Talk Elections

Election Archive => 2012 Elections => Topic started by: Politico on November 30, 2011, 09:56:28 PM



Title: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on November 30, 2011, 09:56:28 PM
Was it ever confirmed that the Perry campaign was actually behind the Cain sexual discrimination stories as originally suspected? Obviously Gingrich is the one who benefited from Cain's downfall. Has anybody looked into whether or not the original story came from the Gingrich campaign? It's funny how the timing of the stories coincided nicely with the Cain V. Gingrich debate...


Title: Re: We Know Who Benefited From The Cain Stories, But Who Supplied The Stories?
Post by: RogueBeaver on November 30, 2011, 10:34:13 PM
Heilemann and Halperin will tell in 2014. Until then...


Title: Re: We Know Who Benefited From The Cain Stories, But Who Supplied The Stories?
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on November 30, 2011, 10:50:55 PM
The moderator probably wouldnt approve what I truly want to say so I'll just say this...

The only thing more disturbing then your mania for Romney is your obsession with Gingrich. I don't think you understand that this is a democratic (not the party) primary where the voters get to choose and multiple candidates will run.  Just because a candidate is beating the one you support in the polls doesnt make him evil or stupid or whatever, and it doesn't make his supporters idiots. 

Let the democratic process play out and stop throwing out bullsh**t statements and theories that only hurt YOUR cause


Title: Re: We Know Who Benefited From The Cain Stories, But Who Supplied The Stories?
Post by: Politico on November 30, 2011, 10:55:26 PM
The moderator probably wouldnt approve what I truly want to say so I'll just say this...

The only thing more disturbing then your mania for Romney is your obsession with Gingrich. I don't think you understand that this is a democratic (not the party) primary where the voters get to choose and multiple candidates will run.  Just because a candidate is beating the one you support in the polls doesnt make him evil or stupid or whatever, and it doesn't make his supporters idiots.  

Let the democratic process play out and stop throwing out bullsh**t statements and theories that only hurt YOUR cause

So who supplied the stories about Cain if you had to speculate? Nobody? We know somebody did, right? Would you bet on it being somebody who did not benefit from the stories, or somebody who did benefit from them?

As for Gingrich, he's only the one candidate in the race who gave false information to a House Ethics Committee and paid a fine of $300,000 to avoid a hearing on the matter. In fact, the Special Counsel to the House Ethics Committee concluded that Gingrich violated federal tax law in relation to this matter. And you do not for a second think he had something to do with anything dirty? Squeaky clean Newt all of a sudden? Let's not forget what he once said about his fellow Republicans in the House: "I will not preside over people who are cannibals." Yeah, Gingrich also holds the dubious distinction of being the only candidate in the race who has ever referred to fellow Republicans as "cannibals." Oh, and what was it he said about Paul Ryan's "social engineering" scheme?

Nobody is slimier than Newt Gingrich, and he will lose in spectacular fashion to Obama if he somehow wins the nomination. Why do you think the establishment is not backing this creep?


Title: Re: We Know Who Benefited From The Cain Stories, But Who Supplied The Stories?
Post by: Mehmentum on November 30, 2011, 10:57:28 PM
The moderator probably wouldnt approve what I truly want to say so I'll just say this...

The only thing more disturbing then your mania for Romney is your obsession with Gingrich. I don't think you understand that this is a democratic (not the party) primary where the voters get to choose and multiple candidates will run.  Just because a candidate is beating the one you support in the polls doesnt make him evil or stupid or whatever, and it doesn't make his supporters idiots. 

Let the democratic process play out and stop throwing out bullsh**t statements and theories that only hurt YOUR cause

So who supplied the stories about Cain in your humble opinion?
The women who accused him?


Title: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on November 30, 2011, 11:13:06 PM
The John Edwards Factor (AKA the "I Do Not Care About My Wife's Cancer" Factor): Gingrich cheated on his first wife while she was battling cancer

The Bill Clinton Factor (AKA the "I Have Affairs With Women Who Are Much Younger Than Me" Factor): Gingrich cheated on his second wife with a woman who is twenty five years younger than he is (she is actually younger than Gingrich's daughters)

The Richard Nixon Factor (AKA the "I am Not a Crook" Factor): Gingrich gave false information to the House Ethics Committee and paid a fine of $300,000 to avoid a hearing on the matter. Special Counsel to the House Ethics Committee concluded that Gingrich violated federal tax law in relation to this matter.

