We’ve all speculated about the impact of a candidate vs Obama just by watching how the Dem elected ones and media respond. The more the libs and media obsessed with daily headlines, proliferating drip campaign scandal suggestions, the more conservatives knew we were hitting a nerve. The question has always been, can the drip scandal headlines gain traction? With Palin, it was clear they feared this outsider and her enthusiastic support that added life to an otherwise dreary acceptance to a McCain nomination.
Yet Palin was a polarizing figure within the conservative movement herself, inviting surgical and unfavorable scrutiny not only from the opposing party and the media, but from “moderate” conservatives who felt she was uninformed and too radical to be the VEEP.
Flash forward to 2012. With a bevy of GOP candidates who have taken turns exciting the base, only to fall from grace for one reason or another… and faced with the ever present “anyone but Romney” attitude… we find ourselves with Newt, surging in the latest Iowa “post Cain” poll from the New York Times/CBS News. The infamous ostracized one is leading Romney by the nose – literally – at 31-29. Even when the past favorite dark horse, Herman Cain, was factored in, Newt still came out on top with 28%, trailed by Romney with 18%, and Ron Paul at 14%.
There is no doubt that conservatives see no Ronald Reagan in the slim pickin’s here. Nor can any stand out as perfect or few sans flaws. If they aren’t laden with baggage, they lack the ability to inspire, or to debate effectively.
But my mind has been a’swirl of late, watching the bipartisan hatred mount furiously over the unlikely ascent of Newt. While he’s hardly a “Nixon” in his past, he’s certainly been excoriated almost as severely over time. Newt, himself, has done little to abate this criticism. In fact, when Newt’s campaign imploded this past summer, with staffers leaving en masse to jump on the Rick “the chosen one” Perry’s campaign, the complaints were rife with criticism and complaints about Newt’s lavish lifestyle and spending, combined with what appeared to be a lackadaisical attitude towards a serious campaign. When the Gingrich’s took off on a vacation, that was the staff’s final straw.
But Newt didn’t flinch… didn’t quit. Nor has he made any attempt to shirk the responsibilities of his early campaign extravagant debt. Tho there are those that have observed Newt may have violated campaign reporting regulations, even his former staffer, Rick Tyler, speaks favorably of Newt, saying ““Newt will pay them, I’ve got no question in my mind about that. He’s got integrity, and he pays his debts.”
Obviously, Newt tackles his flaws not by trying to avoid them, but by trying to remedy them. During his House ethics investigation, he admitted that “In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee”. You have to give someone credit who steps forward and admits errors and/or perceived wrong doing. Then again, the IRS absolved Newt of any tax avoidance, despite the House ethics committee suggesting that was the case.
One of the problems I have had with Newt has been the same with other conservatives… are we talking about an establishment GOPer in wolf’s clothing here? But today’s establishment GOP hates Newt almost as much, if not more, than the liberals. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out yesterday, the elected elite of both parties are sharpening their long knives for Newt. Establishment Republicans are looking at him like an arch-neoconservative. And on the other side, liberals are all over the press, beside themselves with giddiness at a Newt nomination, saying it would result in a “landslide for Obama”.
Really? Count me as a skeptic, but when I hear that the left is giddy about a candidate, predicting landslide, I’m wondering if we aren’t on to something.
One of the things that both the left and right Joe Blow voter share is this elitist crony government mentality. And those that actually have a handle on real politics, aside for toeing party lines, have a healthy distrust for both. So I listen when pretend conservatives Congressional insiders, like like Joe Scarborough, equate Newt with Glenn Beck. If you are willing to diss Joe’s justifiably “conservative” credentials, Byron York did a round up on the beltway insiders, ready to badmouth Newt.
Of course it’s the Washington insiders who have the most actual experience dealing with Gingrich. Just look at what Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, who served with Gingrich in the House in the 1990s, said about the former speaker on Fox News Sunday. “I’m not inclined to be a supporter of Newt Gingrich’s having served under him for four years and experienced personally his leadership,” Coburn said. “I found it lacking often times.”
“There are all types of leaders,” Coburn continued. “Leaders that instill confidence, leaders that are somewhat abrupt and brisk, leaders that have one standard for the people they are leading and a different standard for themselves. I just found his leadership lacking and…I will have difficulty supporting him as president of the United States.”
Gingrich has also taken flak from another former colleague, Rep. Peter King. “The problem was, over a period of time, he couldn’t stay focused,” King said of Gingrich a few days ago. “He was undisciplined. Too often, he made it about himself.”
It’s more than just former colleagues. If one were to survey politicos, journalists and others who lived through Gingrich’s years as speaker in Washington, there would likely be a near-consensus that Gingrich will blow up his candidacy through some mixture of arrogance and indiscipline. Those insiders simply don’t believe there is a New Newt. Old Newt, the Gingrich who alienated many of his colleagues back in the 90s, will reassert himself soon enough, they believe.
