Ann Coulter on Newt.

People who don't care for Ann Coulter accuse her of being an extremist and "unreasonablness" personified. As a fan of Coulter, I'll admit that she can be provocative. However,in her recent column, (Re-elect Obama: Vote Newt!) her agruments for choosing Romney over Gingrich seem to me to be quite reasonable.

As Coulter points out, there are some who call Romney a "flip-flopper" because his views on abortion have changed over time, but isn't the reason we in the pro-life community put forth our anti-abortion arguments, is the belief that people can change their minds.

Massachusetts Citizens for Life President Anne Fox is on record stating that Mitt Romney is “consistently” pro-life. I have no reason to doubt her assessment.

Commenting on Gingrich's victory in the South Carolina Republican primary, Coulter said, “Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall.”

Gingrich has often accused Romney of being a "moderate". Coulter goes on to write, "Romney is 'moderate' only in demeanor -- which is just another word game. His positions are more conservative than Gingrich's, but he doesn't scare people like Gingrich does".

Certainly, no one can accuse Coulter of being a political moderate. She's not about to support any candidate who isn't a true conservative. Maybe it's time for conservatives to take a closer look at Romney - and Gingrich too, for that matter.

What's the Punchline? Part 2.

Another photo in need of a punchline.

What's the Punchline?

Photo in need of a punchline.

SHOCK POLL IOWA.

The headline on Drudge was certainly provocative; "SHOCK POLL IOWA: GINGRICH 32% ROMNEY 19% CAIN 13% ."

The headline linked to a Rasmussen report which stated that today, November 17, 2011, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is leading among caucus-goers in Iowa.

The 2012 Iowa Caucuses are scheduled to take place on January 3; it's still much too early to predict who will eventually come out on top. Gingrich may be ahead now, but Cain was the top dog in October while Perry was the leader in September. It was just August when Michele Bachmann was tied with Romney for first place in Iowa. Has anybody even mentioned Michele Bachmann lately?

I still haven't decided who'll get my vote in the March 6 Georgia primary. Matt Archbold of Creative Minority Report isn't a Gingrich fan, though I don't share Matt's opinion of Newt. Mark Shea wrote a convincing article praising Ron Paul. Unfortunately, Shea is so anti-Romney that he might as well vote for Obama - that will be the end result of his decision to vote for a third party candidate over Romney should Mitt become the Republican presidential candidate. (Mr. Shea isn't a fan of Newt, either, by the way.)

I had pretty much given up on Herman Cain until I read something Ann Coulter had to say about the "sexual harassment scandal". As this piece shows, Ann doesn't care much for Newt either.....she's more a Romney girl.

In an email I received today, HumanEvents asked "Which Candidate Can Beat Obama?" but their survey/poll gave only 3 choices: Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Herman Cain. No mention of Gingrich. Is HumanEvents behind the times? (That particular survey/poll has Cain as the top pick......go figure.)



I can't see the Republicans picking anyone as horrible as their 2008 candidate, John McCain. I really can't believe they forced me to vote for that loser. While I can't say who will get my vote in the primary, we know my vote in November will be for anybody but Obama. Let's hope this time, the Republicans don't make me hold my nose when I cast my vote.

An Early Look at 2012.

Now that President Obama has recently "reaffirmed his Christian faith in a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington", I suppose the 2012 Presidential campaign is officially underway. It's time to begin giving serious consideration to finding a candidate who I can support in a run against the President.

On her blog, Linda Grass says that she had her ".... wake-up moment about Sarah Palin when she endorsed Rand Paul who also supports the morning after pill, is not fully behind the federal partial-birth abortion ban and even committed fraud against Kentucky Right to Life by turning over a forged document when they did not endorse him over pro-lifer Trey Grayson".

I've been uneasy over Palin for quite some time and like Graas, I certainly couldn't support any candidate who goes against Catholic teaching regarding abortion. ( By Catholic teaching I mean authentic Catholic teaching, not Catholic teaching as interpreted by cafeteria Catholics like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and John Kerry ). Graas suggests that social Conservatives get behind "Michele Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich….or some other social conservative for President".

Good idea.

I'm not ready to comment on Bachman or Pawlenty yet. True, I've only heard positive things about the two from fellow Conservatives; still, I'd rather look further before voting for either. There's no way I can support Huckabee. His stirring up of anti-Mormon prejudice among fundamentalist Christians towards Romney in 2008 removes him from my list of Presidential candidates (unless, of course, it came down to choosing Huckabee or Obama - then, I'd have to hold my nose and pick the Huckster).

This leaves Newt. From a strictly political perspective, Newt would win my vote, hands down. However, his history of multiple marriages, divorces and adultery is problematic. In his favor, Gingrich has converted to Catholicism. If his conversion is authentic, then I'd have no problem casting a vote for him. Being able to forgive is part of what we as Christians are called to do. If he's truly turned over a new leaf, then he has my support. With Newt's natural inclination for smaller government and the Church's teaching on subsidiarity, we might be able to turn this country around.

It's impossible to know what is inside someone's heart, but I'm willing to give Gingrich the benefit of the doubt for the time being.