For good measure:

The Arlen Specter Factor (AKA the "I Support RINOs" Factor): Gingrich was Nelson Rockefeller's top coordinator in the South in 1968 (i.e., Gingrich favored the original RINO over Ronald Reagan)

And he definitely has the "values" factor nailed down by virtue of the fact he dumped his southern Baptist upbringing in favor of Catholicism back in 2009. Billy Graham would be proud, especially in light of the above laundry list!

-----------------------------------

Good luck beating scandal-free Barack Obama with this creep!


Title: Re: Gingrich is the Worst of John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon Combin
Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on November 30, 2011, 11:18:02 PM
Well, you have me convinced. That damn Newt converted to Catholicism, the bastard.


Title: Re: Gingrich is the Worst of John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon Combin
Post by: RogueBeaver on November 30, 2011, 11:27:33 PM
Well, you have me convinced. That damn Newt converted to Catholicism, the bastard.

If there was ever such a thing as a Romneyite (speaking as a Romneyite myself) with a Palinista mindset, Politico's it.


Title: Re: We Know Who Benefited From The Cain Stories, But Who Supplied The Stories?
Post by: Bacon King on November 30, 2011, 11:49:32 PM
Trying to argue that Gingrich supplied the stories to the media is hilarious because it implies that he's running anything resembling a serious political operation and isn't just "campaigning" by roaming the country speaking into any microphone he can find.

Honestly, if you make the assumption that another candidate was pushing these stories, I don't see how you could point your finger at anyone besides Romney. He's the only candidate who's built up more than the barest semblance of a campaign infrastructure; so far in this campaign, nobody besides Romney's team has even once exhibited the degree of professionalism it would require to accomplish this sort of thing.


Title: Re: We Know Who Benefited From The Cain Stories, But Who Supplied The Stories?
Post by: Yank2133 on December 01, 2011, 12:16:20 AM
Politico is starting to lose it now that Romney may not be the nominee. I wonder what he will say if Newt actually pulls this off?


Title: Re: We Know Who Benefited From The Cain Stories, But Who Supplied The Stories?
Post by: Bull Moose Base on December 01, 2011, 12:21:12 AM
Actually there was a big Romney donor who had worked for the National Restaurant Association and there was speculation about him being the leak.  But is the suggestion it's inappropriate to go after someone for their poor personal conduct?  If not, what does it matter who provided the info?


Title: Re: We Know Who Benefited From The Cain Stories, But Who Supplied The Stories?
Post by: Bacon King on December 01, 2011, 12:26:50 AM
Actually there was a big Romney donor who had worked for the National Restaurant Association and there was speculation about him being the leak.

Well, if you're the type to be entertained by silly conspiracy theories, note that the son of the guy that Mitt Romney was named after was serving on the National Restaurant Association's board of directors during Cain's entire tenure there.

;D


Title: Re: Gingrich is the Worst of John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon Combined
Post by: Roemerista on December 01, 2011, 12:53:15 AM
I get supporting Romney, but I do not see how he is something to engender passion...


Title: Re: Gingrich is the Worst of John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon Combined
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 01, 2011, 01:10:20 AM
Well said.


Title: Re: Gingrich is the Worst of John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon Combined
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on December 01, 2011, 01:13:41 AM
This is good news for John McCain.  The news being that you didn't mention him.


Title: Re: Gingrich is the Worst of John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon Combin
Post by: pbrower2a on December 01, 2011, 01:26:20 AM
Well, you have me convinced. That damn Newt converted to Catholicism, the bastard.

I have no problem with religious conversions as such so long as they imply either contemplation (as in "Judaism is richer than what I grew up with"), a change in personal life for the better ("I became a Mormon and quit drinking" or "I became a Muslim and gave up racism" ), confirmation of the stronger faith of of a spouse ("My wife convinced me that Catholicism would strengthen our marriage"). When it reeks of opportunism it is suspect.     


Title: Re: Gingrich is the Worst of John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon Combined
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on December 01, 2011, 02:26:15 AM
If N00t becomes President, the country is done for. That's it. It's over. No more.