I also listen when I hear right leaning pundits, like Ann Coulter, warn us that Newt can’t be elected. Maybe, unlike her former paramour, Chris Christie, Newt rejected Ann… dunno. But Ann’s not alone in trying to push the nomination towards an Obama’lite candidate from the present field. One of WaPo’s token conservatives, Jennifer Rubin, also warns that Newt’s “most likely to kiss up to the liberal elite”.
Then there’s the opposition career politician’s disdain for Newt – like Democrat House Rep, James Clyburn, who says Newt “flies off the handle” and he can’t “envision” working with him. Barney Frank, on his way out the door, says a Newt nomination would be “the best thing to happen to Democrats since Barry Goldwater.”
Hummm…. do I think that Barney Frank, or any other Democrat, are anxious to pass on valuable inside tips to an obvious loser in a landslide election? Hang no… can’t say I’m that gullible. If these guys thought someone was an obvious loser, they’d be silent as the grave. Don’t want to mess up a sure thing, right?
Call me crazy, but some things are starting to add up here for me in one bizarre possibility. I’m not happy with the GOP establishment elite. I’m not happy with conservative pundits, pushing a new version of McCain, just to win. And I’m certainly going to pay attention when Democrats tell me they are giving me good advice when they say Newt is an Obama landslide in the making.
Seems that all the people on my nerves, also don’t like Newt. Is there anything to that?
What can be said positive about this unlikely insider-outsider? Well, despite all the shortcomings, he certainly led a GOP House with budget cuts, capital gains cuts, and welfare reform with a Democrat President. Of course, he did have the help of a GOP Senate. He was also not afraid to allow a government shutdown to fight for what he believed in. Don’t see that nowadays, right? Newt knows his way around the system… which can be both positive and negative. And he’s unquestionably a formidable debater, which will have great impact in the Presidential Debates that run up to the elections.
While he’s far from perfect, he doesn’t avoid or lie about his abundant and obvious flaws. He admits it, takes it in stride, and shuffles on down the road for his chosen direction. In fact, there is little about Newt that we already don’t know. The big question is, is it acceptable, and can he be effective in this precarious moment in time for our nation?
And he sure doesn’t take guff from the other side, either. Newt, being a (current or former?) insider, knows the game well. So when Pelosi attempted a power play, suggesting a quasi “October surprise” that was supposed to lynch Newt, he immediately called her on the carpet and forced her hand, saying that if Pelosi was thinking she could release investigation material not already public, she was in violation of House rules, and needed serious disciplining.
It didn’t take long for Pelosi’s attorney to tone down the former Speaker’s threats, saying that her threats… er, “comments”.. have been misconstrued.
“Leader Pelosi was clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware,” Hammill wrote in a statement.
A day later, her legal beagles released the link to the full investigation documents, all of which have been available for more than a decade, and do not alter history in the slightest.
I dunno… you got to love a guy who not only doesn’t cower in the face of the Democrat’s power”house”, but also knows how to sling that mud back faster than you can say “Obama lost”.
On the flip side, there is no doubt that Newt faces adversity from not only the conservative and liberal elite or media opposition, but conservative voters themselves – filled with mistrust on flip flops and questions… i.e. the couch potato ad with Pelosi, which he has since admitted was a “dumb idea”.
Then there’s the reality that Newt is no loveable personality. Other than the political leanings, Newt possesses an arrogance not dissimilar to our current Oval Office denizen. Of course, the only difference is Newt is relatively unabashed about his arrogance, while Obama is more sly and slithery.
And now, even the Romney camp is in defense mode.
Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed “moderate” publication**, The Atlantic, assures us that a Newt nomination is the death of the Tea Party and principles. (**Note: Since James Bennett, of New Republic and NYTs history, came to be editor, I’m not entirely sure I give the Atlantic a “moderate” label these days…) Oh my… do we risk the death of the Tea Party with a Newt nomination? The fear tactics abound…
But there’s one thing to consider. I don’t want a candidate popular with the GOP establishment. I don’t want a candidate today saying they are a “uniter, and not a divider”. We’ve had a humble, likeable guy in Bush. Both Obama and Clinton were arrogant, tho Clinton was far more likeable with a genuine talent for delivering speeches with humor… sans teleprompters.
The ugly reality is there are no guarantees. A candidate’s lip service today doesn’t always translate to performance in office. Any one of them could cave to any given situation with a stubborn and divided Congress, unwilling to give up their bad spending habits.
What I want is someone who sees the way out of a fiscal disaster, and won’t take crap from either side. They must be fearless from political assault and threats. I’m not interested in them putting their personal popularity or legacy first. I don’t expect a perfect individual… especially from a politician. But don’t do the dance of blame. Own up, and move on. And most importantly, they have to be a believer of this nation’s free market and capitalist economic foundation.
