The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2012 => Topic started by: Janice on May 13, 2011, 08:13:35 AM
-
(http://i55.tinypic.com/2w2ouwl.jpg)
Gingrich and Pelosi tag-team for Al Gore (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/22/lunch-losing-video-gingrich-and-pelosi-tag-team-for-al-gore/)
KUHNER: No to Newt (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/12/no-to-newt/?page=all#pagebreak)
Newt Gingrich has thrown his hat into the ring. The former House speaker has formally declared he will seek the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Mr. Gingrich has toyed for years with running for the White House. Now he finally is all in. Mr. Gingrich has many positive attributes. He is articulate, smart and possesses instant name recognition. Moreover, he has a political machine and a network of advisers that will help him establish a formidable ground game. Mr. Gingrich’s candidacy, however, is a dollar short and a day late.
Time has passed him by. He should have run in 2008. The Republican front-runner, Sen. John McCain, was weak and distrusted by the GOP’s conservative base. The rank and file were desperate for anyone with a scintilla of conservative credentials to challenge the centrist Arizona Republican. >>> Mr. Gingrich could have beaten then-Sen. Barack Obama, a political amateur and media-created candidate. Yet that was then. This is now. >>>
Mr. Gingrich recently told The Washington Times that his greatest failures as House speaker were his disorganization and intellectual arrogance - his refusal to work closely with other top GOP leaders. Really? That’s like saying he didn’t allow others to help him realize his inner greatness. Smug, self-satisfied and condescending, Mr. Gingrich is emblematic of the venal Republican establishment. His major failures were not tactical. They were personal. Mr. Gingrich could not tenaciously pursue Mr. Clinton during Monicagate because he, too, was ethically compromised. Mr. Gingrich is an admitted serial adulterer who has engaged in extramarital affairs. He even forced one of his ex-wives to sign divorce papers while she was about to undergo a cancer operation. In short, he is a ruthless climber and shameless opportunist; he does not have the character to be commander in chief.
Over the past decade, Mr. Gingrich has erected a financial mini-empire - lucrative speaking fees, book and TV contracts, and cozy ties with fat-cat lobbyists. He has participated in policy events teaming up with Hillary Rodham Clinton. Instead of openly confronting one of the most corrupt political families in America, Mr. Gingrich has jumped in bed with them. In the end, he champions one thing: himself. >>> MORE (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/12/no-to-newt/?page=all#pagebreak)
=============================================
Newt Gingrich has thrown his hat into the ring. Somebody throw it back. Puhlease ...
Gingrich has good ideas but knees of Jello and feet on ball bearings. Anybody remember the Newt and Botox Queen Pelosi show on the couch pushing the Global Warming hoax? He is also smitten with Hillary Rotten Clinton. Plus, anyone can dump one sick wife, but it takes a special man to dump two. All that said, he may be an asset to the debates because of his knowledge of the issues.
-
His messy personal life concerns me more as a demonstration of his horrible tactical and strategic judgment, than as a morality issue, but either way it's certainly a huge problem for many of us Conservatives. Fat Bastard is also smart but not as smart as he thinks he is, which leads to the predictable result when he tries to plan anything big, and since 2008 he has consistently backed the leftmost Republican in every off-cycle election where he's ventured an opinion. I'm not a fan.
-
His messy personal life concerns me more as a demonstration of his horrible tactical and strategic judgment, than as a morality issue, but either way it's certainly a huge problem for many of us Conservatives. Fat Bastard is also smart but not as smart as he thinks he is, which leads to the predictable result when he tries to plan anything big, and since 2008 he has consistently backed the leftmost Republican in every off-cycle election where he's ventured an opinion. I'm not a fan.
Bingo.
So far, out of the starting gates, we have Dr. Nutz and Fat Bastard.
I'm hoping that these two warmup acts do a quick fizzle and melt away.
-
Bingo.
So far, out of the starting gates, we have Dr. Nutz and Fat Bastard.
I'm hoping that these two warmup acts do a quick fizzle and melt away.
But Dr. Nutz is the founder/godfather of the Tea Party. It must be true, because Fox News keeps repeating it. :banghead:
-
O'Reilly just played the Newt/Pelosi clip about climate change. He's done before even getting started.
-
he has consistently backed the leftmost Republican in every off-cycle election where he's ventured an opinion
Being that Newt doesn't possess a great character, I can hardly imagine he is much of judge of character himself. I have not forgotten the backpedaling he tried to do on the Scuzzyflavor fiasco.
First there was:
Scuzzyflavor FTW!!! You all don't understand her like I DO. BIG Tent FTW!!!!1!shift1! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/gingrich-explains-scozzafava-endorsement-slams-right-wing-critics.php)
And then:
shit sory I screwed up k thanks, bye (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/gingrich-deeply-upset-that-scozzafava-endorsed-democrat-after-hed-supported-her.php)
-
O'Reilly just played the Newt/Pelosi clip about climate change. He's done before even getting started.
If you click on the text below the image I posted at the top of this thread, it will take you to a site where you can also watch the video Newt did with Pelosi.
In fact, here (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/22/lunch-losing-video-gingrich-and-pelosi-tag-team-for-al-gore/) it is again.
-
Being morally bankrupt is bad enough but getting in bed with the likes of Pisslosi and sucking up to RINO's reminds me of the awful candidate, McCain, we had the last time. We need a ball busting conservative that will ram conservative values down the throats of liberals and RINO's. Anything short of that and we will just muddle along; things will not improve that much.
-
Shorter Newt: Yeah, I'm as much of a loose cannon as you remember.
On Ryan and Medicare.
