GOP Newt Gingrich Now under Scrutiny for His Catholicism – from the Media: WAPO Headlines: “Catholic Blind Spots” and “Catholic Case for Gingrich”

The GOP Candidates: Branding by Religion: Perry, Romney, Gingrich, Pual and Bachmann - image detroit news

GOP Presidential Newt Gingrich has come under scrutiny for a myriad number of past indiscretions (going back 20 odd years in most cases) by his GOP Rivals and the press once he rose to the top tier, and then became the one to best in the 2012 GOP Nomination Process. It appears with everything thrown at Gingrich but the kitchen sink, including potential personality issues, which would have one believe every pundit and politicians has had a crash course in psychology lately, his ability to work across the aisle (cardinal sin), his “wild” ideas, that are, when taken in context, sound and forward thinking (Promotion of a space program, teaching children to learn the concept of work and reward from a private sector standpoint). With each new “bomb” thrown at Gingrich, regardless of the source, he continues to rise in the polls (among Republicans primary voters – but at close inspection of certain polls, he also appeals to independents and moderate Democrats).

Those elite, those Washington insiders, and those pundits and talking heads (especially the likes of Glenn Beck who is, when one looks at certain predictions he has made in the past, akin to “Chicken Little”) – prefer one candidate in particular, and the rest of the population is considered - less able to make the choice of the right candidate on their own – in simple terms. It is the process that they are attempting to pervert that is prompting the rise of Gingrich, as they did in the past with the rise of anyone but the individual the GOP had pre-ordained as the front-runner, often two years before the first vote had been cast.

They have help of course, from their friends across the aisle – at times it is difficult to tell if one is listening to Ann Coulter or David Axelrod, (of course the later uses crude language and Ann does have superior intellect), regardless – the people who are voting will have the say – and they will have that say if the candidate of choice is Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Michelle Bachmann and yes, even the apparent “chosen one” – Mitt Romney.

However, now the gauntlet has been thrown down in a manner that hasn’t been employed since the 1960’s and the race that brought one John Kennedy to the White House – the fact that Gingrich is a Catholic. Now there are two articles with what appear to be opposing views from the Washington Post the first: Gingrich’s Catholic Blind Spots - speaks to the fact that Puritans set he rule of government when they arrived at Plymouth, and therefore, the Catholic vision of governance is slightly different in that they do not expect their leaders to be “saints”, rather to follow the tenants of the Church, as interpreted by University Professors and a host of “experts” on the subject of Catholicism. It is almost as if to say: Gingrich is not Catholic enough, based on his past.

This article is followed by a second entitled “The Catholic case for Gingrich, for now”. Speaks to the fact that Gig rich basically follows the ten tents of the faith, yet, one must watch over the next few weeks to see if he perhaps sways in any way.

Understanding a President’s faith may be a sticking point (see the rhetoric against John F. Kennedy pre-election hysteria surrounding his Catholicism) or more so a “tool “to frighten one voting bloc against another, the fact of the matter is the Catholic Vote has traditionally gone to one party, with very few inconsistencies- and that party is the Democrats. Of those high profile Catholics who have held, or currently hold office, the familiar names of Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, pick a Kennedy, Richard Neal, the Massachusetts 1st District Representative, and the majority (with the notable exception of Neal) receive high marks, not from the church but form pro-abortion groups such as NARAL.

Yet, when it comes to an election year, one can find them most often in a Church with a full contingent of press in tow. The fact that with few exceptions (again Neal) the legislation that they produce and the votes they cast, run contrary to Catholicism in so many way. There is, however, nary a peep out of the press. These living and deceased Catholic Democrats have been lauded in both the church and the press, regardless of infidelities, multiple marriages or their stance on issues such as abortion.
Catholics, like women, African American’s, Hispanics, “belong to the Democrats”. (Would the Washington Post be Aware of that 70 Million strong voting bloc and attempt to sway the same?)

Newt Gingrich had a lot of nerve converting and therefore, since he’s now receiving (in polls) Catholic support, something must be done to “take him down a peg”.
As this blogger is a Catholic Christian, born a Catholic – yet a questioning Catholic, and a student of History, one finds that the use of religion, especially by those who are convenient “pundits” to apparently challenge the faith of another Catholic, is in a word, abhorrent.