If the mutual hatred by both sides for Newt is any indication, it may be that Newt is just the guy. He’s certainly adept at being a scrapper, and is not beaten down easily. And it should be the responsibility of the Tea Party conservatives, and those who may end up putting him in office, to make sure he holds true to small government and fiscal responsible beliefs.
But then, we don’t have many choices, do we?
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
One of the most curious aspects of Newt is his first name. It could be a fishing lure or a type of salamander; no one has taken the time to explain this enigma, that everyone is avoiding. It’s true Barrack Hussein Obama is a curious name, but he is protected by political correction and a partisan media. Will the secret of Newt’s name be unleashed upon a fickle public, a week before they vote, when the average voter is loosening their voting arm wrestling one armed bandits and drinking from long neck beer bottles. We Conservatives don’t like last minute election surprises; especially if they might be embarrassing to our cultured and cultivated candidate. If there is a dark secret or embarrassing episode concerning this name, Newt, our candidate should spill his beans sooner than later; otherwise, we can expect the Liberal media to grab the information and run like drunken rugby players pursuing ballerinas on stage.
I think the “landslide” mentality will dominate right up to a debate with Obama.
Then it all changes overnight.
LOL, Skook… you have no idea how often I wondered if Newt was some “eft”… being the traditional NYTs crossword puzzle answer for “newt”. But his name is obvious… a nickname for “Newton Leroy”. Doesn’t mean, of course, some aquatic alien parentage conspiracy theories won’t surface.
drj, I don’t think there is an “overnight” change possible if the GOP nominates anyone who cannot debate effectively. Primaries, many don’t pay attention. Presidential debates is when most people traditionally enter the voting mindset. Parroting talking points, and not being able to think on your feet will be a disaster in this season.
Obama, IMHO, is not learner-ed enough historically to be effective in a debate. But then, one has to know current events and a modicum of history to recognize that. What Obama can do is deliver a lie as if it’s true. And in a debate, that can be sufficient.
Since day one, I’ve known the only one capable of slamming Obama to the wall in a debate was Newt. That didn’t mean I lent him my support, but I would have found that prospect entertaining nonetheless.
Now, with the elimination game coming to a head, my entertainment may, indeed, be a reality. I can’t say I’m excited, nor disappointed. We could do worse than Newt… I think. I’m not entirely sure we could do better since that really entails having a crystal ball. I guess, in the long run, I’m not happy with the field overall. So entertainment may be the best I can ask for.
The many criticisms of Gingrich all have one common thread. They are attacks that are based upon the comfortable familiarity of the status quo. Newt represents solutions that purpose to resolve some of our nation’s major problems. Status quo, tip toe, soft peddling type, politics, won’t do, this time around. Bold and adventurous ideas, of which Gingrich is capable of supplying, is needed to bring America back from the disastrous workings of the present White House occupant.
Newton Leroy. really? How morbidly mundane, Oops I should watch overexposing my adverbs. We must strive to maintain a modicum of civility, despite our subject matter, and whether it matters or not. Newt has proclaimed himself the winner of the primary, but I find myself wondering if he might be premature.
I appreciate a man with a grasp of history. I have a grasp of history, of the facts I know, I know quite well and of the ones I don’t know, I don’t know near as well; unfortunately, I don’t know nearly as many as Newton Leroy. He seems to pull out insignificant facts as easily as a man who collects women’s underwear can pull bloomers from his drawers.
Now I don’t mean to cast aspersions on Newton, the media will do that far better than my pathetic attempts to add or detract to the legend that is Newt. I truly admire his grasp of history and his ability to tie it all together. Now if we match his knowledge of facts and of history, and the ability to make sense of it all in a coherent theory with the seemingly (I have the adverb fever tonight) clueless grasp of history, facts, and theory of Obama, Newton could conceivably declare himself the winner of the general as well.
Pastor, in physics, we are told to keep things equal we will need equal opposing forces on both sides of the equal sign. The country has survived three years of Socialism: it is time for a true Conservative. Is Newt the Conservative that can pull this country from the abyss of failure? That is the question that we must answer.
For an intelligent man, he has made a series of blunders that will be used against him. If he is defeated, it will be because he was the architect for his own defeat. Just as Obama has turned on the Marxists and Pacifists that elected him, will a man that has promoted AGW turn on the Conservatives who trust that he has seen the corruption and control that is the AGW for the Democrats. AGW has nothing to do with the environment, it is a political tool to gain power and control for the Leftists; yet, this supposedly intelligent man was either duped or willing to go along with the biggest Hoax of History.
… and adjectives as well, Skook. LOL But always a pleasure to see the turn of phrase, along with humor.
As for Newt… I’ll worry less about his arrogance if he’s the nominee, and his performance as POTUS instead. If he does the trick, and turns the nation around in record time, I’ll be happy to feed his ego. Like I said, I want someone effective. Don’t care if he’s likeable.
