• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum?

Which one do you prefer?

  • Rick Santorum

    Votes: 7 41.2%

  • Newt Gingrich

    Votes: 10 58.8%
  • Total voters
    17
Symphony

Symphony

New member
Joined
Jan 1, 2012
Messages
47
Reaction score
58
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Between the two; who do you prefer?
 
Last edited:
I would pick Santorum, because I think Newt has some problems when it comes to Global Warming or Healthcare.
 
That is like picking between pest and cholera.

I would pick Newt, because Santorum is a extreme bigot (newt is also a bigot) and he is a big government conservative. But I don't like any of them.
 
Newt Gingrich lacks the moral character to be President and he doesn't understand the economic realities that the majority of Americans have to live with; I can't in good conscience vote for him, so if the election comes down to Gingrich versus Obama I'm staying home.

On the other hand, I couldn't live, in good conscience, in a country that elected Santorum President. I would vote for Gingrich over Santorum. I would vote for Obama over Santorum. I would vote for Ron Paul over Santorum. I would vote to secede from the Union over Santorum.
 
I think Newt is very intelligent. I like most of Santorum's social values but I think what the country needs now is someone who will get us fiscally under control and economically prosperous. I think Newt would do a far better job at achieving this than Obama.
 
In a debate, I prefer Newt. In a speech I prefer Santorum. In the office I could go with either.
 
That's a hard one. I'd have to go with Newt, but in reality, I'd rather have a pickaxe to the skull than either of them.
 
In an ideal world? Santorum.

To drive Satan from our midst, or BO from DC, Newt.
 
Santorum is conservative no matter what day of the week it is, and has yet to demonstrate such poor leadership skills that fellow conservatives put him up on ethics charges and organize an overthrow. Ergo, him.
 
From a UK perspective, I find it kinda worrying that this is the best the Republicans can muster. Does politics in the US not attract anyone young and dynamic?

Paul
 
I would pick the lesser of the conservative evils.......Obama.
 
gunner said:
From a UK perspective, I find it kinda worrying that this is the best the Republicans can muster. Does politics in the US not attract anyone young and dynamic?
Click to expand...

Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal...

all of whom elected not to run for President.
 
cpwill said:
Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal...

all of whom elected not to run for President.
Click to expand...

Because they see the direction the wind is blowing.

There are many zealots on the right and left that think that Obama will win easily, or be defeated easily but nothing could be further from the truth.

Defeating an incumbent is no easy task, and while it's true that Obama faces a tough battle given the relative state of the economy, people like Paul Ryan, Rubio and Christie are gonna wait it out til 2016 so they don't have to face an incumbent, it's probably as simple as that. And the longer this primary race goes on, the harder it's gonna get for Romney or Gingrich to appeal to the moderates and independents.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Because they see the direction the wind is blowing.
Click to expand...

nah, of the ones I mentioned (and I didn't mention, but could have included Mitch Daniels), all had good reasons not for running. Ryan has young kids and wants to be a unifying point for Republicans rather than a dividing one. Jindal and Christie hadn't been reelected. Marco Rubio is 2 years into his first Senate term. The problem isn't that we have no young dynamic conservatives - it's that 2006 and 2008 means they are all too young, in terms of their political career.
 
If Romney holds off the warrior of the right, the pick for VP will be Rubio and he will take it. Either way the November election turns out, he is then in the drivers seat to be the future nominee after Romney - win or lose.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Because they see the direction the wind is blowing.

There are many zealots on the right and left that think that Obama will win easily, or be defeated easily but nothing could be further from the truth.

Defeating an incumbent is no easy task, and while it's true that Obama faces a tough battle given the relative state of the economy, people like Paul Ryan, Rubio and Christie are gonna wait it out til 2016 so they don't have to face an incumbent, it's probably as simple as that. And the longer this primary race goes on, the harder it's gonna get for Romney or Gingrich to appeal to the moderates and independents.
Click to expand...

