And, believe it or not, he’s right.
Newt Gingrich told a gay man and longtime resident of Oskaloosa here today that he should vote for President Obama.
“I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama,” said Scott Arnold, an adjunct professor of writing at William Penn University.”
Arnold, a Democrat, said he came to the event at Smokey Row coffee house with an open mind. But he wanted to ask Gingrich about how he would represent him as president after reading past comments the former U.S. House Speaker has made about gay and lesbians.
If the most important issue(s) to this man are gay issues, then quite frankly, any candidate concerned with getting the country’s economy back on track, or restoring our country’s respect around the world, has bigger fish to fry than “engaging gay Americans.” The issues that affect all Americans are the issues that should matter to a president or a presidential candidate. Questions about taxes, jobs, health care, national security, etc. are far more important to the 2012 campaign than how one will “engage gay Americans” as if it’s the job of a president.
The President of the United States is the president of all Americans, and no president should strive to pander to a particular group, but rather to represent the whole population. If this man wanted to use his opportunity to ask a presidential candidate one question, and that’s the one he chose to ask, than clearly Newt was never going to get his vote anyway, which Newt was clearly well aware of.
Anyone who thinks a president should pander to specific groups and ignore the majority of the population should vote for Obama, they’ll be far less disappointed.
UPDATE: GayPatriot has a lot more on this story, including important context not provided in the original story I quoted. Here is Newt’s full quote:
I think for those for whom the only issue that really matters is the definition of marriage, I won’t get their support and I accept that that’s the reality. On the other hand for those for whom it’s not the central issue in their lives, if they care about job creation, if they care about national security, if they care about a better future for the country at large, then I think I’ll get their support. [emphasis GayPatriot’s]
The chief strategist of GOPProud even commended Newt’s handling of the question.
Blogs For Victory 
Pander? Willing to discuss an issue that is important to many Americans?
Right, real smart move.
In my opinion Newt has cost himself much support with this short-sighted pandering to the Christian Right. In a throwback to the knuckle-dragging caricature of the Right-Wing Hate Newt has now firmly established himself as the poster child for exclusion in governance; you want a discussion about Social Security? Vote for the other guy. You want a discussion about corruption in government and the influence of campaign contributions? Vote for the other guy. No sense in opening a dialog with the closed-minded, after all what do we hope to gain by representing all Americans?
How does the Republican Party ever hope to include if we begin with the goal of exclusion? What is our structure to build a better government? Ask for input from middle-aged white guys? Gays need not apply, woman need not apply, Jews need not apply, Blacks need not apply, Hispanics need not apply, Moslems need not apply, Intellectuals and progressives need not apply. Here’s a dialog we can all get behind as Conservatives wander in the wilderness for the next 40 or 50 years.
Public opinion is moving toward acceptance of “Gay Marriage” not away from it. If Prop 8 were on the ballot in California in 2012 instead of 2008 it would pass handily.
A wise conservative would offer an acceptable alternative such as civil unions granting all the same civil rights and privileges which wouldn’t hijack the cultural or religious perception of marriage. Or at least discuss it. But not Newt! He wants a Constitutional Amendment to alienate a percentage of the population and all those that sympathize. Strict adherence to one’s own prejudices, there’s a winning combination!
Real smart move. Make sure the Evening News picks up this and we can look forward to the 2012 Campaign Season as the Press regales us with stories about the homophobic Gingrich.
If the election is about Obama he loses, if the election is about any Republican OBAMA WINS!
Count, IMO, the answer that Gingrich gave to this homosexual guy reflects Newt’s propensity to give glib, off-the-cuff remarks that almost always come back to bite him. An undisciplined mouth is Newt’s single biggest fault. It would have been so simple to tell the guy that a President Gingrich would do everything within his power to work for equality for ALL AMERICANS, regardless of what demographic they belonged to.
En boca cerrada, no entran moscas!
True, it would have been simple to say “President Gingrich would do everything within his power to work for equality for ALL AMERICANS.” But would it be true? I have serious doubts about that. Which is probably why he gave a more honest answer. At least I give him points for not lying. 🙂
That is, indeed, an excellent axiom to live by.