I believe that Newt’s fortunes turned when he took on Brian Williams and later Maria Bartriloma (sp?) during the debates. He was the only candidate that took control from the moderators when the questioning got really out of hand. When I was learning to negotiate, my mentor told me repeatedly to take control of the process one way or another.
So there is an interesting fantasy roaming around my head. We hear again and again that the American people like Obama personally but they don’t like his policies. I believe that ultimately that is a canard because I find it very hard to believe that the American people are discounting the vapidness of his speeches and the flaunting of his wealth, especially by Michelle. I think that if they had a good reason, American’s personal opinion of Obama would erode rather quickly.
One could imagine in a debate setting with Newt, the latter goes for the jugular and as the debate progresses, he continually shreds Obama’s positions, his statements, and indirectly, his persona. At some point, Obama is going to lose his cool. At some point, he is going to wag that finger at Newt and say something overtly hostile and insulting. The American people will be shocked at that and opinions could change very rapidly. I am not sold on Newt (and I am sure not sold on Romney), but I certainly can envision a scenario where Obama gets rattled in that context. Newt has a way with words and knowledge.
Or at least one can dream.
Disturber : I believe Newt is the only candidate that can lead Obama down the Primrose Path of debate and then eviscerate him with a smile on his face. The Egoist may have a mental melt down, especially if he has no help from his moderators. Newt has the ability to make intelligent people seem unprepared; the Egoist should be a walkover.
Don’t be surprised to find a set up with the debates, to keep the Egoist from looking like a complete fool, assuming Newt is correct and he is the nominee.
What is attractive about Newt is his formidable debating/history skills. His “baggage” won’t really be an issue, IMHO because to a certain extent we have already been inoculated to it. In other words, it is old news and Newt makes no bones about correcting anything false that is said about him.
I like Newt and I like his chances of winning.
As for the current field of GOP candidates being weak, I think just the opposite. First of all, ANY of them (with the exceptions of Ron Paul and Huntsman) would be a damn site better than Obama. Secondly, four years ago no one was even talking about reworking the tax code and this time around it has been a major issue. And lastly, I think that Conservatives in general are better represented now than we were in 2008.
Dang, antics… can that bar get any lower? Gotta practice up on my Caribbean limbo moves if it does!
This is rich!
Obama has his hacks in the liberal press making sure we all know that attacking Obama (or even his policies, as they can be interpreted as attacking Obama the man) is off-limits.
we, ourselves are sharpening the long blades against each and every one of our own potential nominees!
Obama was a regular pot head for years.
Obama snorted coke whenever he could.
Obama slid through his higher education as an affirmative action gimme.
Obama sat in the pew of a racist, anti-Semite ”minister” for 20 years.
Obama smeared the police when his friend was arrested as he tried to break the door into (what turned out to be) his own home.
Talk about your baggage!
(And I could go on.)
Whoever we end up with as the Republican nominee will be getting my active support.
We are not looking for the Second Coming.
Just a human being, flawed for sure, but capable of beating Obama.
Wouldn’t it be bizarre if this coming election turned on the debates, much like the Kennedy-Nixon debates that I recall, vaguely. I think this is a real key issue in sorting this out. I am just not convinced that Romney has the cajones to take on Obama. With Newt, it will be do or die.
I have to add that Obama’s campaign stops of late have been at high schools with carefully hand picked audiences. That is not indicative of cajones.
Disturber, I think this is an election where we have no choice but a “do or die” attitude. Not meaning Newt, specifically. But that Obama or Obama’lite as our choices is still just another unsustainable nail in the nation’s coffin that is under construction.
I’m a tad older than you, Disturber, as I remember those debates quite well.
I listened on the radio and KNEW that – on the merits – Nixon won.
But those who watched on TV went with the looker, JFK.
Nixon was just getting over a bad flu and refused to wear girlie makeup!
Nan, I was born in ’42.
True, the bar is set low, but don’t blame me, I’m merely the messenger. The ‘Bamster himself has set this bar with his three exemplary years in the WH.
But I stand by what I said, this field of GOP hopefuls is a lot stronger than they are given credit for.
The Obama media has not attacked Romney. Not a peep from them. I’m a suspicious creature by nature, so I’m wondering why Axelrod and company have had their minions savaging all the rest of the Republican field while never turning the eye of Sauron on Mitt.
Could it be that Romney has an “October surprise” waiting in a carefully guarded FBI file somewhere. Perhaps that’s a stretch of imagination on my part, but there must be some reason why they’re choosing Mitt for us. Perhaps they’re confident he’s the easiest one to beat.