One can see why, as an Historian, the Catholic Faith would appeal to Newt Gingrich, it is stepped in History, with the word “Catholic” literally meaning “universal”, giving one a comforting notion of a faith that has held fast since Christ anointed Peter as the fist Pope, to the tenants of forgiveness of sin, and those many wars throughout the history of Europe that were fought by princes and kings in order to either throw the yoke of Rome off their personal backs (See the beginnings of the English Church), and those that fought to keep the faith pure for political reasons. From this perspective it is the perfect mix of history and theology makes this the most attractive of all Christian Sects.

That said, in the political arena, where does the faith of one candidate over another’s mean a hill of beans in a society based on freedom from a State Sponsored Religion? Would it matter if one candidate were a Baptist, a Jew, a Mormon, a Catholic, a non-denominational Christian, or Muslim? Our nation was founded on the principal of freedom to practice religion, any religion, without being burned at the proverbial stake for not being “Catholic enough” or “Evangelical enough”?

The fact that the former Speaker is now a Catholic, has little to do with a reason to vote or not, for the man = however, the fact that he is a man of faith, does imply a moral compass - one that is necessary in any candidate regardless of brand of religion. The reasons one would support a Gingrich Presidency would be the man’s intellect, his wisdom as a result of intellect and age, and his sense of history, which, one must understand is a blueprint for “what not to do” when it comes to options regarding everything from foreign policy to social programs to yes, taxes. As with all past presidents, their religion was a personal matter, and one finds it difficult to find one President who has led the nation based on a specific brand of religion, however, all Presidents have involved the name of God – we are a nation founded on Christian and Judeo Principals – so to those who nitpick that someone isn’t Catholic enough, or perhaps too Catholic, or too Evangelical or too Baptist, or too pick a brand, are merely attempting to sway one’s vote as one may not be smart enough to make the choice – without the help of Glenn Beck, the DNC, the RNC or pick a pundit. – Therefore these individuals “use” religion to their advantage.

Moreover, the measure of man or woman running for the highest office in the land, should not be based on their choice of religion, rather their competence, past life experience, combined in a resume that qualifies one over another for the position they seek- and it is up to the voters to cast their ballots based on the following: their conscious as Americans, as Citizens of the United States, and to do so, one must look at the candidates and ask: who would lead us in dignity and intellect, safety and on a course that would allow us to be the nation that is known to give the most, offer the most, and deny not one citizen an opportunity to rise and prosper. The fallacious argument that the GOP candidate will not win if they are not “young enough” or “too white” or “too old” or “too much a female” or not “moderate enough” is, in a word, insane.

Those who feel they rare in the position to best advise and lead the public (all in the name of the Beltway) have every right to endorse or champion their favorite candidate, however, to vilify another to the point of picking on their religion, is – in a phrase – “above their pay scale” (Barack Obama’s answer to a question in a faith based debate at Saddleback Church, to Rick Warren in 2008, when asked to define when life began.)
One might not agree with the President Obama’s policies, and therefore, one has choices to make as to whom one would choose as a Replacement. It is not the fact that he President can or cannot be bested in a political contest, it is the fact that we have a process, a process in which, the people, not the pundits, or members of Congress, or the also rans, should shill for one candidate that “party leaders” preordain. It is perhaps, this arrogance that has cost one Mitt Romney, the ability to rise to the nomination for a second time. Would either Gingrich or Romney or Paul, or Perry or Santorum best President Obama? They are all aptly qualified to one degree or another, therefore the answer is yes – as long as the pundits and the national GOP stay on the sidelines and let the people decide who the nominee should be that leads on the ideology of less government, fewer taxes, strong foreign policy and defense of our nation and a respect for the rights of states to determine what is best for their constituents, and if not accepted in general, there is always another election.

Speaking as a Massachusetts Conservative with some Degrees of Moderation and a bit of pragmatism and the ability to actually research legislation written (sponsored), or supported (co-sponsored), the outcomes and the roll-call votes of those in Congress and the Senate (records available on line, this is not a special talent), it is to this mind that Gingrich represents the best choice to lead the nation forward, at a reasonable pace. If one reads through the posts of 2008, one will find that this blogger also has supported Mike Huckabee, and then when the going was tough, and the three remaining choices were Barack Obama, John McCain and Hillary Clinton – Clinton was the choice, not based on the fact that she was a woman (yes, feminism), but on her voting record and her views at that time. Of the three, she was the strongest on defense, followed by McCain (seriously) and finally a man who had no record to speak of – a one term Senator, and former State Legislator, whose voting pattern culled from Illinois, made this voter a bit uneasy on social issues and issues of limited government.

