• 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!

Poll: Huckabee, Gingrich, Palin or Pawlenty?

Bill Clinton was elected twice to the Presidency. Thus, your argument fails.

I'm talking about me, brother. Not the rest of the country. I don't care if you voted for Clinton.

I have problem with Newt being critical of Clinton for adultery when Newt did the exact same thing at the exact same time. That makes him a hypocrite and a liar. Maybe you love liars and hypocrites, I don't know.
 
I'm talking about me, brother. Not the rest of the country. I don't care if you voted for Clinton.
He's a Libertarian, I doubt he voted for Clinton.

I have problem with Newt being critical of Clinton for adultery when Newt did the exact same thing at the exact same time. That makes him a hypocrite and a liar. Maybe you love liars and hypocrites, I don't know.
Liars and hypocrites? Sounds like the vast majority of Congress.
 
I'm talking about me, brother. Not the rest of the country. I don't care if you voted for Clinton.

I have problem with Newt being critical of Clinton for adultery when Newt did the exact same thing at the exact same time. That makes him a hypocrite and a liar. Maybe you love liars and hypocrites, I don't know.
You said "most people."
 
So candidates always agree with exactly what their party stands for? There's never any deviation?

In the current crop of GOP candidates, not really. As I said, the only Republican I'd vote for is Ron Paul.

But since you asked; Newt is the classic Chickenhawk, which I loathe. He is also for a build up of troops in AFG, which I oppose. He was also an Iraq War supporter, which I was not.

Newt opposed a public option for health care, which I support.

You can read more about Newt's platform here:

newt.org
 
In the current crop of GOP candidates, not really. As I said, the only Republican I'd vote for is Ron Paul.

But since you asked; Newt is the classic Chickenhawk, which I loathe. He is also for a build up of troops in AFG, which I oppose. He was also an Iraq War supporter, which I was not.

Newt opposed a public option for health care, which I support.

You can read more about Newt's platform here:

newt.org
Fair enough. I like to play Devil's Advocate on occasion.

P.S. I voted for Ron Paul.
 
I don't know much about Pawlenty, so I can't say anything about him. Huckabee scared me off when he said he wanted to remake the Constitution according to God's word. Palin just doesn't have what it takes. Her "awe shucks" down home style is a bit thick and wears thin after a while. And her resume is paper thin.

I could go for Newt, but he does come with baggage. Still though, if the economy doesn't rebound by 2012, Newt could be a credible candidate. He's credible with the base and credible with the growing number of dissatisfied former Republicans. The question is how would he play for moderate independents? His status as a key figure during the economic good times of the Clinton years, might help him out. I could see Gingrich unveiling an updated version of Contract With America and perhaps turning some heads, in the right enviroment. I know I would both vote and volunteer for Newt, which is way more than I'd do for most potential Republican candidates.
 
I don't see why everyone is so anti-Huckabee. Sure, he's a religious conservative, but he's no Jerry Falwell. He hasn't given any indication that his top priorities are culture war issues...in fact, he spends most of his time talking about the economy and foreign policy, just like all the other candidates.

He seemed like the most moderate Republican running in 2008.
 
I think Palin is sadly at this point damaged goods. Absolutely no on her. If she wasn't put up in the VP slot last minute during the last run and thus could take the time to actually study up on things while also cementing her years as Governor, that'd be different. But she hitched her car to the McCain Train and it derailed her.

Pawlenty is probably the "safe" choice, and likely why I think he's most likely in 2012 at the moment. He's not a head turner or a huge star, so its okay to risk him against an incumbant president. He's got decent fiscal and social conservative credentials it seems, executive experience, and not many real scandals that I know of. He's just the safe good pick that may not WOW any one particular group in the party but may be enough to get a legitimate coalition going.

Newt I'd love to see go, but like others unsure of the baggage. That said, America is generally a forgiving nation and the affair scandals were almost a decade ago. If Newt did a good job of accepting responsability for it, highlighting how no person is perfect though that does not mean we shouldn't strive to be such, and point out it was the perjury and acts with a subordinant, not the act of adultry, that wasthe issue for him he could potentially negate it. I think Clown is right in that the economy being bad would be the most likely scenario to see him in because he has a track record with that kind of thing.

Huckabee is someone I actually like and I think strangely enough could provide a bit of a chance against Obama, but the one idiotic comment about changing the constitution for jesus is going to cost him. I actually DON'T think that we'd see him literally try to inject a **** ton of religion into government (Though I do think there would likely be a little pull back on the over-sensitivity to religion to the point of trying to purge it with fire whenever it gets within 20 steps of government), but that still won't make that comment go away. I think he's got an extremely strange mix of Conservative Popularism that has a CHANCE of appealing to fiscal conservatives (due to his fair tax stance), social conservatives (due to his religious background), and some moderates (due to the general populist nature of his rhetoric). You don't normally see the "populist republican" often and it may have at least a decent shot against a 2012 Obama. I loved his speech at the RNC last year, thought it was well done. The guys got a good sense of humor too, always loved him on Colbert.

Not sure who I'd vote for out of them honestly, it'd be a hard pick between the later three. I voted for Paul last year because by that point the only options was McCain who looked like he was going to clearly win, Huck who I didn't mind but wasn't close, and Ron Paul and so I voted conscious. If you throw Paul into the mix of those five I'm still unsure who I'd vote for, because if it seemed like a close race between say, Palin and one of those other three, I'd probably vote for one of those other three. However if it was a close race simply between Newt/Pawlenty/Huck and Paul was far behind, or Palin was just way way outfront sadly and nothing could be done about it, then I'd probably vote conscious again. Paul had the most things philisophically in common with me, but I also believe the man to have a better shot at winning a "Krypt Keeper" look alike contest than the Presidency.
 
Great comments, everyone!.... Surprised to see so many Newt backers; I thought we might get more support for Palin. And as for Huckabee, I think he is wackt, too. Legit.

Make sure y'all head over to Mitt Romney Central and cast your vote here. :mrgreen:
 
Unfortunately for you, that would hardly make him a bad president. How about you discuss what part of his platform you would disagree with? Less personal attacks and more substance this time.

Actually, Newt's divorces, while preaching family values, is an issue. I think it's unfortunate, because Newt has a brilliant mind, and would be the best candidate of the 4. You can call him the Gary Hart of the right. He doesn't have a chance. Otherwise, he would be my pick, out of the 4 presented. With him out, and if I had to pick one of the 4, I would choose Pawlenty. But, again, I don't have to pick only from what has been presented, so I will once again put in yet another shameless promotion for Ron Paul. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
What's Newt's personal baggage? The divorces?

Wow, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel ... where to start?

Besides porking his aides while trying to get Clinton for the same thing, and dumping one of his many wives while she was dying of cancer, he was run out of washington plagued by ethics and tax scandals, and ordered to pay a $300,000 penalty.



3dfa83.jpg
 
Unfortunately for you, that would hardly make him a bad president. How about you discuss what part of his platform you would disagree with? Less personal attacks and more substance this time.

Don't be ridiculous. If it were not for Clinton's strange sense of popularity, the Lewinsky scandal would have buried him. Not only that, but it partly defined the 2000 election. Gore was wondering just how much should the Democratic candidate embrace his predecessor of 8 years. George W. Bush spoke repeatedly about bring decency and honor back into the White House. It is plenty relevant.

Edit: Ah, you were being merely a devil's advocate. Nevermind then.
 
Last edited:
Newt I'd love to see go, but like others unsure of the baggage. That said, America is generally a forgiving nation and the affair scandals were almost a decade ago. If Newt did a good job of accepting responsability for it, highlighting how no person is perfect though that does not mean we shouldn't strive to be such, and point out it was the perjury and acts with a subordinant, not the act of adultry, that wasthe issue for him he could potentially negate it. I think Clown is right in that the economy being bad would be the most likely scenario to see him in because he has a track record with that kind of thing.

I disagree on Americans forgiving the guy who took one of the most popular presidents in recent history to the gutter because of an affair and then got caught doing the same. Newt Gringrich & the Republican witch hunt on Bill Clinton is still pretty fresh in the minds of most people. Go on YouTube and you can see Republican funded ads telling people to call 1-800 numbers if they think they might have been assaulted by the President. That stuff is hard to forget.

Newt Gringrich and the Republicans of the 90s gave birth to modern day witch hunts that saw boring hearings of low level Bush administration officials over the most trivial things.
 
Actually, Newt's divorces, while preaching family values, is an issue. I think it's unfortunate, because Newt has a brilliant mind, and would be the best candidate of the 4. You can call him the Gary Hart of the right. He doesn't have a chance. Otherwise, he would be my pick, out of the 4 presented. With him out, and if I had to pick one of the 4, I would choose Pawlenty. But, again, I don't have to pick only from what has been presented, so I will once again put in yet another shameless promotion for Ron Paul. :mrgreen:

I don't see how it would hurt Newt. The election would be about policy discussion, not his marriages. Obama wouldn't stand a chance in that intellectual fencing match.
 
None of them. I want someone new that's never been on the official scene before.
 
Wow, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel ... where to start?

Besides porking his aides while trying to get Clinton for the same thing, and dumping one of his many wives while she was dying of cancer, he was run out of washington plagued by ethics and tax scandals, and ordered to pay a $300,000 penalty.



3dfa83.jpg

I don't really care about the marriage thing. I mean, Robert Byrd used to be in the KKK...

*COUGH*

THE KU KLUX KLAN

And I don't see any Democrats calling for his resignation, but if the ethics charges are true then I would defintely say that's bad and worthy of criticism.

I would only support Newt because he's pretty fiscally conservative and not Barack Obama...the latter aspect being his most important quality.
 
None of them. I want someone new that's never been on the official scene before.

Just swallow the pill this one time. We can't give Barack Obama four more years...
 
Just swallow the pill this one time. We can't give Barack Obama four more years...

Sorry but I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. No matter which one you pick you're still going to get screwed. It's sad that that mentality has become so prominant that it has become the only choice. IE No choice at all.
 
I don't see why everyone is so anti-Huckabee. Sure, he's a religious conservative, but he's no Jerry Falwell. He hasn't given any indication that his top priorities are culture war issues...in fact, he spends most of his time talking about the economy and foreign policy, just like all the other candidates.

He seemed like the most moderate Republican running in 2008.

My biggest issue with him is that he believes the constitution should be rewritten to meet "God's standards". I hesitate backing any politician that believes the document our country is founded on should be rewritten to reflect something as ambiguous as "God's standards".

I personally like Romney. I think he's a smart politician. I would have had to think about my vote if he beat out McCain.
 
Sorry but I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. No matter which one you pick you're still going to get screwed. It's sad that that mentality has become so prominant that it has become the only choice. IE No choice at all.

Normally I would agree with you, but if Obama gets four more years he might permanently "change" things for the worse...
 
I don't really care about the marriage thing. I mean, Robert Byrd used to be in the KKK...

Yes over fifty years ago and many apologies ago, but he'd still never be able to run for President because of it.
 
Yes over fifty years ago and many apologies ago, but he'd still never be able to run for President because of it.

Well, if there's a moral "statute of limitations" on being in the KKK then surely there's one for adultery.

I'd say six years is sufficient.
 
Back
Top Bottom