New poll: its Newt's turn ....

#51
#51
lawgator1 said:
Those under 25 are screaming for his head because we aren't winning. Those over 40, like myself, are fine with 1-2 more years, although that will quickly change if the penalty situation continues next year. Those in between just want to know if we are going to beat FSU because that's all they care about.
Click to expand...

Your in a bad place when your post season hinges on VU and KY.
 
#52
#52
BigPapaVol said:
I didn't say he's an intellectual or an academic like Wilson. I said he's intellectual. He's not the pseudo version like Obama. He has convictions about governance and they're well thought out and he'll pursue them. I don't see him as a polling style politician.
Click to expand...

Newt is BY FAR my favorite of all the available options. It's not even close.
 
#53
#53
BeecherVol said:
Your in a bad place when your post season hinges on VU and KY.
Click to expand...


It has not been a good year for either of us. I thought we'd be a little more competitive, especially offensively, but it certainly didn't pan out that way. I am willing to attribute some of that to the fact that Brantley was hurt. I think we could have beaten Auburn, for example, if he was available. Not that it would make any real difference in our season's outcome.

We do have 13 open schollys this year. But being the second most penalized team in the country is not a good foundation, even if the talent level improves over the next 24 months. That is a sign of poor coaching, and that has me most concerned right now.
 
#54
#54
lawgator1 said:
It has not been a good year for either of us. I thought we'd be a little more competitive, especially offensively, but it certainly didn't pan out that way. I am willing to attribute some of that to the fact that Brantley was hurt. I think we could have beaten Auburn, for example, if he was available. Not that it would make any real difference in our season's outcome.

We do have 13 open schollys this year. But being the second most penalized team in the country is not a good foundation, even if the talent level improves over the next 24 months. That is a sign of poor coaching, and that has me most concerned right now.
Click to expand...

Im not sure where either are right now with coaching staffs.
 
#55
#55
BeecherVol said:
Im not sure where either are right now with coaching staffs.
Click to expand...


Its hard to knock Weiss' credentials and Muschamp should be a good defensive-minded coach. The two issues up in the air right now in my view for UF are, one, whether we can competitively recruit against 'bama and LSU, and to some degree also FSU, for the absolute top of the top, and two, is this penalty problem going to linger or is it laziness brought on by youth and disappointment.

For UT, it seems to me that depth is such an enormous problem right now that any sustained resumption of success is almost solely a function of recruiting. Can you worm your way into the discussion with players considering Alabama and LSU?

Getting one or two or three of those players is not enough because it gives you no depth. You need to be able to get 10-12 of those level of players every year to even have a chance of building a solid squad.

I honestly do not know whether Dooley & Co. is up to that challenge.
 
#57
#57
lawgator1 said:
Its hard to knock Weiss' credentials and Muschamp should be a good defensive-minded coach. The two issues up in the air right now in my view for UF are, one, whether we can competitively recruit against 'bama and LSU, and to some degree also FSU, for the absolute top of the top, and two, is this penalty problem going to linger or is it laziness brought on by youth and disappointment.

For UT, it seems to me that depth is such an enormous problem right now that any sustained resumption of success is almost solely a function of recruiting. Can you worm your way into the discussion with players considering Alabama and LSU?

Getting one or two or three of those players is not enough because it gives you no depth. You need to be able to get 10-12 of those level of players every year to even have a chance of building a solid squad.

I honestly do not know whether Dooley & Co. is up to that challenge.
Click to expand...

How the hell did a thread about Newt Gingrich get twisted into a thread about the crappy coaching staffs of UT and Florida?
 
#58
#58
Newt is not the conservative alternative to Mitt:

But most of Gingrich's policy ideas over the last decade have been tepidly conventional and consistent with the Big Government, Beltway Consensus.

Gingrich's campaign nearly imploded this summer when he dismissed Rep. Paul Ryan's, R-Wis., Medicare reform plan as "right-wing social engineering." But that gaffe was a window into Gingrich's irresponsible approach toward entitlements.

In 2003, Gingrich stumped hard for President George W. Bush's prescription drug bill, which has added about $17 trillion to Medicare's unfunded liabilities. "Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill," Newt urged.

And in his 2008 book Real Change, he endorsed an individual mandate for health insurance.