There's just no second chances after something like that.


Title: Re: Gingrich is the Worst of John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon Combined
Post by: Bacon King on December 01, 2011, 03:41:18 AM
Wait. You're bringing up who he supported for President over four decades ago, and disengenuously claiming he supported a "RINO over Reagan" even though at that point Reagan was a pretty liberal first-term governor running as a favorite son for California... are you really so worried about Gingrich beating Romney that you'll make such a silly argument?


Title: Re: Gingrich is the Worst of John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon Combined
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on December 01, 2011, 03:49:53 AM
Politico,

You have the essential Gingrich.

The thing is that he is a sociopath, who will blithely tell a string of preposterous lies without blinking an eye.

Yes, he's articulate, but also very dishonest.

He likes being "clever," by which he means tricking people.


Title: Re: Gingrich is the Worst of John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon Combined
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 01, 2011, 04:31:36 AM
Indeed. Also, it worth nothing that Ginrgich doesn't have any of Clinton and Nixon positives (Edwards had no positives).


Title: Re: Gingrich is the Worst of John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon Combined
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on December 01, 2011, 05:47:30 AM
You forgot Hitler and Stalin.


Title: Re: Gingrich is the Worst of John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon Combined
Post by: Vosem on December 01, 2011, 06:36:36 AM

And Dora the Explorer.


Title: Re: Gingrich is the Worst of John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon Combined
Post by: courts on December 01, 2011, 07:42:27 AM
Politico,

You have the essential Gingrich.

The thing is that he is a sociopath, who will blithely tell a string of preposterous lies without blinking an eye.

Yes, he's articulate, but also very dishonest.

He likes being "clever," by which he means tricking people.

Wow, I didn't seriously think he had a chance in this field until this post. Thanks for putting it in perspective Carl.


Title: Re: Gingrich is the Worst of John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon Combined
Post by: Mehmentum on December 01, 2011, 08:03:38 AM
When I saw the title of this thread, without even looking at the started by column, I thought 'I bet Politico wrote this'.


Title: Re: Gingrich is the Worst of John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon Combined
Post by: Middle-aged Europe on December 01, 2011, 09:59:45 AM
Well, two of these three people managed to get elected president...


Title: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on December 01, 2011, 07:12:55 PM
Here's another thing about Gingrich: If he had paid more attention to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda instead of Monica Lewinsky, if he had not bogged down the Clinton Administration with pointless subpoenas, perhaps 9/11 never would have happened. One cannot overstate how much time was wasted on the Lewinsky imbroglio. The whole ordeal was completely pointless, too, and Gingrich was cheating on his wife at the same time he was railing against Clinton and preaching about "moral values". What a grandstanding hypocrite...

Without Gingrich's incessant pestering over Monica Lewinsky, perhaps the Clinton Administration would have had more time/resources to spend on serious business such as Al Qaeda...


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Yelnoc on December 01, 2011, 07:14:23 PM
Bu-
...

Meh, what's the use?


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Peeperkorn on December 01, 2011, 07:15:51 PM
lol wut? What did you expect him to do? Do you understand the differences between Executive and Legislative?


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: © tweed on December 01, 2011, 07:16:34 PM
alcohol was legalized in 1933


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Politico on December 01, 2011, 07:19:52 PM

Not inundate the executive branch with subpoenas over a completely pointless affair that had nothing to do with the job of the POTUS. It was a national circus that nobody wanted, and who knows what a more focused Clinton Administration could have accomplished abroad with regards to anti-terrorism initiatives.

I guarantee Newt Gingrich said the name "Monica Lewinsky" hundreds of times prior to 9/11, and probably never said the name "Osama Bin Laden" even once during the same time period.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Thomas D on December 01, 2011, 07:20:32 PM
The Starr report was given to congress in early September of 1998. The President was Impeached on December 19, 1998. So the House didn't spend that much time on the issue.

Plus there were the 1998 Midterms in between those dates. So I'm not sure how much would have gotten done even without the scandal.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Politico on December 01, 2011, 07:25:04 PM
The Starr report was given to congress in early September of 1998. The President was Impeached on December 19, 1998. So the House didn't spend that much time on the issue.

Plus there were the 1998 Midterms in between those dates. So I'm not sure how much would have gotten done even without the scandal.

It was not just the Starr Report. It was an endless circus he perpetuated upon the Clintons and the foundation of it all was bogus claims made by shady characters from Arkansas. The only thing he ever nailed on Clinton was the "stain on the blue dress," but everything else was bunk. It was a national distraction from the more serious matters at hand.

I am just thinking back to why I dislike Gingrich so much, and the more I refresh my memory and think about all angles, the more I dislike him.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Wonkish1 on December 01, 2011, 07:28:24 PM
Wow just when you think Politico can't stoop any lower.

I'm starting to feel sorry for him now!


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Peeperkorn on December 01, 2011, 07:29:02 PM
Gingrich did 9/11.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 01, 2011, 07:33:04 PM
Here's one: what if Bill Clinton hadn't wasted time/resources on Monica Lewinsky? What if he had said, "Yes, we were in the room alone togeather. Yes, we had sex?"


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Politico on December 01, 2011, 07:34:21 PM
Wow just when you think Politico can't stoop any lower.

I'm starting to feel sorry for him now!

Here's a thought: Newt's next "alternative history" novel should be about how much better America would have been without Monica Lewinsky-gate...


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Politico on December 01, 2011, 07:35:43 PM
Here's one: what if Bill Clinton hadn't wasted time/resources on Monica Lewinsky? What if he had said, "Yes, we were in the room alone togeather. Yes, we had sex?"

Clinton is not completely innocent in this ordeal. With that said, the distraction was the circus Gingrich and Co. created, not a few minutes every now and then between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (It's not like Hillary was putting out; who are we kidding?)


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 01, 2011, 07:42:14 PM
Here's one: what if Bill Clinton hadn't wasted time/resources on Monica Lewinsky? What if he had said, "Yes, we were in the room alone togeather. Yes, we had sex?"

Clinton is not completely innocent in this ordeal. With that said, the distraction was the circus Gingrich and Co. created, not a few minutes every now and then between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (It's not like Hillary was putting out; who are we kidding?)

Please, Clinton was the chief law enforcement officier in the land while he was going to extraordinary lengths to obstruct justice. That's not a minor detail.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Politico on December 01, 2011, 07:43:42 PM
Here's one: what if Bill Clinton hadn't wasted time/resources on Monica Lewinsky? What if he had said, "Yes, we were in the room alone togeather. Yes, we had sex?"

Clinton is not completely innocent in this ordeal. With that said, the distraction was the circus Gingrich and Co. created, not a few minutes every now and then between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (It's not like Hillary was putting out; who are we kidding?)

Please, Clinton was the chief law enforcement officier in the land while he was going to extraordinary lengths to obstruct justice. That's not a minor detail.

He never should have been asked questions about Lewinsky. It had nothing to do with his job. We have no idea what kind of arrangement he had with Hillary Clinton. I think it's a safe bet that Bill was not getting any action at home. He had to find it somewhere. Can you blame the guy for that?

I agree that he should not have lied, but I disagree that he should have been asked the questions in the first place.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 01, 2011, 07:47:13 PM
This has to be one of the dumbest OP's I've seen since joining.  Of course, there's no better place for it then in the 2012 board :P


lol wut? What did you expect him to do? Do you understand the differences between Executive and Legislative?

I'm sure he does, but his motive is to attack Newt or whatever other Republican he can with mindless nonsense.  Seriously, the Republicans sh**t on them self's enough to the point where you can come up with something better than this Politico.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Yank2133 on December 01, 2011, 07:54:36 PM
Romney's demise is really getting to Politico.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 01, 2011, 07:56:32 PM

Rehabilitate Osama now!


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: © tweed on December 01, 2011, 07:57:16 PM

^^^^^


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on December 01, 2011, 08:35:13 PM
What's next? Gingrich put WMDs in Iraq?


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on December 01, 2011, 08:37:54 PM
Senate Democrats caused the Iran Hostage Crisis. If Nixon hadn't been bogged down by the media circus surrounding Watergate, he could've returned to where he wanted to be, foreign affairs, and averted the crisis before it even started.

