Herman Cain Endorses Gringrich Giuliani Praises Gringrich Knocks Romney

[JG55]

Herman Cain Enthusiastically Endorses Newt For President of the United States (Video) …Update: Giuliani Praises Newt

Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, January 28, 2012, 11:33 PM

Former presidential candidate Herman Cain, who last week endorsed “the American people,” announced his support on Saturday of another entity — this time a Republican hoping to win the White House.

“I hereby officially and enthusiastically endorse Newt Gingrich for president of the United States,” Cain said at a GOP fundraiser.

Speaking to supporters on the day he left the race last month, the former head of Godfather’s Pizza said he would be making an endorsement. But at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in South Carolina last week, he announced that his official endorsement would be of “we the people.”

While Cain publicly promoted his endorsement last week, the one he made Saturday night came with little warning. The announcement was a surprise to Gingrich staff, and the traveling press who most frequently cover the former House speaker were not in attendance after boycotting the price the campaign was charging for chartered flights.

“There are many reasons, but one of the biggest reasons is that I know that Speaker Gingrich is a patriot. Speaker Gingrich is not afraid of bold ideas, and I also know that Speaker Gingrich is running for president and going through this sausage grinder,” said Cain. “I know what this sausage grinder is all about. I know that he is going through this sausage grinder because he cares about the future of the United States of America.”

Giuliani Knocks Romney, Likens Gingrich to Reagan

Saturday, 28 Jan 2012 10:08 PM

By Newsmax staff

Speaking on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe," former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani praised Newt Gingrich and criticized Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper.

“I’ve never seen a guy change his positions on so many things, so fast, on a dime, on everything,” Giuliani said about the former Massachusetts governor. “Pro-choice, pro-life. And pro-choice because somebody, a close friend, died, and he became pro-choice because this woman died of an abortion. Then he figures out there are embryos and he changes.

“Then he was pro-gun control,” Giuliani opined. “Fine. Then he becomes a lifetime member of the NRA. Then he was pro cap and trade. Now he’s against cap and trade. He was pro-mandate for the whole country, then he becomes anti-mandate and he takes that page out of his book and republishes the book. I could go on and on.”

Giuliani concluded that Romney is a "man that will say anything to become president of the United States.”

Meanwhile, the 9/11 icon likened Gingrich to Ronald Reagan.

“I kind of go back to 1980 and I remember the Carter White House just dying [to run against] Ronald Reagan,” Giuliani said. “Ronald Reagan was the dumb actor, Ronald Reagan said incendiary things, Ronald Reagan was like Newt — gosh, you never knew what he was going to say and the whole world would go crazy — The New York Times would write editorials. There was Bush, greatest resume of anyone who ever ran for president, solid citizen. They got Reagan and they got trounced.”

Giuliani continued: “I think Newt has a much more consistent position as a conservative, with some real exceptions like Ronald Reagan had. Ronald Reagan signed a bill that made abortion legal in the state of California. Ronald Reagan did in fact raise taxes several times, not just as president, but also as governor of California.”

Giuliani also talked about electibility.

“It may be that Newt is appealing to some that maybe Mitt isn’t appealing to,” Giuliani explained. “There’s something wrong when you’ve been running as long as Mitt has and you’re at 25 percent, and you don’t go much below, and you don’t go much above. Seventy-five percent of the other Republicans are telling you something.”

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read more on Newsmax.com:

Giuliani Knocks Romney, Likens Gingrich to Reagan

[greenego]

Not surprised.

[Guest ThePunisher]

The prominent names of the Republican Party are now beginning to choose sides with their endorsements. It looks like it is coming down to the last hour of deciding who is best to defeat Obama. Now after the final decision, will everyone unite behind the nominee?

[kieefer]

Giuliani concluded that Romney is a "man that will say anything to become president of the United States.”

All you need to know.

Fred Thompson is also onboard with Newt so that's two aces in his hand. Just wish Santorum would get some big name endorsements so he'll get a little more face time.

Mittens is still ahead in FL so maybe this will help ole Newt?

Will everyone unite behind the nominee? Everyone except Paul.

[Magiccarpetrides]

I can't believe anyone would back Gingrich considering he deferred his military service 5 times...any man unwilling to fight for his country when called upon has no right to dictate where our men and women are sent to fight and die. Newt's a fake and a liar and if he was nominated I would hold my nose and vote democrat for the first time in my life.

[Guest ThePunisher]

I can't believe anyone would back Gingrich considering he deferred his military service 5 times...any man unwilling to fight for his country when called upon has no right to dictate where our men and women are sent to fight and die. Newt's a fake and a liar and if he was nominated I would hold my nose and vote democrat for the first time in my life.

How would you describe the present occupier of the White House?

Edited January 29, 2012 by ThePunisher

[caliperman]

One dirty old man endorsing another dirty old man. What else is new???