As to the pundits on the right turning on Newt, they are an unforgiving lot and Newt has blundered badly in recent times with the base. I think (hope?) he’s learned his lesson. I’ll be sending him some money after the holidays. He is the one who has stood out in the primary debacles. I loved him once. I’m willing to forgive his transgressions and support him now. He may be flawed, but I think the left obviously has chosen to face Mitt Romney.
Newt is conservative in his core. I don’t think Mitt Romney has a core, just ambition. He’s always seemed that way to me.
Here is a link with a good summary of where the candidates stand on the major issues. In my case, there was no single candidate that represented my views over those of the other candidates on every single issue, however every single candidate represented my views on at least one issue more than the majority of the other candidates. All of these candidates, even Romney, stand in stark contrast to Obama. To some extent or another, in order to reduce the deficit they all favor spending cuts and reducing the size of the government. To get the economy going, they all favor to some extent tax cuts, less regulation, getting rid of Obamacare, and development of own energy resources. As for immigration they favor controlling the border one way or the other. This is all in sharp contrast to Obama who favors socialism, big spending, intrusive government, and an immigration policy that will the pad the ranks of his party. The differences aren’t as apparent now because they are campaigning against each other. Once the nominee is chosen, that individual will then be contrasted Obama and the differences will become quite apparent.
It’s simple. To remove Obama from office we need the independents and moderate democrats. In order to get the independents and moderate democrats we’re going to need Mitt Romney. Now I don’t mind anyone’s opposing opinion here, but I will personally guarantee that Barack Hussein Obama will enjoy four more years of tearing our nation to pieces if you refuse to follow my advice at the voting booth. Let’s get rid of Obama first, then we can attack a GOP president if we choose. There is too much at stake here America.
Side note: I died the death of a thousand cuts when I had to vote for John McCain in 2008. I refuse to go through that experience ever again!
I like Newt because I think he has the temerity to debate NObama on his flaws and record. I think we need a candidate that can get dirty with the damnocrats like they do with us!
Skookum – Regarding your [the 6th] comment:
I hear what you are saying. Anyone who buys into the crazed propaganda that global warming is essentially caused by human presence and activity is to be held in serious suspect.
For my own part, I think that Rep. Michelle Bachmann would be the best choice to be the GOP 2012 presidential nominee.
However, as a proud “birther” who believes that Obama has not met the Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen, I don’t think that I will be voting for the GOP nominee – unless, that nominee makes an issue of Obama’s unconstitutional non natural born citizen status. Presently, I am leaning to vote for a Republican candidate, named John Dummett, who is making Obama’s disqualification for legitimate president, a priority in his campaign.
I’ve been accused of being part of a voting crowd that will help Obama win a second term. My answer to that is that I cannot in good conscience vote for a Republican nominee who remains complicit to Obama’s unconstitutional “presidency” and his multiple molestations of our Constitutional Republic.
Finally, I believe that there are other Republican and / or, Independents such as I, who hold the Constitution in such high esteem that they [we] are unwilling to vote for a GOP candidate who chooses to go along with the political correctness charade of Obama’s bogus qualifications for legitimate US president. The only way that the GOP candidate will garner Constitutionalists his or her vote, is by throwing out a genuine “bone” for us birther Republican / Independents………
Nathan, while I respect each person’s right to their own opinion, I would urge you to step back a minute and consider what happens when votes are squandered on third parties and ephemeral, one issue candidates. Bill Clinton would have lost if Ross Perot had not been running as a third party candidate. Al Gore would have won in Florida if “Unsafe at any Speed” had not been running as a Green. There are higher issues here. If you do not focus all of your energy on removing Obama from office, and he wins, you are complicit in his winning. After his Kansas speech, where he showed the real person that he is, it is a matter of enormous urgency that he be roundly defeated. Whether or not the birther argument is ultimately confirmed, the hard core reality is that we have a president that is bound and determined to destroy the fabric of this country and we need to stop him. The only way to stop him is to deny him a second term, decisively.
Well presented, MataHarley. I’m an indy-conservative too, and any Republican nominated will get my vote. Colorado residency ensures I have no voice in selecting a nominee. The juicy promise of Newt-Obama debates is somewhat exhilarating. The scary parts of Newt aren’t that scary, his global warming silliness (if it still exists) will be tempered by fiscal reality. His pomposity may wax worse coming from the Oval Office, but I can handle that after Left-for-Brains.
Like the pale rider, I wait. Will Newt implode? I’m guessing no. Can the chattering class bring him down? Perhaps. The American mind surely must be concentrated on jobs, and Newt should move on that front soon if he reads the tea leaves and the moderate angst properly.
Pastor Nathan, I appreciate your concern for the flim flam con game that was pulled on America; however, in sports, the military, and in business, success is far more likely if we have a team effort and everyone is involved. If we have millions voting for obscure candidates with noble intentions, we will insure an Obama victory and the loss of the one beacon of freedom in the world. Politics is a strange game and the deck has been rigged against us for awhile, but we cannot gamble with something so precious as Freedom. I can be a wise guy occasionally, but on this issue we must stand firm and committed to defeat Obama. I agree whole heartedly with Disturber and many others.