The former House speaker and candidate for the GOP presidential nomination called it "radical change" and "too big a jump." Instead, he pushed for creating a system that allows people to pick other options than government-run coverage, so that they "voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options."
And what are his better options? He'll let you know after we have a "national conversation". I'm not sure if that involves a listening tour or not.
So if you're up for kicking the Medicare down the road (until it comes crashing to a halt no later than 2024, if it lasts that long), Newt's your guy.
Either way, I'm sure the Democrats appreciate the campaign ad, "The GOP Medicare Plan Is Too Extreme For Newt Gingrich".
As for insurance mandates, Newt seems to think Mitt gave up too soon.
“I believe all of us — and this is going to be a big debate — I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care,†he said, insisting there is “a way to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy.â€
“It’s a system that allows people to have a range of choices that are designed buy the economy,†he said. “I don’t think having a free rider system in [health care] is any more appropriate than having a free rider system in any other part of the economy.â€
Nice theory but as we've seen, it's not exactly the biggest problem we face in health care. You still have to subsidize the poor and it does nothing to control costs. But yeah, let's focus on that.
So too summarize, Newt is basically running to the left of Paul Ryan on entitlement reform and Mitt Romney on healthcare.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/316201.php
bye newt
-
Election Is About ‘Paychecks Versus Food Stamps,’ Gingrich Says (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-15/election-is-about-paychecks-versus-food-stamps-gingrich-says.html)
U.S. Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich rejected a suggestion that race played a role in his characterization of President Barack Obama during a May 13 speech as “the most successful food-stamp president in American history.â€
“That’s bizarre, this kind of automatic reference to racism,†Gingrich said on NBC’s “Meet the Press†today. “The president of the United States has to be held accountable. And what I said is factually true.â€
The number of Americans receiving food stamps rose to a record 44.199 million in February, up from 44.188 million in the previous month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said this month. Gingrich’s comment about Obama being a “food-stamp president†came during a speech to the Georgia Republican Party’s convention in Macon, Georgia.
Obama “follows the same destructive political model that destroyed the city of Detroit,†Gingrich said today. “One of the central themes of this campaign is going to be paychecks versus food stamps,†he said.
======================================
I dont like Gingrich but I have to give him kudos for this little gem. :cheersmate:
-
His messy personal life concerns me more as a demonstration of his horrible tactical and strategic judgment, than as a morality issue, but either way it's certainly a huge problem for many of us Conservatives. Fat Bastard is also smart but not as smart as he thinks he is, which leads to the predictable result when he tries to plan anything big, and since 2008 he has consistently backed the leftmost Republican in every off-cycle election where he's ventured an opinion. I'm not a fan.
Any conservative running for President on his third wife is a hypocrite and no one I'm willing to vote for. If it's between him and Zer0 I'm voting for someone else, anyone else. :fuelfire:
-
Presidential Candidate Calls It 'Right-Wing Social Engineering,
' Agrees With Obama About Need for Insurance Mandate (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576325350084379360.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5)
Yeah, Im afraid with Newts official enforcement of King Stinkys National Health Care Plan, he is now officially toast. What an idiot. Gingrich's attack on Ryan's budget, as well as his support of a single payer system is an insult to all Americans who have fought so hard to bring budget restraint to this country, and to build a Conservative movement. Unfortunately, behind closed doors, he is probably on the same page as the GOP 'leadership'.
'He who has ears to hear, let him hear'.
-
No to Newt - too much baggage burdens ‘90s retread
Two names:
Ronald Reagan
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan was governor of California in the sixties. He then had a failed presidential campaign in the 70's. Then in the 80's the Carter camp wanted to run against him, thinking he was washed up and easy to beat. Ha!
Richard Nixon was Vice President in the 50's He went through a scandal, then fell out of politics. He won the White House in '68. Ha!
Newt is a brilliant man. The question is not whether he is a re-tread or old news, because for many first time voters he is brand new to them. The question is, can he beat Obama. One thing is for sure, in a debate Newt could beat the snot out of Obama.
-
Two names:
Ronald Reagan
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan was governor of California in the sixties. He then had a failed presidential campaign in the 70's. Then in the 80's the Carter camp wanted to run against him, thinking he was washed up and easy to beat. Ha!
Richard Nixon was Vice President in the 50's He went through a scandal, then fell out of politics. He won the White House in '68. Ha!
Newt is a brilliant man. The question is not whether he is a re-tread or old news, because for many first time voters he is brand new to them. The question is, can he beat Obama. One thing is for sure, in a debate Newt could beat the snot out of Obama.
I fear the question is not can Newt beat Obama, the question is can Newt beat Newt.
Newt is brilliant and all that but I fear he has a "Dean" moment waiting to come out.
-
I fear the question is not can Newt beat Obama, the question is can Newt beat Newt.
Newt is brilliant and all that but I fear he has a "Dean" moment waiting to come out.
Its possible.
-
Its possible.
I presented The Checker's Speech in speech class. It was a great speech link below for those who have never read it.
http://watergate.info/nixon/checkers-speech.shtml
-
Im sure the dog catcher can beat Stinky. But I want a clear delineation. A stark contrast if you will. McCain lost because he wouldnt... no he refused to provide that.
Newt supports the global warming agenda. And now he supports the single payer fiasco. Enough is enough from Mr 'brilliance', thank you very much.
Im sick of democrat and democrat lite. Give me an unapologetic conservative. The field is still wide open. Theres still plenty of time.
-
I presented The Checker's Speech in speech class. It was a great speech link below for those who have never read it.
http://watergate.info/nixon/checkers-speech.shtml
"Speech class"?
:???:
-
"Speech class"?
:???:
Learning the finer points of public speaking.
Useful for people in politics, education, communications and business.
-
"Speech class"?
