on it being before sexual harassment was a buzz word. The slate of republicans are horrible. Each and every one of them. The only one that is actually somewhat decent is Romney, and he's not being taken seriously because he isn't hardcore far right enough to please the country bumpkins "guns,god and gays" crowd in the flyover states. So people start looking at Newt. At least he's been in Federal politics, and knows what he's doing.

Yeah I watched the Letterman interview and what stuck out in my mind is Cain did not know how to react to or handle a semi-hostile interviewer. He does not exhibit the strength or drive for the highest leadership job in the land, in my opinion... and its not the media being tough on candidates (as some said with Sarah Palin) rather its the candidates not being prepaed for anything, as the job they are vying for requires. Do they study before interviews? Geez. Plus Cain's nervous laugh was more than I could bear, I was embarrassed for him.

I have not seen one republican candidate thus far I would feel comfortable with at the helm at this moment in the campaign, although several of the candidates exhibit shades of what a good leader would be, nobody thus far has yet embodied a majority of qualities right for the job.

Who else they got?

quote Originally posted by carnut122: I have to admit that if I voted Republican this time, Newt would probably be the one. However, I sure wish there was a viable third party alternative.

ANY third party run will assure Obama's re-election.

I think I might vote for John Huntsman if he was a third party candidate. He's not conservative enough to be a republican candidate and not liberal enough to be a democrat. Just going by what I've seen so far. We all know what happens to a front runner or semi viable candidate.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I have not seen one republican candidate thus far I would feel comfortable with at the helm at this moment in the campaign, although several of the candidates exhibit shades of what a good leader would be, nobody thus far has yet embodied a majority of qualities right for the job.

Well....the guy in the office right now doesn't embody anywhere near a majority of the qualities needed either yet he was still elected. The question you have to ask yourself is are the Republican candidates better qualified than the current president? Regardless if they fully embody all the "right" qualities, are the qualities they do possess better than Obama?

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Yeah I watched the Letterman interview and what stuck out in my mind is Cain did not know how to react to or handle a semi-hostile interviewer. He does not exhibit the strength or drive for the highest leadership job in the land, in my opinion... and its not the media being tough on candidates (as some said with Sarah Palin) rather its the candidates not being prepaed for anything, as the job they are vying for requires. Do they study before interviews? Geez. Plus Cain's nervous laugh was more than I could bear, I was embarrassed for him. I have not seen one republican candidate thus far I would feel comfortable with at the helm at this moment in the campaign, although several of the candidates exhibit shades of what a good leader would be, nobody thus far has yet embodied a majority of qualities right for the job. Who else they got?

Yeah! I totally agree.

My favorite was his repeated, "are you trying to talk me out of it?"

Um...f*** yes? For the sake of the country, please stop.

I actually kind of liked Cain as much as I could for a representative of a party I usually disagree with, until he started fleshing out some of his ideas. His 9-9-9 plan, hatched in his 310-1010 pizza delivery days is the single largest wealth transfer to the rich ever seen.

I kind of liked Newt under the similar circumstances, but a few of his statements have really left me baffled on him. His "go get a job after you go take a bath" comment about occupy was really disturbing. I'm not really a die hard occupy supporter, but I get it. I can understand it. To just write them all off as losers really does a disservice to your country in my mind. For every protester out there, loving every drum circle, sacred fire burning minute, there are at least 100 that are supporters in kind. As president, you have to be president for everyone. You may not do what everyone likes, but you are a leader of the country-not your base.

And there is the gd problem! No one, and I mean no one even pays lip service to the idea that you need to bring everyone together. Right and left both come up with ideas all the time. Some I agree with, and some I don't. I would like to think that even if I don't agree with the idea personally, I agree with the concept that there is a problem, and here's a take on it.

