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

#127
#127
lawgator1 said:
Please. You know exactly the image he was invoking. He said one parenthetical too many.
Click to expand...

You remind me of this "journalist" in this clip from Becker. Everything has subliminal racist overtones. When you pull the race card when it doesn't belong, you show your true bigoted character. Just to let you know, judging from other posters' comments on your various threads, you come across exactly like this guy to most members of VN.

Dr. Becker on Political Correctness - YouTube
 
#128
#128
Supporting Newt Gingrich Over Mitt Romney Would Be a Fatal Mistake for the GOP - Reason Magazine

excerpts:

It's not hard to understand why so many conservatives spurn Mitt Romney. He's had to slink away from past liberal positions on one major issue after another: health care reform, abortion, gun control and climate change. Many on the right are not reassured. They want a true conservative who's been with them all along.

That's not surprising. What's surprising is that they have turned, in their hour of need, to Newt Gingrich. The onetime House Speaker is a consistent conservative like I'm a duckbill platypus. In a contest with Romney for most zigzags, Gingrich can more than hold his own.

The biggest complaint about Mitt is that he pushed a health insurance plan with an oppressive, Obama-like individual mandate. But in 1993, Gingrich announced, "I am for people, individuals—exactly like automobile insurance—individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance." He reiterated that position as recently as 2008.

In 2007, he praised a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions as "something I would strongly support." In 2008, he joined with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in calling for "action to address climate change."
...
His most shameless switch came this year after a rebellion erupted against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. When President Barack Obama was staying out, Gingrich urged him to use U.S. air power to establish a no-fly zone. But when Obama did so, Newt changed his mind.

He embraces and abandons positions as easily as wives. Voting for Gingrich because Romney is a flip-flopper is like moving to Alaska to escape the cold.
...
Demonizing adversaries is what he does best. Some on the right don't want a conservative so much as they want a hater. Gingrich is their dream come true. Romney shows no flair for irresponsible hysteria and crude smears—and many count that as a serious flaw.

Gingrich, however, has a past that could alienate many religious conservatives. They may resist electing a known repeat adulterer to the presidency—not to mention installing his former mistress as first lady. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention has said, "His toughest audience is going to be evangelical women." Romney, of course, is about as scandalous as Disney World.

Conservatives also have to keep in mind that most voters are not conservatives. Even if Gingrich can win over most Republicans, he is bound to repel everyone else.
Click to expand...

Mind you, I am not a Romney fan, but Gingrich is worse.
 
#132
#132
myrobbins7 said:
I like this part.. Gingrich reacted to Pelosi's comments by thanking her for an "early Christmas gift."
Click to expand...

It's true. Pelosi completely legitimizes Gingrich when she attacks him and his fundraising will be proof of it.
 
#133
#133
Interesting blog from Scarborough

Opinion: The case for Newt - Joe Scarborough - POLITICO.com

By this point in my column, you may be asking yourself what could be the case for a man who is an ideological train wreck and the worst manager this side of Barack Obama?

It’s simple, really.

When Gingrich was speaker of the House, he was responsible for kick-starting a movement that did three historic things:

(1) Balance the budget for the first time in a generation.
(2) Balance the budget four years in a row for the first time since the 1920s.
(3) Pass welfare reform.

Consider that Gingrich did all three over the strenuous objections of Bill Clinton and the Democrats in Congress and you begin to understand the affinity that conservatives who don’t know Gingrich have for Gingrich.

Is there a Republican in the field who can top these achievements?
No.
Does any other living Republican come close?
No.

What’s it all mean for the Republican Party and America?
Who the hell knows.
Click to expand...
 
#134
#134
I continue to believe that the GOP is far better off in the general election with Romney than any of the others, including Gingrich. While Romney may not be the first choice of the more conservative members of the party, he is presidential in appearance and he will simply cast a good figure I think next to Obama.

Yes,Romney has baggage in the GOP in the sense that he doesn't have the conservative bona fides that motivate the activists in the party right now.

But Newt has so much more baggage in the general that nominating him seems the classic cutting off of the nose to spite the face.

I get that conservatives want to send a message of rejection of all things Obama. That there is a certain "in your face" quality to their tenor at the moment. But if they aren't careful, come November 7 they'll all be at home asking what could have been while Gingrich plans his new speaking and "access" tour while Obama plans the next state dinner.
 