:???:
Yup, Speech Class, three credits. Taught by a hottie who drove a Datsun 2000 Convertible. We had to read, write, and, deliver a variety of different types of speeches. The hottie passed out a rule sheet at the start of class, Rule One; No Fruit hurled at podium. :rotf:
-
Newt Gingrich,..............= :yawn:
What a waste of time and money.
-
I gotta a feeling that Repubs will pick an old retread like Newt or a lying sack of shit like Romney as our standard bearer. They want a winner and the hell with what they stand for.
-
Newt Gingrich,..............= :yawn:
What a waste of time and money.
Right. Why bother to mess with the man who won the Congress back for us after 60 years of Democrat rules and who is probably the best debater out of all the nominess, who can whoop Obama in a debate hands down. <<shakes head>>
BTW: Dick Morris didn't see anything wrong with what Newt did, and Morris is one of the few talking heads who has actually accomplished things in the White House.
-
BTW: Dick Morris didn't see anything wrong with what Newt did, and Morris is one of the few talking heads who has actually accomplished things in the White House.
How'd that senate race turn out last year?
-
How'd that senate race turn out last year?
I didn't say Morris was omnipotent, just that he is one of the few talking heads who has actually accomplished things in the White House. Am I in error with that statement?
-
I didn't say Morris was omnipotent, just that he is one of the few talking heads who has actually accomplished things in the White House. Am I in error with that statement?
He's excellent at foretelling the blatantly obvious.
-
He's excellent at foretelling the blatantly obvious.
Who isn't?
-
Who isn't?
Glad we agree he possesses no skill that many other people don't also possess.
-
Glad we agree he possesses no skill that many other people don't also possess.
I was talking of his record, not his skill, although his record does reflect on his skill.
Again: He is one of the few talking head commentators who has actually accomplished things in the White House. Am I in error with that statement? You guys keep on my butt, but you have not blatantly said I was in error, and that's because I am not.
-
I was talking of his record, not his skill, although his record does reflect on his skill.
Again: He is one of the few talking head commentators who has actually accomplished things in the White House. Am I in error with that statement? You guys keep on my butt, but you have not blatantly said I was in error, and that's because I am not.
He's a D.C. insider and this next election isn't going to be about D.C. insiders or establishment Republicans if I have anything to say about it. The Tea Party feels the same way. Last night on Hannity he trotted out the same, tired old names, Pawlenty, Huntsman, Daniels, etc. I turned it to TBS. I'm sick of these jackasses telling me who I "should" vote for. I''m 38 years old, with 8 years service in the United States Army. I'll decide who the hell I'm going to vote for. I don't need a pampered little fat fuq like Morris "advising" me on who to support.
-
BTW, seems you'd fit in well inside the beltway. We out here in flyover country don't think the same.
-
BTW, seems you'd fit in well inside the beltway. We out here in flyover country don't think the same.
So you think that I, a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and above all pro-Catholic Church/Pro-Pope person would fit well inside the beltway? Only if the belt were wrapped around the Vatican! LOL
-
BTW, seems you'd fit in well inside the beltway. We out here in flyover country don't think the same.
So you think that I, a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and above all pro-Catholic Church/Pro-Pope person would fit well inside the beltway? Only if the belt were wrapped around the Vatican! LOL
Think about what I have been saying and what you have been arguing against: So far, you have thrown the most accomplished business person in the bunch and the brightest debater in the bunch under the bus while I have defended them, and you have promoted a candidate who hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning despite the fact he is a good guy.
WTF? Like I said, you can fly the flag of purity all the way until you go over the cliff with it. We don't need that, we need Obama out. What good does it do to say, "Well, we may have lost to Obama but I stayed true to conservative purity." Your conservative purity plus a dollar will get you a cup of coffee if Obama is still in the White House.
Or do you really think Herman Cain will get nominated and beat Obama? And I don't mean is it theoretically possible, I mean do you really think it will happen? Because if you don't think it really WILL happen, then what the heck are you arguing about?
-
BTW, seems you'd fit in well inside the beltway. We out here in flyover country don't think the same.
I noticed that too Rebel. The catholic issue aside, I think you hit the nail on the head.
-
I noticed that too Rebel. The catholic issue aside, I think you hit the nail on the head.
Then you have no clue what I am about.
I was defending Trump in the Trump thread. Is that an "inside the beltway" position too?
-
Think about what I have been saying and what you have been arguing against: So far, you have thrown the most accomplished business person in the bunch and the brightest debater in the bunch under the bus while I have defended them, and you have promoted a candidate who hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning despite the fact he is a good guy.
Most accomplished business person? Who? Again, unless you think personal wealth is the litmus test. I don't happen to feel the same way.
Brightest debater? Again, who? Newt? To say "brightest" you're saying he's better than ANY PERSON in the world. Isn't that subjective? Isn't it your own opinion? Or was there a competition that I missed?
-
Then you have no clue what I am about.
I was defending Trump in the Trump thread. Is that an "inside the beltway" position too?
Trump is no conservative.
-
I didn't say Morris was omnipotent, just that he is one of the few talking heads who has actually accomplished things in the White House. Am I in error with that statement?
Um, as a pundit, when has Morris been right?
Also, Newt got his a** handed to him by Clinton. Clinton snatched credit for all the '94 congress did, enough to earn him a second term.
Since then, Newt has been on the wrong side of many issues, in my opinion. Also, he has family/honor baggage that would make it impossible for me to vote for him unless the other choice was Obama.
-
Since then, Newt has been on the wrong side of many issues, in my opinion. Also, he has family/honor baggage that would make it impossible for me to vote for him unless the other choice was Obama.