Therefore, at this moment, in this time, Gingrich Is the choice of this individual who has grown more conservative over the course of the past four years, as one might suspect, so have others that are moderate and independent. The President does not belong to one group or another, but especially the President should not be chosen by a political party, or the press, and should the people prefer a candidate those aforementioned are not supporting – tough. Finally, the polls: as a student of polls, the ability to predict a “winner” depends on the largest possible sample, additionally questions posed are not often as clear, by design, and as pollsters also lean politically to both the right and the left, the outcomes can be “modified” and that “perdition” becomes more of a propaganda piece than an actual useful statistical analysis. Therefore, who dose the voter trust, one would suggest their instincts, as to whom one feels would be the best leader, and then let the chips fall where they may.

GOP 2012 Polling – Gingrich, Romney, Paul – Endorsements This Week - Obama No Idea Economy Was In Tough Shape When He Took Office - Commentary

Now there are three - Romney Paul and Gingrich - image cnn.com

Every pollster under the sun has been polling the GOP race, both nationally and in Early Voting and Swing States – the results depending upon the pollsters are fairly consistent both in GOP only and then national polls. The GOP only national polling shows both Gingrich and Romney in the same positions with slight changes over the past week: Gallup has Gingrich with a lead of 31% to Romney’s consistent 22% - also consistent are Ron Paul at 8%, Rick Perry at 7%, Michelle Bachmann at 6% with both Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman picking up 1 point respectively and those with No Opinion (or more likely those who will vote for whomever is the nominee) moving up 5 points.

Rasmussen, on nationwide “likeability” has Romney leading with 53% of the electorate having a favorable or somewhat favorable opinion, while Gingrich is seen as favorable or somewhat favorable by 43%, among Republican voters only However, Gingrich holds the edge on the “very favorable” category leading Romney by 31 to 22%, however, both men are tied at an overall “favorable opinion” at 80%, the balance of the field falls below 50% favorability, with candidates such as Huntsman holding low favorability due to lack of exposure nationwide (i.e. Never Head of/No Opinion). Although this poll is more of a “popularity” poll, rather than a “who would one cast their vote for poll”, it is of some import given the fact that those lesser known candidates nationwide may have some time to pick up points, taking away from one of the top tier candidates.

In a second poll on the strength of candidates Rasmussen shows both Gingrich and Romney as those seen as the “strongest GOP opponents for Obama – with Gingrich at 30% and Romney at 29%. This suggests that regardless of the poll or the pollster, the enthusiasm among Republican voters, and determination to nominate someone they see as being best able to unseat the incumbent, President Barack Obama with good cause – given other pollsters weighing in on the national contest.

Gallup shows Romney and Gingrich with a “slight” edge over Obama in twelve key swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. These are the states where Obama held an 8 point lead in 2008 over McCain. That said, Gallup shows both Romney and Gingrich (with Romney faring better) losing ground to Obama in the national polling. With Obama at 47 to 46% (Romney) and 50% to 44% (Gingrich). Although the President’s Job Approval Rating according to Gallup shows an historical correlation between the incumbent and former one-term President Jimmy Carter’s.

President Obama's 43% average job approval rating last month ranks as one of the lowest for an elected president in November of his third year in office. Only Jimmy Carter had a lower rating, at 40%. But Carter's rating surged in late November 1979 because of a rally in support after the onset of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and he averaged above 50% in December. All recently elected presidents were at or above 50% in December of their third year in office. (Gallup Polling December 2, 2012)
Note: as of December 10th Obama held an approval rating of 45%/to 48% disapproval. (Gallup Polling Dec. 10th)

As much as one enjoys a poll, however, the polls most likely to be close in predictability are those that are taken three weeks or less out from an election, therefore, at this juncture, national polls, or polls in states with primaries beyond the 1st week of January are much less accurate. As of this point, two states are in the spotlight: Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa, a caucus state, polling plays a smaller roll than in other states, due to the nature of the ground game (the candidate with the most time in on the ground and the largest group of supporters would upend a candidate that may have spent millions on advertising, but had less of a ground game. Ideology also plays a factor in this state where half of the electorate is Conservative Evangelical Voters, with the balance either leaning Moderate or Libertarian. Which would go a long way towards understanding the latest polling reported by The Daily Caller where Public Policy Polling shows Gingrich and Ron Paul within a point at 22 (Gingrich) to 21 (Paul) and Romney at 16%.

