View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently April 16th, 2014, 6:46 am



Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy 
Author Message
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Blueskies wrote:
If you want to put your tin foil hat on and argue that it was setup by Obama's cronies--even though the rhetoric was anti-Obama, whatever you say


I should have addressed this earlier, but better late than never. A Ron Paul supporter accusing any other lifeform on this planet of wearing a tin foil hat is one of the most humorous things I've ever heard before in my life. The irony and projection is precious, and to borrow your own phrase, "ignorance is bliss". :lol:

The truth is that OWS was a coordinated assault upon capitalism. While there had been rumblings about such a protest since atleast early 2010, the foundations and organization of it began around April of 2011. Shortly thereafter, they decided to launch it with a "Day Of Rage" on September 17th, 2011. By late July, they began promoting it via social media. It is no coincidence that 0bama increased and began to emphasize his class warfare rhetoric in early August in conjunction with this scheduled protest.

Don't believe me? Then feel free to pour through these thousands of emails between the organizers: http://owsmail.dc406.com/

And don't forget to google their names and read their histories on Facebook and Twitter. It's good reading, but unforunately, I didn't save any of my own research. Anyone incapable of inferring the connections between OWS and the Obama re-election team or the DNC is rather hopeless. Just saying.

_________________
Image


January 20th, 2012, 8:35 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Getting back on topic:
Coach Is Right wrote:
Newt turns media “gotcha” questioners into road kill
By Coach Collins, on January 20th, 2012

John King has joined Juan Williams as Newt Gingrich road kill. They have both been taught a harsh lesson: Newt Gingrich will not play the “gotcha question” game and he will turn such questions into smack downs of those who insist upon asking them.

In just over 2 minutes Gingrich took King’s opening question about the charges being made by his former wife and flattened the pride of CNN to the delight of hundreds in a South Carolina auditorium and millions across the country. Newt’s smack down had us banging our fists and saying “Finally! Finally somebody is punching back!”

John King failed miserably in his attempt to destroy Newt Gingrich and put Mitt Romney, his preferred candidate, back on track. When King opened his questioning of the former Speaker with his “gotcha” question about Gingrich’s marital problems, it was King who was “gotten.”

Blinded by a perceived opportunity to make Gingrich look bad, and create the media’s new John McCain, the salivating King threw aside all pretense of honesty. Nevertheless, his headlong bayonet charge at a man he thought he would catch as unprepared defensive and easy prey, ended abruptly when he ran into a well place straight right to his jaw. Ashe listened to the roaring standing “O” behind him, the dazed look on King’s face was priceless.

This brief exchange perfectly underscored the chasm between the media and America.

The media don’t really share America’s values. They may have been born and live here, but for them writing about America outside of its edges is like covering a foreign country.

King might have learned his lesson by watching Gingrich destroy Fox’s Juan Williams Tuesday night when he tried to use the media’s shopworn “Republicans are racists” card.

But of course that isn’t possible. The media hate Republicans and think vicious attacks on us are fair and should never end.

They will try “gotcha” questions on Gingrich again. They won’t use them on Romney because he is their new John McCain. They won’t try them on Rick Santorum or Ron Paul because they don’t want either man to drop out in an effort to save Romney.

None of this will matter. When they come again Gingrich will be ready and the whimpering of the next wounded media “warrior” will not be heard above the standing roar of standing ovations. Gingrich will make them road kill.


http://www.coachisright.com/newt-turns-media-%E2%80%9Cgotcha%E2%80%9D-questioners-into-road-kill/

_________________
Image


January 20th, 2012, 8:53 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Player

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2562
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Quote:
A Ron Paul supporter accusing any other lifeform on this planet of wearing a tin foil hat is one of the most humorous things I've ever heard before in my life.


There's many who wear the tin foil in the Ron Paul camp, I won't deny it. But I'm not one of them.

Quote:
The truth is that OWS was a coordinated assault upon capitalism.