Buying into the global warming bullshit:
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154[/youtube]
Supporting an individual mandate for health insurance, which I find unconstitutional as HELL.
-
BTW, seems you'd fit in well inside the beltway. We out here in flyover country don't think the same.
........I was defending Trump in the Trump thread. Is that an "inside the beltway" position too?
Trump is no conservative.
Can you quit dodging and weaving and stick to one thing at a time? You said I'd "fit in well inside the beltway." I said "I was defending Trump in the Trump thread. Is that an inside the beltway position too?"
Well, is it?
I also said "So you think that I, a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and above all pro-Catholic Church/Pro-Pope person would fit well inside the beltway?"
Well, do you? I notice you tend to avoid answering the questions that hoist you on your own petard
-
Buying into the global warming bullshit
So is assuming that he actually does. Newt was doing the politics game there. The only Bullshit is thinking that Newt would actual govern as if he really bought into global warming
-
So is assuming that he actually does. Newt was doing the politics game there. The only Bullshit is thinking that Newt would actual govern as if he really bought into global warming
No convictions. Great, another reason not to support that fat ****er.
-
Um, as a pundit, when has Morris been right?
That wasn't my question. I said Morris is one of the few talking head commentators who has actually accomplished things in the White House. Am I in error with that statement?
Also, Newt got his a** handed to him by Clinton. Clinton snatched credit for all the '94 congress did, enough to earn him a second term.
RIGHT! And Morris was working for Clinton at the time. Thank you for proving my point.
-
I also said "So you think that I, a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and above all pro-Catholic Church/Pro-Pope person would fit well inside the beltway?"
Well, do you? I notice you tend to avoid answering the questions that hoist you on your own petard
That's the second time you did that. You also did it in the intro thread.
Hello from California (one of the good parts):
I am:
* Catholic
* Conservative
* Single
* Male
* Old enough
Thanks for letting me join.
Terry
Those are not qualifications required to post here and it seems like you're stereotyping all of us. As for that type fitting well within the beltway, there are many insiders that hold those same beliefs.
-
No convictions. Great, another reason not to support that fat ****er.
Oh, so now you clown him for his weight. That's pretty petty, worthy of a Liberal. Is that how you get down in your "flyover states"?
-
How do you explain conservatism to a die hard 'moderate'?
You can lead a horse to water but, well.. you know the rest.
And the field of 'moderates' is bursting at the seams ...
-
Oh, so now you clown him for his weight. That's pretty petty, worthy of a Liberal. Is that how you get down in your "flyover states"?
I don't trash him because he's fat, I trash him because I don't like his flip-flopping ass. After I determined that, all other insults were still on the table.
-
That's the second time you did that. You also did it in the intro thread.
Those are not qualifications required to post here and it seems like you're stereotyping all of us. As for that type fitting well within the beltway, there are many insiders that hold those same beliefs.
Are you totally incapapble of staying on message? Can't you even stick to your own message?
Once more for the impaired: You said I was a good inside the beltway person. I replied, "So you think that I, a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and above all pro-Catholic Church/Pro-Pope person would fit well inside the beltway?"
Well, do you? What the frig does that Q & A have to do with qualifications for posting in the forum? Are ye high or something? And why stoop to a Democrat's level by clowing Newt for his weight? I'll bet you're no Mr. America yourself
You are like the guy in the Old West movie that keeps shooting at the floor and yelling "dance". You keep moving the goal post everytime I blast your questions out of the water.
Okay, you vote for your pizza guy Herman Cain, then you lose to Obama, and then you spend the next four years telling us how you were right even though Obama won. Because if you have your way thats exactly what gonna happen.
-
Are you totally incapapble of staying on message? Can't you even stick to your own message?
Of course, with people willing to carry on an intelligent conversation and not tell me who can and who cannot beat Obama. You seem to be the latter.
Once more for the impaired: You said I was a good inside the beltway person. I replied, "So you think that I, a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and above all pro-Catholic Church/Pro-Pope person would fit well inside the beltway?"
Well, do you?
Yes I do. Many people in D.C. are pro-Pope/pro-Catholic/pro-traditional marriage.
What the frig does that Q & A have to do with qualifications for posting in thje forum? Are ye high or something? And why stoop to e Democrat's leve; by clowing Newt for his weight? I'll bet you're no Mr. America yourself
It doesn't. There are no qualifications. I just think it's a dead giveaway for trolls who come here, register, and start with all the stereotypical indicators the left thinks about conservatives. This may not be you, just sayin'.
You are like the guy in the Old West movie that keeps shooting at the floor and yelling "dance". You keep moving the goal post everytime I blast your questions out of the water.
Moving the goal post? First off, there is no "goal post", proverbial or otherwise, and secondly, I haven't changed my positions. You've gone from Trump, who is no conservative, Newt, who has baggage all over the f'n place and flip-flops his ass off, and now you're talking about the toe-sucker.
Okay, you vote for you pizza guy Herman Cain, then you lose to Obama, and then you spend the next four years telling us how you were right even though Obama won. Because if you have your way thats exactly what gonna happen.
Nice of you to try to diminish his distinguished career by referring to him as a "pizza guy", the left does this a lot on my sports board. It also identifies a problem with you, you have absolutely NO f'n idea what you're talking about when it comes to Herman Cain and obviously have no desire to perform your own research into his candidacy. You're just sticking with what the media is spoon-feeding you.
-
Just out of curiosity: Do you think Paul Ryan is an "inside the beltway" person? After all, he is currently inside the beltway, having working lunches, negotiating, meeting with staffers from both sides, and all that good stuff. So is Paul Ryan is an inside the beltway person?