The Poll also indicates that Paul is gaining over the past week on Gingrich, while Romney remains the same, and Bachman, Santorum and Huntsman have all gained in the past week. The only candidates remaining stagnant are Perry, Romney and Johnson (The other Libertarian in the race). Again with Iowa, polls taken at the caucus could be wildly unpredictable, but, generally speaking, the candidate (s) three weeks out from the caucus will either place first or second if they lead by ten or more points. A side note on Public Policy Polling, although a decidedly Democrat leaning firm, the level of accuracy in polling close to the race has been extremely consistent.

Finally, the President is on the campaign trail as well with Politico reporting that Obama’s latest “tactic” for holding a second term is to tell the public he simply had no idea of what he was getting into as far as the economy was concerned. The actual quote: "I think we understood that it was bad, but we didn’t know how bad it was,” Obama said in an interview with KIRO in Seattle. "I think I could have prepared the American people for how bad this was going to be, had we had a sense of that." belies the fact that at the stage where an individual is the party’s nominee, they also should be well enough informed of what is taking place, not only with the economy (He did, as an acting Senator, rush to sign the TARP program), but on foreign and domestic policy as well.

One would hope, every single candidate, both GOP, the President representing the DNC, and a host of minor party candidates, all understand the extremely difficult task before them. It will come down to who the voters believe have the best understanding of the situation at hand, and who is most capable of leading the nation forward. In addition, that individual must have a record of working successfully with both sides of the aisle, and sometimes disappointing those members of their own party who would prefer a more “solid conservative” or in the President’s case, a “solid Progressive” that does not bend. Unfortunately, when the President panders to a Political Party, then gridlock ensues. That is a key sticking point for voters in this election – gridlock. Those who are the final nominees (one is a given) will have to not only prove merit to handle the job at hand, but also the record and ability to work with both sides of the aisle, without compromising principles. It is a job that, frankly, for those either crazy enough or brave enough or egotistical enough to apply and hope to get the job done.

2012 GOP Update: Gingrich NH Town Hall Sensation, Hell Freezes Over – Romney Endorsed by NH Tea Party Leader – Rasmussen Gingrich Leads

The Top of the GOP Heap - Gingrich and Romney - image via USA Today


From Politico headlines: “Newt Gingrich in New Hampshire: deafening applause” speaks to the former Speaker of the House more than holding court at a New Hampshire Town Hall. The single most interesting aspect of what is found in this article is the responses from those questioned on their choice of Newt Gingrich – and it is a simple answer: “He answers the questions asked, instead of giving one a story” (paraphrased). It is one thing that is most notable in the debate arena as well; Gingrich answers the questions poised, rather than weave around the question, which sends a clear signal of confidence and competence. This meeting, held is what is considered Mitt Romney’s backyard, is part and parcel of the ludicrous remarks of pundits who automatically give a candidate (regardless of who that candidate may be) the edge, regardless of the fact that the process of any election is fluid. Consider 2008 when Romney lost New Hampshire to John McCain – he was then, as he is now, considered the “shoe in” by pundits. The actual voters may disagree.

Rasmussen polling’s release of a Gingrich/Romney match-up headlined: "Voters See Gingrich Romney as Strongest GOP Opponents for Obama". Behind the headline however, it is the political class that sees Romney as the strongest, with the bulk of the “regular folks” seeing Gingrich in that role – and with a large margin.

“Among Republican voters, however, 49% believe Gingrich would be the strongest general election candidate. Just 24% say the same of Romney.”
(Rasmussen Reports)

Therefore, while popular radio hosts such as Dr. Michael Savage and Glenn Beck with a host of talking heads at Fox News and “name a network”, stand firmly behind Mitt Romney – one has to take a second look at Gingrich due to the nature of those who are defending the former Massachusetts Governor. From outrageous statements by Savage and Beck (which one would anticipate) to the cast of Bush Republican surrogates (and the family itself) backing Romney to the hilt) – Gingrich becomes even more appealing – in an anti-Bush, anti-Government perspective.

Of course, not all conservatives are behind Newt Gingrich; however one shocking endorsement from the Granite State came from the defacto leader of the New Hampshire Tea Party. The Union Leader is reporting that Tom Thompson, long-time anti-tax advocate, has come out to endorse Mitt Romney. Apparently, Thompson neglected to fully vet Mitt Romney, specifically in his role as Governor of Massachusetts, and “king of fees”. Romney did not raise taxes on the good people of Massachusetts; he raised “fees” instead. When is a fee not a tax? That’s the question of the day. If money is paid to a state entity, does it matter what name is attached, as long as that money is going into the state coffers?

That aside, a whole host of Romney legislation or failure to legislate, should drive any honest Tea Party Patriot over the ledge, from his introduction to the nation of the budget eating, Commonwealth Care (which, if one does not participate in any insurance one is fined heavily through the Massachusetts Department of Revenue – to the tune of what one might have paid in premiums – if one were able to afford the premiums in place in Massachusetts.) With the minimum number of carriers now allowed in the Commonwealth, setting insurance rates for those “private payers” is a roulette of constant premium increases that coincide with the mandate heavy program all falling on the backs of those left that have private insurance. It is, besides education, the largest chunk of the Massachusetts budget. There are no opt-outs, there are no safety nets, there is either you’re covered, or you’re paying a “fee” to the Massachusetts Equivalent of the IRS as a penalty. Not to mention the mountains of additional employer regulations and paperwork that is part and parcel of Commonwealth Care - driving up the costs to employers. How the aforementioned can possibly fit the political ideology of any Tea Party member is beyond comprehension.

Additionally, it is not so much that Newt Gingrich, the front-runner, hasn’t got a “liberal” leaning in his closet (or hosts of them from the 1990’s), however, he knows when to admit he was wrong, and sticks to his guns when he feels he did the right thing. In Romney’s case, the Commonwealth’s program is in chaos, yet, he still insists it’s the perfect model.

Will someone please poll Massachusetts!! In a variety of emails from Tea Party’s in the Bay State, one is stricken by who these various groups do not support, and who they do (and right now it is neither of the above), the rank and file voters however, may feel a bit differently about their former Governor and that is not only newsworthy but would give a picture of how those Romney governed feel he performed. The Bay State is known as the “bluest state” for its alleged overwhelming Democrat voting population, which is a fallacy. Although Republican’s are outnumbered by Democrat’s 3 to 1, the biggest majority party in the Bay State is the non-party – or the unenrolled at over 50% of the electorate.
Note to Gingrich: understanding that the NH campaign is important, Massachusetts is a hop, skip and jump away, and all one needs in the Bay State is 15% of the vote in the primary on Super Tuesday to garner a delegate or two.

In closing, neither of these men are strict conservatives, however, one, by virtue of his record, is more conservative than the other, additionally, one must look at the ability to debate, and to stand tall in the face of intense criticism without falling apart (Or going to the “other side” – Kennedy Romney Senate Debate). Although there is a great deal of criticism thrown at the former Speaker, it is surprisingly from the political class, and not a peep from the rank and file, while Romney is embraced and lauded by the same.
In closing, one would anticipate that one of these men would be the standard bearer, not necessarily of the Republican Party, but of the ideology that represents free markets, the ability for the individual to succeed, smaller government, and herein lays the crux, the ability to cross the isle and get things done, without compromising principles to the extent that one’s ideology is no longer of import. One of these men has done a remarkable job in crossing aisles and working towards a conservative agenda, while the other merely crossed aisles. Perhaps it is true, Romany had no choice, given the make-up of the legislature, but that is merely an excuse. Will this race for the Presidency, regardless of who takes the nomination be a cakewalk? Not likely – although statistically the numbers do not favor the incumbent, it is up to the most upbeat and persuasive debater to bring rational back to the nation.



Note on debate video: this was 1994, the Senate Debate between Mitt Romney and Ted Kennedy, it is only a part, a small part – compare and contrast this performance to any of the performances in the 2004, 2008 and 2012 debate arenas.