The Real Newt Gingrich

[Pilgrim]

Gingrich is ahead in most polls but I doubt he will be able to hold it. As boring as he is, I don't think I would count Romney out only because he has deep pockets and hasn't really tapped much of it yet.
Have to admit, I like the Obama-Lite comparison.

Even considering the Rasmussen poll of 750 likely voters dated Dec 13th, Real Clear Politics still shows Newt leading with the average of all polls at 27.2% to Romney's 18%. For entire avgs:
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus

As pointed out by several of the pundits, Romney has his core followers that comprise between 18-25% and never seems to break that ceiling. The rest of the voters are Not-Romney and have bounced from Perry to Cain to Newt, and now some seem to be drifting over to Paul. The debate tonight should be interesting, and I can't help but wonder if anyone will bring up the assault on Newt by the GOP elites and inside-the-beltway establishment. These are the same puppet masters that gave us Bob Dole and John McCain - mushy moderates that turned out to be two of the most uninspiring candidates in history.

Mitt Romney would fit right in with them, and could possibly yield the same results in spite of getting to run against the weakest president with the worst record ever; all Romney would need to do to lose is try to appeal to the moderates and independents in an effort to be Obama-light. The political pendulum has swung past that point as proven by the 2010 mid term elections. The American public has seen that socialism won't work, so now they're looking for the anti-Obama - and that's not Mitt Romney.

 

[davekc]

You do make a good point in that money didn't save Romney the last time. Not sure it will this time either, but I would say his chances would be a little better based on who the competition is this go around. Problem I see is most (myself included) aren't sold on any of them.

 

[tbubster]

The problem with the Republican Establishment is that they are The Establishment, and voters want not-The-Establishment. That's why Obama got the nod over Hilary, because she was part of the Establishment, too. Turns out, of course, that Obama was borne out of and steeped deeply in The Establishment, so the voters got hoodwinked.

Newt has brilliantly convinced people for decades that he's a Conservative. Yet, as always, and as people so often fail to do, people should pay attention to what an elected official does, and not what they say. Newt has voted conservatively on three or four conservative issues, but the other ninety bazillion he's pure socialist. His problems of ambiguously moral choices of getting into bed with women other than his wife are irrelevant when compared to his long-time political nooners and sleepovers with Nancy Pelosi.

The Republican Establishment know they can't win with Newt, so they will be dismissing him in favor of someone not-Newt, the same way that voters wanted someone not-Bush in the last election. Doesn't matter who it is, so long as it's not-Newt. The problem is, they are left with Romney and Perry, neither of whom can beat Obama, because neither are not enough of not-The-Establishment. If someone other than Paul gets the nomination, the party loyalists will blindly vote along the party line, as they always do, but the critical 20% of Independents and non-loyalists will vote the status quo (meaning - Obama) and hope they can accomplish some good through Congress. They will vote for the lesser of two evils and will, in the end, elect Obama once again.

However, if Paul gets the nod, then he will draw most of the 20%, plus many who are disillusioned with Obama, plus the party loyalists, and will beat Obama, because he represents not-The-Establishment better than anyone else.

You are smarter then that turtle,With the racist,gay hating jews hating news letters in pauls past he has no chance of beating Obama.Again it does not matter if he wrote them or not they were written in the first person under his heading.Again against a Black president Paul has no chance.You see as you have stated cheating on ones wife really is irrelevant,however racism real or implyed is not.And you know this.

 

[RLENT]

Of course he is going to drop in the polls ..... nobody could maintain such a lead so early...

Well, of course .... because Yousayso™ ....

As for RELENT I am sure you have spent way to much time alone stewing in your self pity to understand the reality of the political scene today ...

Dude,

I've actually spent time in DC involved in the political scene - back when Newt was in Congress .... and after ..... have you ?

I'd wager that my understanding of the "political scene" might just be a little better than you're inclined to give it credit for.

REAGAN commanded respect from every world leader including Gorbachov ... because they all knew he would not tolerate nonsense ...

One word: B-A-N-K-R-U-P-T

For relent to even suggest that my opinion is based in communist socialism is at best laughable and cloistered in deranged rhetoric!

I never underestimate the ability of the uninformed to be unable to recognize what they have gotten involved with.

The reason why I don't, is because of my own personal experience, not so much that of others (although that certainly informs it as well)

I would contend that you use your arguments for anything that does not agree with you instead of having educated reasonable responses.