-
Just out of curiosity: Do you think Paul Ryan is an "inside the beltway" person? After all, he is currently inside the beltway, having working lunches, negotiating, meeting with staffers from both sides, and all that good stuff. So is Paul Ryan is an inside the beltway person?
In many cases, yes. I also don't think Ron Paul is as fiscally conservative as his radical followers tend to believe. The "establishment" I'm referring to isn't reserved for politicians. It's the "intellectuals" like Peggy Noonan, Krauthammer, etc. I'm referring to.
-
This is all moot. Gingrich is gone from any chance of being selected as the party's choice to run for president.
Basic Rule #1: Do not trash and/or insult other people in your political party.
Newt publicly trashed Paul Ryan on his budget proposals. Like Ryan stated, "With friends like that, who needs enemies?".
Bye-bye, Newt. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
-
Just out of curiosity: Do you think Paul Ryan is an "inside the beltway" person? After all, he is currently inside the beltway, having working lunches, negotiating, meeting with staffers from both sides, and all that good stuff. So is Paul Ryan is an inside the beltway person?
In many cases, yes. I also don't think Ron Paul is as fiscally conservative as his radical followers tend to believe. The "establishment" I'm referring to isn't reserved for politicians. It's the "intellectuals" like Peggy Noonan, Krauthammer, etc. I'm referring to.
Interesting. Okay, so clarify two things for me:
1. When you used the phrase "inside the beltway" I took that as a pejorative, a quasi-insult (or maybe a full blown insult). Does that mean that you don't care for Paul Ryan or Charles Krauthammer? Isn't Paul Ryan the current fair haired boy of Conservatives (who I wish was running by the way)?
2. You also said, "It's the 'intellectuals' like Peggy Noonan, Krauthammer, etc. I'm referring to." Does that mean that, by referring to me as someone who'd make a good inside the beltway person, you are saying I am an intellectual like Peggy Noonan, Krauthammer, etc.?
-
Interesting. Okay, so clarify two things for me:
1. When you used the phrase "inside the beltway" I took that as a pejorative, a quasi-insult (or maybe a full blown insult). Does that mean that you don't care for Paul Ryan or Charles Krauthammer? Isn't Paul Ryan the current fair haired boy of Conservatives (who I wish was running by the way)?
I like Paul Ryan. Krauthammer is one of the "intellectual" talking heads out there telling everyone who can and cannot win. I'm sick of that shit.
2. You also said, "It's the 'intellectuals' like Peggy Noonan, Krauthammer, etc. I'm referring to." Does that mean that, by referring to me as someone who'd make a good inside the beltway person, you are saying I am an intellectual like Peggy Noonan, Krauthammer, etc.?
I didn't say being an "intellectual" inferred intelligence. It has more to do with being educated guessers. Years ago these same "intellectuals" said it was in the bag for Hillary. They've been wrong, many, many times. I'm also not going to keep defining something I've defined on numerous occasions for you. As for you being an "intellectual", I didn't say you were. I said you were acting like one.
-
This is all moot. Gingrich is gone from any chance of being selected as the party's choice to run for president.....
I wouldn't count on that, and I sure would not count on the overnight reaction of on-air pundints to decide the outcome.
As distasteful as it was to the core-right, what Newt said on Meet the Press actually plays well with independents. Independents do NOT want radical change from either side. And as I have tried to stress in many threads, independents will decide this election. What Newt said was the right thing to say. His mistake was not waiting until the general election to say it. Personally, my theory on why he said it is that he figured he'll win the upcoming debates because he is such a great debator - which he is - and so he decided to start gearing his statements towards independents for the general election. I just don't think he counted on such quick negative response.
You guys must remember: The goal is to get rid of Obama, and to get rid of Obama you have to win independents because independents will decide this election. I'll keep saying it until I am blue in the face. If we don't get that, then we might as well count on another term for Obama
-
As distasteful as it was to the core-right, what Newt said on Meet the Press actually plays well with independents. Independents do NOT want radical change from either side. And as I have tried to stress in many threads, independents will decide this election. What Newt said was the right thing to say. His mistake was not waiting until the general election to say it. Personally, my theory on why he said it is that he figured he'll win the upcoming debates because he is such a great debator - which he is - and so he decided to start gearing his statements towards independents for the general election. I just don't think he counted on such quick negative response.
You guys must remember: The goal is to get rid of Obama, and to get rid of Obama you have to win independents because independents will decide this election. I'll keep saying it until I am blue in the face. If we don't get that, then we might as well count on another term for Obama
I don't see any possible way he'll win the Republican nomination. I'm less hard-conservative than some on this board, and I'd never pull the lever for him. He's an intellectual, a thinker, but I'm thinking that "intellectual" b.s. will play AGAINST him. He got his ass handed to him in 1994. Not to mention, again, the personal baggage he's got.
-
Newt will pull a "Trump" card.
-
I don't see any possible way he'll win the Republican nomination. I'm less hard-conservative than some on this board, and I'd never pull the lever for him. He's an intellectual, a thinker, but I'm thinking that "intellectual" b.s. will play AGAINST him.......
Its possible. On the other hand, why would an alleged intellectualism work FOR Obama and AGAINST Newt?
.....He got his ass handed to him in 1994.......
I think you got your calendar messed up. 1994 was the year Newt became Speaker of the House and the year that the GOP took control of Congress.
-
Its possible. On the other hand, why would an alleged intellectualism work FOR Obama and AGAINST Newt?
I think you got your calendar messed up. 1994 was the year Newt became Speaker of the House and the year that the GOP took control of Congress.
...ok. you're nitpicking. 1995. After that, he handed Clinton his second term.
-
...ok. you're nitpicking. 1995. After that, he handed Clinton his second term.
