Which GOP candidate would do the BEST in a debate against Barack Obama--BE HONEST

[Foxfyre]

No clue...go check it out and bring us back a link so we can all talk about it

here's an editorial piece from the period. I can get more links if you like.

Orphanages Are No Solution - Editorial - NYTimes.com

It was not Gingrich's idea but he did support a proposal, according to that link, which would "allow states to deny cash subsidies to single teen-age mothers and use the money instead for group homes for unwed mothers and their children -- or orphanages for their children."

So it was only single teenage mothers according to the article but they are still single moms as you claim. My memory from 94 is fuzzy, it was my freshman year of college after all, but I think I remember his reasoning back then was "teenagers can still get help from their parents" or something like that.

I'm not sure I'd support that proposal myself. I wish the article told me the name of the proposal so I could look up the details for myself and tell you if I would have supported it or not. The way its portrayed I wouldn't support it but we all know now, unlike back then, that you really shouldn't trust what the media is saying without verifying it first, especially in any op-ed

This would be a deal breaker with you? I DO remember this and I remember Newt explaining it on camera. His rationale: Very few teenage girls are competent to properly care for themselves when pregnant, let alone competently care for a child. Those who are will have a family support group and won't need government help. The children of those who are not have a much better shot when reared in a loving environment in an orphanage than do kids of immature and too often irresponsible single parents.

The statistics bear this out. Almost ALL kids raised in a good orphanage--Boys Ranch, etc.--graduate highschool, most go on to college, almost all accomplish themselves. Very few wind up in any kind of trouble.

Conversely, a disproportionate number of kids of single parents drop out of school, run in gangs, and wind up in various kinds of trouble with the law. The single most common factor in children living in poverty is having a single parent even with government assistance.

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT saying that all single parents cannot or do not do a commendable job of raising their kids.

Newt's argument was that the government is not being compassionate by encouraging and subsidizing teen pregnancy.

Liberals will still call that hateful. I think conservatives will at least think about it and put it into perspective before passing judgment.

 

[Firehorse]

I think that it's clear that whoever the nominee is, will be the next Prez (baring a Gary Hart incident a week before the vote)

With the trouble this nation is facing, the problems he (or she) is going to fix, the candidate MUST be a person that will NOT continue down this path of spending.

At this time, I don't trust that either Perry or Romney is the guy to trust the literal future on this country with

 

[Kevinthedog]

Gingrich and Romney? the 2 idiots you see year after year in the news....?

brought to YOU by the media!??? gee???? why is that? meanwhile...corporate america giggles at their power and the sheepleness of the citizens.

 

[Firehorse]

We have been lied to Sssssooooooooo many times. To me, I don't care what the say anymore, speaches mean nothing to me, debates no longer matter as they steer questions to their talking points

I'm going to look at past accomplishments and judge on that. So far, that means Cain

 

[Avatar4321]

The Eleven Craziest Things Newt Gingrich Has Ever Said | The Nation

wow...all those years in politics and the most they can come up with are eleven?

Heck, I have to believe we can come upo with double that with Obama...and hes been a politician for what....5 years?

Those 11 aren't that insane either. And Id love to see the actual context to some of them

 

[oreo]

here's an editorial piece from the period. I can get more links if you like.

Orphanages Are No Solution - Editorial - NYTimes.com

It was not Gingrich's idea but he did support a proposal, according to that link, which would "allow states to deny cash subsidies to single teen-age mothers and use the money instead for group homes for unwed mothers and their children -- or orphanages for their children."

So it was only single teenage mothers according to the article but they are still single moms as you claim. My memory from 94 is fuzzy, it was my freshman year of college after all, but I think I remember his reasoning back then was "teenagers can still get help from their parents" or something like that.

I'm not sure I'd support that proposal myself. I wish the article told me the name of the proposal so I could look up the details for myself and tell you if I would have supported it or not. The way its portrayed I wouldn't support it but we all know now, unlike back then, that you really shouldn't trust what the media is saying without verifying it first, especially in any op-ed

This would be a deal breaker with you? I DO remember this and I remember Newt explaining it on camera. His rationale: Very few teenage girls are competent to properly care for themselves when pregnant, let alone competently care for a child. Those who are will have a family support group and won't need government help. The children of those who are not have a much better shot when reared in a loving environment in an orphanage than do kids of immature and too often irresponsible single parents.

The statistics bear this out. Almost ALL kids raised in a good orphanage--Boys Ranch, etc.--graduate highschool, most go on to college, almost all accomplish themselves. Very few wind up in any kind of trouble.

Conversely, a disproportionate number of kids of single parents drop out of school, run in gangs, and wind up in various kinds of trouble with the law. The single most common factor in children living in poverty is having a single parent even with government assistance.

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT saying that all single parents cannot or do not do a commendable job of raising their kids.