In a 2006 piece for Human Events, Gingrich offered House Republicans "11 Ways to Say: 'We're Not Nancy Pelosi.'" Point seven proposed a Solyndra-on-steroids industrial policy devoted to "developing more clean coal solutions, investing in a conversion to a hydrogen economy" and more. It's not clear why the former madame speaker would complain.

It's also unclear why anybody looking to distance himself from Pelosi would plop down on a love seat with her to call for government action on climate change—as Gingrich did in a 2008 television commercial.

On foreign affairs, Gingrich's ideas are a little less conventional, but his apocalyptic saber rattling hardly instills confidence. "We need a calm, reasoned dialogue about the genuine possibility of a second Holocaust," he told an American Enterprise Institute audience in 2007.

In 2009, he proposed zapping a North Korean missile site with laser weapons. ("Beam me up, Mr. Speaker!" as former Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, used to say in the '90s.)
Click to expand...

Newt Gingrich is No Conservative - Reason Magazine
 
#59
#59
lawgator1 said:
No, I don't think race has much to do with it, if anything. Its the way he handled it -- made it seem true. Which makes his denials all the more problematic.

But now we will move to Newt, who has more baggage than a flight from New York to Orlando.
Click to expand...

Who's baggage is worse? Obama's with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers or Newt's?
 
#60
#60
lawgator1 said:
Well, first, I think that Romney is still likely to win. He has tons more money that Newt, and you also have to remember that no one has really targeted him and his problems. That will begin and be relentless if he has any traction moving forward.

Second, I agree that debates between Newt and Obama would be interesting. Newt's brusque style, however, might wear thin fairly early on.




He is very smart. But to some degree irascible and intolerant. He is dismissive and arrogant of other points of view. A bit of a know-it-all in demeanor.
Click to expand...

Newt would make Obama look like a fool in a debate.

And the bold might as well be describing Obama.

You're so blind in your thinking that it is now comical.
 
#61
#61
#62
#62
Gingrich Said to Be Paid at Least $1.6 Million By Freddie Mac - Businessweek

Gingrich Said to Be Paid at Least $1.6 Million By Freddie Mac
Gingrich’s business relationship with Freddie Mac spanned a period of eight years
Gingrich’s first contract with the mortgage lender was in 1999, five months after he resigned from Congress and as House speaker

Newt has way too much baggage.
 
#63
#63
Gramps said:
Gingrich Said to Be Paid at Least $1.6 Million By Freddie Mac - Businessweek

Gingrich Said to Be Paid at Least $1.6 Million By Freddie Mac
Gingrich’s business relationship with Freddie Mac spanned a period of eight years
Gingrich’s first contract with the mortgage lender was in 1999, five months after he resigned from Congress and as House speaker

Newt has way too much baggage.
Click to expand...

From your own source - When asked at the debate what he did to earn a $300,000 payment in 2006, the former speaker said he “offered them advice on precisely what they didn’t do,” and warned the company that its lending practices were “insane.”

He has been strongly critical of Fannie and Freddie during his whole campaign. If someone is willing to pay him to offer advice, is he supposed to turn it down? I don't see anything from him that makes me believe he will give them extra benefits.
 
Last edited:
#64
#64
vols4sure said:
From your own source - When asked at the debate what he did to earn a $300,000 payment in 2006, the former speaker said he “offered them advice on precisely what they didn’t do,” and warned the company that its lending practices were “insane.”

He has been strongly critical of Fannie and Freddie during his whole campaign. If someone is willing to pay him to offer advice, is he supposed to turn it down? I don't see anything from him that makes me believe he will give them extra benefits.
Click to expand...

They paid him $1.6M for advice they didn't take? I'm not buying it.
 
#65
#65
vols4sure said:
From your own source - When asked at the debate what he did to earn a $300,000 payment in 2006, the former speaker said he “offered them advice on precisely what they didn’t do,” and warned the company that its lending practices were “insane.”

He has been strongly critical of Fannie and Freddie during his whole campaign. If someone is willing to pay him to offer advice, is he supposed to turn it down? I don't see anything from him that makes me believe he will give them extra benefits.
Click to expand...