How do you figure Newt did that?
I think the reason we lost is because our guy, Bob Dole, was a weak pathetic opponent
-
Lost the argument about the government shutdown.
Allowed Clinton to take full credit for the balanced budget and robust economy brought about by the Contract With America. That won Clinton the independents.
Let Clinton campaign go unchallenged when Clinton said "the era of small government is over" after the whole Hilarycare debacle.
-
Lost the argument about the government shutdown.
Allowed Clinton to take full credit for the balanced budget and robust economy brought about by the Contract With America. That won Clinton the independents.
Let Clinton campaign go unchallenged when Clinton said "the era of small government is over" after the whole Hilarycare debacle.
Points taken.
Fair points.
But my point was fair too: The election was between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, and Bob Dole was a pathetically weak candidate. The responsibility for waging a good campaign and candidacy rested with Dole, and he sucked.
-
Points taken.
Fair points.
But my point was fair too: The election was between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, and Bob Dole was a pathetically weak candidate. The responsibility for waging a good campaign and candidacy rested with Dole, and he sucked.
Agreed. Dole lost for two reasons, IMHO. He ran as the "anti-Clinton," and he was old.
Gingrich will be 69, pushing 70 during this election cycle.
One more point, then I'm done with this topic. Republicans are not going to win with a "he's the anti-Obama" meme. It didn't work when the dems did it with Kerry, and it's not going to work now. We need somebody new and lively, with strong conservative ideas, not some 2008 campaign retread.
-
Points taken.
Fair points.
But my point was fair too: The election was between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, and Bob Dole was a pathetically weak candidate. The responsibility for waging a good campaign and candidacy rested with Dole, and he sucked.
At what point do we open up what Newt did this weekend, sir? Coming out endorsing "Individual Mandate" (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/17/gingrich-under-fire-from-republicans-over-comments/) gub'mint insurance? Or the reaming out of Rep. Ryan (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/15/news/la-pn-gingrich-ryan-medicare-20110515) for his budget-cutting proposals? He spent a lot of time tap-dancing on his johnson this weekend; enough so that what I said earlier about him being the best of a bad group of RINOs requires serious reexamination. But I notice you've mentioned nothing of "Sooper Genius Newt's" open mouth, insert foot moments at all, and it makes me curious why that might be?
-
At what point do we open up what Newt did this weekend, sir?........
Already did that, in this post:
I wouldn't count on that, and I sure would not count on the overnight reaction of on-air pundints to decide the outcome.
As distasteful as it was to the core-right, what Newt said on Meet the Press actually plays well with independents. Independents do NOT want radical change from either side. And as I have tried to stress in many threads, independents will decide this election. What Newt said was the right thing to say. His mistake was not waiting until the general election to say it. Personally, my theory on why he said it is that he figured he'll win the upcoming debates because he is such a great debator - which he is - and so he decided to start gearing his statements towards independents for the general election. I just don't think he counted on such quick negative response.
You guys must remember: The goal is to get rid of Obama, and to get rid of Obama you have to win independents because independents will decide this election. I'll keep saying it until I am blue in the face. If we don't get that, then we might as well count on another term for Obama
-
I wouldn't count on that, and I sure would not count on the overnight reaction of on-air pundints to decide the outcome.
I don't count on the overnight reaction of on-air pundints to decide the outcome. I form my own decisions. Why do you assume that I would do that?
Are you just here to cause dissension?
-
Already did that, in this post:
I'm sorry, I had not seen that post.
I'm also sorry that you think endorsing ObamaCare and slamming the door on Ryan's spending cuts is a positive thing. The independents who would vote for Newt in a PRIMARY because of that would NEVER vote for him in the general next year, for the same reasons I've been telling you all along: why would they vote for Dem-lite when they can pull the (D) lever and get a full fledged Dem?
-
Are you just here to cause dissension?
I have a right to my opinion just like you do.
I think Newt is one of the most intelligent of the nominees - which most pundits agree with - and may well be the best debator of the group.
How do you figure expressing that opinion equates into being here to cause dissension?
Give me an honest answer to this: Do you think Newt is NOT one of the most intelligent of the nominees? Do you think Newt is NOT the best debator of the group?
Stifling opinions is a Liberal MO, not ours. Don't accuse me of nefarious motives just because I give my reasons for liking Newt.
-
......I'm also sorry that you think endorsing ObamaCare and slamming the door on Ryan's spending cuts is a positive thing......
Please don't put words in my mouth: I never said any such thing.
I said that what Newt said plays well with independents, and I went on to say that independents will decide this election.
And besides: Newt never endorsed Obamacare. In fact, he said the exact oppoosite.
-
I have a right to my opinion just like you do.
I think Newt is one of the most intelligent of the nominees - which most pundits agree with - and may well be the best debator of the group.
How do you figure expressing that opinion equates into being here to cause dissension?
Give me an honest answer to this: Do you think Newt is NOT one of the most intelligent of the nominees? Do you think Newt is NOT the best debator of the group?
Stifling opinions is a Liberal MO, not ours. Don't accuse me of nefarious motives just because I give my reasons for liking Newt.
So your opinion is that I base my beliefs on the overnight reaction of on-air pundints (SP - pundits) to decide the outcome?
You can ES&D.
Spin and change the subject of my posting. G'bye.
-
I have a right to my opinion just like you do.
I think Newt is one of the most intelligent of the nominees - which most pundits agree with - and may well be the best debator of the group.
How do you figure expressing that opinion equates into being here to cause dissension?
Give me an honest answer to this: Do you think Newt is NOT one of the most intelligent of the nominees? Do you think Newt is NOT the best debator of the group?
Stifling opinions is a Liberal MO, not ours. Don't accuse me of nefarious motives just because I give my reasons for liking Newt.
So your opinion is that I base my beliefs on the overnight reaction of on-air pundints (SP - pundits) to decide the outcome?
In this particalar case, you mouthed exactly what the pundits said just like a tape recorder. That is a stupid thing to do.
You can ES&D.
Oh, that's nice. Do you eat with that filthy mouth?
I thought only liberals spewed out hate when they got frustrated.
-
I have a right to my opinion just like you do.
I think Newt is one of the most intelligent of the nominees - which most pundits agree with - and may well be the best debator of the group.
How do you figure expressing that opinion equates into being here to cause dissension?
Give me an honest answer to this: Do you think Newt is NOT one of the most intelligent of the nominees? Do you think Newt is NOT the best debator of the group?
Stifling opinions is a Liberal MO, not ours. Don't accuse me of nefarious motives just because I give my reasons for liking Newt.
Oh, I'm sure you'd LOVE to see the Republicans nominate a Newt, Trump, or Paul. Newt, a Republican running as a social Republican, with baggage all over the damn place, to include serving his wife divorce papers while she was on her death bed. Yeah, that would work well for you, wouldn't it?
-
Oh, I'm sure you'd LOVE to see the Republicans nominate a Newt, Trump, or Paul. Newt, a Republican running as a social Republican, with baggage all over the damn place, to include serving his wife divorce papers while she was on her death bed. Yeah, that would work well for you, wouldn't it?
I am a Christian, which means I believe in forgiving people. That's the end of the Newt/Divorce subject for me. Any Christian who keeps throwing stones at a man for something he did many years ago ain't no Christian in my book. Haven't you ever done anything you were sorry for later?
As for the rest of your post: Is there some reason you feel the need to keep being rude to me just because my opinion differs from yours? If I took the time I could come up with a laundy list of insults & slights you have tossed at me in my short time here. Is that the way a Conservative AND a Moderator is supposed to get down?
-
As for the rest of your post: Is there some reason you feel the need to keep being rude to me just because my opinion differs from yours?
Yeah, I don't trust you. So far you've use "homo", "rice-eating ChiComs", and "raghead", have a stereotypical intro post, called Herman Cain a "pizza guy" (something I've heard from other liberals), and are now pimping candidates that won't come near beating Obama.
...but like I said, I "could" be wrong.
If I took the time I could come up with a laundy list of insults & slights you have tossed at me in my short time here. Is that the way a Conservative AND a Moderator is supposed to get down?
I'm not speaking as a conservative OR a moderator. I'm speaking as me. Grow a set of nuts.
-
I am a Christian, which means I believe in forgiving people. That's the end of the Newt/Divorce subject for me. Any Christian who keeps throwing stones at a man for something he did many years ago ain't no Christian in my book. Haven't you ever done anything you were sorry for later?
As for the rest of your post: Is there some reason you feel the need to keep being rude to me just because my opinion differs from yours? If I took the time I could come up with a laundy list of insults & slights you have tossed at me in my short time here. Is that the way a Conservative AND a Moderator is supposed to get down?
Yeah, I don't trust you. So far you've use "homo", "rice-eating ChiComs", and "raghead", have a stereotypical intro post, called Herman Cain a "pizza guy" (something I've heard from other liberals), and are now pimping candidates that won't come near beating Obama.
...but like I said, I "could" be wrong.
I'm not speaking as a conservative OR a moderator. I'm speaking as me. Grow a set of nuts.
There are two things wrong with your post:
1) My "homo", "rice-eating ChiComs", and "raghead" comment was not aimed at anyone in this forum, the way your insults are aimed directly at me.
2) You gave the excuse that you don't trust me as a reason to insult me. Now I will insult you: That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard a Moderator say. That comment proves you to be an imbecile. You don't trust me? Am I supposed to trust someone who thinks its okay to insult every person he doesn't trust? What kind of twisted stupiditiy is that? No wonder you can't ever give a straight answer to my posts: You haven't the wit to.
And why do you care about my nuts? You want them to bounce off your chin, ****head? Stick that up your ass and sit on it. Maybe that's the kind of language you understand better, punk
-
There are two things wrong with your post:
1) My "homo", "rice-eating ChiComs", and "raghead" comment was not aimed at anyone in this forum, the way your insults are aimed directly at me.
Exactly. You generalized. Something the leftists "generalize" us as doing all the time. It's almost as if you came here to "act" conservative, but with no knowledge about conservatism, just playing the part of what you erroneously perceive conservatives to be.
2) You gave the excuse that you don't trust me as a reason to insult me. Now I will insult you: That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard a Moderator say. That comment proves you to be an imbecile. You don't trust me? Am I supposed to trust someone who thinks its okay to insult every person he doesn't trust? What kind of twisted stupiditiy is that? No wonder you can't ever give a straight answer to my posts: You haven't the wit to.
Insults really don't bother me. Never have. Hate to burst your bubble, but if what you just posted was supposed to be insulting, you need to take a few lessons. That was pathetically weak.
And why do you care about my nuts? You want them to bounce off your chin, ****head? Stick that up your ass and sit on it.
I'm not gay. No thanks.
-
I'll lay off, Crusader. Have fun.
-
I was talking of his record, not his skill, although his record does reflect on his skill.
Again: He is one of the few talking head commentators who has actually accomplished things in the White House. Am I in error with that statement? You guys keep on my butt, but you have not blatantly said I was in error, and that's because I am not.
