2012 Election | FOX News | News | Newt Gingrich | Religion | Sarah Palin

With Gingrich 'More Inclined To Run' In 2012, Some Of His Most Recent Anti-Gay Remarks

Newtg-1 Like most of the Republican Party's potential presidential contenders, Newt Gingrich refuses to say definitively whether he plans to run for the White House, but the former Speaker of the House did tell Fox News' Chris Wallace today that he's "more inclined to run than not run."

"[My wife] and I will make a decision probably at the end of February, beginning of March," explained Gingrich. "I think we’re much more inclined to run than not run and I think everything we’ve done over the last year, talking to friends, thinking things through, has made us more inclined to believe that it’s doable."

The "things" done over the past year include shoring up support from the religious right, like an audience at Liberty University, the school founded by Evangelical leader Jerry Falwell, where last month Gingrich warned that "secular socialists" are taking down our nation.

"In the name of religious liberty secular socialists destroy religion," said Gingrich of America today, which he compares to Nazi-occupied Poland, "Our American Civilization will only survive if we have the courage to stand firmly for the truth and to oppose those who would radically undermine and destroy our values, our freedoms, and our very way of life whether they are radical secularists or radical Islamists."

Gingrich made comparable remarks last year, telling, again, Fox News, "There is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it."

Meanwhile, the Republican's Liberty University speech also took a shot at our nation's judicial system, and he sounded eerily similar to assertions made by his conservative counterparts.

"Here at home our court system has become an engine of secular dictation driving God out of public life and shattering the very fabric of more than two thousand years of religious commitments in our social policies," Gingrich insisted, in a not-so-subtle reference to gay rights.

It's no surprise, then, that Gingrich described Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to overturn Proposition 8 as "an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife."

In his interview today, Gingrich called winning the Republican primary "an enormous challenge," and, when asked to compare himself to some other alleged hopefuls, he replied, "Structurally, Romney’s the front runner, and in popularity, probably Huckabee’s the front runner, [and] Palin is a phenomenon in her own right."

He then went to say the press and pundits should consider potential candidacies from Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty and other traditional social conservatives. Putting himself "somewhere in that bunch," Gingrich called his candidacy as "competitive."

Reading through Gingrich's recent speeches and statements, however, I would say the only true competition he faces is making sure his tried, true and stale brand of social conservatism resonates louder than other contenders, because this sounds like the same anthem we've been hearing from the right since Gingrich was elected House Speaker way back in 1994.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Another family-values fail on the wrong side of history. Is this campaign going to come with an instruction guide like "Contract For America"? Good luck.

    Posted by: Vince in WeHo | Dec 5, 2010 9:07:51 PM

  2. I honestly can not vote for Newt. I sadly own an autographed book by Newt Gingrich when I was in the closet and more diehard of a Republican.

    If Newt runs, I am selling that book to give the proceeds to Fred Karger's campaign instead.

    Posted by: Matt Munson | Dec 5, 2010 9:27:08 PM

  3. I'm sure there are many here jumping over themselves waiting to vote for him. Anybody but Obama, right boys? Isn't that what you said?

    Posted by: Gregoire | Dec 5, 2010 9:38:40 PM

  4. No.. I do have standards. If I see a Palin/Santorum/Gingrich/Huckabee I will vote Libertarian Party or Obama.

    It has to be an inclusive Republican like Gary Johnson or Fred Karger for me to vote Republican in November 2010.

    Posted by: Matt Munson | Dec 5, 2010 9:49:59 PM

  5. Yah, I'm gonna get my religion from an adulterer. Oh those wacky "Christians" ... never throwing the first stone, but they sure love to be a part of stone-throwing gangs ...

    Posted by: TJ Parker | Dec 5, 2010 9:53:09 PM

  6. He has zero chance. Too many black marks on his personal record, too many political failures and backtracking. He's hoping that people have forgotten the 1990s, but he's been all but invisible since then to the average, apolitical person.

    So I hope he and Palin shoot to destroy one another, end up on the same ticket, and lose. He's especially despicable on gay rights given his very visible gay sister.

    Unfortunately, I tend to be too optimistic on such things. I would think that by the time the campaigning starts (well, it already has) it would be obvious that years of Repub obstructionism would be evident to even the dimmest of US voters. But those voters---including far, far too many gay ones---seem to think that voting against their interests, for idiots, is a great leap forward.

    Posted by: Paul R | Dec 5, 2010 9:53:38 PM

  7. Please, god, may what he says be true!

    Posted by: David R. | Dec 5, 2010 10:05:56 PM

  8. So what has Newt done for the American people that warrants my vote? Show me your resume.

    Posted by: gb | Dec 5, 2010 10:10:58 PM

  9. I think Ron Paul, or even The Donald would make better candidates, and will draw support from all sides. Palin, Gingrich, Santorum, Huckabee only appeal to a VERY small base. If any of these losers, and quiters get on the ticket the GOP is doomed in 2012. Either NObama would win re-election (god forbid) or maybe, just maybe this time around a third party (libertarian since the country is leaning towards that direction) or an independent might prevail, like Jesse Ventura (although that would be a long shot his popularity is rising).

    The Tea Party is winding down and has no chance of becoming a real third party being that it was taken over by the GOP and it will be business as usual.

    Posted by: pepa | Dec 5, 2010 10:18:13 PM

  10. "[My wife] and I will make a decision probably at the end of February, beginning of March,"

    You'll note that he doesn't specify WHICH wife. Maybe he's planning to trading this one in for a newer model for a little Christmas present to himself.

    Posted by: Rich | Dec 5, 2010 10:24:24 PM

  11. I'm pretty sure he was elected to Congress in the late 70s, not 1994.

    Not that that's the point of your statement.

    I fear Romney more than Gingrich; Romney could have much wider appeal and his bigotry runs just as deep if not deeper. Newt's pretty infuriating, though.

    Posted by: Andy | Dec 5, 2010 10:30:21 PM

  12. Either NObama would win re-election (god forbid) or maybe, just maybe this time around a third party (libertarian since the country is leaning towards that direction) or an independent might prevail, like Jesse Ventura (although that would be a long shot his popularity is rising).

    The Tea Party is winding down and has no chance of becoming a real third party being that it was taken over by the GOP and it will be business as usual.

    Posted by: pepa | Dec 5, 2010 10:18:13 PM

    And Miss Pepa..So you want Hillary...who doesn't believe in Gay Marriage???

    Posted by: CHRIS | Dec 5, 2010 10:30:35 PM

  13. "It has to be an inclusive Republican like Gary Johnson or Fred Karger for me to vote Republican in November 2010."

    In this climate and the current Republican party, there isn't a snowball's chance of an 'inclusive' Republican getting the nomination.

    Posted by: Rich | Dec 5, 2010 10:31:12 PM

  14. Romney/ palin? If that's what they're going for, you can tune out for 2012, because they're gonna lose. Which explains a lot about obama's lack of leadership or concern with his base. But hell, he doesn't understand how powerful the third party turn out is going to work against him. And it will...oh it will...be a nail biter, and regardless, it will hurt bad...given that the next three weeks will make or break him...

    Posted by: TANK | Dec 5, 2010 10:50:31 PM

  15. newt. the other white meat.

    Posted by: psgoodguy | Dec 5, 2010 10:56:05 PM

  16. Huckabee has a very small base of disgruntled sub literate evangelicals. He's no one to trouble yourself with. He could barely raise enough money to make it through the primary, and that precedent will continue. Gingrich could only work as a running mate, not a contender. His primary bid will be in vain, and everyone who knows knows it. And even that's a stretch because his ugly name and history doesn't sell on bumper stickers, etc., and the republican machine knows marketing. It looks like the mormon and the moron might be their shot.

    The dream ticket for a third party bid would be clinton/dean. But a dream for either republicans or progressives, which is an odd pairing. It won't ever happen, of course.

    Posted by: TANK | Dec 5, 2010 11:02:42 PM

  17. You Betcha; we are definitely in need of a religious government -- just like the 450 years of Spanish Inquisition during which everyone who did not agree with the Catholic church was killed by any means available. Rome started with the Muslims, and went on from there.