This is definitely not meant as a "look at how awesome Canada is" thing, but as an example, the conservative gov't is pushing a huge push in the expansion of the prison system here. It's costly, and I don't think they are going about it in the right way. But I agree that a lot of people are frustrated with the revolving door system that becomes apparent in forced releases of inmates that have done their time, but are deemed likely to re-offend, and people that never make it to prison at all, and should. I agree there is a problem, and here's one take on the solution. We can all work on that. We can modify it to work for a larger group of people. Doesn't matter if you are a die hard conservative, people can jump on board.

It seems to me that the republican party has written off the election. Anyone that really wants it is waiting for 2016. Because here's how it stands right now(according to some random poll by Quinnipiac? that I never heard of before):

Gingrich 26, Take your pick...
Romney 22, ...of one of these two.
Cain 14, I covered him. Even if you agree fully with his ideas, I don't think you can afford 2 years of on-the-job training.
Perry 6, Bush lite? That's what his mistake of the third department to close told america.
Paul 6, never going to happen. Would love to see him in a treasury role.
Bachmann 4, those damn crazy eyes. Plus, a little hardcore for the masses.
Santorum 2, makes Jesus himself look like a leftie.
Huntsman 2 who?

So, in my prediction, you have a stuffy washington career politician with his head up his ass, or a stuffy washington career politician with his head up his ass named Newt.

I didn't watch the debate, but I suspect this can't be good for Newt? As for the third party ensuring Obama is re-elected? Probably so, but the Republicans seem bent on making that happen anyway. Until there is a clear alternative, the two parties will be conducting business as usual (neither one of them offering solutions, only smear campaigns).

"Newt Gingrich Sticks Neck Out On Immigration, Risking Conservative Backlash (VIDEO)
WASHINGTON -- Newt Gingrich took a stance on immigration unpopular with many in the Republican party in a primary debate Tuesday night, and will now have to wait to see if he is punished for it by conservatives.

Gingrich, who has come from the back of the pack in the Republican presidential primary to lead in many national polls, refused to play along with the idea -- expressed implicitly by some other candidates -- that the only solution to the problem of undocumented immigration is to deport the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S.

"I don't see how the -- the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century," Gingrich said. "And I'm prepared to take the heat for saying, let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families."

With his answer, the former speaker of the House from Georgia risked suffering the same fate as Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who told those who disagree with his support for in-state tuition for children of undocumented immigrants that they "don't have a heart," and suffered for it badly with the conservative base.

Gingrich knew what he was doing. He took a long pause before doubling down on his position, after he was criticized by both Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

"I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them," he said.

Gingrich began a discussion on immigration by talking about the need for something like a "World War II selective service board" to review the cases of all those in the country without citizenship. After he finished his first answer on immigration, Bachmann, a Tea Party firebrand whose candidacy has faded and needs a spark, pressed Gingrich by saying that he favored "amnesty."

"I don't agree that you would make 11 million workers legal because that in effect is amnesty. And I also don't agree that you would give the Dream Act on a federal level. And those are two things that I believe that the speaker had been for, and he can speak for himself," Bachmann said.

Gingrich has praised parts of the Dream Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for some young people who came to the United States without documentation.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer, who moderated the debate at DAR Constitution Hall, turned to Romney and pressed him for an answer on the subject. Romney gave a circuitous response that in essence amounted to a rejection and condemnation of Gingrich's position.

"Look, amnesty is a magnet," Romney said. "What when we have had in the past, programs that have said that if people who come here illegally are going to get to stay illegally for the rest of their life, that's going to only encourage more people to come here illegally."

When asked a second time by Blitzer whether Gingrich's idea would "entice others to come to this country illegally," Romney said, "There's no question."

"But to say that we're going to say to the people who have come here illegally that now you're all going to get to stay or some large number are going to get to stay and become permanent residents of the United States, that will only encourage more people to do the same thing," he said.

Unlike Perry, who has acknowledged many times that he is not a good debater, Gingrich is a nuanced and articulate spokesman. He argued eloquently for an approach to immigration reform that nonetheless is labeled as "amnesty" by many conservatives simply because it does not favor deporting all those in the country undocumented.