Yes, it was. By the far left. The far left that you know, hates Obama, because contrary to your rhetoric, Obama isn't a member. He plays for the same band as GWB and John McCain: Corporate America & The Status Quo.

While the initial wave of OWS was--no doubt--coordinated by members of the far left, the resulting movement certainly was not. OWS struck a chord with real people in this country, and it grew like wildfire. Just like how the Tea Party was initially started by Ron Paul supporters and then spread across the country because most on the right were sick of excess government.

Obama, like Fox News to the Tea Party, attempted to hijack the movement. He's an opportunistic politician. What do you expect him to do?

And, before you use Obama's past connections to link him to Marxism consider this: Alan Greenspan was a member of Ayn Rand's inner circle. He penned an article that appears in one of her books about the evils of fiat money and the necessity of the gold standard. Then he took over the Federal Reserve and through easy money policies, created the largest asset bubble in the history of the world.

A lot of politicians are like that: idealistic when young, then they get into the system and sell out. They all push the same policies that favor those at the top, while paying lip service to whatever side they pretend to be on.

Ron Paul isn't like that. He's literally had the exact same stance on every issue since he entered politics in the 1970s. He isn't a sellout. He's a right-wing populist. That's why I'm a fan.

Quote:
Anyone incapable of inferring the connections between OWS and the Obama re-election team or the DNC is rather hopeless. Just saying.


Yes, because making the country look like its in as bad of shape as possible is a good campaign tactic. Yup.


January 21st, 2012, 12:33 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Blueskies, as always, we agree on some things and disagree on others. I doubt that will ever change.

Concerning OWS, did you know that it's being co-opted by Van Jones, the former avowed communist Green Jobs Czar of the Obama Administration? It's being coordinated under Restore The Dream or something like that and will launch in the spring. This is considered Phase II of OWS. I strongly suggest that you educate yourself on this before making blanket statements. The facts are out there.

As for Obama, you and I both know that he's a Marxist, who can't implement his Utopian dreams due to Congress and the US Constitution. Furthermore, you're intelligent enough to understand that there's several different types of socialism and that socialism/fascism/corporatism intercede with one another since the ends justify the means.

In essence, how are 0bama's beliefs and policy goals any different from Fabian Socialism, Democratic Socialism, or Social Democracy. Enquiring minds want to know. Keep in mind though that his corporatism and fascism is more of a means than an end in his worldview from my perspective.

_________________
Image


January 21st, 2012, 1:08 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Player

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2562
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
IMO the bottom line is that this country is doomed in the long run. And, it will be in large part due to people like you and wjb, who saw the problems but were willing to go along picking the lesser of two evils in an unfair and broken system.

Ever since this country's inception (and even before then...the Constitution was a big step forward in government over the articles of confederation) every year*, under both Republicans and Democrats, people who ran on a small government message and those who did not, the government has expanded. Every year for almost 250 years.

We've been lucky, though. As fast as the government has expanded, the private sector has expanded more quickly. Why? The nature of capitalism, American ingenuity, dumb luck...I don't know.

But, eventually, that dumb luck will run out. Then we will be like Greece or Argentina or any of the other countless countries that bankrupted themselves. Maybe the economy will randomly pick up and we'll kick the can down the road another 10, 20, 50 years. Its possible. But, on a long enough timeline, given the current system, the fate of this country is sealed.

*I suppose you could make a historical argument that the government shrank during the 1920s and some choice periods in the 1800s. But the general trend has always been a bigger government, there have been no notably periods of government in decline.


January 21st, 2012, 1:33 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Player

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2562
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy


I love how virtually everything he said in this video came true.

But no, let's not vote for that guy. Let's vote for an establishment politician who (may) be just marginally better than Obama because he says he will be--never mind the fact that his prior record indicates that absolutely no one should trust what he says.