After a victory for freedom, we can concentrate on ridding Washington of the corruption and crime, but for now, we must preserve our freedom while we still can.
@anticsrocks: I agree that there’s a certain amount of inoculation to Newt’s baggage on the part of people that are already politically tuned in. The problem comes later, when people who only pay attention to the presidential election starting in October 2012 get to see as much negative advertising as money will buy.
I also think that some people want to separate his personal baggage (affairs and so on) from his political baggage (previous support for many non-conservative positions). But from my perspective, these are part of the same pattern and personality; he’s simply unreliable, because he can always come up with a reason to do what he likes.
I’m not wild about Newt, but he’s our best shot at winning and getting at least some of our agenda carried out. Never thought I’d say that…
@Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel: Some of John Dummett’s own words, emphasis mine:
Mr. Dummett is a tad bit un-presidential for me – and I am being kind to him.
First of all Newt’s Contract with America was implented in all but 2 of the cases. As for correcting the vitriol he spews about Sarah Palin, well, I will just let his lies and venom speak for themselves.
I see that you where describing exactly , on your,
before last paragraph, which is;
WHAT I WANT is someone who see the way out of fiscal disaster, and won’t take crap
from either side, They must be fearless from political assaults and threats,
I don’t expect a perfect individual, but don’t do the dance of blame, OWN UP AND MOVE ON,
and most importantly, they have to be a believer of this NATION’S FREE MARKET ,
AND CAPITALIST ECONOMIST FOUNDATION,
YOU DESCRIBED RICK PERRY ALL OVER. AND PERFECTLY.
Bees, Rick Perry is close to the bottom of the pack for me. Sorry. He’d never survive the debates. He’d be chewed up and spit out by the first two.
that would be something interesting to find out,
it has not been done as for now.
Beg to differ, Bees. One of the reasons for Perry’s fall from grace was he couldn’t even debate his peers, let alone the opposition.
@ilovebeeswarzone: One of the interesting things that comes out of the detailed polling data in Iowa is that Perry has support of 3% among those who have seen him debate, versus 18% among those who haven’t (if I remember right). That’s really kind of striking. It could be a selection effect, where it has nothing to do with his debate performance and he just gets little support from the *kind* of people who are watching debates at this stage; but probably not. I feel bad for the guy, because as I’ve said before I think his heart is in the right place and he’s a likable candidate. But he’s just not smart enough to be the best choice.
For those who are still holding out for someone other than Romney and Gingrich, here’s something that should give you a bit of hope: on this date in 2007, the national polling for the Republican primary showed Giuliani in first at 27%, with Huckabee a close second. The eventual winner, McCain, was in the low teens.
thank you for the info,
we must remember that gift of tongue as nothing to do with being smart.
I have seen very smart persons without gift of tongue.
but he can express himself pretty good, he probably hate to be presented in a position of inferiority,he is not use to be
as a GOVERNOR OF TEXAS FOR SO MANY YEARS, IT PLAYED AGAINST HIM FOR SURE
the way it was done, minimizing the CANDIDATES, I have seen him with GRETA FOX NEWS,
A COMPLETE DIFFERENT PERSON, NO HESITATION ON HIS BRILLIANT CONVERSATION.
I’m amazed that the right has gone so loony they have candidates worse than McCain/Palin.
@liberalmann: I agree, my clinically depressed adversary. What’s even more amazing is that all of them are far superior to Barack Obama. In fact, you are superior to him also, so get in the race already.
I like that, well on target,
You know, it’s funny; I would really, really like to vote for Perry. He seems like a great guy, someone that is down to earth, and I love his ads. But man, he has worse foot in mouth disease than Biden. He is running second in the Hot Air poll after Cain dropped out. Then, he goes on CNN and does this:
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Well, Aqua… if you can figure out a way to totally eliminate the need for him to debate or speak to the voters, he might get elected. But his obvious communication flaws are not my only problem with him. He’s a bit too opportunist for my tastes as a politician.
Added: OMG.. I just checked out their Hot Gas survey. Gingrich has a 21 point lead over the 2nd… Perry.
Ya know, some of Bush’s verbal gaffes were somewhat endearing. But geez… even he wasn’t this bad. The guy is mincemeat amongst friends. He’d be puree in even the first debate against Obama.
Bees, I was looking at that same quote and thinking Ron Paul. LOL It’s funny how we can read the same thing and come to different conclusions.
I’ve decided Ron Paul, despite some iffy foreign policy stances that I mostly agree with, is the best choice for the presidency.
We have been suffering under a far-left ideologue. We need to swing as far to the right toward a presidency that respects and will adhere to our Constitution in order to bring balance back. I don’t consider the neocon candidates (Newt, Romney, Bachmann) as far right – they are as warmongering as Barry with his interventionist wars. I’m more afraid of those 3’s foreign policy stances than I am of Ron Paul’s non-interventionist stance.
In 2006 Newt indicated that freedom of speech might be curtailed, and I don’t care what his reasons are, the fact that he’s even thought about it tells me this guy has no respect for our Constitution. I also want to see the unPatriot Act be thrown into the wastebin of history, and no other candidate as president will do that except for Ron Paul.
I know I’ll be flamed for my opinions by certain posters here who love to use ad-homs like confetti against Ron Paul supporters, but Newt is a disaster waiting to happen. He’s even admitted that he ‘thinks too much’ and is ‘too intelectual’ to be a good leader.
Have you even read about Toffler’s book, The Third Wave? The book Newt recommended everyone in Congress to read? And the ‘Letter to Our Founding Parents’ in it?
Newt never denounced that sentiment and he can’t because he believes it. Newt knows how to couch progressive ideas in conservative terms.
Newt’s closing comment with an interview he did 2 years ago with the World Future Society:
“Fundamentally transform”??? I’m transported back to Barry’s use of that phrase. Our ‘current system’ is obsolete? Doesn’t work at the speed of the 21st Century? Oh, he must mean our Constitution with its checks and balances to ensure no action is taken quickly – one of the most brilliant concepts ever devised to ensure a sound government.
No, I do not want to live in a Newt World Order.
just me 95
hi, I’m glad you told about that book of NEWT and what he believe in, is to my mind,
the wrong radical to embrace with your eyes close,
I like the thorough clearing job of RICK PERRY better, more targeting the problem,
on a shorter time line, so to not have AMERICANS waste time and see their tax going
on long delayed actions which don’t even help this NATION, and many more time help other country who hate AMERICA, that is what is being done by this GOVERNMENT, so you don’t want to replicate it
in another form with a new name and seemingly opposite
party with same end agenda with a different road.
THIS leave you and I to debate , trying to convince each other to follow the candidate we have in mind,
that sound like more fun to do, bye
@liberalmann: Our drive by troll strikes again.
Great job, Mata! I started thinking that Newt was the right choice back in early October and blogged about it on my site and posted it on facebook, though not with anywhere near the thoughtful and thorough prose you penned. I was almost overwhelmed by the negative reaction. The Ron Paul supporter that has been my only commenter on my website was predictable, but the surprise was the negativity that my own conservative friends showed. Mostly, they just seemed to think he was terminally unlikable.
What I have realized though is that the more I’ve paid close attention to him as a candidate, the more I’ve understood that when you allow him the opportunity to explain his past failures, and put them into context, you see someone who isn’t a flip-flopper, but instead someone who develops his platforms through an out loud thought process (sometimes after shooting off at the mouth), and isn’t shy about modifying those positions as he learns more and understands more about them. I have a lot more respect for someone like that than someone who either changes his positions depending on his audience, someone who blindly sticks to a position for no other reason than that’s always been their position, or someone who refuses to tell anyone what their position is in the first place.
I’m of the mind that no candidate is perfect, and Newt is anything but. He is, however, more than capable of following a conservative path, especially if there is a vocal and determined support group/watchdog group nipping at his heels all the time. Even more important, he has a pretty damn good chance of beating theOne. He’s also, by far, the most intelligent candidate in the running, even if he is prone to an occasional shooting off of the mouth. Unless there is a major bombshell before the Wyoming Republican Straw Poll in February, he’ll likely get my vote.
Wisdom, it’s always a treat when you make some of your rare appearances here. I tend you miss you a lot around here, you know. And I’m honored you did so with this thread.
Disturber – Re: your 23rd comment and Skookum, your 25th comment:
I appreciate your concern. You have a valid point. But, I ask myself, “What is the difference if Obama wins another 4 years rather than the GOP opposition which continues to be complicit with the Constitution’s molestation?”
In some respect, I would not care if many like I did not vote for the GOP nominee, and Obama continues. At least our Constitutional Republic will then die a quick death, rather than a slow and painful one at the hands of the charading and complicit Republicans……..
No one knows how voters (en masse) will vote, come that decisive November 2012 day. Voters, such as I have to insist that the GOP nominee makes an issue out of the bogus “presidency” of Obama. If such focus can be given that phony presidency, perhaps, legislation during Obama’s White House occupancy can be voided. But, until that Election Day, voters such as I, feel impelled to play a “game of chicken.” We are tired of the Karl Rove GOP types telling us what is best for the country……..
Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel,
yes I think it wont be display in same context as you would like at this time, but there has been words leading to what you are eager to hear, we have to carefully read also behind the sentences,
if they say to put one issue leading to your point the one most important for you as a citizen concern,
but you have to get away from a decision to not vote and allow another 4 years of this destructive path.
even more because your position as a PREACHER is of influence over some who trust you and by the same reason as above mentioned they hear your words from the bible and see behind your word who you represent, so just to say and remind you that you have a responsability to influence voting for the best you see, as a duty that your position require.
@Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel: I disagree with you that a quick death would be better. Every day of a slow decline is one more day that I have to prepare myself and my family for the inevitable collapse (Did I say inevitable? Must be my inner Rawles shining through). Also, it is one more day that we have a chance to change course.
@MataHarley: Thanks Mata. I’m never far. Always reading, then usually off running to do my duty as a Scab, working for the looters and paying for their benefits. Also found myself in the enviable(?) job of State Committeeman for the local GOP, been running their website and facebook page, and staying active locally. I keep trying to stay out the the national political stuff, but it keeps dragging me back in. Thinking about running for a spot as an alternate national delegate next year, but only if it doesn’t interfere with next years elk hunt in Idaho. A guy has to have priorities.
I don’t care who you vote for in the primary or general elections; this is funny.
That certainly was funny, Aqua. The “it’s called math, bitches!” is my fave….
BTW, if I didn’t know better, I’d say I wrote the below… but it’s actually from Steve McCann’s American Thinker article today about scrapper Newt.
even NANCY PELOSI, is threatening to play the game of the ones who accused HERMAN CAINE
OF SEX OFFENDER,
SHE NANCY PELOSI IS threatening to release damaging info on GINGRISH,
And wait for this last punch of her;
NANCY ADDING; WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT.
WELL GINGRICH gave a good answer to it. all this in FOX WITH MEGAN KELLY
Bees, the tale of Pelosi is in my original post above, when I spoke of Newt slinging the mud right back at Pelosi. She made the threat of an “October surprise” bit of dirt, and Newt publicly called her on it within 24 hours. Not only that, he pointed out that her release of any information not already public was illegal, and she deserved appropriate sanctions and punishment. Pelosi’s lawyer immediately started backtracking for her… saying she was only talking about “public” information.
So they released the full ethics investigative files link… which has been available and parsed for over a decade. Nothing new there at all.
What the ethics committee alluded to in their investigation conclusions is that Newt “might” have violated tax laws… and left that to the traditional IRS investigative course. The IRS absolved Newt of any illegal actions… putting the final nail in the coffin of Pelosi and her Dem peers suggestion of illegal activity.
Since all of this is old news, Pelosi was attempting to put a new spin on it. Newt slammed the door in her face, and then pointed out she was dancing on legal boundaries herself.. which shut her up in just slightly over 48 hours total. Gotta love it.
ONE good to learn, is that the JEWISH COMMUNITY IS WITH OUR CANDIDATES.
FOR 2012 NOVEMBER,
GOOD SHOW, THEY HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT,
WOW I knew I had read it somewhere before today,
but forgot where, I presume it was at FOX,and today it was there, so I came to repeat it here,
sorry about it,
He can still come off as arrogant at times and irritate me to know end, but taking everything the libs throw at him and sticking it in their faces is starting to make me overlook the arrogance. I’m still sitting on the sidelines seeing how things will play out though. BTW, a brokered convention could be a possibility if Newt doesn’t get his filing deadlines figured out.
I liked that one and “Brian, you ignorant slut.”
They have been updating them everyday. That and rickperryfacts on twitter make me laugh.
anticsrocks, Disturber, Skookum, ilovebeeswarzone, Wisdom, – and those who I might have missed, regarding my comments on this subject thread:
I hear your concerns and readily recognize and respect your comment thoughts.
I realize for myself, (even as a downtrodden “birther”) that I talk big. I suspect (for myself) that when the election day of decision arrives, I will end up voting for the GOP nominee. Why?
Having had Obama as a corrupt White House occupant and putative president, no longer makes the choice of voters a choice between a Democrat Party (turd) candidate and a Republican Party (shit sandwich) candidate. The 2012 election process is a clear choice between the Obama turd and the Republican lard sandwich. Voters (such as I) can take our choice – eat crap or choose something much better…..
Honesty or an admission of wrong-doing does not excuse the offense. If it did, we could all excuse John Corzine for not knowing where that billion dollars in investments went. Also, maybe we should start pronouncing Newt’s name as it was given to him: ging-grik
Pastor emeritus Nathan Beckel
are you a real PASTOR?, Is it the way you speak to you’re followers?
the words you use are not in communion with you’re name,
where do you preach? is it a GOD loving message or a message about hell and shit sanwich?
I dunno, but it dun seem CHRISTIAN TO ME ,
and yet you have a name leading us to think the usual thought of a respectful pastor spreading the word of the BIBLE, and it make me think of a reverend WRIGH SPEECH OF HATE. with the good black family, coming out incited
to a point of hating the whites, after every SUNDAY speechs
of their lives