This is fucking ridiculous. Clinton never did his job in the first place. Aside from that, after Newt stepped down (in 1998 I believe), Clinton had all of 2000 and probably all of 1999 to catch Osama. For God's freakin' sake here. This is just so fucking outrageous I can't put it into words. You're blaming the media circus of a marital scandal in 1998 for a terrorist attack in 2001. And not only that, you're not even blaming the President who allegedly committed the scandal, you're blaming the Speaker of the House for blowing it out of proportion. With this line of logic, I'm gonna bet we could blame Barack Obama for 9/11. George H. W. Bush for 9/11. Jimmy Carter for 9/11. Hillary for 9/11. Everybody for 9/11.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: WillK on December 01, 2011, 08:38:31 PM
...
Without Gingrich's incessant pestering over Monica Lewinsky, perhaps the Clinton Administration would have had more time/resources to spend on serious business such as Al Qaeda...

This is a good thing, right?  Cuz if Clinton ad been able to focus  on serious stuff he might have been more successful which would be bad for Republicans.  And if 9/11 hadn't happened then we wouldnt have been able to experience the full awesomeness of W.   And of course Newt thinks there is value in a terrorist attack every now and then -- remind us average folks to be afraid and accept the perpetual security state -- so good for NeoCons to have 9/11 to use as a catalyst for policy action.  


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Bacon King on December 01, 2011, 09:50:49 PM
This attack is especially weak, actually, because six months before 9/11 Newt Gingrich was publicly calling for the establishment of a Homeland Security Department (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KilJTTun0J4) to prevent potential terrorist attacks from happening.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: The Mikado on December 01, 2011, 10:34:26 PM
Did the Lewinsky debacle handicap Clinton in foreign policy?  Undoubtedly so.  The attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for the Embassy bombings, the highly effective Desert Fox operation in Iraq, and the entire Kosovo intervention were labeled "Wag the Dog" efforts by the media and the GOP.

Does this equal what the OP's saying?  Not so much.  There were some tragicomic failures at fighting Osama bin Laden (does anyone remember in 199...8ish when the NSA successfully wiretapped bin Laden's cell phone, then bragged about it and caused bin Laden to stop using said cell phone?), and even though the entire government wasted the entire years of 1998-9 debating stains on dresses and cigars, I don't things would've turned out that differently.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 02, 2011, 02:48:01 AM
Here's one: what if Bill Clinton hadn't wasted time/resources on Monica Lewinsky? What if he had said, "Yes, we were in the room alone together. Yes, we had sex?"

Clinton is not completely innocent in this ordeal. With that said, the distraction was the circus Gingrich and Co. created, not a few minutes every now and then between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (It's not like Hillary was putting out; who are we kidding?)

Please, Clinton was the chief law enforcement officier in the land while he was going to extraordinary lengths to obstruct justice. That's not a minor detail.

He never should have been asked questions about Lewinsky. It had nothing to do with his job. We have no idea what kind of arrangement he had with Hillary Clinton.

I might very well not matter what "arrangement" Bill Clinton had with his wife, but, it sure as Hell matters what "arrangement" he had with voters. He went on 60 Minutes and presented himself to the electorate a person whom "had caused pain in his marriage" for which he was deeply sorry, and vowed never to do it again.


Yes, the electorate had every right to judge his character, including his fidelity to his wife. Bill and Hillary Clinton had every right to go on 60 Minutes and declare that their sex life wasn't anyone business but their own, that they had an open marriage, and that they weren't going to discuss the matter any further. They chose to take the stance that polled best for them, knowing full well it was a fraud upon the American people. What they did isn't okay.

Further, he was the chief law enforcement officer of the land. For him to obstruct justice was simply unacceptable.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Politico on December 02, 2011, 03:33:29 AM
This is what happens when you have a few beers before getting on here. I apologize, folks. I stepped a bit too far with this one.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Simfan34 on December 02, 2011, 07:20:10 AM
This is what happens when you have a few beers before getting on here. I apologize, folks. I stepped a bit too far with this one.

I applaud you for your honesty, and your general coherence in your post. After "a few beers", most just say "fay GINGRIC?J destoued the nattiooon".


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 02, 2011, 10:17:28 AM
This is what happens when you have a few beers before getting on here. I apologize, folks. I stepped a bit too far with this one.

actually, from my experience, employers serve alcohol at parties only to find out who the real arseholes are in the company and target them for firing - in other words, alcohol doesn't change your personality, alcohol amplifies it.