January 22nd, 2012, 2:56 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
OK, I'm gonna discuss Ron Paul for one final time in this thread. Afterwards, I'll only mention him in the appropriate topic. There are three pillars of conservatism: fiscal, social, and national security. Any candidate who embraces only one of those pillars has ZERO chance to win the Republican nomination. This eliminates Ron Paul from consideration for the vast majority of Republicans. Now, if this were the Libertarian Primary, it would be a different story, but it's not. Time to move on.

As things stand now, there are only two remaining candidates who have a chance to win the nomination - Romney and Gingrich. I, and many others, see Romney as the "establishment" candidate, while Gingrich is the "anti-establishment" alternative. Since I hate the Republican establishment almost as much as I do the Democrats, this choice is a no brainer.

Now, some misguided people will claim that Newt is part of the "establishment" as well because of the amount of time he has spent in Washington. If this were true, wouldn't the "establishment" embrace him? The reason they don't is because they can't control him and they know that he will shake up the status quo. This terrifies the beltway elites, so they will oppose him to the bitter end. When I hear the lamestream media state that Newt can't win, he's unelectable, or that he's too extreme for Main Street, I just laugh. Those same people said the exact same things about Reagan 32 years ago, so I trust them about as far as I can throw them. They're only looking out for their own self interests instead of those of the American people.

In closing, Congrats to Newt for destroying Mittens in South Carolina yesterday. :D

Image

_________________
Image


January 22nd, 2012, 12:04 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
This article says it better than I could:
American Thinker wrote:
January 22, 2012
Psst: Hear the Roar and Pay Attention
By C. Edmund Wright

After Thursday's debate was over in Charleston, I assumed that Newt had not only survived the Marianne episode, but had benefitted from it. I also figured he would win S.C. and that Santorum would fade as a challenger to him. Everyone I knew who saw the debate reached this same conclusion.

Yet as incredible as it may seem, all day Friday we were treated to multiple reviews from members of the conservative media on how Rick Santorum "won" the Thursday night debate in Charleston and that how this would help him in South Carolina. Dick Morris flatly proclaimed that Santorum did so well he might sweep in and take second from Newt Gingrich. Morris also predicted this would mean a S.C. win and nomination for Mitt Romney.

Terrence Jeffrey also proudly proclaimed a big Santorum win in the debate. On the Rush Limbaugh Show, the host refused to give his analysis, but mentioned multiple times that his personal email caucus was swept by the Pennsylvania Senator. Charles Krauthammer, meanwhile, admitted that Newt won it "in the first three minutes" but that Santorum had a very strong night after that.

And I'm thinking: what debate did these folks watch? Do they not pay attention to the crowd reaction? Do they not know what it indicates? Admittedly, Santorum got off some attacks that might have seemed like good hits, but they fell flat in the hall. Newt dominated crowd reaction, Mitt was a pretty clear second in that regard and of course Ron Paul's crowd was the few, the proud, the loud.

Santorum? All he got were those little polite 'golf claps' when someone out of contention taps in a bogey putt. Pay attention. This means the attacks Rick was selling were not being bought.

And where did the crowd roar? They roared when some premise of liberalism or some particular liberal was taken apart. No Republican on Republican crime was rewarded. Even Mitt, no favorite of the red meat crowd, got his loudest moments when he finally decided to support capitalism with some fervor. Newt of course got the big reaction over the week by attacking liberal members of the media who were either attacking conservative beliefs on the whole (Juan Williams and the race card) or protecting Obama by attacking Republicans' personal lives (John King).

The math is clear. While negative ads can be effective if run in huge numbers -- as in Iowa -- what the voters are craving in the debates and on the stump is someone who can look liberals squarely in the eye and tell them why we are right and they are wrong. The American conservative base has had to put up with being called stupid, racist, greedy and unfair for decades by not only the Democrats but the vast majority of the media. The pent up frustration of these decades is magnified by the fact that George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush and John McCain would not or perhaps could not confront this.