Just because I design this season's "must have" little blue dress doesn't mean I can adequately predict who will wear it and what kinds of stains she will get on it...or whether the next "must have" will be a little pink dress because it hides particular stains better. The man may have accomplished things in a DEMOCRAT administration (being an expert on bimbo eruptions and toe sex are areas of expertise, I guess) but he's glaringly, exceedingly, constantly wrong about his predictions. He absolutely dismisses anyone NOT part of the elite. Bachman and Palin don't even exist as potential contenders.
To be fair, those predictions may have been germane in other election years but this is not going to be a typical year. The PEOPLE are fed up with the elite. While the elites try to engineer "change" (that includes the Newt & Romney's of the world) we in flyover country, even in the squishy middle, are screaming for common sense.
Cindie
-
Just because I design this season's "must have" little blue dress doesn't mean I can adequately predict who will wear it and what kinds of stains she will get on it...or whether the next "must have" will be a little pink dress because it hides particular stains better. The man may have accomplished things in a DEMOCRAT administration (being an expert on bimbo eruptions and toe sex are areas of expertise, I guess) but he's glaringly, exceedingly, constantly wrong about his predictions. He absolutely dismisses anyone NOT part of the elite. Bachman and Palin don't even exist as potential contenders.
To be fair, those predictions may have been germane in other election years but this is not going to be a typical year. The PEOPLE are fed up with the elite. While the elites try to engineer "change" (that includes the Newt & Romney's of the world) we in flyover country, even in the squishy middle, are screaming for common sense.
Cindie
All of this baloney about intelligence makes me wants to go puke. Please, please give me someone with above average intelligence with a lot of common that did NOT go to Harvard, who is not an elitist or a career politician. Most of the candidates fit that bill. So,I say no to Romney, Newt and the rest of the the DC politicians. Bush and Obama have got this country heavily in debt, and it is going to take an outsider to clean up the mess not some fool who thinks that they can compromise with Democrats or who think Pisslosi is a nice lady. .
-
Gingrich Apologizes to Paul Ryan for Medicare Criticism (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/17/gingrich-apologizes-paul-ryan-right-wing-social-engineering-criticism/#ixzz1Mfk4zWho)
:yawn: Not buyin' it.
-
What? Is there a tipping point? Where you get to be so smart, that you become stupid?
-
Gingrich Apologizes to Paul Ryan for Medicare Criticism (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/17/gingrich-apologizes-paul-ryan-right-wing-social-engineering-criticism/#ixzz1Mfk4zWho)
:yawn: Not buyin' it.
I've heard him on numerous shows explaining away what he meant. To a point--a very narrow point--his explanations are marginally plausible...
...BUT...
...its akin to being a comedian that tells a joke that so shocks the audience at his debut appearance he's booed off stage before he can finish the rest of his act then spends the next 4 days explaining the nuances of the joke...
...then goes back to insisting the joke was worth hearing in the first place.
If you have to spend day after day explaining it then maybe it wasn't worth saying.
What? Is there a tipping point? Where you get to be so smart, that you become stupid?
In the army we call them "officers".
-
What? Is there a tipping point? Where you get to be so smart, that you become stupid?
If there is, Newt is the guy to find it.
:-)
-
What? Is there a tipping point? Where you get to be so smart, that you become stupid?
If there is, Newt is the guy to find it.
:-)
Literature--and prisons, for that matter--are full of examples of intelligence leading to hubris leading to tragedy. Aristotle first defined it.
-
Gringrich & Co. apparently unaware of "The First Rule o Holes"
When asked by The Huffington Post about media coverage this past week, Gingrich press secretary Rick Tyler fired off a response blasting the political and media elite.
“The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding,†Tyler wrote. “Washington cannot tolerate threats from outsiders who might disrupt their comfortable world. The firefight started when the cowardly sensed weakness. They fired timidly at first, then the sheep not wanting to be dropped from the establishment’s cocktail party invite list unloaded their entire clip, firing without taking aim their distortions and falsehoods. Now they are left exposed by their bylines and handles. But surely they had killed him off. This is the way it always worked. A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.â€
1) Kinda makes the whole "I apologized" thing seem hollow.
2) Of, the ****ing pathos!
3) I repeat: bye newt
-
Gringrich & Co. apparently unaware of "The First Rule o Holes"
1) Kinda makes the whole "I apologized" thing seem hollow.
2) Of, the ****ing pathos!
3) I repeat: bye newt
Politicians believe that if you deny, deny, lie, lie, long enough that many voters will believe or forget. It is a shame but the stupid is with them.
-
Newt should have taken dude's advice to get out of the race before he embarrasses himself any further:
In a live interview with Rush Limbaugh Thursday afternoon, Gingrich said he hadn’t actually criticized Ryan’s plan in his Sunday appearance on “Meet the Press,†and that he wasn’t referring to the Wisconsin congressman when he said those words.
“It was not a reference to Paul Ryan. There was no reference to Paul Ryan in that answer,†Gingrich told Limbaugh, who was in the process of gently grilling him about why he used those words in the NBC interview.
Limbaugh asked Gingrich why, then, did he call Ryan to apologize for the remark, if it wasn’t made in reference to Ryan.
“It was interpreted in a way which was causing trouble which he doesn’t need or deserve,†Gingrich said. “My answer wasn’t about the budget, and I promptly went back to say publicly that I would have voted for the Ryan budget.â€
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/gingrich-i-wasnt-talking-about-ryans-plan-on-meet-the-press/239164/
:epicfacepalm:
BYE newt!
-
Newt should have taken dude's advice to get out of the race before he embarrasses himself any further:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/gingrich-i-wasnt-talking-about-ryans-plan-on-meet-the-press/239164/
:epicfacepalm:
BYE newt!
Taking a cruise in the Greek Islands. :mental:
Campaign staff bails. :lmao:
Priceless Newt, priceless. :rotf: