Cain couldn't overcome the steady drumbeat of sexual misconduct allegations. He's out of the running, but not going away. 

He announced the formation of CainSolutions.com, a kind of Plan B. 

Why would he go away? He can still collect campaign contributions by suspending his campaign as opposed to dropping out. It will be interesting to see how much he is going to be able to legally pocket.  Politics can be a very lucrative business.

I do firmly believe in the rule of law and your insinuating that I don't shows you lack understanding and knowledge of the events in Massachusetts which led up to Romney's decision on May 17, 2004 to do the wrong thing by ordering town clerks to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples as per the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling,

Concerning marriage, here is the rule of law.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman is the most fundamental institution and rule of law not only in America but all over the world. The State, the Law, does not create marriage, it merely recognizes it. 

In 1780, the Massachusetts legislature did just that when they adopted the Mass.Constitution. In it, the term marriage meant the God-ordered union of a man and a woman. The rule of law established that marriage is between a man and a woman and the concept of a man marrying another man was considered preposterous if not insane.

Enter the fruits of the 60's sexual revolution and the militant homosexual lobby.....

In 2002, Superior Court Judge Thomas E. Connolly relying on the history of Massachusetts marriage laws and constitutional provisions, Judge Connolly determined that no fundamental right to homosexual "marriage" existed. He denied Goodridge claims for recognition of homosexual "marriage" and said that the issue should be handled by the legislature.

But no, instead of properly handling the issue through the Massaachusetts legislature, Goodridge continued with the highest court in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. (MSJC).

With its Nov. 2003 Goodridge decision, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 4 of the court's 7, imo, socially mad judges, circumvented the constitutional process and arbitrarily imposed homosexual  "marriage" on the people of Massachusetts in a brazen and contemptuous act of judicial activism.  It ordered the State legislature to change the law and gave it 180 days to do so.

 By April, 2004, "Legislative action to change the laws still has not occurred. “He [Romney] placed the blame for the confusion on the Legislature, which has yet to follow a directive from the SJC to change the state’s marriage laws to reflect the legalization of same-sex matrimony." ‘‘I believe the reason that the court gave 180 days to the Legislature was to allow the Legislature the chance to look through the laws developed over the centuries and see how they should be adjusted or clarified for purposes of same-sex marriage; the Legislature didn’t do that,’’ Romney said. Senator Bruce E. Tarr (R) of Gloucester, said he believes the Legislature will ultimately pass bills that will insert genderneutral language into the state’s marriage laws in time for the May 17 deadline. ‘‘No one should interpret inaction thus far with the idea that no action is forthcoming,’’ he said."

So, on May 17, 2004, Gov. Romney ordered town clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as per the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling, 180 days after it was issued, without the legislative action called for by the actual ruling. 

EDIT: We are done discussing Romney as far as this particular issue is concerned. We've each had a chance to make our case and I want to move on.  

Please explain what you mean when you say that I choose to live under a dictatorship.What dictatorship is that?

I don't understand how he can hold a state of the Union address, as he has been kicked out for corruption so blatant it made politicians blush.  He is not allowed in the U.S. House for the rest of his life, so would have to hold the State Address somewhere else. 

He disgraced his wife,er wives; disgraced his Party; disgraced the House, Believe me you'll feel disgraced if you'd vote for him KNOWING his desgraceful history

Hello Damitman,

welcome to the discussion.

I didn't know Newt was kicked out of the US Congress for corruption. Why hasn't this been mentioned by his opponents? Can you cite some actual sources so I may check that out?

This has already been brought up earlier in the discussion. Read my reply #6 in which we discuss Newt's sins.

We still have plenty of time for all of Newt's opponents to air out his so called  "disgraceful" history.

You can claim anything you want.  And you can toss around insults until you are tired of it.  But I notice in all your hyperbole, obfuscation, and misdirection, you have not addressed what I said at all.  I understand that.  You have no retort, just talking points.  That is fine if all you want is to be led.

I do not.  So perhaps instead of creating strawmen out of what I say, you can actually offer something substantive in rebuttal.  Sorry, I have not been on in a couple of weeks, but I see I missed nothing with your replies.

I noticed. Glad you're back and fired up as usual.

It was totally addressed. You were just too blind to see it so let me spell it out for you. Banking regulations are not set in stone. In light of this much in regards to banking regulations is left up to the the executive branch (which sets the tone for and appoints the regulators) and much is left to the FED. So when you go back to the S&L crisis and look at the timeline as to changes in such things as asset caps and allowable investments, as well as who made those decisions and who sat in charge of the executive branch then it becomes obvious that what you try to claim as "democratic policy" is "blatantly" false. 

The voting has finally begun and I am glad to get the process going.

We should know who New Hampshire picks in a few hours.    

Of the four still standing, I still like Newt the best.

I live in Florida and the campaign calls and the mail is starting to pile up. One of Newt's callers told me to check out   Newt.org 

There are lots of reasons why I would never vote for Newt and I could go down the line, but one reason is fairly obvious to anyone and hard to dispute. Take a good hard look at Newt and Caliste... they turn Barack Obama and the Democrats into the party of family values and that's unacceptable. I know Romneys Mormonism turns off lots of Christians and secular minded people, but I would go with him over Santorum or Paul. I wouldn't vote for Newt under any circumstances.

Earlier in the discussion I responded to this saying

Yes, Newt's sins became public. And yes, we can judge his behavior and as a result, decide not to vote for him. 

I probably would feel the same way as you had Newt NOT publicly acknowledged his offenses against Almighty God.  But he did.  He said he has repented and gained forgiveness and with that I think of Our Lord's prayer and the Sacrament of Confession.

Of the four, Romney is last for me. The reasons are many but his being politically expedient on abortion, donating to Planned Parenthood and instituting RomneyCare are front and center. To my knowledge, Newt has always been pro-life both in and out of office, never donated to PP, and understands as well as Santorum that RomneyCare was a blueprint for Obamacare.

I've never been a huge fan of Romney, but he seems to be the only reasonable candidate who has a fairly good shot at defeating Obama. Just look at those who endorse Newt. Mostly the same forces who brought the Republican party brilliant candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell. I'm not quite sure why Pailn and others want to run a guy like Gingrich with his unfavorables and baggage.

I disagree that Romney is the ONLY reasonable candidate who has a fairly good chance at defeating Obama. I think that's media and the Republican Establishment spin.

People are just so sick and tired of being trampled on by Obama and his band of Lefties. Many of the Liberals I know are coming to understand they've been hoodwinked and another four years would have us straight down in the sewers. As a result, I think whoever wins the GOP nomination will get support from all sides of the political spectrum. 

No matter who gets the nomination, I will support him...depends on who he has for VP as to the type and amount of support. 

These forces you speak of would be the Tea Party, right? From what I know both Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell are staunch conservatives and not likely to be RINO's if ever elected.

That's why the Republican Establishment is beside themselves over the Tea Party and it's candidates.

I used to live in Maine who has two RINO's, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (also a Catholic hypocrite).