In fact, rare is the Republican candidate at any level who refuses to put up with this and fights back. When they do, they become sensations. Even Chris Christie and Donald Trump -- neither one a real conservative -- earned the love of the Republican base by simply deigning to fight back. Marco Rubio and Allen West are far more popular and well known than they have any right to be simply because they refuse to accept the argument on liberals' terms. They fight. They elicit the roar.

Which brings us back to the crowd roar in South Carolina. In Myrtle Beach and Charleston combined, there were probably 3-4 thousand folks total in attendance. Now while that is not significant in and of itself -- consider that every day we look at polls with far fewer folks and consider them gospel truth on everything from elections to mouthwash. In other words, my assumption was that those few thousand folks are indeed a darned good cross section of Republican voters across South Carolina and in fact the country. It wasn't the few thousand who rose to give Newt his standing ovations per se, it's that there were probably hundreds of thousands cheering at their television sets across the nation as well. That something like 60% of all likely voters in South Carolina did watch those debates was merely confirmation of just how important the crowd reaction should be assumed.

Yet the elites ignored the roar. After all, the roar came from the unwashed. It came from the fans of cockfights. It came from tea party folks and other such rabble. Inside the sterile cable studios and on their laptops, the pundits scored their debate and their election prospects without the roar. They have their little formulas about who has to raise doubts here and who has to score points there.

What they don't understand is what the roar means.

The roar is passion. The roar is intensity. The roar is pent up frustration. The roar, put another way, is the national mood of conservatives. It is a roar that will demand a fighter. It will demand that those who want our votes must not cower in the face of the liberal template. If fact, it is a roar that demands that we do not accept any liberal templates.

That's why Newt has gotten all the roars, and why he has vaulted into serious contention only days after being written off. Anyone else who wants the roar should heed the lesson. The roar comes only at the expense of liberals and liberalism. You won't get the roar attacking others on the stage. Tell your consultants to take a hike if they tell you otherwise.

That roar was an easy predictor of what would happen Saturday night in South Carolina. I knew it and everyone I know knew it late Thursday night. And it was. Seems like no one inside the beltway got it. Until Saturday evening.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/ ... z1kDSVMqh2


Another word is enthusiasm. If Newt wins the nomination, I will go out and campaign for him. I also know many others who will do the same thing. Conversely, if Romney wins the nomination, I will not. More importantly, I only know a handful of people who will campaign for him. You see, Newt has the ability to inspire others, while Willard does not. And if anyone thinks this isn't important, they're only kidding themselves.

_________________
Image


January 22nd, 2012, 3:22 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Offense
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3008
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
I watched Newt against the CNN dufus, and then again against Juan Williams. I am IMPRESSED with his willingness to call them out, and literally fight it out. That in my opinion is one characteristic that is needed for the POTUS. This light in the loafers, bowing to the world leaders, apologizing to the world is so soft and wrong, it's pathetic. On the other side of this coin, I don't believe the POTUS should be pimp slapping the world because we are the U.S. either. We need grace, and wisdom, but we need spine, and cohone's too!

I am hoping Gingrich gets the nom, because I am REALLY wanting to see a Obama/Gingrich debate! That's going to be a blood bath!

This current administration and his two lackey's have run all over the Constitution, and lied to get as much of their criminal agenda passed as possible. So I'm hoping for a very bloody and lethal debate exposing the liar we have as president, and I hope the first order of business of the new President is to call out the bucket brigade to wash the steps of the White House, Congress, and the House of Reps as a symbol of cleaning house and restoring America back to the Americans!!!!

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


January 22nd, 2012, 3:43 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Player

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2562
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
I am still dumbfounded by how Gingrich can be considered an anti-establishment candidate.

He was the Speaker of the House. Literally the fourth most powerful person in the country.

The Republican elites prefer Romney over Gingrich simply because they believe Romney is more electable. They don't hate Gingrich. (They hate Ron Paul, because he represents the end of their relevancy)

They don't think highly of him because he's egotistical and low on ethics and that's why they booted him from his position. But he isn't some kind of maverick that represents real change or anything.