I have serious doubts about that. Which is probably why he gave a more honest answer.
I’m sure Newt took your doubts into account before he answered the guy//sarc.
lol. Yeah, he would tell me to support Obama, too, because he’s already dismissed me as a “liberal.” He doesn’t want me back in the Republican fold.
But better than asking me, maybe as Andrew Sullivan suggested, Gingrich could ask his step-sister, Dick Cheney’s daughter or Karl Rove’s dad.
Newt was right, whats next? go after the sheep/dog lovers?
draw the line in the sand homosexuality is a sick pathology
why tell any body to vote for you by what they do in the bedroom?
Once you identify then it becomes an agenda a sick one..GOOD for NEWT!!
With this dismissive answer, Newt is losing a little more of my support, and after listening to Romney the other night on O’Reilly, I may be once again in his camp. I like Newt for his bold ideas, but Romney is more measured, more polished, and probably more experienced as an executive both in the public and private sectors. Besides I agree with Count, it’s time to that conservatives strongly support civil unions and allow gay couples all of the rights afforded to traditionally married couples. As far as gay marriage goes – leave it to the states.
Between his performance in the last debate, his interview on Fox News Sunday and his appearance on O’Reilly, Romney is beginning to solidify his standing, at least from my POV, as the most mature adult in the field. It’ll be interesting to see if other fence sitters like myself have a similar reaction.
The mayans are right. The world is going to end. I am going to defend Darth Newton again.
A repub tells the truth for a change and gets slammed by other repubs for doing it. Strange political party you have there.
Dec 21, 2012 you say?
GMB
you are correct,
sodomy is a sin and a pathology, there can be no room or reason to keep moving the goal post’s to appease sick individuals that is insane.
Do liberals support a 2 month extension on the payroll tax cut, or a 12 month extension? And how do liberals support this bill that continues to suffocate SS of it’s needed revenue. Democrats have always blamed republicans for wanting to kill SS, but now democrats are actually doing it for the sole purpose of being reelected. This bill will not create jobs, nor do anything to improve the economy.
And GMB, being dismissive to any American, is not something that any conservative should do.
What should Newt have said? Was this person there? Should Newt have told him what he wants to hear or told him the truth?
What should Newt have said if this man was a Nambla supporter for example?
Newt should have said exactly what Spook said – that he will work for the equality of all Americans. Nambla is a criminal enterprise.
What were the liberals saying during the last tax debate, to end Bush’s tax cuts?
They would take a tax increase to save or shore-up SS and Medicare.
Funny, how that now obAMATEUR is using this as a political weapon, they seem to ignore what they said before.
Last question. Would not equality of all Americans include the right for homosexuals to get married then?
No. Equality means that they should be afforded all the legal rights of married couple, but almost since the beginning of mankind, marriage has been the union between a man and a woman, and some small subset of our society does not have the right to change the definition without the consent of the majority of Americans. Again, a state issue
Hear hear! Well said Cluster, very well said.
How about Newt says, “Well, I don’t support the idea of Gay “marriage” per se, but we all support equal protection and equal treatment under the law. I think we can find common ground on which we can agree, we should talk. …”
I think for those for whom the only issue that really matters is the definition of marriage, I won’t get their support and I accept that that’s the reality. On the other hand for those for whom it’s not the central issue in their lives, if they care about job creation, if they care about national security, if they care about a better future for the country at large, then I think I’ll get their support. [emphasis GayPatriot’s]
Matt posted some more of the story. Newt told it like it is. Good for him.
I dis agree, they have the rights to marry, just not a right to the pathology of sodomy and get a tax break for it.
Homosexuals DO have the right to get married — just not to each other, heh.
A gay man would have the right to marry any woman he chose. Offering up legal contract with the rights and the like is fine. . but insisting it specifically be marriage is done pretty blatantly for no reason other than as a poke in the eye. You don’t have a right to insist that politicians legislate acceptance, only tolerance. You can even believe that the people who don’t agree are horrible bigots. So be it, you STILL don’t have the right to legislate away their bigotry. The state doesn’t have the right to try to change their mind by force.
It’s not enough to get me to ever vote for the man. Newt was right for telling the truth. It is something that should be encouraged. I am not holding my breath.
It’s a strange day when GMB supports Newt (Darth Newton) on a particular issue and I oppose him. Incidentally I saw Santorum the other night and he is impressive, he just needs more seasoning.
Santorum is more more than qualified now to be president. In my opinion had our founding fathers wanted the POTUS to have “seasoning” so to speak they would have codified it in the Constitutuion.
There, now we disagree again. Everything is right with the world. Situation is now back to normal, move along folks, nothing to see here. 😛
By seasoning, I mean experience. I just don’t know, or haven’t heard what Santorum did before his Senate career, which wasn’t that extensive. What private sector experience does he have?
Again Cluster I have to disagree with you. If our founders had intended the POTUS to have any private sector business experience they would have codified it the Constitution.
It is my opinion that seasoned and experienced politicians have gotten us where we are. 15.1 Trillion Dollars real debt and who knows how much hidden debt.
If you are going to demand experience and seasoning, is not demanding a de facto nobility?
My lawyer, who has my deepest respect and admiration, told me today she thinks Santorum is, for now, VP material. My own opinion is a little better, but I can see where she is coming from.
I think his political seasoning is pretty good, and let’s face it, if you have the right attitude toward business and the role of government in business and economics, you can appoint the right people with the right hands-on experience to cover you on that front. I think the problem with Obama is not just his lack of experience but the attitude toward capitalism that led him to his Leftist activist activities he now tries to portray as “jobs”.
It’s like defense and the military—-if you have the right attitude, you don’t have to have a military history to be a good Commander in Chief, but if you hate the military you can’t be good at the job.
And the strange day rolls into another strange day when I agree completely with Amazona.
Dec 21, 2012 you say?
Speaking of telling the truth. Another repub does it. Hey maybe it will catch on afterall 🙂
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/lawmaker-says-michelle-obama-has-large-posterior_b59691
Romney Mitt aka Darth Mittens strikes again. Does this go as a flip or a flop? Is John effn Kerry getting more envious by the day? LOL
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/romney-reverses-position-on-iraq.html
From your linked article GMB:
I can’t think of any important substantive facts that have changed between now and then that would lead Romney to alter his opinion.
Yet the paragraph above gave him his answer:
Mitt Romney asserts that “of course” invading Iraq was a bad idea now that we know Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. (“If we knew at the time of our entry into Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction, if somehow we had been given that information, obviously we would not have gone in.”
I think the absence of WMD is fairly large substantive fact. Honestly GMB,, you buy into the drama just like liberals do.
One word. No.
Direct transcript of Republican Debate did you read it?
MR. ROMNEY: It was the right decision to go into Iraq. I supported it at the time; I support it now.
It was not well managed in the — after the takedown of Saddam Hussein and his military. That was done brilliantly, an extraordinary success. But in the years that followed, it was not well — we were undermanaged, underprepared, underplanned, understaffed, and then we come into the phase that we have now. The plan that President Bush and General Petraeus put together is working. It’s changing lives there.
And perhaps most importantly, it’s making sure that al Qaeda and no other group like them is becoming a superpower, if you will, in the communities, and having a safe haven from which they launch attacks against us.
It’s critical for us. When we think about debating the Democrats, they might want to go back and talk about what happened at the beginning. But the most important issue is what do we do now, and their just run and retreat regardless of the consequences is going to be a real problem for them when they face a debate with a Republican on the stage.
Cluster what changed from the time of this debate until now? Other than what Romney has said? Anything?
This accusation of drama is getting to be a standard talking point. Disagree and get accused of being a “drama queen”
Mitts own words are now drama?
MR. ROMNEY: It was the right decision to go into Iraq. I supported it at the time; I support it now.
Again I ask you what changed?
Taken from another debate. This one in South Carolina, May 15, 2007.
Not one mention of not finding wmd’s
http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2008/republican-debate-transcript-south-carolina/p13338
MR. ROMNEY: Well, I’m certainly not going to project failure, and those kind of circumstances that you would suggest would be projecting failure.
It is critical for us to remember that Iraq has to be considered in the context of what’s happening in the Middle East and throughout the world. There is a global jihadist effort. Violent, radical jihadists want to replace all the governments of the moderate Islamic states, replace them with a caliphate. And to do that, they also want to bring down the West, in particular us.
And they’ve come together as Shi’a and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda with that intent. We have to recognize that what we’re doing in Iraq has enormous impact on what’s going to happen in this global struggle, and that’s why it’s important for us to understand that if we were to just walk out precipitously, we could conceivably see the border with Turkey be destabilized by virtue of the Kurdish effort, we could have the Iranians take over the Shi’a south, and perhaps most frightening, you could have al Qaeda play a dominant role among the Sunnis and then have a setting where you’d have something far worse than Afghanistan on their hands.
And so we recognize that it’s critical for us to provide the stability to allow a central government to survive and thrive.
Not one mention of not finding wmd’s
And why should he have said such a stupid thing? That would have put him in the same category as the other knuckle-dragging morons who drooled that they, somehow, had the authority to determine exactly the amount and type of WMD that would qualify as “finding WMD”. The same mouth breathers who decided that the only reason we went into Iraq was WMD and that failure to find vast storehouses of same would mean the entire war was based on a lie, when the only lie was their own claim that WMD were the only reason for the invasion.
It would have aligned him with the hysterics who simply ignored the convoys of semis leaving known WMD factories every night to cross into Syria, who dismissed the testimony from a government official that seats on one of the two permitted “passenger” flights allowed out of Iraq every day had been removed, and that the flights were filled with tanks of chemicals.
Make up all the silly, inane, fatuous names you want to express your loathing of Romney, but don’t complain that he wasn’t loony enough on the WMD issue.
And BTW, the phrase wmd’s” means “weapons of mass destructions”. WMD already means WEAPONS of mass destruction so adding an “S” is not necessary.
Amazona.
Timeline.
2011. Iraq bad
2008 Iraq good
2007 Iraq good
2005 Wmd controversy starts.
6 years for an opinion to change. Why did he not have his 2011 opinion in 2007 or 2008 if the contoversy started in 2005?
This was never about my opinion on whether or not there were wmd’s in iraq
2011. Iraq bad
An elementary viewpoint to be sure. Romney is referring to intel GMB, that which we had at the time, and that we know of now, and I for one, definitely want a President that has the maturity to think through positions based on evolving intel. I guess you would prefer a pit bull with lip stick.
I don’t like the comment because it buys into the Lefty lie that we went into Iraq only because of WMD.
The wmd controversy started way before the presidential campaing of 2008.
What changed?? Anyone care to offer an opinion?
AGAIN – the absence of WMD is a substantive fact, and that’s what he was referring to. We largely went into Iraq on that basis, and had we known there was no WMD, we may not have decided to do that, AGAIN, what Romney referred to.
When the decision is made, you support it, then and now.
Tell you what GMB, DON’T VOTE FOR MITT OR NEWT. They obviously are not as principled as you are. I am sure you candidate will come along, once she gets off her publicity tour.
MR. ROMNEY: It was the right decision to go into Iraq. I supported it at the time; I support it now.
With the intel of WMD it was the right decision to go into Iraq, and AGAIN, once that decision is made, you support it, then and even now
Had we known there was no WMD, we may not have decided to go in.
Not too difficult to understand.
This was supposedly know in since 2005. Mitt changes his mind in 2011.
I have provided examples of Romney position in 2008 and 2007.
They do not agree with Romney position in 2011.
Ok I am over principled. What are Romneys principles. Does he have any he has not changed his position on?
I think what he is saying is that he supported the decision to go into Iraq based on the intel at the time. Had we known there were no WMD’s that decision may have been different. That’s all. And let’s be honest, many people, including I, have struggled with that decision and still do. In hindsight, you can easily say that maybe we shouldn’t have gone in, but with the intel and circumstances in the ME at the time, I think it was the right decision.
Cluster. What took him so long to change his mind? All the sudden in 2011 he changes his position? What gives?
This is not nor has it ever been about the good vesus the bad about going into Iraq. I would be saying the same thing had Romney been against then and for now.
This is about one presidential candidate changing his position on the war. What new intel did Romney get inbetween 2008 and 2011?
He doesn’t mention any. So are we to assume the he is privy to information we are not?
I think any serious adult has to question that decision to go in, considering the fact that WMD were not located, but that is the luxury of hindsight. The intel at the time still would lead many people, including me, to go in.
So I would probably being saying the same thing
GMB,
You’re getting all tangled up over a hypothetical. Romney is simply saying that HAD WE KNOWN that there were no WMD, our decision may have been different. That’s all.
Ok Cluster I agree with you.
Thats not what he said during the last election cycle and I have provided the transcripts that show that.
I will let you have the last word on this. Your opinion will be final.
Was it a flip flop or not?
It was a minor flip flop, but honestly who hasn’t had second thoughts on that war, and again – I do want a president that has the maturity to think things through, and change a position according to new intel or circumstances, specifically when it comes to engaging in war.
Well, if we are playing with hypotheticals, how about IF WE HAD KNOWN THE WMD WERE BEING MOVED WHEN WE SAW THE TRUCKS LEAVING THE WMD FACTORIES, WOULD WE HAVE INCLUDED THE POSSIBILITY OF WMD IN IRAQ IN THE 17 REASONS FOR INVADING?
Let’s GOOOOO Newt!!!! 🙂
It’s an important time to vote, folks, this coming year. So come out and give Newt your support. No, not everybody is gonna agree with Newt on all the issues, but at least you can agree to disagree. Myself, I happen to agree with Mr. Gingrich. I think he’s a good man, very well intentioned, highly intelligent, probably more-so than some would give him credit for, I’m sure. The thing here, is that, we have a man in the White House who has done a very poor job of helping this country. Obama has done way more harm to American than he has done anything, and especially for the working man. He has destroyed the futures of millions of young and middle aged people. So the more important thing, now, is to do everything we can to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, and if we give Mr. Gingrich that opportunity, then I think that is just what we will do. Marriage means a lot to a lot of people, afterall it is the backbone of our country, and any society, that of one man and one woman, that is, it is the support that keeps the structure from crumbling, and going extinct, as some have in the past, like Sodom and Gomorrah. But one the whole we realize that there are other equally important issues that need addressing, however, one of them should not be protecting perversion, despite the fact that is is becoming evermore popular to do so, it is a grave mistake if we do, and America will find that out soon enough. I think though that Newt understands this, and I hope everyone on the Conservative side of the isle will consider giving him your support next November. God bless!!
While Obama takes a $4 million vacation, he is lauded for throwing a few scraps to the proletariat in the form of a payroll tax cut, but only for 60 days.
This Hope and Change thing is awesome.
Cluster,
I think you’d be surprised how many people can be bought off for $167 (1/6 of $1,000). Come one, we’re talking the good ol’ U.S. of A here. Money talks and BS walks.
Cluster, you do realize there isn’t a president in modern times who hasn’t cost taxpayers out the wazoo for trips of any kind.
Even political fund-raising trips for one party are paid for by the whole country – at least they were when Republicans were in the White House. Dick Cheney’s 2003 trip to Tom O’Gara’s ranch for a $2,000-per-plate fundraising dinner took a C-17 transport jet carrying two armored limos and three Secret Service SUVs, two Blackhawk helicopters for surveillance, two military Gulfstream jets, two dozen Secret Service agents and of course the VP’s aides. Not to mention additional security from local and state police departments. see http://tinyurl.com/6umae3j
How many millions do you suppose all that cost? What makes Obama’s vacation expenses (largely due to security considerations) any different in principle from any other president’s?
What makes Obama’s vacation expenses (largely due to security considerations) any different in principle from any other president’s? – dennis
Oh maybe the fact that Obama constantly demonizes the “rich”, and earlier told people, and companies, that having conventions and spending lavishly in Vegas was not such a good idea. Or how about Hope and Change, and a $15 trillion dollar debt, and a struggling economy and continued high unemployment, etc, etc, etc.
Real leaders, lead by example and walk the walk.
ahem on a gay thread…….
Love speaks from experience. Even more than Michelle Obama, it has been Love who has spent the most time with the president. That’s because Love was known as the “body man,” the aide who works with, plays with, and sticks like glue to the president, ready to handle any task or request.
paging larry sinclair