You can contend all you would like - but you can't refute documented historical fact, as to who the individuals were, that were involved at the genus of neo-conservatism ..... nor where (ideologically) they hailed from .... nor that it substantially differs (is entirely contrary) with respect to traditional "Old Right" conservatism .... nor that it is entirely contrary to the advices of the Founders .... facts is facts ....

At the point where you can lay out a reasoned, intellectual argument (this would actually require the use of the mind BTW), supported by facts, I might just give it some weight .... until then, pass ....

I would contend also that you are as much of a liberal socialist as any ....

Again, try using facts, reason and logic to structure an argument and make your case .... and it might be worth at least considering .... if only to refute it .....

Yes Ron Paul does want to fix this country from the inside out but that is not enough to get the job done ... way to simplistic

Read the Founding Fathers ....

newt intends to take the same approach as well as working on our place in the world order ...

Yup .... the Newt World Order™

May God help this Nation and the World.

As far as his temper and childish behavior .... I guess his previous stint in congress could have been seen as such at times .... but again based on narrow minded thinking... the problem was he was frustrated with the narrow minded people that run this government ...

Newt is an idiot .... trust me on it ....

Lets not forget the Contract with america that balanced the budget and the fact that while working with clinton worked in a bipartisan way to make that happen ... what else you got?

I got the same thing I had before you wrote the above pile of excrement ..... try actually addressing that, as I suggested above ... then we'll see if you get to advance to Round Two ...

 

[hossman2011]

DUDE, you have yet to refute anything I have pointed out with any substance other than the rhetoric you wish to beat others up with... I contend that it is you that has yet to advance to round two and until you can dispute with facts and not just your anti establishment rhetoric then it is not really worth my time to further this. Again I contend that Ron Paul has some good ideas and principles but his policies do not address the bigger picture needed.

 

[RLENT]

Bubbie,

You raise some interesting (and valid points) that are worth addressing:

In just one year in the 08 elections romeny raised more money then any other candidate. Also some should look at who all was endorsing mitt back then.There were alot of people on the nantional level who were endorsing him yet he still did not have what it takes.

True .. and no illusions here about who is backing Mittens - I mentioned it earlier in this or another thread.

We seen major campaign staff leave which led to many people to belive he would drop out of the race due to lack of money yet he would go onto win the republican nomination You see it can and has been done with out having the most money.

Certainly true as a general principle ..... the problem is when it gets applied to a particular candidate, one which is otherwise unelectable.

No matter what any of us think about it most of america see washington as broken and not being able to work together. Most of america thinks washington needs to work together to start fixing the problems we have in this country.

Entirely true.

And for millions of people Newt has a proven track record of being able to get this done.

Yeah ... the problem is that they're all already in the Republican Party.

You need Independents and moderate (conservative) Democrats - for whom The Lizard™ is radioactive.

Yes there are attacks from GOP groups against one candidante that support another.This is part of the primaries. Yet as soon as people start voteing and winners and losers come out most of those groups will get behind a new candidate. And by the time someone gets the nomination we will see the inter party attacks stop. Its just the way it works. There are some who are trying to make this out as something new and deadly for the GOP yet the same happens on the democratic side when there is a republican in the white house.

Yeah .... no kiddin' ?

You see some of the people endorsing Mitt are hopeing he gets the nod because he is so liberal that they think this will win over voters that voted for Obama in 08. However will not be the case.

True.

The thing that some dont seem to get is that unlike in 08 Obama has a real record that can and will be used against him. In 08 it was alot of hype because he was a slick talker and was beliveable to a great many independent and unhappy republican voters. This time those same voters know what Obama is really all about. Obama talked about all this hope and change and people were in awe of him. This time not so much The only change they have seen is it get worse for millions of americans and america go deeper in debt to china. Gone are the speechs about washington has to stop writing checks they cant cash.Gone are the promises to end home foreclosures, Gone are the promises to end the tax cuts for the rich, Gone are the promises to make it against the law companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses. Gone is the promise of if you elect Bracak Obama it will not be business as usaul(can anyone say Solyndra) Heres a big one Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center. Centralize ethics and lobbying information for voters (can you say ACORN) Here is perhaps the biggest one gone Allow five days of public comment before signing bills.(ObamaCare) You see it does not matter what anyone says it is not the Same Obama as we had in 07/08

Okey-dokey .... no arguments here .... now watcha gonna do with all that ?

The problem here is that you just couldn't take the final leap .... and make a logical, sound case that The Lizard™ is what all those that voted for Obama are willing to sign up for ....

And here's the reason why you didn't: you simply can't - because it's truly an untenable proposition.

While that may be the ultimate fantasy for the Newt's Neocon Army™ ..... they, for better or for worse, are the only ones having it.

Show me any significant evidence of even lukewarm support from Democratic and Independent opinion leaders or voters for The Lizard™

I can show you literally tons of it for Paul .....

Perhaps the funnist thing to me is how we have been told over and over on here by a few that the president has no real power when it comes to changing how things get done yet it is those same people who want us to belive that if PAUL were elected then he somehow would have the power to fix things? The man has been in washington for 30 plus years and gets almost no bills even heard on the floor yet you all think he will be able to lead us out of this.

Here's the thing - Paul is viewed as totally an outsider and anti-establishment by those in Washington - both the opposition and his own party.

These folks know how Congress (and government generally) is viewed by the public at this time - they are very aware of it.

The election of Dr. Paul would be a further confirmation of this and total repudiation of the status quo.

In terms of political survival, they will be faced with either going along with (most likely will) or defying (some will) an elected President .... one with a mandate from the American people.

The defiance aspect will be particularly difficult if the mandate is achieved through a broad coalition from both sides of the aisle.

Dr. Paul could possibly achieve that - Newt never will.

And those that are willing to be totally honest with themselves know this in their hearts.

Game Over

 

[muttly]

"These allegation was lobbed back in 2008 when Ron Paul was beginning to get some attention. At that time, Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment."

I guess that settles it.

 

[RLENT]

I guess that settles it.

No - not really - count on it to be used as a weapon in the campaign. It will be an issue that is raised and Dr. Paul will, I'm sure have to address it.

How he does that, and how well he acquits himself when doing so, will determine whether it's settled or not.

 

[RLENT]

Again I contend that Ron Paul has some good ideas and principles but his policies do not address the bigger picture needed.

Let's see if I can make this short and to the point:

Your premise is that as part of the "complex picture" we need to either dominate or control the remainder of the world.

The above of course, as a premise, flies directly in face of all known wisdom (that I'm aware of - if ya got it post it) that the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us ... it is directly opposed to Nature of Liberty and Americanism as promulgated and understood at the birth of our nation, and within the Declaration of Independence

It is also exactly what Marxism/Stalinist Soviet Communism <spit> espouses - world domination under the threat of force (revolution) and the installation of a particular political ideology.

That about cover it for ya ?

 

[AMonger]

Lets not forget the Contract with america that balanced the budget and the fact that while working with clinton worked in a bipartisan way to make that happen... what else you got?

I can't believe anybody but demon-cratic party hacks repeat this crap.

There WAS NO SURPLUS in the Clinton years. It's been disproven time and time again, including in the major media.



--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

 

[Turtle]

Some people are wowed by smoke and mirrors, to the point where they believe the illusion.

 

[hossman2011]

I know you are having a problem coming up with legitimate answers or proof to backup your opinion, but at what point did I say we should dominate or control the world? Really now as is typical you are creating a statement by either making things up or twisting your understanding to accommodate your ideals....allow me to extrapolate the premise for you... We need someone running our country that will be able and willing to play hard ball if necessary with these countries and leaders that do not take or concerns seriously... Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, China, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia and the list goes on.... these countries act like spoiled little children that are defiant and have not been spanked in a long time... This is not ron paul..

 

[Pilgrim]

I can't believe anybody but demon-cratic party hacks repeat this crap.
There WAS NO SURPLUS in the Clinton years. It's been disproven time and time again, including in the major media.

I know we've gone over this before, and I agree with it. However, if Newt would turns out to be the nominee the GOP will shout it to the rooftops. In doing so they're daring the Democrats to do a 180-degree turn and try to now claim there were no Clinton budget surpluses after all, after boasting the exact opposite for all these years. It's just like the morality issue - they can't go there.

 

[cheri1122]

I know you are having a problem coming up with legitimate answers or proof to backup your opinion, but at what point did I say we should dominate or control the world? Really now as is typical you are creating a statement by either making things up or twisting your understanding to accommodate your ideals....allow me to extrapolate the premise for you... We need someone running our country that will be able and willing to play hard ball if necessary with these countries and leaders that do not take or concerns seriously... Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, China, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia and the list goes on....

