I think its fairly obvious at this point that the Republican Party does not want to nominate Mitt Romney. Fair enough.

If Gingrich does indeed go on to the nominee, I do wonder how both Tea Party Republicans and evangelicals will be able to justify voting for him.

Who has Newt Gingrich screwed more: Taxpayers by supporting special interests or Congressional staff members when he was cheating on his cancer-stricken wife? Seriously GOP, stop scraping the bottom of the crazy barrel to find your candidates.

I've been watching the Republicans out there with reservations and much interest. Just as there's not one kind of pie for everyone there's also not one candidate for everyone, and I'm hard pressed to be 100% happy with any of them. I didn't think I would favor Newt when he first entered the race because of his history, but am actually leaning towards him at this point because of his experience with working in Washington. Obama's lack of experience is one of the reasons our country is suffering so much now.

As for the comment from Aaron about scraping the bottom of the barrel, I don't see the Democrats willing to put anyone up against Obama who surely must be a disappointment to a lot of them.

"Obama's lack of experience is one of the reasons our country is suffering so much now. Right. All of the economists that say that the stimulus was the only thing that prevented a depression obviously don't know what they are talking about. Why put anyone against Obama? He is a moderate that is willing to compromise even with crazy representatives whose sole goals are to derail any progress he makes.

I seriously feel sorry for all the people who think that Obama is the "worst thing to happen to America" Do you all realize that the alternative was a Republican that just yesterday attempted to give the military the right to detain U.S. citizens for indefinite periods of time? Instead of a "socialist" (and if you think that Obama is a socialist, please for the love of God take a political science class and stop listening to Rush) we would have had McCain, a Facist! GOP needs to figure who they think can run the country better and I doubt it's a dirty Washington insider, a drunk Texan, a former pizza maker or a woman who seems completely okay with making up facts.

For Mr. Foltz to declare that Obama is a "Moderate" is totally insane - he needs to get his head out of the sand. Obama is certainly the most liberal President and prior Senator this country has ever had in office since Roosevelt. If he cannot see that, there is absolutely no sensiible reason to debate/comment on any of the issues he has raised regarding GOP candidates.

Now that Cain has put his campaign in suspension it will be interesting to see where his supporters go, wonder if and how much this will help Newt, as we are narrowing the field of really potential candidates to run against Obama in 2012. A good article Steve, looking for more of the same on the other candidates.

Shirley, be real with me....you are actually Glenn Beck right? Or is your asylum giving you more computer time now? Because no sane person would say that Obama is the most liberal President or former Senator. Obama has consistently abdicated traditionally liberal positions in order to work towards bipartisanship. That is the definition of moderate. Look at the jobs bill, it incorporated traditionally Republican ideals with Democratic ideals. But every time our President reaches across the aisle to the GOP, they refuse to shake his hand like it's a Southern diner in the 1950's. Obama is a moderate, look at his track record and turn off Fox News. Don't you have an Ann Coulter book club or something to get to so we can be spared your factually incorrect statements about our President?

Shirley and Aaron,

Statistics show that Obama was indeed the most liberal senator during his time in the Senate, however, he has governed as President from a Center-Right position. Either his supporters(the people most likely to say good things about him/those who complain about him not being liberal enough) are right or Fox News(who say he's too liberal) is right. They can't be both right. As an Obama supporter, I can tell you that at times, I've found him to be too willing to reach across the aisle to a Republican Party that has stated numerous times that its main objective is to see that Obama is out in 2012.

Barack Obama this past July was willing to gut Social Security and Medicare, two staples of the Democratic Party platform, in an effort to lower the growing deficit in this country. In return, he asked for higher taxes on the rich, a request that was denied by the Republican Party. Obama's proposal was about as moderate as it gets in the sense that everyone would have to take a hit for it to work. How is this not moderate?

Brian, I love everything you have to say, but in the spirit of truthfulness I have to disagree with the statistics about Obama being the most liberal senator. Bernie Sanders is an actual socialist and Obama still came out ahead of him? The studies that determine who is the "most liberal" or "most conservative" are often fraught with error and not the best way to determine how liberal or conservative a politician is. My college research methods professors would be appalled at the methodology.

http://factcheck.org/2008/10/lying-about-being-liberal/

Fact check says he was in 2007, that's the year I was really referencing, which I should have stated.

Brian, they are referencing the National Journal study in 2007. I looked at the study myself and found it to be erroneous. There are several problems with their methodology.

Sure did hit the spot with the Newt topic. Going to get more debates as we get closer to the 1st vote of the primary.

Interesting how the main topic of Stephen's blog immediately turned into a debate between two Obama supporters about whether or not he is the most liberal man in the United States. Stick to the subject, ADD kids!

Getting back to Newt, as a tea party activist and pro-life conservative, the fact that Newt is progressive is a concern to me. Mitt Romney just doesn't seem sincere to me and I guess it's (for me) better the devil I know.

Hi Amy,

ADD kids? That's great, very nice of you. Not sure how debating Shirley's thought that Obama was too liberal makes anyone ADD, seeing as how it was a part of the discussion taking place here, and since you brought up Obama before anyone else did...but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Considering both Aaron and I asked legitimate questions about Newt's candidacy, only for the questions to be completely ignored, you should perhaps reconsider your thought on the subject of who's paying attention or not.

As for the subject at hand, again, I ask: How can anyone who consider themselves a tea party activist vote for Newt Gingrich? If the tea party is serious about voting for a candidate that isn't "Washington" how can they support Gingrich? Or Romney for that matter? If the tea party rallies around Newt Gingrich for president, it will only show that they have no real principles other than hating Barack Obama, which should be fairly obvious to anyone paying attention. You say you're a tea party activist and a pro-life conservative, yet Newt is progressive to you....but you're likely going to vote for him anyway? How does that make any sense? You cite his experience in Washington, yet the tea party mantra has been getting rid of the establishment in Washington. Which is it?

Amy,
Thanks for the rude comment. As a "pro-life conservative" how can you support any of the candidates that support militaristic expansion (see Newt or Mitt or Perry) or candidates that support fiscal policies that starve poor children (see all Republicans trying to cut SNAP) or candidates that support a death penalty (see September 12 Republican debate) or candidates that support letting uninsured individuals die (see September 12 debate)? I'm a pro-lifer myself, but I don't limit that to being pro-fetus. Pro-life means all life, lets try to have a consistent ethic of life here. And because we are so "ADD" , I want to bring it back to Newt: not pro-life, but name a Republican that truly is? There isn't one.

Hey guys, I'm really glad you're enjoying this lively conversation but I'd like to remind everyone to keep it friendly and avoid insults. That's all, thanks for reading!

My apologies for calling names - "ADD kids" seemed pretty mild but obviously it struck some nerves.

Let me just say that I will vote for anyone on the Republican ticket for our next president. I don't care if that person is male, female, black, white, Jewish or Mormon or Evangelical Christian. As long as that person is not the current resident in the White House.

There's still 11 months until the election and a long time for the battle to continue for the White House.

I will, Brian because there is NO ONE on the Republican ticket who less in line with my value system than the current resident.