#137
#137
lawgator1 said:
I saw a brief part of that show this morning and there is obviously some long-running problem between the two of them, imo.
Click to expand...

That's true. There is no love lost. Joe is probably one of the GOP that sent Newt packing from congress.
 
#138
#138
Newt is a freaking idiot.

But what Gingrich suggests as an alternative is that government support companies and industries would be winners without government supporting them. At least, this is what he seems to mean when he says, "What I object to is subsidizing things that don’t work and things that aren’t creating a better future." By Gingrich's logic, government would not be "picking" a winner, it would be recognizing one. And yet, products and ideas that work—Facebook! iPod! Pot!—work not because government says they work, but because people use/buy them. Some people would call Gingrich's line of reasoning "counterintuitive." I say it's like putting a monocle on a coma patient and telling his family that he is deep in thought.

To test the former House Speaker's theory, let's ask ourselves (and maybe Gingrich?) the following questions: Do things that work need government recognition for consumers to know that they work? And is ethanol—which Gingrich should probably be embalmed with—creating a better future?
Click to expand...

Future Technocrat in Chief Newt Gingrich Supports the Right Subsidies - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine
 
Last edited:
#139
#139
Gramps said:
That's true. There is no love lost. Joe is probably one of the GOP that sent Newt packing from congress.
Click to expand...

either that or Joe is continually trying to ingratiate himself with Mika in a sad attempt to get into her pants
 
#140
#140
lawgator1 said:
I continue to believe that the GOP is far better off in the general election with Romney than any of the others, including Gingrich. While Romney may not be the first choice of the more conservative members of the party, he is presidential in appearance and he will simply cast a good figure I think next to Obama.

Yes,Romney has baggage in the GOP in the sense that he doesn't have the conservative bona fides that motivate the activists in the party right now.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this is how some people base their decision on who they vote for, which is how we ended up with Obama in the first place.
 
#142
#142
Gingrich dismisses his 1990s ethics problems as a partisan witch hunt.


KUDLOW: ...that she has new information on your ethics investigation years ago. What's your response to that?

Mr. GINGRICH: Well, first of all, it tells you how political she was on the ethics committee. And it tells you--I called it a Christmas gift. And she can't--if she releases any of it, she has violated the rules of the House. But it also, just a reminder, that committee was extraordinarily partisan. The job of the Democrats was to get Newt Gingrich. They couldn't beat any of our ideas, so they decided to try to beat the messenger. And I think it actually will help people understand what happened in that period and how much of it was partisan.




THAT IS A COMPLETE LIE!!!

The vote to find him guilty of ethics violations and to punish him was 395 to 28. And 196 of those yea votes were from Republicans!

Now he is the leader of the GOP presidential field? Some "historian" you guys got there.
 
#143
#143
If you viewed what they did in any sort of context, what he said has some truth to it. They did sanction him in one instance but if you were paying attention back then, it was obvious they were throwing everything imaginable against the wall to see what would stick.
 
#145
#145
GAVol said:
If you viewed what they did in any sort of context, what he said has some truth to it.
Click to expand...

Wut?

Almost half of the votes -- almost 200 of them -- were Republicans. Any argument that it was partisan is simply a blatant falsehood. He was villified by his own party.
 
#148
#148
lawgator1 said:
Gingrich dismisses his 1990s ethics problems as a partisan witch hunt.


KUDLOW: ...that she has new information on your ethics investigation years ago. What's your response to that?

Mr. GINGRICH: Well, first of all, it tells you how political she was on the ethics committee. And it tells you--I called it a Christmas gift. And she can't--if she releases any of it, she has violated the rules of the House. But it also, just a reminder, that committee was extraordinarily partisan. The job of the Democrats was to get Newt Gingrich. They couldn't beat any of our ideas, so they decided to try to beat the messenger. And I think it actually will help people understand what happened in that period and how much of it was partisan.




THAT IS A COMPLETE LIE!!!

The vote to find him guilty of ethics violations and to punish him was 395 to 28. And 196 of those yea votes were from Republicans!

Now he is the leader of the GOP presidential field? Some "historian" you guys got there.
Click to expand...

Looks like you are rewriting history - he was found guilty on a violation - not violations. For shame LG, for shame.
 
#149
#149
lawgator1 said:
Wut?

Almost half of the votes -- almost 200 of them -- were Republicans. Any argument that it was partisan is simply a blatant falsehood. He was villified by his own party.
Click to expand...

Go read the second half of the post where I clarified.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top