January 23rd, 2012, 12:31 am
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3053
Location: London, UK
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Blueskies wrote:
I am still dumbfounded by how Gingrich can be considered an anti-establishment candidate.

He was the Speaker of the House. Literally the fourth most powerful person in the country.

The Republican elites prefer Romney over Gingrich simply because they believe Romney is more electable. They don't hate Gingrich. (They hate Ron Paul, because he represents the end of their relevancy)

They don't think highly of him because he's egotistical and low on ethics and that's why they booted him from his position. But he isn't some kind of maverick that represents real change or anything.

I've done some research on this in the past few days and a couple things about the ethics really jumped out at me:

1. Of the 84 ethics charges that were brought up against Gingrich while he was speaker of the house (all brought up by Democrats), 83 were dropped. He certainly broke some rules, but nearly all of those charges turned out to be mostly nothing.
2. I read that the IRS had actually looked into the money in question in the one case in which Gingrich was found guilty, and they determined that the money was actually donated properly. But this was all a moot point and he paid the fines and stepped down. That leads me to believe that it was more about perception than it was really about serious wrong-doing. I may be wrong, but that's my interpretation of it.

Also, I'm no Gingrich advocate. I like some of the things he says, and I can see voting for him. I'm still unsure about him though.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Things ... _Do_Anyway

LET'S GO DUKE!

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one.


January 23rd, 2012, 12:50 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Player

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2562
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
The guy resigned while the economy was booming; everything was smooth sailing. He was clearly doing something wrong. Like Michael Jordan suddenly leaving basketball. Yeah, the gambling was never proven. But we all know what really happened.

I don't really care to keep arguing it anymore: Romney, Obama, Gingrich. Same thing either way--GWB's fourth term. Same overarching themes, same general policies. They may have minor, cosmetic differences but they all will rule exactly the same way.


January 23rd, 2012, 1:01 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Blueskies wrote:
I am still dumbfounded

This does not surprise me in the least. Just kidding, just kidding. :D

Seriously, I'm so sick and tired of hearing the lamestream media and the establishment saying that Romney is the most electable. He is not. Amongst the conservative base of the party, there is almost no enthusiasm for the Massachussetts Moderate. If he is the nominee, the turnout from the base will be low and I doubt Mittens has the ability to inspire the Independents either. I am almost certain that he would lose to Obama, especially after Axelrod and company got through with Bain Capital, his wealth, his ties to Wall Street, his offshore accounts, his tax returns, his flip flops, his dismal record as Governor, his Mormonism, and countless other things. It would not be a pretty sight.

Newt, on the other hand, will get a huge turnout from the conservative base and he has the ability to inspire Independents, unlike Willard. As for his baggage, he is much better prepared and capable of deflecting and/or explaining those issues than Romney could ever hope to be about his. He isn't going to be backed into a corner with "gotcha" questions by the media like Romney would. Just look at the recent debates and interviews as proof of this. Newt has shined, while Mitt has faltered. And if you think it has been bad up until this point, just wait until the general election when 90% of the media will have their "Hope and Change" kneepads on. Who would you rather have promoting and defending conservatism? Gingrich or Romney? Case closed.

I'd also like to add to Touchdown Jesus' comment above.The ethic violation that Newt was fined $300K for was the result of a mistake made by a staffer. Newt had nothing to do with it, but took the hit any way. As you stated though, he was later found innocent of any violations after the fact.

JOIN THE REBELLION AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENTNEWT 2012

_________________
Image


January 23rd, 2012, 1:59 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11815
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
slybri19 wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
I am still dumbfounded

This does not surprise me in the least. Just kidding, just kidding. :D

Seriously, I'm so sick and tired of hearing the lamestream media and the establishment saying that Romney is the most electable. He is not. Amongst the conservative base of the party, there is almost no enthusiasm for the Massachussetts Moderate. If he is the nominee, the turnout from the base will be low and I doubt Mittens has the ability to inspire the Independents either. I am almost certain that he would lose to Obama, especially after Axelrod and company got through with Bain Capital, his wealth, his ties to Wall Street, his offshore accounts, his tax returns, his flip flops, his dismal record as Governor, his Mormonism, and countless other things. It would not be a pretty sight.