    Posted by: PeterC | Dec 5, 2010 11:10:31 PM

  18. Want to fight the Right? STOP DEFENDING OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS.

    How Obama strengthens the GOP agenda

    December 4, 2010 11:16 pm CST

    I don't get Robert Reich's argument that Clinton's "appeasement of Republicans didn’t legitimize the Republican world view." Obama may be worse, but Clinton did it too. And of course the main reason why Obama and the Democrats won't tell story B is that they are dependent on Wall St. cash [1]. Also see Frank Rich's latest New York Times column [2]. --PG

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    The Big Economic Story, and Why Obama Isn’t Telling It [3]
    Source: robertreich.org

    Wednesday, December 1, 2010

    Quiz: What’s responsible for the lousy economy most Americans continue to wallow in?

    A. Big government, bureaucrats, and the cultural and intellectual elites who back them.

    B. Big business, Wall Street, and the powerful and privileged who represent them.

    These are the two competing stories Americans are telling one another.

    Yes, I know: It’s more complicated than this. In reality, the lousy economy is due to insufficient demand – the result of the nation’s almost unprecedented concentration of income at the top. The very rich don’t spend as much of their income as the middle. And since the housing bubble burst, the middle class hasn’t had the buying power to keep the economy going. That concentration of income, in turn, is due to globalization and technological change – along with unprecedented campaign contributions and lobbying designed to make the rich even richer and do nothing to help average Americans, insider trading, and political bribery.

    So B is closer to the truth.

    But A is the story Republicans and right-wingers tell. It’s a dangerous story because it deflects attention from the real problem and makes it harder for America to focus on the real solution – which is more widely shared prosperity. (I get into how we might do this in my new book, Aftershock.)

    A is also the story President Obama is telling, indirectly, through his deficit commission, his freeze on federal pay, his freeze on discretionary spending, and his waivering on extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

    Most other Washington Democrats are falling into the same trap.

    If Obama and the Democrats were serious about story B they’d at least mention it. They’d tell the nation that income and wealth haven’t been this concentrated at the top since 1928, the year before the Great Crash. They’d be indignant about the secret money funneled into midterm campaigns. They’d demand Congress pass the Disclose Act so the public would know where the money comes from.

    They’d introduce legislation to curb Wall Street bonuses – exactly what European leaders are doing with their financial firms. They’d demand that the big banks, now profitable after taxpayer bailouts, reorganize the mortgage debt of distressed homeowners. They’d call for a new WPA to put the unemployed back to work, and pay for it with a tax surcharge on incomes over $1 million.

    They’d insist on extended unemployment benefits for long-term jobless who are now exhausting their benefits. And they’d hang tough on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy – daring Republicans to vote against extending the cuts for everyone else.

    But Obama is doing none of this. Instead, he’s telling story A.

    Making a big deal out of the deficit – appointing a deficit commission and letting them grandstand with a plan to cut $4 trillion out of the projected deficit over the next ten years — $3 of government spending for every $1 of tax increase – is telling story A.

    What the public hears is that our economic problems stem from too much government and that if we reduce government spending we’ll be fine.

    Announcing a two-year freeze on federal salaries – explaining that “I did not reach this decision easily… these are people’s lives” – is also telling story A.

    What the public hears is government bureaucrats are being paid too much, and that if we get the federal payroll under control we’ll all be better off.

    Proposing a freeze on discretionary (non-defense) spending is telling story A. So is signaling a willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts to the top. So is appointing his top economic advisor from Wall Street (as apparently he’s about to do).

    In fact, the unwillingness of the President and Washington Democrats to tell story B itself promotes story A, because in the absence of an alternative narrative the Republican story is the only one the public hears.

    Obama’s advisors explain the President’s moves are designed to “preempt” the resurgent Republicans – just like Bill Clinton preempted the Gingrich crowd by announcing “the era of big government is over” and then tacking right.

    They’re wrong. By telling story A and burying story B, the President legitimizes everything the right has been saying. He doesn’t preempt them; he fuels them. He gives them more grounds for voting against raising the debt ceiling in a few weeks. He strengthens their argument against additional spending for extended unemployment benefits. He legitimizes their argument against additional stimulus spending.

    Bill Clinton had a rapidly expanding economy to fall back on, so his appeasement of Republicans didn’t legitimize the Republican world view. Obama doesn’t have that luxury. The American public is still hurting and they want to know why.

    Unless the President and Democrats explain why the economy still stinks for most Americans and offer a plan to fix it, the Republican explanation and solution – it’s big government’s fault, and all we need do is shrink it – will prevail.

    That will mean more hardship for tens of millions of Americans. It will make it harder to remedy the bad economy. And it will set Republicans up for bigger wins in the future.

    Posted by: The Ghost of Harry Hay | Dec 5, 2010 11:10:49 PM

  19. Does Obama want to fight for us?

    Do Barack Obama and the Democrats have the interests of the working-class majority at heart? Or are they devoted to priorities of Corporate America.

    November 17, 2010

    IN THE wake of the Democrats' disastrous showing on November 2, politicians and political commentators have been busy debating What Went Wrong. How could Barack Obama and the Democrats go from the enthusiastic support they enjoyed when Obama took office in January 2009 to the miserable drubbing they suffered in the midterm elections less than two years later?

    Republicans and conservative pundits, of course, think Obama went "too far" with his "socialist" program. But as we at SocialistWorker.org have been insistent in pointing out, it's a strange kind of socialist who commits trillions of dollars to rescuing Wall Street's banks from a crisis they caused, who lets those banks' executives pay themselves however many billions they want, and who won't devote even 1 percent of the money spent on saving Wall Street to rescuing millions of people facing foreclosure.

    Some liberals, on the other hand, rightly believe that Obama didn't go far enough--and that the Democrats' defeat earlier this month was the result of disappointing their supporters and letting their opponents gain the upper hand.

    But why did it happen that way? For many supporters of the Democrats, it comes down to bad strategy--Obama was too nice to fight, he didn't control his message, he was naïve in expecting cooperation from the Republicans, he wasn't savvy to the ways of Washington.

    They won't consider that there are deeper reasons for Obama's behavior--that for all his soaring rhetoric on the campaign trail, he was always a conventional politician from the mainstream of the Democratic Party, and that he therefore acted the way all Democrats do when they take office: Putting the priorities of Corporate America first, and working people last.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    NEW YORK Times columnist Paul Krugman is a good example of a liberal commentator who has been critical of the Obama administration, but who continues to hope that the "real Obama" will emerge if the bad advisers and timid strategists are cleared away.

    In a recent column [2], Krugman put Obama's problems down to too much Mr. Nice Guy, and not enough willingness to fight for his own agenda. Obama's promise to overcome Washington's partisan politics, wrote Krugman, "may have been good general election politics...But the real question was whether Mr. Obama could change his tune when he ran into the partisan firestorm everyone who remembered the 1990s knew was coming. He could do uplift--but could he fight? So far, the answer has been no."

    Krugman isn't alone. William Greider of the liberal Nation magazine wrote [3]: "What's missing with this president is power--a strong grasp of the powers he possesses and the willingness to govern the country with them...Such a governing style is too nice for real-life politics, where Boy Scouts get their heads handed to them."

    Muckracking filmmaker Michael Moore put it more bluntly, pleading on Real Time with Bill Mahrer for Obama to "please take off your pink tutu, because it's time to put on the boxing gloves and go fighting for the people."

    But does Obama want to "go fighting for the people"? Do he and the Democrats have the interests of the working-class majority at heart, but continually stumble because of their incompetence?

    SocialistWorker.org has always argued that the answer is no. Neither Obama nor anyone else who rises into the leadership of one of the two dominant political parties in the most powerful capitalist nation on earth will champion the interests of workers over those of business and the U.S. political and military establishment.

    Democrats, like Republicans, can be driven to implement reforms that make working people's lives better--but only if they face substantial pressure from below that counteracts the ever-present pressure from above. And that's something Obama hasn't faced.

    The record of the Obama administration in its first two years bears out this case--and on every political issue, though none more obviously than the bailout of Wall Street. Obama's economics team was made up entirely of figures who came from the world of Wall Street and Corporate America--from the former bank executives to the academics and government bureaucrats who spent their careers cooperating with them.

    So it was no surprise that the Obama administration adopted the Wall Street bailout plan of the Bush administration almost without alteration. Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner resisted measures to hold the bankers accountable, even when they would have been overwhelmingly popular, like reining in compensation for Wall Street executives.

    In an unusually candid interview with Real Clear Politics [4], Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia--by no means a "progressive"--described what happened when he tried to push for a one-time windfall profits tax on Wall Street's record bonuses:

    I couldn't even get a vote. And it wasn't because of the Republicans. I mean, they obviously weren't going to vote for it. But I got so much froth from Democrats saying that any vote like that was going to screw up fundraising.

    People look up and say, what's the difference between these two parties? Neither of them is really going to take on Wall Street. If they don't have the guts to take them on, and they've got all these other programs that exclude me, well, to hell with them.

    The fate of health care reform is another good example of the Democrats' real priorities.

    The Obama administration started out with widespread public support for fixing a system where the interests of private corporations--in particular, the insurance companies--wreak havoc on the lives of millions. Yet from the beginning, the option of a single-payer national health care system that would eliminate private insurers and provided coverage for everyone was "off the table."

    Instead, from the first White House summit on health care, the emphasis was on getting the health care industry to the table--which meant the very companies that were the source of the problem had effective veto power over what went into the legislation.

    Last month, former Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle confirmed what most people had guessed--that the Democrats gave up even the half-measure of a "public option" for the uninsured as a sop to the industry. As Daschle explained in an interview with Think Progress [5]:

    It was taken off the table as a result of the understanding that people had with the hospital association, with the insurance [industry], and others. I mean, I think that part of the whole effort was based on a premise. That premise was you had to have the stakeholders in the room and at the table...They wanted to keep those stakeholders in the room, and this was the price some thought they had to pay.

    But the millions of ordinary American "stakeholders"--those too poor to afford insurance, or those who have coverage, but discover when they get sick that it's totally inadequate--weren't invited "in the room." For the Democrats, bringing the insurance industry "on board" came first.

    The result of all this was that the reforms that survived in the final law--mainly in the form of new, though limited, regulations on the insurance industry--were far outweighed by provisions that strengthen the power and profits of the industry.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    EARLIER THIS year, Obama defended himself from charges that he was anti-business in an interview with BusinessWeek magazine [6]: "You would be hard-pressed to identify a piece of legislation that [Democrats] have proposed out there that, net, is not good for businesses. We are pro-growth. We are fierce advocates for a thriving, dynamic free market."

    Judging from his administration's record, there's no reason not to take him at his word--and it's important for those who want real change to recognize it. Obama and the Democrats are fierce advocates for the free market, and that means putting the interests of business first.

    The current crop of Democrats isn't unique in being influenced by corporate power--the former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips accurately referred to the Democrats as the world's second-most enthusiastic capitalist party.

    This is business as usual in the Washington system. Obama isn't a reformer or maverick, but the leader of one of the two mainstream political parties that dominate American politics. Both parties have a long history, whatever their rhetoric to win votes, of running that system in the interests of the corporate and political elite, unless forced to act otherwise by pressure from below.

    Over the coming months, as the new Republican majority in the House takes its seats, the Democrats are likely to start telling us that we need to be "patient" and "pragmatic" in our expectations. But after the experience of the last two years, what would we be waiting "patiently" for, but more broken promises and betrayals?

    The Republicans need to be challenged--but that challenge won't come from within Washington. It has to come from outside.

    When they swept to power in the 1994 midterm elections during the Clinton presidency, Republicans expected to ram through their "Contract on America" without opposition. Instead, in cities across the country, they faced a fight--from unionists, students, single mothers and supporters of justice who were willing to take a stand--that stopped the Contract.

    We need to do the same today.

    Posted by: The Ghost of Harry Hay | Dec 5, 2010 11:11:35 PM

  20. Even if he could get the Republican nomination, there is no way in hell he could win the general election

    Posted by: ravewulf | Dec 5, 2010 11:27:00 PM

  21. @Pepa

    No, they won't go third party.

    And the voters might say otherwise, but their behavior isn't "libertarian" at all.

