Political debate

(Thank you for your patience. I type in caps because it is easy. I am not shouting.) We will do Newt Gingrich for president. Really, I wanted a candidate with the economic philosophy of Gingrich and the social/moral philosophy of Santorum. THEN, YOU DO NOT WANT GINGRICH. YOU WANT THE IDEAS - NOT THE MAN. In my opinion, both are incredibly important. AS IF YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS THIS/ However, the economic issues are pressing more at this moment than the social issues, which are constantly present. Furthermore, Santorum would represent a social philosophy which I believe is ideal, however, it would have absolutely no way to pass into law. STATE THE PHILOSOPHIES, PLEASE, RATHER THAN THE NAME. Gingrich's economic philosophy did have a strong potential for actually being put into place. Mostly, I support Gingrich because of his philosophy on self-dependency and outsourcing. He wanted to prevent outsourcing by instituting protective tariffs and quotas and wanted to bring industry back to the United States. At the moment, I do not know how he planned to bring the industry back, but he at least planned to unlike any of the other candidates. "NO PLAN" MEANS THAT HE IS JUST STANDING THERE, WHINING ABOUT A PROBLEM. HE WAS AROUND AT A TIME WHEN OUTSOURCING COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BUT HE WAS NOT EFFECTIVE. He also, as a republican supported tax cuts which supports Reagan's supply side economics. WHICH DIDN'T WORK AND FILLED THE STREETS WITH HOMELESS PEOPLE. He also supported little government spending which would help with the deficit. MAKING SURE THAT THERE ARE FEWER SUPPORT SYSTEMS, WORSE ROADS, WORSE SCHOOLS, WORSE BORDER SECURITY. THE WAR RUINED THE MONEY. NOT THE OTHER SPENDING. Furthermore, he wanted to combine and reform many government agencies, namely, the EPA. He wanted to convert the Environmental PROTECTION Agency to the Environmental SOLUTION Agency. ONLY ONE EXAMPLE OUT OF MANY IS TOO TINY AN EXAMPLE TO BE IMPRESSIVE. As opposed to restricting what businesses can do because of environmental restrictions, he wanted to offer practical and innovative solutions for businesses to do what they want to do with as little impact on the environment as possible. SO DO MANY OTHER PEOPLE. As far as experience goes, he was the speaker of the house for many years and can manage them better than most of the other potential candidates. "THEM" IS A CHANGING LIST OF PEOPLE. HE IS OLD AND EXTREME, SEXUALLY REPULSIVE AND LAUGHED AT. SO, YOU, LIVING IN HIS PAST, IS NOT IMPRESSIVE. He supports the military, which is vital for our protection. SO IS GOOD BORDER AND PORT SECURITY. He wanted to make the republican party more outspoken. AS IF THEY AREN'T. Supports welfare reform including work requirements for recipients BUT NOT BIRTH CONTROL FOR THE POOR SO AS TO CREATE FEWER POOR PEOPLE. He has a history of being able to get along with democrats without sacrificing his goals. ONCE UPON A TIME HE DID. Has a history as a businessman. He knows what is good for business and what is not. STATE THE LIST. PLEASE, DO NOT STATE SOMETHING THIS BROAD WITHOUT REAL INPUT. "THISTHISTHISTHIS AND THIS ARE GOOD FOR BUSINESS" IS FAR MORE IMPRESSIVE THAN A GESTURE-LIKE SENTENCE WITH NO INFO TO BACK IT UP While he may not be a Santorum, he does have several ideals that coincide with Santorum's. STATE THEM. PLEASE USE DATA. YOU TYPE A LOT OF "I LIKE THIS" WITHOUT SAYING WHAT "THIS" IS. SUCH IS NOT IMPRESSIVE OR USEFUL IN A DEBATE OR MUCH OF ANYWHERE.