No to Newt - too much baggage burdens ‘90s retread

[Rebel]

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.

[CG6468]

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.

[CatholicCrusader]

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.?

[Rebel]

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.

[CatholicCrusader]

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

[Splashdown]

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.

[Wineslob]

Newt will pull a "Trump" card.

[CatholicCrusader]

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.

[Splashdown]

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.

[CatholicCrusader]

...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

[Splashdown]

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.

[CatholicCrusader]

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.

[Splashdown]

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.

[DefiantSix]

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" gub'mint insurance?  Or the reaming out of Rep. Ryan 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?

[CatholicCrusader]

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

[CG6468]

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?

[DefiantSix]

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?

[CatholicCrusader]

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.

[CatholicCrusader]

......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.

[CG6468]

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.

[CatholicCrusader]

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.

[Rebel]

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?

[CatholicCrusader]

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?

[Rebel]

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.

[CatholicCrusader]

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