Newt, on the other hand, will get a huge turnout from the conservative base and he has the ability to inspire Independents, unlike Willard. As for his baggage, he is much better prepared and capable of deflecting and/or explaining those issues than Romney could ever hope to be about his. He isn't going to be backed into a corner with "gotcha" questions by the media like Romney would. Just look at the recent debates and interviews as proof of this. Newt has shined, while Mitt has faltered. And if you think it has been bad up until this point, just wait until the general election when 90% of the media will have their "Hope and Change" kneepads on. Who would you rather have promoting and defending conservatism? Gingrich or Romney? Case closed.

I'd also like to add to Touchdown Jesus' comment above.The ethic violation that Newt was fined $300K for was the result of a mistake made by a staffer. Newt had nothing to do with it, but took the hit any way. As you stated though, he was later found innocent of any violations after the fact.

JOIN THE REBELLION AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENTNEWT 2012

While I applaud your enthusiasm, I have to disagree that Newt will do anything to "Rebel against the Establishment." If he were to be elected POTUS, it would be the same thing as we've had now and in the Bush years. All BS all the time. Think about it for a minute, why is it that only Reps or Dems can get elected and why is it that no matter what any candidate says prior to being elected, they ALL change their tunes by the time they take office??? Hmmm :-k
We are indeed living Groundhog Day......SSDD ](*,)

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


January 23rd, 2012, 11:09 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9244
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
TheRealWags wrote:
slybri19 wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
I am still dumbfounded

This does not surprise me in the least. Just kidding, just kidding. :D

Seriously, I'm so sick and tired of hearing the lamestream media and the establishment saying that Romney is the most electable. He is not. Amongst the conservative base of the party, there is almost no enthusiasm for the Massachussetts Moderate. If he is the nominee, the turnout from the base will be low and I doubt Mittens has the ability to inspire the Independents either. I am almost certain that he would lose to Obama, especially after Axelrod and company got through with Bain Capital, his wealth, his ties to Wall Street, his offshore accounts, his tax returns, his flip flops, his dismal record as Governor, his Mormonism, and countless other things. It would not be a pretty sight.

Newt, on the other hand, will get a huge turnout from the conservative base and he has the ability to inspire Independents, unlike Willard. As for his baggage, he is much better prepared and capable of deflecting and/or explaining those issues than Romney could ever hope to be about his. He isn't going to be backed into a corner with "gotcha" questions by the media like Romney would. Just look at the recent debates and interviews as proof of this. Newt has shined, while Mitt has faltered. And if you think it has been bad up until this point, just wait until the general election when 90% of the media will have their "Hope and Change" kneepads on. Who would you rather have promoting and defending conservatism? Gingrich or Romney? Case closed.

I'd also like to add to Touchdown Jesus' comment above.The ethic violation that Newt was fined $300K for was the result of a mistake made by a staffer. Newt had nothing to do with it, but took the hit any way. As you stated though, he was later found innocent of any violations after the fact.

JOIN THE REBELLION AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENTNEWT 2012

While I applaud your enthusiasm, I have to disagree that Newt will do anything to "Rebel against the Establishment." If he were to be elected POTUS, it would be the same thing as we've had now and in the Bush years. All BS all the time. Think about it for a minute, why is it that only Reps or Dems can get elected and why is it that no matter what any candidate says prior to being elected, they ALL change their tunes by the time they take office??? Hmmm :-k
We are indeed living Groundhog Day......SSDD ](*,)


+1

And Sly I don't think Newt is electable against Obama. He will get the conservative vote, but honestly any Rep would get that running against BO. It is the moderate and independent votes that the Rep candidate is going to need to take from Obama to win and I don't think Newt is going to be able to make much inroads there.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


January 23rd, 2012, 11:38 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.