"If you've come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home period," Gingrich said. "If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids, two grandkids, paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church -- I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out."

"The Krieble Foundation is a very good red card program that says you get to be legal but you don't get a path to citizenship. So there's a way to ultimately end up with a country where there's no more illegality, but you haven't automatically given amnesty to anyone," Gingrich said.

Perry was more open to providing some sort of path to citizenship or residency for some undocumented immigrants, although he said it couldn't be done until the border with Mexico is secured.

"I do think that there is a way that after we secure that border, that you can have a process in place for individuals who are law-abiding citizens, who have done only one thing -- as Newt says, 25 years ago or whatever that period of time was -- that you can put something in place that basically continues to keep those families together. But the idea that we're having this long and lengthy conversation here, until we have a secure border, is just an intellectual exercise," Perry said.

Romney replied that he wasn't going to "start drawing lines here about who gets to stay and who gets to go."

"The point is that we are not going to have an amnesty system that says that people that come here illegally get to stay here for the rest of their life legally," he added.

The progressive Center for American Progress has estimated that it would cost U.S. taxpayers $285 billion to deport the estimated 10.8 million undocumented immigrants in the United States over five years.

Attacks on Gingrich came immediately after the immigration exchange. Bachmann's campaign sent out a release during the debate labeled, "Newt Gingrich's Open Door to Illegal Immigrant Amnesty."

In the spin room after the debate, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom slammed Gingrich for his comments.

"Mitt Romney is against amnesty, and Newt Gingrich made it very clear he was for amnesty," Fehrnstrom told the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein.

When Klein pressed Fehrnstrom on whether Romney favors deporting those who are undocumented, the Romney spokesman got testy.

"I just answered your question Phil, and you keep hectoring me about it," Fehrnstrom said. "You turn off the magnets, no in-state tuition, no benefits of any kind, no employment. You put in place an employment verification system with penalties for employers that hire illegals, that will shut off access to the job market, and they will self retreat. They will go to their countries."

Dana Loesch, a Tea Party activist from St. Louis who is a CNN contributor, said right after the debate that the immigration issue "blew up in Newt Gingrich's face."

"He had a Rick Perry heartless moment with this. I think this is really going to impact him tomorrow. It's really going to impact him with grassroots conservatives," Loesch said.

In an interview with CNN afterward, Gingrich said Bachmann's charge that he favors amnesty is "just totally inaccurate."

"I want to say 'go home' to lots of people. I want to create a border that is controlled. I want a guest worker program outsourced to American Express or Visa or Mastercard. I want English as the official language of government," Gingrich said. "I'm willing to be tough, but I'm not willing to kid people. And I can't imagine any serious person here in this country who believes that we ought to tear families apart that have been here 20 or 25 years."

CNN followed that up with an interview with Bachmann.

"He wants to legalize 11 million illegal immigrants," she said. "It sounds like amnesty to me."

A Bachmann spokeswoman did not respond when asked in an email whether the congresswoman believes that all people in the U.S. without proper documentation should be deported."

[This message has been edited by carnut122 (edited 11-23-2011).]

quote Cain 14, I covered him. Even if you agree fully with his ideas, I don't think you can afford 2 years of on-the-job training.

Surprising isn't it--just how many people bring that up now-- that had no problem with an OJT President in 2008?

So Newt is against amnesty, but in favor of allowing illegals to become citizens just because they popped out anchor babies. What part of "illegal" is Newt having problems understanding?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: So Newt is against amnesty, but in favor of allowing illegals to become citizens just because they popped out anchor babies. What part of "illegal" is Newt having problems understanding?

To me that's where he lost. He calls it a different name, but amnesty is still amnesty. I don't support illegal immigration and have personally seen it destroy the part of the world I live in. Anyone that supports it, and wants to make it "OK" is against America surviving this "recession" in my opinion. It's just another pandering for votes moment.

