the old dude's being careful what he wishes for

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002235155

Oh my.

Stinky The Clown (44,730 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

Willard Mitt Romney vs Newton Leroy Gingrich. Be careful what you wish for.

Let me preface this by saying it is my firm belief that Obama will win reelection walking away.

 

Neither of these candidates, under most any legal circumstances, can stand up to Obama.

The money word in that statement is "legal." The repubicans have a history here. I was one of millions who said Al Gore couldn't possibly lose to Barbara Bush's stupidest son.

Of late, I have begun writing in as strong terms as possible against Newton Leroy Gingrich. I am quite surprised to see pushback from some of the stronger Obama supporters. I challenged one, on this board, to clarify his meaning in reply to one of my pieces. He has thus far chosen not to reply.

So be it.

As near as I can guess, the pushback from Obama's stronger supporters is that they'd rather run against Gingrich than Romney, particularly given the recent polls between each man and Obama.

I wish to push back against *that* position. Gingrich is a singularly dangerous man. Not because he might, somehow, some way, beat Obama in the generals. Oh no. He is singularly dangerous, in my view, to the country. The bush years will seem benign compared to a Gingrich presidency.

Gingrich is the loosest of loose cannons, loaded with the latest ordnance. Where the bush man-child was defended to nearly the end of his presidency by repubicans, Gingrich was ousted by his own party. For newt, it was always about Newt.

I am not one to much give a shit about a politician's sex life or peccadilloes. but when they demonstrate what pure, low life scum the man is, evidenced by divorcing not one, but two ailing wives, each for the woman who would be his next wife. A random blow job, even if given/gotten in the anteroom to the Oval Office during a time of extreme political stress doesn't come close to Newt's actions, not once, but twice. This is well beyond philandering and well into the realm of sociopathy. For Newt, it was always about Newt.

Newt was famous for steering his party on a political course as steady as squirrel facing an oncoming car. He was quick to come up with ideas - often bad - instituting them, and then changing course for no apparent good reason. For Newt, it was always about Newt.

There may have been other over riding reasons, but when Newt engineered the shutdown of the US government, he made it clear that some perceived slight over the seating arrangements on Clinton's Air Force One was a factor. A true What The **** moment. For Newt, it was always about Newt.

Newt has always been the lobber of verbal hand grenades. He can sound oh so reasonable in tone, volume and cadence, even as he is pouring cyanide into the political well. Watching his as these repubican primary debates unfold, even as they're being called a political clown car, is alarming. The early debates were mostly civil, even if the ideas and assertions were nutty. But as they intensified, as the tide went toward Romney, Newt did what Newt has always done. He poisoned the well. He turned the tone to hate. He caused even the usually clueless and out of touch Romney to begin snarling like a rabid junk yard dog. I called Newt toxic. I was chastised for that by some here. I find that amazing. Newt IS toxic. He poisons whatever he touches. His wives, his government, his campaigns, his party, his country. For Newt, it was always about Newt.

The repubicans have shown their ability to win against impossible odds. They will unit around whoever is the last man standing.

While I understand the easier candidate to beat, as things stand now, is Gingrich, I see him as so dangerous, so toxic, so sociopathic, that I will push back ayt those who laugh and point when they think of him winning.

He cannot be allowed to be in a position to steal the presidency. And for repubicans, whoever is their eventual nominee is, in fact, in that position.

Be careful what you wish for. For Newt, it was always about Newt. The possibility of damage by him far outweighs any slight political advantage some might think he offers.

gopiscrap (587 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

1. Interesting Article

I still think Willard has a much better chanceof plausibly stealing the election than the Newter

CaliforniaPeggy (93,289 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

2. I have read your arguments very carefully, and I must say: I agree.

He IS toxic.

He IS dangerous.

Beyond belief.

I'm not sure it's right to call him a sociopath, but I could be persuaded.

Well said.

[BattleHymn]

I cannot wait until November.   

[jukin]

Stinky The Clown (44,730 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

Willard Mitt Romney vs Newton Leroy Gingrich. Be careful what you wish for.

Let me preface this by saying it is my firm belief that Obama will win reelection walking away.

This prediction, more than anything, convinces me that 0bama is going down in a landslide like Carter/Mondale. If a DUchebag says turn left, you can bet the farm that turning right is the correct move.

[67 Rover]

I see they are already setting up the election was stolen meme.

[franksolich]

I see they are already setting up the election was stolen meme.

That's their excuse whenever things don't go their way.

That's going to be the primitives' excuse until the end of Time.

[Ballygrl]

Why does Obama deserve to be re-elected?

Are Americans better off now than they were 4 years ago?

If unemployment was as high under Bush as it is under Obama would the left be saying Bush should be re-elected? If Bush spent as much as Obama has spent would the left be saying Bush should be re-elected? If record number of Americans were on food stamps under Bush as they are under Obama would the left be saying Bush should be re-elected? If gas prices under Bush had gotten as high as they are now, and projections are saying over $5 a gallon during the summer, would the left be saying Bush should be re-elected?

Heck, the right wouldn't of re-elected Bush if all those things happened on Bush's watch.

So again, I ask, why does Obama deserve to be re-elected?

And I want to know why no anger from the left over Obama, looking out for corporate interests (Buffett and Soros's interests) decision to ignore the American people and not allowing the Keystone Pipeline to go through?