Today's Situation Room:
Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.
Gingrich wouldn't vote for Ron Paul
(CNN) – Newt Gingrich said Tuesday he wouldn't vote for Ron Paul if the Texas congressman won the 2012 GOP nomination.
Speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Gingrich slammed Paul as out of line with mainstream Republican viewpoints, including his stance on Israel, Iran, and September 11.
"I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American," Gingrich said on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."
SEE ALSO:
VIDEO: Gingrich: First divorce misreported
VIDEO: Gingrich: Let Congress subpoena judges
VIDEO: Gingrich: I am going to stay positive
TRANSCRIPT: Gingrich interview highlights
About this Show
The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer is the command center for breaking news, politics and extraordinary reports from around the world. Tune in weeknights from 5-7pm ET on CNN.
On Twitter
Gingrich should have had his vote taken from him as a felon, instead he resigned as speaker of the house. Look up Mark Foley and Gingrich scandal. Or Gingrich and his 84 ethics violations.
I am an 82 year old Vet with five flags flying in front of my home, and one on my car. I had 2 years in the navy, and 10 in the Airforce, give a considerable portion of my income to the unfortunates, and thus, I am apparently one of the UNdecent Americans he was speaking of. I also have followed Politics quite closely, and recall Neut"s antics in the house. He was such a "Decent "American in that job, that his party litterally kicked himm out. ( I wonder why the leaders of our congresses, suddenly decide they are dictators, as soon as they gain that position)
I would dearly love to have an open 2 minutes to address him as a "died in the wool INDEPENDENT" (leaning slightly right or left, depanding upon the issue)
As for Ron Paul, I will vote for him as president, or write him in (or, if he doesn't run, some other like person in 2012 a third party. THIS TIME I BELEIVE A THIRD PARTY HAS A CHANCE ) and while I don't agree with everything he has said in his younger years, (I don't even agree with everything I said or thought in my younger years) –since this primary season has started, I have yet to hear a single thing from him with which I was NOT in general agreement.
That's the good thing about newts, atleast he will say what he really feels unlike Romney who waits to see which way the wind blows before saying anything. Newts needs to go after Romney's phoniness. I couldn't follow somebody like Romney because I definitely wouldn't trust him to enact anything he said. You don't just change course on such core issues without having mental issues or just a plain opportunist.
That's what makes neat stand out because he will go out on a limb and speak his mind unlike Romney who is very hesitant and waits to see what way the wind blows. Newts needs to go after Romney and expose his phoniness. I would not trust Romney to be president because who knows what policies he would enact because he has been all across the board. You don't just change your mind on so many core, big issues unless something is wrong with you or your just an opportunist. "For Pete's sake, I'm running for office"
Newt calls Ron Paul outlandish?
What is outlandish is not following the Constitution.
Bachman, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, and maybe Romney are the outlandish ones who want to wage more unconstitutional wars and then in the same breath of their speech evoke their allegiance to the Constitution, when they hardly follow it – yet they all swear their oath to it and use it as something they adhere to while in the same sentence tell you that Iran is the greatest threat the world has ever faced.
What is outlandish with wanting to follow the rule of law?
What is outlandish about sound money, sound fiscal policy?
What is outlandish about asking questions about World Trade Center 7?
"He's vote for any of the others, but he doesn't have to tell anyone this. It's private, who one supports. Politics is like religion to most, though not to me as I do neither. "
You republicans are shooting yourselves in the foot by slaming your co-harts.Lets hear what you will do and what obama has not done.We know the dems are a bunch of jerks but you are going to be classified the same way if you cannot get your act together.Another 4 yrs. of loser politicans and our country goes down the tubes period.Jim Thomas Phx. Az.
So Good Ol' Newt wouldn't vote for Ron Paul. That's fine because I'd be willing to bet Ron Paul wouldn't vote for Newt; and neither will I. Newt Gingrich is one of the biggest douchebags running for president. In fact, he's tied for first in this department with Mitt Romney and Barak Obama.