Brad

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: To me that's where he lost. He calls it a different name, but amnesty is still amnesty. I don't support illegal immigration and have personally seen it destroy the part of the world I live in. Anyone that supports it, and wants to make it "OK" is against America surviving this "recession" in my opinion. It's just another pandering for votes moment. Brad

Same here--he stopped just short of declaring FOR amnesty--just as our current leader has done--just as others before have done. Doesn't want to lose the Hispanic vote, but doesn't want to offend those who are in favor of a strong anti illegal immigration law either. Politics.
It's been a long time since I heard a candidate or politician come right out and call an illegal immigrant "a criminal". An gawd forbid a state do anything to stem that tide or try to throw any of them out. The executive branch will instruct the judicial (AG) to fight that with every breath of it's body. Congress is no better--votes, votes, votes. That's all that matters. Votes mean much more than jobs.

I commend him for sharing his opinion on the subject, and you know its a true opinion, not something he's saying for votes.

Whether you agree or disagree with him, you do need to give him some points for actually not politiking out an answer.

And let's face facts...I don't think too many people are going to support watching the round up and arrest of 11 million some odd people that have been in the states for 30 years, and being marched across the border. That is going to look ugly and be ugly...and ultimately fruitless.

So way to go for someone saying, yeah, there's a problem, and the answer is, no one on this stage is going to give that order.

quote Originally posted by Gridlock: And let's face facts...I don't think too many people are going to support watching the round up and arrest of 11 million some odd people that have been in the states for 30 years, and being marched across the border. That is going to look ugly and be ugly...and ultimately fruitless.

Given that millions of illegals enter this country every year, I have a hard time believing that all 11-12 million, or even a significant percentage, have been here 30 years. And no, I don't believe that getting away with a criminal act for 30 years legitimizes that criminal act, in any way, form, or fashion. Consider the burglar I found in my bed a few months ago. His act was a crime. He was in my house all day long. He drank my alcohol, ate my food, used my electricity, water, and computers. What if I'd been away on an extended trip and he lived in my house for a few weeks, consuming my resources. Of course that'd be a crime. What if he'd washed the dishes, mowed the lawn, maybe changed the oil on the car, and otherwise contributed to my household. Would he suddenly gain the right to be a part of my household, to be a citizen in my house?

No, he wouldn't, because the law doesn't recognize amnesty for crimes based on the criminal's contributions toward the victim or society.

Illegals (and I strongly refuse to use the word "immigration" in conjunction with the word Illegal because they're not immigrants, they're criminals) are committing a crime every single second they're on our soil, no matter how many years they get away with it, no matter how many anchor babies they produce. They have no right to be here unless granted so by someone like Gingrich, and I can't disagree enough when that happens.

The immigration line for those entering the country under rule of law starts at the border. Criminals do not deserve to be here, period.

Again I ask, what part of "illegal" does Gingrich not comprehend?

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 11-23-2011).]

I like your analogy and think it works.

It's a tough problem. There is no easy solution. Yeah, you can eliminate the problem in a second...big wall along the border with shoot to kill orders for the guards, and a roving gestapo to round up anyone without papers.

Done. Do you really want to live in that country?

The people that cheered at that debate about letting the person die without insurance do...but surely we want them to be the outlier to the conservative movement.

I also don't think the answer is telling people...well you got away with it for this long! congrats! But that is part of the legal system, isn't it? The statute of limitations? Can't a solution be to return new arrivals with expediency, while securing the border but providing that there is a statute of limitations for some people that have been there for so long that now deporting them is actually the greater wrong?

Can't there be a way that people that have a proven record of contributing to their community, and obviously have been an asset enough that their lack of papers has not been an issue for xx amount of years to be legitimized in some way?

I agree that I don't think a huge portion of the 11 million people would be affected...I think at a 10-15 year mark you are looking at a small % of the people being legitimized.

I don't know...it makes sense to me.