[JG55]

I can't believe anyone would back Gingrich considering he deferred his military service 5 times...any man unwilling to fight for his country when called upon has no right to dictate where our men and women are sent to fight and die. Newt's a fake and a liar and if he was nominated I would hold my nose and vote democrat for the first time in my life.

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. You will not vote for Gringrich because of lack of military service but you would vote for Obama who has none and is in the process of fundamentally transforming this country into something you will not recognize.

[kieefer]

BTW, we also have Palin and Herman Cain endorsing Newt.

Palin's strategy may be just to keep the race going and for her distaste for Nittens.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

One dirty old man endorsing another dirty old man. What else is new???

So you bought everything that the media told

you about Cain. Sorry to hear that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. You will not vote for Gringrich because of lack of military service but you would vote for Obama who has none and is in the process of fundamentally transforming this country into something you will not recognize.

Exactly! And besides his lack of, he wants to

weaken it, to boot!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Funny thing about endorsements-- A famous endorser may need popularity among the majority of republicans (or among the majority of usa citizens in the final election) before an endorsement helps more than it hurts?

I'm suspicious of anything Giuliani likes. Dude is a reverse compass. Giuliani's endorsement hurts Newt in my book.

On the second hand, I generally respect Cain, but already developed doubts on Gingrich. Cain's endorsement degrades confidence in Cain's judgement, rather than improving confidence in Gingrich.

On the gripping hand maybe both endorsements are of the lesser of two evils nature. They have to be somewhat diplomatic. They can't just come out and say, "XXX is an incompetent corrupt fool and I hate his guts, but unfortunately XXX is the least incompetent corrupt fool among the entire sorry bunch. So please vote for XXX as many times as you can. Though it may seem unbelievable, that idiot is the best we can dredge up out of 300 million citizens."

[Guest Smitty]

Giuliani concluded that Romney is a "man that will say anything to become president of the United States.â€

All you need to know.

Fred Thompson is also onboard with Newt so that's two aces in his hand. Just wish Santorum would get some big name endorsements so he'll get a little more face time.

Mittens is still ahead in FL so maybe this will help ole Newt?

Will everyone unite behind the nominee? Everyone except Paul.

What's wrong with Ron Paul? He's the only one up there that is a veteran, won't take money from big corporations, banks, special interests, lobbyists, has been saying the same things for years (almost 40 yrs.) regarding our monetary, fiscal, foreign, and energy policies, and he ACTUALLY takes his oath of office seriously with strong fidelity to the U.S. Constitution like we all should do. Do I agree with everything he says or stand for completely? Absolutely not, but he has a strong consistent record of "he says what he means and means what he says" unlike this other lying and corrupt politicians. This is what I hear all the time regarding Ron Paul. Good comparison imo. http://iaiam.com/Ron-Paul-Jesus.png

[kieefer]

What's wrong with Ron Paul? He's the only one up there that is a veteran, won't take money from big corporations, banks, special interests, lobbyists, has been saying the same things for years (almost 40 yrs.) regarding our monetary, fiscal, foreign, and energy policies, and he ACTUALLY takes his oath of office seriously with strong fidelity to the U.S. Constitution like we all should do. Do I agree with everything he says or stand for completely? Absolutely not, but he has a strong consistent record of "he says what he means and means what he says" unlike this other lying and corrupt politicians. This is what I hear all the time regarding Ron Paul. Good comparison imo. http://iaiam.com/Ron-Paul-Jesus.png

Sorry, I'm not going to beat that horse again.

He's not doing too well right now but if by some act of God he becomes the nominee, he's got my vote.

My comment on Paul was saying that I doubt he will support the nominee, I don't think I've ever heard him speak positively about his fellow republicans, since he's really a Libertarian that's probably why.

[Links2k]

What's wrong with Ron Paul? He's the only one up there that is a veteran, won't take money from big corporations, banks, special interests, lobbyists, has been saying the same things for years (almost 40 yrs.) regarding our monetary, fiscal, foreign, and energy policies, and he ACTUALLY takes his oath of office seriously with strong fidelity to the U.S. Constitution like we all should do. Do I agree with everything he says or stand for completely? Absolutely not, but he has a strong consistent record of "he says what he means and means what he says" unlike this other lying and corrupt politicians. This is what I hear all the time regarding Ron Paul. Good comparison imo. http://iaiam.com/Ron-Paul-Jesus.png

I really like Ron Paul. I wish that he did not have so much baggage from his past. He has some very good ideas.

[Links2k]

I can't believe anyone would back Gingrich considering he deferred his military service 5 times...any man unwilling to fight for his country when called upon has no right to dictate where our men and women are sent to fight and die. Newt's a fake and a liar and if he was nominated I would hold my nose and vote democrat for the first time in my life.