1.6 million is what they are reporting not $300,000.00.
He was involved with them for 8 years.
Yes he been critical during the campaign, he is trying to win the GOP nomination

From same article:
Since his retainer with Freddie Mac ended in 2008, Gingrich has become a critic of the government-sponsored enterprises, which were pushed into insolvency by subprime mortgages
 
#66
#66
vols4sure said:
From your own source - When asked at the debate what he did to earn a $300,000 payment in 2006, the former speaker said he “offered them advice on precisely what they didn’t do,” and warned the company that its lending practices were “insane.”

He has been strongly critical of Fannie and Freddie during his whole campaign. If someone is willing to pay him to offer advice, is he supposed to turn it down? I don't see anything from him that makes me believe he will give them extra benefits.
Click to expand...



Word last night is that the FM people are saying he is full of shiite. This looks to be one of his lobbying contracts -- that he says he didn't do.

Newt has more skeletons than anybody up there, precisely because he has been part of the system for so long. If he emerges as a real threat to Romney, they are going to absolutely tee off on him.
 
#67
#67
As of right now, I believe Newt over the Fannie and Freddie officials. Its dem or die next presidential election for them and they have a lot of bonus money to protect.
 
#68
#68
vols4sure said:
As of right now, I believe Newt over the Fannie and Freddie officials. Its dem or die next presidential election for them and they have a lot of bonus money to protect.
Click to expand...

Newt supported the bailouts. They have a friend in Newt.
 
#69
#69
nbakerld said:
Newt supported the bailouts. They have a friend in Newt.
Click to expand...

Show me any public support, encouragement, lobbying, etc. by Newt of Fannie and Freddie's lending practices before or after the housing bubble and you will convince me.
 
#70
#70
vols4sure said:
Show me any public support, encouragement, lobbying, etc. by Newt of Fannie and Freddie's lending practices before or after the housing bubble and you will convince me.
Click to expand...

ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich reversed course on Monday, issuing a statement saying that if he were still in office he would "reluctantly and sadly" support the $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill.
Click to expand...

Gingrich Switches Bailout Stance - ABC News
 
#71
#71
nbakerld said:
Gingrich Switches Bailout Stance - ABC News
Click to expand...

While Gingrich has come around on the bailout bill, he still wants Paulson to resign for initially requesting the $700 billion with no oversight.

Gingrich maintains that as long as Paulson is in charge, "it is impossible to get a creative or significantly better solution."

"Having a former chairman of Goldman Sachs preside over disbursing hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall Street is a terrible concept and inevitably will lead to crony capitalism and the appearance of – if not the actual existence of – corruption," says Gingrich in his statement. "The Bush Administration has now provided three case studies in arrogance, isolation, and destructiveness: Michael Brown during Hurricane Katrina, Ambassador Jerry Bremer in Baghdad, and Secretary Paulson at Treasury.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is going to hurt him all that much. If the conventional wisdom is that Romney won't be able to hurt Obama regarding healthcare, then Obama shouldn't be able to touch Gingrich regarding the bailouts.
 
#72
#72
nbakerld said:
Gingrich Switches Bailout Stance - ABC News
Click to expand...

Not the same. In my opinion, it is questionable whether the bailouts were needed or advisable. Most entities have repaid the bailouts with interest.

Fannie and Freddie are a different animal. I am looking for any specific evidence coming from people other than those inside Fannie and Freddie that he supported and encouraged the lenient lending practices that led to the housing bubble.

I realize he is not the conservative some make him out to be, but I support him (as of right now at least) much more than Romney.
 
#73
#73
MG1968 said:
I don't think this is going to hurt him all that much. If the conventional wisdom is that Romney won't be able to hurt Obama regarding healthcare, then Obama shouldn't be able to touch Gingrich regarding the bailouts.
Click to expand...

So basically it doesn't matter because all the candidates equally suck
 
#74
#74
vols4sure said:
Not the same. In my opinion, it is questionable whether the bailouts were needed or advisable. Most entities have repaid the bailouts with interest.

Fannie and Freddie are a different animal. I am looking for any specific evidence coming from people other than those inside Fannie and Freddie that he supported and encouraged the lenient lending practices that led to the housing bubble.

I realize he is not the conservative some make him out to be, but I support him (as of right now at least) much more than Romney.
Click to expand...

Not the same? He supported giving Freddie and Fannie bailout money. You think because he didn't voice public support for their lending practices that he's not a friend? I'm pretty sure they like the money they got.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top