Oh, heLL yeah - we can take on 7 or 8 other countries at once - with one hand tied between our back, even! And if they insist on running their own affairs to their own benefit, we should show them who's boss!

these countries act like spoiled little children that are defiant and have not been spanked in a long time...

That's a real genius of a foreign affairs policy - Wesayso at it's very best, lol.

This is not ron paul..

Absolutely not - and that's why he's the best candidate for the United States.

 

[RLENT]

I know you are having a problem coming up with legitimate answers or proof to backup your opinion, but at what point did I say we should dominate or control the world?

What are you suffering from short-term memory loss or something ?

"Ron paul just wants to live within his four walls and pretend there are no boogey men out there ... Without being able to CONTROL or heavily influence countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Iran the economy has less of a chance to turn around. Ron Paul is definitely not that man."​

... ergo you are looking someone who will CONTROL or heavily influence these countries ... in order to provide a greater chance of getting the economy to turn around ....

What else would one infer ?

Whether one is speaking about relations between between individuals or relations between nations, there are only two premises on which to base those relations:

.... self-determined, voluntary and willingly between each party .... or other-determined, involuntary, and unwillingly, whereby one or the party seeks thru the use of force (in some form or another) to compel the other party to do something against their free will ......​

There are no others.

BTW, are you just totally incapable of seeing that the post I'm currently replying to at this moment contains within it, that very premise:

"We need someone running our country that will be able and willing to play hardball if necessary with these countries and leaders that do not take or concerns seriously ... Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, China, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia and the list goes on .... these countries act like spoiled little children that are defiant and have not been spanked in a long time ..."​

I'm afraid that it appears that your commentary is so un-self-aware (of your own words) that it borders on being very close to near impossible to achieve actual communication.

Really now as is typical you are creating a statement by either making things up or twisting your understanding to accommodate your ideals ...

Yeah ... uh-huh ... and the moon is made of green cheese and the Earth is flat ....

Sorry, but I just don't think that's the case.

If you wish to expand on your thoughts I have referenced above, and explain how they mean something other than what I understand them to mean, I'd be quite happy to address that explanation.

 

[cheri1122]

This week's New Yorker has a piece in which 10 conservatives describe Newt, and it's pretty funny, because they're supposed to be on his side. My favorite [because it fits what I see in the man's history] "Newt will stab the Republicans in the back if it would enrich him to do it"
With friends like that.....

 

[muttly]

This week's New Yorker has a piece in which 10 conservatives describe Newt, and it's pretty funny, because they're supposed to be on his side. My favorite [because it fits what I see in the man's history] "Newt will stab the Republicans in the back if it would enrich him to do it"
With friends like that.....

So if those 10 conservatives were establishment types would that be good or bad for Newt if they dislike him?

 

[RLENT]

So if those 10 conservatives were establishment types would that be good or bad for Newt if they dislike him?

Might depend on why or for what they dislike him ... rather than who they are ....

 

[tbubster]

So if those 10 conservatives were establishment types would that be good or bad for Newt if they dislike him?

funny how that works right?They talk about how wrong the establishment is yet try and use the fact that the establishment does not like NEWT like that is a bad thing.Kinda like saying paul is the only true Fiscal conservative because he votes no on spending bills yet they ignor the fact Paul is first in line for the money when the bills pass.

 

[Turtle]

funny how that works right?They talk about how wrong the establishment is yet try and use the fact that the establishment does not like NEWT like that is a bad thing.

Huh? The Establishment is wrong about many things. They are out of touch, inept and incompetent. Yet they are the ones who will instill and support the next nominee. That they don't like Newt is very bad for Newt.

Kinda like saying paul is the only true Fiscal conservative because he votes no on spending bills yet they ignor the fact Paul is first in line for the money when the bills pass.

No, it's not like that at all. I had hoped that by now you would have at least made the attempt at learning what earmarks are and how they work, and where the money comes from for them. But apparently, the old adage of, "Why bother learning when ignorance is instantaneous?" is alive and well in the American psyche. What part of "Allocated money will...be...spent, no matter if it's earmarked or not, regardless of who earmarks it," do you not understand? Once Congress allocates money, if that money fails to be earmarked, it does not go back into the pot for next year or go back to reduce the debt (as retarded as that is) - it's gets reallocated for something else, and gets spent.