It's funny how most people who support wars never want to put any skin in the game, but seem to be the loudest when it comes to beating the drums of war. They will be quick to tell you that they know someone who served and that they thanked them several times.

[Magiccarpetrides]

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. You will not vote for Gringrich because of lack of military service but you would vote for Obama who has none and is in the process of fundamentally transforming this country into something you will not recognize.

Well, I forgot to mention the most obvious reason I could not/would not vote for the man is that he cheated on his wife and broke his commitments to her because he couldnt keep his prick in his shorts and at least do the classy thing and get a divorce first all while trying to burn Clinton for doing the same thing....which not only makes him a LIAR but also a Hypocrit...a man that can't keep his promise to his family won't keep it to you either. He's trash...worse then the sh*t stinking up the white house right now in my opinion. Romney might flip flop but he's not a cheat and he's a successful businessman.

[mav]

I never cared for Cain. He is a great marketing guy, and has created some catchy slogans geared towards the masses. However, I saw through his psuedo-conservatism long ago. For the record, I couldn't care less about Cain's horn-dogedness; more power to him. However, I listened very carefully in the debate and interviews to some of his suggestions, and recognized some of them to be government solutions even when he was arguing the contrary. The last straw occured when Cain attacked Paul's fiscal issues. Attacking Paul's foreign policy is totally fair game. However, when a candidate, who is claiming to be conservative, attacks him on his fiscal policies you know something is just not right considering Paul has the best fiscal policies of all the candidates combined. In the end, his endorsement really does nothing for me, but to be fair, nobody's endorsement really means anything to me.

I have a question, why are all of the celebricons, Palin, Cain, Thompson, Guiliani, etc... jumping on the Gingrich bandwagon? Is Santorum no longer in the race? Santorum is every bit as conservative, if not more so, as Newt (they are both big government conservatives), and he beat Newt in Iowa and New Hampshire. Santorum is way better than Newt on healthcare, and if social conservatism is your thing, Santorum blows Newt away. Yet, we keep hearing these calls for Santorum to drop out. Why should hell should he? He stands just as good a chance at beating Romney as Newt, and he beat the hell out of both of them in the last debate.

We now have Thompson attacking Drudge by claiming he is in the pocket of Romney. Seriously, wtf? Something really stinks here. We have one group of Republicans fighting the other over two candidates that really aren't all that impressive. I am starting to believe that there isn't a whole lot of difference between these groups. I feel they are nothing more than different factions of the Republican establishment, but nonetheless, they are still establishment Republicans.

I can say one thing about the presidential election, it has defintely increased my cynicism. I often get the feeling that we are getting duped into believing that we only have two viable options, Mitt or Newt, for the nomination. While I won't be voting for either in the primary, I would vote for Newt over Romney, but I would vote for Santorum over either of them.

Edited January 30, 2012 by mav
typo

[Guest lostpass]

What's wrong with Ron Paul? He's the only one up there that is a veteran, won't take money from big corporations, banks, special interests, lobbyists, has been saying the same things for years (almost 40 yrs.) regarding our monetary, fiscal, foreign, and energy policies, and he ACTUALLY takes his oath of office seriously with strong fidelity to the U.S. Constitution like we all should do. Do I agree with everything he says or stand for completely? Absolutely not, but he has a strong consistent record of "he says what he means and means what he says" unlike this other lying and corrupt politicians. This is what I hear all the time regarding Ron Paul. Good comparison imo. http://iaiam.com/Ron-Paul-Jesus.png

Imagine this as a buffet. You've got the first bucket on the steam table full of chicken, well maybe beef, or even some kind of fish, you can't really be sure. But the tag on it says "It might possibly be better than Mongolian Obama, but it might also be mostly the same, could also be worse" It also has a warning label that says "Contains Mormon salt"

The next bucket on the steam table is stewed Newt. It looks effing disgusting. You can pretty much tell that it has been sitting there since Bill Clinton was President and it don't taste too good then. Plus, the mess is just dirty. The placard in front of it says it is fresh and new, that it uses virgin olive oil and freshly ground spices. But it is hard to believe in the placard when the dish looks like a warmed over already failed bit of moo goo gai pan.

You don't want either of them. So you go on to the third option:

This is a beautifully prepared dish. The pork is plentiful but it is well cooked. The sauce is neither too thick nor too thin. It smells terrific. It is the peking duck that you've always wanted. It is sprinkled likely with green onions. When you look at the placard it says "Most people opt for the Mongolian Obama, but fill your plate up if you want to miss out on the stuff other people are eating"

You pick up the scoop and load your plate up with Romney Surprise, or Recycled Newt. The ownership wonders, why don't more people choose the Paul duck? They pass out comment cards and the answer is that they don't like green onions. The owners put up a sign that says "green onions will get scraped off" but people don't care. The only thing they are sure of is that if they pick the Paul duck, more people will pick Mongolian Obama. And who the hel wants to eat the second most popular dish?