Newt's argument was that the government is not being compassionate by encouraging and subsidizing teen pregnancy.

Liberals will still call that hateful. I think conservatives will at least think about it and put it into perspective before passing judgment.

Yeah--I don't think it's a good idea to subsidize teen pregnancy. IT'S abused all of the time.

My daughter is a Pediatric Nurse Practitioner working out of several hospitals in our area--and the stories she tells me would make your hair curl. A lot of illegals giving birth--and many young US citizen teenage girls that are babies themselves having babies. Mostly medicade--(taxpayer funded births) along with a 2 year free ride on medical and I believe we still pay for child care and 2 years of college for them.

Here are some stats regarding young and single moms. Not that I am bashing ALL of them because in this group of single moms--we do have professionals--that just couldn't find the right guy and wanted a baby to raise by themselves.

4 out of 10 births in this country are to unwed mothers.

Unwed Motherhood Increases Sharply in U.S., Report Shows

 

[rdean]

Believe it or not, I like Michelle Bachmann. Her answers may be nutty, but she seems very confident, very calm and collected. I haven't seen her put off or confused by a single question. She is for sure a talented campaigner.

Translation: I want obama to win so I love Bachmann.



Sorry to the Bachmann fans out there, I mean no disrespect I just don't think she is a good choice for president.

I didn't say she was a good choice for president, but I do think her "style" is calm and very professional even though she says "nutty" stuff.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

here's an editorial piece from the period. I can get more links if you like.

Orphanages Are No Solution - Editorial - NYTimes.com

It was not Gingrich's idea but he did support a proposal, according to that link, which would "allow states to deny cash subsidies to single teen-age mothers and use the money instead for group homes for unwed mothers and their children -- or orphanages for their children."

So it was only single teenage mothers according to the article but they are still single moms as you claim. My memory from 94 is fuzzy, it was my freshman year of college after all, but I think I remember his reasoning back then was "teenagers can still get help from their parents" or something like that.

I'm not sure I'd support that proposal myself. I wish the article told me the name of the proposal so I could look up the details for myself and tell you if I would have supported it or not. The way its portrayed I wouldn't support it but we all know now, unlike back then, that you really shouldn't trust what the media is saying without verifying it first, especially in any op-ed

This would be a deal breaker with you? I DO remember this and I remember Newt explaining it on camera. His rationale: Very few teenage girls are competent to properly care for themselves when pregnant, let alone competently care for a child. Those who are will have a family support group and won't need government help. The children of those who are not have a much better shot when reared in a loving environment in an orphanage than do kids of immature and too often irresponsible single parents.

The statistics bear this out. Almost ALL kids raised in a good orphanage--Boys Ranch, etc.--graduate highschool, most go on to college, almost all accomplish themselves. Very few wind up in any kind of trouble.

Conversely, a disproportionate number of kids of single parents drop out of school, run in gangs, and wind up in various kinds of trouble with the law. The single most common factor in children living in poverty is having a single parent even with government assistance.

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT saying that all single parents cannot or do not do a commendable job of raising their kids.

Newt's argument was that the government is not being compassionate by encouraging and subsidizing teen pregnancy.

Liberals will still call that hateful. I think conservatives will at least think about it and put it into perspective before passing judgment.

No it wouldn't be a dealbreaker by any means. I'm never going to find a canidate I like everything they ever said or did but people like Newt and Cain are centered in a place similar to me with their values. This makes me comfortable with our differences.

 

[The T]

We have been lied to Sssssooooooooo many times. To me, I don't care what the say anymore, speaches mean nothing to me, debates no longer matter as they steer questions to their talking points

I'm going to look at past accomplishments and judge on that. So far, that means Cain

Debates any more have become tools for the media/elites...and Network ratings whoring to sell the American people junque...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

We have been lied to Sssssooooooooo many times. To me, I don't care what the say anymore, speaches mean nothing to me, debates no longer matter as they steer questions to their talking points

I'm going to look at past accomplishments and judge on that. So far, that means Cain

Debates any more have become tools for the media/elites...and Network ratings whoring to sell the American people junque...

Me too firehose. Newt and Cain look good!

 

[Care4all]

I think romey and gingrich in a debate will come off like obama in a debate...they are smooth, fairly intelligent....can put words together that seem to make sense....

whether this will be seen through by the republicans as being phony or as flip floppers, is another guess....

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I think romey and gingrich in a debate will come off like obama in a debate...they are smooth, fairly intelligent....can put words together that seem to make sense....

whether this will be seen through by the republicans as being phony or as flip floppers, is another guess....

I think obama and romney would go toe to toe and not hurt each other too bad in the process.

I think obama and newt would be very bad for obama.

 

[Jarhead]

I think romey and gingrich in a debate will come off like obama in a debate...they are smooth, fairly intelligent....can put words together that seem to make sense....

whether this will be seen through by the republicans as being phony or as flip floppers, is another guess....