Your last sentence is what defines it for me. And looks symptomatic of the GOP candidates as whole, they have all been around the block a few times and come with a lot of baggage (some of course might say experience).

cpwill said:
nah, of the ones I mentioned (and I didn't mention, but could have included Mitch Daniels), all had good reasons not for running. Ryan has young kids and wants to be a unifying point for Republicans rather than a dividing one. Jindal and Christie hadn't been reelected. Marco Rubio is 2 years into his first Senate term. The problem isn't that we have no young dynamic conservatives - it's that 2006 and 2008 means they are all too young, in terms of their political career.
Click to expand...

Then you have no 'young and dynamic' candidates, that's my point. I'm not sure on the age of those mentioned but I'm a believer in 'if you're good enough, you're old enough':)

Paul
 
cpwill said:
Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal...

all of whom elected not to run for President.
Click to expand...

Yes, all of them, but looks like 2012 is not their time, at least not for the Presidency.
 
gunner said:
Your last sentence is what defines it for me. And looks symptomatic of the GOP candidates as whole, they have all been around the block a few times and come with a lot of baggage (some of course might say experience).

Then you have no 'young and dynamic' candidates, that's my point. I'm not sure on the age of those mentioned but I'm a believer in 'if you're good enough, you're old enough':)

Paul
Click to expand...

Depends on how you define "young" ("dynamic" is ageless). According to Wiki, the median Presidential age is just about 55. Kennedy was the youngest elected President while the oldest was Reagan at 69. This is a minor reason I wouldn't consider voting for Ron Paul--he will be 78 in August. By anybody's definition, 78 is "up there."

Not sure I can agree with you that if you're good enough, you're old enough. Although I can see a 20-something being elected to Congress and beginning his/her career there, I don't see a 20-something serving as President.

List of Presidents of the United States by age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
nota bene said:
Depends on how you define "young" ("dynamic" is ageless). According to Wiki, the median Presidential age is just about 55. Kennedy was the youngest elected President while the oldest was Reagan at 69. This is a minor reason I wouldn't consider voting for Ron Paul--he will be 78 in August. By anybody's definition, 78 is "up there."
Click to expand...

I don't want to be accused of being ageist:) but I'm afraid i do not correlate persons in the later years of their careers as, on the whole, with being particularly dynamic. The reason i make this point, is the field of candidates from the Republicans comes across as 'tired', 'stale' and lacking in anything that looks remotely as 'fresh'. May that is the appeal?

Not sure I can agree with you that if you're good enough, you're old enough. Although I can see a 20-something being elected to Congress and beginning his/her career there, I don't see a 20-something serving as President.
Click to expand...

20 may be pushing it, true. But, as has happened in the UK, we have recently more of a mix in terms of age (although less in terms of class/educational backgrounds). David Cameron was 43 when he came to power. It just looks from afar the US GOP are struggling to connect, and this may play some part in that disconnect?

Paul
Click to expand...
 
Jetboogieman said:
Because they see the direction the wind is blowing.

There are many zealots on the right and left that think that Obama will win easily, or be defeated easily but nothing could be further from the truth.

Defeating an incumbent is no easy task, and while it's true that Obama faces a tough battle given the relative state of the economy, people like Paul Ryan, Rubio and Christie are gonna wait it out til 2016 so they don't have to face an incumbent, it's probably as simple as that. And the longer this primary race goes on, the harder it's gonna get for Romney or Gingrich to appeal to the moderates and independents.
Click to expand...

I disagree. When you look at the history of the GOP, they always stick with the candidate who has been on the ballot the last few elections (Romney and this year's election notwithstanding, and still, that's hardly a precedent that's been set). I think the smart thing to do would have been what Jon Huntsman did: get on the ballot, stick around long enough to get a modest amount of attention, then drop out. I hope that Huntsman will become the go-to-guy for the next GOP candidate for President, regardless of the outcome of this election, because he's a like better version of Romney.

Though, I do think it's better that Christie wasn't in this race, he and Huntsman would've been fighting for position as the best person to actually be President. I don't know too much about Rubio, but I remember talk about Jindal and I know Ryan a bit, but I think if they're going to be running for Pres, it's very far off.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, the best thing to do (except this year because of Huntsman) was to start building some name recognition, and start getting their names on a national level.
 
Personally, I don't believe that Santorum has the personality or qualities that America is looking for, and Gingrich is shrouded by several scandals; based on this, I'd have to go with neither. Romney would be my choice (hence my screen name).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom