Newt had an affair while trying to impeach clinton

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Newt had an affair while trying to impeach Clinton but what is the over/under on Clinton affairs during the same period?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Bill Clinton considering a run for President?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on how you look at it.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An anti-abortion democrat would demolish this field of republicans. I've contended for awhile that the "religious right" is pretty much a single issue voting block.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if the republicans run a pro-choicer?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing. Doesn't effect it one bit. I don't know any single issue voters on the pro-choice side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange, I know plenty. And actually... I don't know any one issue pro-life voters. Must run with different crowds. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An anti-abortion democrat would demolish this field of republicans. I've contended for awhile that the "religious right" is pretty much a single issue voting block.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if the republicans run a pro-choicer?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing. Doesn't effect it one bit. I don't know any single issue voters on the pro-choice side.

[/ QUOTE ]

My sarcasm meter may be broken ... you are kidding, right? You don't think a pro-choice Republican like Guiliani could take a lot of moderate Dem votes? Not sure he can get nominated, but if he does, he would be tough to beat IMHO.

NCAces

[Barcalounger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An anti-abortion democrat would demolish this field of republicans. I've contended for awhile that the "religious right" is pretty much a single issue voting block.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if the republicans run a pro-choicer?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing. Doesn't effect it one bit. I don't know any single issue voters on the pro-choice side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange, I know plenty. And actually... I don't know any one issue pro-life voters. Must run with different crowds. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? That's fascinating to me. Is abortion really that much under attack in Georgia that otherwise unpolitical people are getting out to the polls defensively for pro-life? Or that otherwise conservative people are voting democrat? Single issue voters are fascinating to me anyway, but the idea that in Georgia there are Republican leaning people who are biting the bullet and voting for democrats solely on abortion kind of blows my mind. What area of Atlanta are you in?

[By-Tor]

Just as Clintons affair was none of my business, neither is Newts. I could care less.

It is his hypocrisy on the issue and others of this type that prevent me from supporting him.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Is abortion really that much under attack in Georgia

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. The issue doesn't have to be in contention for someone to be a one issue voter on it.

[ QUOTE ]
Or that otherwise conservative people are voting democrat?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you propose the exact opposite scenario from what you were talking about earlier? More like I know Democratic voting women who would most certainly vote Republican if the Democrat was pro-life and the Republican was pro-choice. It's not happening, but that doesn't make their views any different than what they are.

[Barcalounger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is abortion really that much under attack in Georgia

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. The issue doesn't have to be in contention for someone to be a one issue voter on it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nah, but it helps. It also helps if you go on TV a lot and talk about "the war on ..." whatever issue.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or that otherwise conservative people are voting democrat?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you propose the exact opposite scenario from what you were talking about earlier? More like I know Democratic voting women who would most certainly vote Republican if the Democrat was pro-life and the Republican was pro-choice. It's not happening, but that doesn't make their views any different than what they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
Propose? I was just wondering what kind of single issue voters you knew. When I mentioned a "pro-life democrat" or was asked about a "pro-choice" republican each of those scenarios end up "taking the issue off the table" because each candidate would likely have the same stance. So I was thinking of "single issue voters" who would vote for the other party or not vote at all if that one issue was taken off the table. The reason being that in North Carolina I knew a lot of moderately liberal people who vote Republican and they told me straight up that if abortion wasn't an issue they'd vote for a Democrat in the white house. I never experienced the opposite, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I just didn't think it would be as common (conservative who votes for Democrat but would vote Republican if they were pro-choice). Also the churches help mobilize people to the polls on this single issue.

Evidentially you were talking about a complete swap of positions by the 2 major parties, so I'm glad we clarified. You're right, I do probably know some people who'd switch if the roles were completely reversed. On both sides of the issue. It'd be a bizarre election. It's very funny (not in a haha way) that this one little issue is the one that seems to decide everything in our country.

[blutarski]

Christian Conservatives have been vocal about their 'concern' over Guiliani's past divorces.

Yet, they're not concerned about Newt's abandonment of his wife during her cancer treatment or his extramarital affair?

Are conservative Christians totally oblivious to hyprocrisy, or have they just said [censored] it?

BTW, if Newt gets elected president, it will be the Omen 3 and the Dead Zone wrapped into one.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Christian Conservatives have been vocal about their 'concern' over Guiliani's past divorces.

Yet, they're not concerned about Newt's abandonment of his wife during her cancer treatment or his extramarital affair?

Are conservative Christians totally oblivious to hyprocrisy, or have they just said [censored] it?


[/ QUOTE ]

My suspicion is that Newt's views are closer aligned with the Christian right's than Rudy Giuliani's are, so they're more willing to forgive him for past moral transgressions, particularly since it appears as if Newt has been their political ally for quite some time now.

One way to look at the Christian right's defense of Newt and disavowal of Rudy Giuliani is to claim it's outrageous hypocrisy; I certainly won't deny there's some truth in that, but I think another way to look at the Christian right's criticism of Giuliani's personal life as something akin to a shot across the bow that says "come to our side on important issues or pay a political price (i.e., don't expect our support)".

In other words, we can see the move to criticize Giuliani as another example of Falwell/Robertson/Dobson/et al obnoxiousness, or we can see it as something of a calculated political maneuver intended to send a warning. Of course, this is a bit of a false dichotomy; I'd claim it's a political tactic, AND it's indicative of gross hypocrisy and genuine douchebaggery. But let's not discount that notion when the Christian right takes shots at Giuliani, it's as much politiking as it is earnest denunciation.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
...they're more willing to forgive him...

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you haven't heard, but they built an entire religion on this very idea of forgiveness.