    Historically, ballot initiatives to limit freedoms and liberties are far easier to pass than ones to expand them. It is always an uphill battle when you go to the people and ask for your rights. The electorate tends to view these issues as a zero sum game. Less for you means more for them.

    Posted by: John | Dec 5, 2010 11:28:18 PM

  22. "And Miss Pepa..So you want Hillary...who doesn't believe in Gay Marriage???"

    No, Miss Chris. I don't.

    I think gays have been jerked around for too long by your phony-baloney liberal breakfast club.

    I thought YOU LIBS wanted Her Thighness Clinton to be your next pres. Most of you drones believed that she is better than NObama well then:

    "Hillary...who doesn't believe in Gay Marriage???"

    Uh-hu. So why are you telling me that obvious fact? I've known since the nineties that she was (and still is) a pansy like her stupid husband and both have been against gay marriage and have SIGNED INTO LAW DOMA.

    Plus, the DNC manifesto declares that only "civil unions" should be enough. Gay Marriage is OUT. So it is YOUR party that is OPPOSED to gay marriage IN LINE WITH THE GOP.

    One more time so that you drones can get it: the DEMOCRATS SUPPORTED, DRAFTED, and PASSED IN CONGRESS, DOMA, DADT, and have DENIED giving GAY AMERICANS immigration equality and instead FOLDED OVER AND CATERED TO ILLEGALS instead.

    And I am supposed to be impressed? LOL.

    Give me a fucking break.

    Posted by: pepa | Dec 5, 2010 11:38:03 PM

  23. Newt has no chance of winning the nomination. He's just trying to get a name for himself again for speaking fees, etc. Ideally, if 2012 were going to be a repeat of 2010 theme-wise (which it won't), the Republicans would nominate a more libertarian type like Chris Christie, whose fairly tame on the social rhetoric stuff (though not gay friendly). However, two years is enough time to blame them for a bad economy too, so it's probably a wash.

    Posted by: anon | Dec 5, 2010 11:50:04 PM

  24. "And the voters might say otherwise, but their behavior isn't "libertarian" at all."

    Recent polls suggests that more people in this country agree with the "Tea Party" principles of less spending and taxes and other fiscal issues,

    Yet more and more polls suggest a stronger appeal for gay rights (it is 50/50 on gay marriage and 70% for repeal of DADT now I hear) and other civil liberties like legalizing pot etc...

    In essence more fiscally conservative and more socially tolerant... which is libertarian in nature.

    It is still 2 years ahead, and it is a long time politically speaking, so anything can happen, as a former "teabagger" I can say that frustrations are still high and many people are turning their attentions to third party (more than ever, about 5-6% voted libertarian in my state which is above average and we have increased our voter base by 10%) so quite frankly we should not underestimate the public, whether it is voting for a political party or on an issue like gay marriage.

    And no, Romney doesn't stem a chance because he supported government run healthcare, has flip-flopped on too many issues, and well... he is a mormon and that might be a problem for more people than you think.

    Like I mentioned earlier, the GOP needs to chose someone else that have their heads on straight. My two choices would be Ron Paul or Donald Trump. Other than that I am sticking third party.

    Posted by: pepa | Dec 5, 2010 11:55:34 PM

  25. Although I mostly agree with what Pepa said, DOMA was written by a Republican and passed by a Republican-majority Congress and then signed by a Democrat president. That same year, Republicans made DOMA part of their platform. The Democrats did not. Presently, at least the Democrats have made civil unions as part of their platform.

    This is by no means an endorsement of Democrats, but, here, they are the lesser of two evils. May not mean much, but it's still a distinction.

    And Clinton's original intent was to rid the military's existing policy of discharging gays. He had little support from the Democrat-led Congress and offered a "compromise" that is DADT.

    I doubt either Bush would have done things any differently than Clinton did, had they been in the position to have to deal with the such issues as DADT and DOMA.

    I would like to see a third party candidate also, one that was socially progressive and fiscally conservative, and viable.

    Posted by: Vince in WeHo | Dec 6, 2010 12:08:02 AM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «News: Unabomber's Land, Steve Martin's Explanation and Hillary's Wikileaks Joke« «