I personally think Newt would easily win against Obama...whereas I think Romney will cave from fear.

Newt doies not need to spin. He knows the facts and has his own personal sentiments about everything. Many m,ay not agree with him, but when he speaks, he is speaking form within.

Obama is the type that prepares for his debates. His answers are not what comes from his heart...but are answers his handlers know the public wants to hear.

I believe Obamas first "non answer" or "spin answer" will be met with a remark by Newt such as:

" I would like to see you answewr the question. You seem to avoid answeriung the tough ones"...and he will then repeat the question that was aksed and show how Obama did not answer it.

Or

"Why must you spion to answer the question, Are you insecure with your position on the topic?" And thgen he will explain how Obama spun it..

Gingrich is very cocky and confident...he will no doubt use that to his advantage.

 

[Care4all]

I think romey and gingrich in a debate will come off like obama in a debate...they are smooth, fairly intelligent....can put words together that seem to make sense....

whether this will be seen through by the republicans as being phony or as flip floppers, is another guess....

I personally think Newt would easily win against Obama...whereas I think Romney will cave from fear.

Newt doies not need to spin. He knows the facts and has his own personal sentiments about everything. Many m,ay not agree with him, but when he speaks, he is speaking form within.

Obama is the type that prepares for his debates. His answers are not what comes from his heart...but are answers his handlers know the public wants to hear.

I believe Obamas first "non answer" or "spin answer" will be met with a remark by Newt such as:

" I would like to see you answewr the question. You seem to avoid answeriung the tough ones"...and he will then repeat the question that was aksed and show how Obama did not answer it.

Or

"Why must you spion to answer the question, Are you insecure with your position on the topic?" And thgen he will explain how Obama spun it..

Gingrich is very cocky and confident...he will no doubt use that to his advantage.

wasn;t newt groveling with the religious right leaders/crowd recently? That seemed like a phony move....?

 

[elvis]

I think romey and gingrich in a debate will come off like obama in a debate...they are smooth, fairly intelligent....can put words together that seem to make sense....

whether this will be seen through by the republicans as being phony or as flip floppers, is another guess....

I personally think Newt would easily win against Obama...whereas I think Romney will cave from fear.

Newt doies not need to spin. He knows the facts and has his own personal sentiments about everything. Many m,ay not agree with him, but when he speaks, he is speaking form within.

Obama is the type that prepares for his debates. His answers are not what comes from his heart...but are answers his handlers know the public wants to hear.

I believe Obamas first "non answer" or "spin answer" will be met with a remark by Newt such as:

" I would like to see you answewr the question. You seem to avoid answeriung the tough ones"...and he will then repeat the question that was aksed and show how Obama did not answer it.

Or

"Why must you spion to answer the question, Are you insecure with your position on the topic?" And thgen he will explain how Obama spun it..

Gingrich is very cocky and confident...he will no doubt use that to his advantage.

wasn;t newt groveling with the religious right leaders/crowd recently? That seemed like a phony move....?

when politicians run for office, they all are phonies.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know if it is phony or not but you go where the votes are. If Newt had shunned the religious he would be accused of politicking just as much as meeting with them. Plus he would have incurred the anger or disappointment of a very large voting bloc. Anyhow, a President should be President to all the citizens, not just those in his own ideological circle.

 

[oreo]

I don't know if it is phony or not but you go where the votes are. If Newt had shunned the religious he would be accused of politicking just as much as meeting with them. Plus he would have incurred the anger or disappointment of a very large voting bloc. Anyhow, a President should be President to all the citizens, not just those in his own ideological circle.

Agreed.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I don't think that any of the GOP candidates would be able to make Obama look bad. Obama is just too good a speaker.

Romney is also a really good speaker and I doubt that Obama could do much to make him look bad.

Newt might do O.K. up against Obama, but he has an awful lot of skeletons for Obama to bring out of the closet. He's also more likely than any of them to say something really stupid.

 

[Care4all]

I don't know if it is phony or not but you go where the votes are. If Newt had shunned the religious he would be accused of politicking just as much as meeting with them. Plus he would have incurred the anger or disappointment of a very large voting bloc. Anyhow, a President should be President to all the citizens, not just those in his own ideological circle.

so true!

 

[yidnar]

I thought this poll would be interesting. Now I don't want to vote for who you LIKE and or are supporting--I would like an HONEST answer from you to this poll.

The Question:

Which current GOP candidate would be the BEST at cleaning Barack Obama's clock in a debate with Obama.

Remember--be honest in your answer.--and then comment as to why you picked a certain candidate.

Gingrich has the most knowledge when it comes to history ,politics ,and government !! ..........weather you like him or not the man is brilliant !! if he doesn't get the nomination he would be a great VP choice !! the baggage he carries would not weigh down the GOP if he ran as VP !!