People say they want a leader, however the nominations always go to people who tote party lines and pursue the same failed policies. The GOP has been seriously broken since Bush II, and when someone is willing to lead the GOP with a truly conservative foreign policy, a conservative approach to the war on drugs, and a conservative monetary policy, they ran away and say they want more of the same. Newt, Mitt, and the other 3 stooges are following the party and the status-quo. Ron Paul is the only candidate who acts like a leader, not a committee or a team of lawyers. Ron Paul is brave enough to tell the American people the hard truths, which seems impossible for most politicians. I'll vote for Ron Paul and no one else, because if it's Newt, Mitt, or Obama.... nothing will change and America will implode.
So Ron Paul is apparently not mainstream? According to whom? Gingrich and Frum? I suppose they forget that Bush ran on a non-interventionist platform in 2000. Also, how about asking Gingrich, that Champion of the Budget, just how he and Clinton actually produced a "balanced budget"? Seems like the media is letting the details on that one slide as well. And for Ron Paul supposedly being a racist: how does that claim stand up to all of his speeches since 1988, and his voting record? He's consistently voted for individual rights and sound money, which can only benefit those that are less well off.
So, yes, Ron Paul in 2012...
Blah blah blah newt you lie so much. Not only do you lie about your flip flops but you lie about the most honest man in politics Dr Paul. He already denounced the newsletters and does support Israel's sovereignty, does not want Iran to have a nuke and this would be the worlds problem anyway. Ron Paul's support is growing daily and yours is shrinking deal with it.namerica needs a Dr and a dose of truth. Ron Paul 2012.
Gingrich keeps bringing up the newsletters, which are widely known NOT to have been written or approved by Paul (they are generally credited to Rockwell and/or Rothbard), because it's the only attack material he has. Even Wolf Blitzer stepped in when Gingrich said Ron Paul wants to see Israel wiped off the map, which is a complete and blatant lie. He can't attack Ron Paul legitimately because there's no flip-flopping, no unconstitutional votes, and no tax raises to attack him for. Ron Paul has the most consistent and most constitutional record in Congress, period.
Funny how Newt is trying so hard to discredit Ron Paul...
In order to be a successful politician in America today you have to be able to look people (and the cameras) in the eye and lie. Not only that but believe the lies you are telling. That is where Dr. Paul falls short. He lacks that ability, just like President Obama lacks it. They both want to change Washington back to what it was designed for. A place where the needs of the people and the country are protected not used to line the pockets of a chosen few or say how high every time an Oil company says jump. When all is said and done I doubt very much Americans have the IQ to vote the right person into office, I just wish you would get on with it. All this back and forth is really getting old.
An honest reasonable person refrains from over-exagerations and over-simplifications. I am old enough to have voted for Ronald Reagan but didn't because I have always voted libertarian as a rule and not the exception. I remember Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House and he has the reputation of having "the gift of gab" but the American people would tire of him as president as quickly as they have tired of Obama. I am probably one of the most decent people around and so are the majority of people who support Ron Paul. If Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination or runs as a third party candidate he has my vote. I also have four liberal friends who voted Obama but who have now jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon. If the GOP does not support Ron Paul, Obama will win in 2012.
this coming from a man that filed for divorce while his wife was battling cancer because she wasnt pretty enough or young enough to be the wife of a future president. was having an affair with an intern who divorced his wife for. who has a daughter that follows in his footsteps to take money to lie about his divorce.
his lies are so many he cant even keep up with them.
lies to say that the whole 10 years of newsletters had alledge racist comments in them when if they are even legit not fakes they would be a needle in a haystack. Lies about Paul's foreign policy stating he doesnt care about Israel when Paul's foriegn policy adviser in 2007 was a citizen of Israel who say Paul is the most pro Israel of all the candidates.
newt just stacks lies upon lies but if Paul becomes president he would come sucking up as he has done to the last 3 presidents. Where do the lies stop, as with all liars they stop when people quit listening to them