[kieefer]

I don't see why they are avoiding Santorum either. He's had some very conservative senators praise him. Maybe it's because he's behind and Palin and the others don't want it sewn up with Romney so they're cheer leading for Newt.

I feel that he's the best one out of all of them with the least baggage and skeletons. The most honest one of them too.

Beats me. Still early, maybe things will change.

His youngest daughter BTW is in the Hospital and this may slow him down even more. The best goes out to him and family.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think there are several in the elite who think Santorum won't get that far. I say let him

keep going, but those endorsements are fine with me.

There are two sides of the Republican Party fighting each other and the elites are trying

to hold on to their grip of the party. I hope they lose. The Rockefeller crowd needs to

go down.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Disregarding other possible Santorum problems (like maybe he would send troops to Israel and get us into WW III)-- All you have to do is listen to the guy for awhile and it is not difficult to conclude that he is judgmental and intolerant on social issues. If somebody wants to put on their blinders and use convoluted logic to explain it away as only some weird point of law he argues and Santorum is actually quite open-minded and tolerant-- That is fine and maybe those folks would be correct. But it doesn't take long for an ordinary person to listen to the dude and conclude he is a meddling little jerk.

Just because Santorum is almost certainly an intolerant goober, is no guarantee he would be incapable of rising above it and be an even-handed president.

But too many independents and quite a few republicans and libertarians will pass on the dude either because they don't like intolerant goobers on general principle, or they fear not only is he intolerant but would also behave intolerantly in his official duties.

If the only choice was between Santorum and Obama, ruling out third parties, and nobody is allowed to sit out the election and not vote, I think you would be surprised to see how many non-social-conservative republicans would vote Obama over that dude. I happen to think that even in the republican party that hard-core social conservatives are in the minority. At least I hope so.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[kieefer]

Hey, Snoop Dog just endorsed Ron Paul, this may be his come back endorsement.

[mav]

Hey, Snoop Dog just endorsed Ron Paul, this may be his come back endorsement.

We have Pelosi saying how nice he is, Oliver Stone said he would vote for Paul over Obama, and now we have Snoop Dog endorsing Paul. Wow, isn't it amazing how liberty and freedom can attract people from all sides of the political spectrum? I'm still wondering where people are getting all of this unelectable crap. It seems that so many have gotten drunk on the right-wing media kool-aid. With so much at stake, it is rather unfortunate.

I noticed today that Michelle Malkin, who I respect highly, has endorsed Santorum. In her endorsement, she lays out some of the pros and cons of Santorum, but also talks about why she didn't choose any of the other three candidates. It is a very good blog piece. Here is an excerpt from her blog. Michelle Malkin » For Santorum

I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul. And I wish Ron Paul was not the far-out, Alex Jones-panderer on foreign policy, defense, and national security that he is.

If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul.

I think that is a fair critique of Paul's foreign policy views. I have said on numerous occasions that I wish Paul wouldn't get so damn animated and speak slower when explaining his foreign policy. If he would do that, people might rethink their criticism and come to realize that it is not as radical as it is portrayed. Rand and Ron share the same views on foreign policy, but Rand can articulate his position much better than his father.

Anyway, his foreign policy really doesn't concern me. I am almost solely focused on domestic economic issues, and that is one area where Paul has no rivals. Even Malkin laments that Santorum isn't as rock solid as Paul. My position has always been that if we cannot get our domestic fiscal issues in order then our foreign policy really won't matter. How will we pay for all of the military spending when we are broke and nobody wants to lend us anymore money? Answer, we won't be able to.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Anyway, his foreign policy really doesn't concern me. I am almost solely focused on domestic economic issues, and that is one area where Paul has no rivals. Even Malkin laments that Santorum isn't as rock solid as Paul. My position has always been that if we cannot get our domestic fiscal issues in order then our foreign policy really won't matter. How will we pay for all of the military spending when we are broke and nobody wants to lend us anymore money? Answer, we won't be able to.

I enjoy Malkin on TV better than most nowadays, not entirely because she is so easy on the eyes. There are lots of good-looking newsbabes on all the channels that are a guaranteed automatic channel change. The TV stays off for days at a time lately. However, the things Michelle thinks that Paul should endorse in order to make us "safer" kinda give me the willies. Kinda the same with Mark Levin. I enjoy listening but on some issues he seems crazier than Paul.

Guess I'm only a "fellow traveler" with most of those folks on economic issues. Not social issues. Not foreign policy issues. And the economic issues can be quibbled because they seem simplistic about what might fix it.

It was said that the candidates other than Paul might talk smaller gov, but they don't really mind big gov. They just think republicans can ride that hungry beast better. Even Reagan the esteemed father of the revolution, expanded gov while preaching small gov.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Lester Weevils