So, you can apologize all you want, but now we know how you really think.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Middle-aged Europe on December 02, 2011, 11:09:16 AM
Move this entire thread to the comedy goldmine, please.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 02, 2011, 11:16:26 AM
Seek help, dude.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: The Mikado on December 02, 2011, 12:48:36 PM
I've said many, many dumb things drunk.  I'm not sure if I've ever blamed a politician I didn't like for 9/11, though.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 02, 2011, 01:04:18 PM
I've said many, many dumb things drunk.  I'm not sure if I've ever blamed a politician I didn't like for 9/11, though.

there's a difference between a) saying dumb things when drunk (e.g. "why is face in this toliet bowl"), and b) alcohol bringing out your inner personality


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: opebo on December 02, 2011, 01:41:19 PM
...from my experience, employers serve alcohol at parties only to find out who the real arseholes are in the company and target them for firing - in other words, alcohol doesn't change your personality, alcohol amplifies it.

Surely you are joking here, jmfcst.  Arseholes are precisely the type that companies prefer - your own success in the field of toils is a very handy and apropos example.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 02, 2011, 01:55:50 PM
...from my experience, employers serve alcohol at parties only to find out who the real arseholes are in the company and target them for firing - in other words, alcohol doesn't change your personality, alcohol amplifies it.

Surely you are joking here, jmfcst.  Arseholes are precisely the type that companies prefer - your own success in the field of toils is a very handy and apropos example.

be that as it may, I am smart enough NEVER to drink at business events.  from what I have witnessed, the risks are simply WAY too high.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: opebo on December 02, 2011, 02:02:41 PM
be that as it may, I am smart enough NEVER to drink at business events.  from what I have witnessed, the risks are simply WAY too high.

It is so sad that you have to live in such a frightened fashion, but such is the plight of the working class, jmfcst.

As for myself, I don't drink anyway (beyond a single glass of wine with dinner, or more rarely one cocktail before).


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: minionofmidas on December 02, 2011, 03:38:17 PM
This is what happens when you have a few beers before getting on here. I apologize, folks. I stepped a bit too far with this one.

I applaud you for your honesty, and your general coherence in your post. After "a few beers", most just say "fay GINGRIC?J destoued the nattiooon".
Never happened to me.

The only way you noticed the couple of times I've posted on here really, really, really drunk, is because there's always a post or two somewhere in there admitting to the fact in a non sequitur.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Politico on December 02, 2011, 04:26:26 PM
This is what happens when you have a few beers before getting on here. I apologize, folks. I stepped a bit too far with this one.

actually, from my experience, employers serve alcohol at parties only to find out who the real arseholes are in the company and target them for firing - in other words, alcohol doesn't change your personality, alcohol amplifies it.

So, you can apologize all you want, but now we know how you really think.

There's no question that I really think Gingrich is a bad bet and a horrible character. This has been made abundantly clear. Where I stepped over the line was trying to argue against Gingrich via Lewinsky/911. It was over-the-top.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Politico on December 02, 2011, 04:28:42 PM
I've said many, many dumb things drunk.  I'm not sure if I've ever blamed a politician I didn't like for 9/11, though.

Where did you infer that I blamed 9/11 on Gingrich? Obviously Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack. My ridiculous argument was that perhaps 9/11 could have been prevented if not for the diversion of resources in the Clinton Administration as a result of the string of investigations that Gingrich launched. It is over-the-top and I have apologized. But I am not going to apologize for blaming 9/11 on Gingrich because I did no such thing.


Title: Re: If Gingrich Had Not Wasted Time/Resources on Monica Lewinsky...
Post by: Politico on December 02, 2011, 04:30:23 PM
...from my experience, employers serve alcohol at parties only to find out who the real arseholes are in the company and target them for firing - in other words, alcohol doesn't change your personality, alcohol amplifies it.

Surely you are joking here, jmfcst.  Arseholes are precisely the type that companies prefer - your own success in the field of toils is a very handy and apropos example.

be that as it may, I am smart enough NEVER to drink at business events.  from what I have witnessed, the risks are simply WAY too high.

I agree. Besides, it is much more fun watching your coworkers misbehave while you are straight.


Title: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on December 02, 2011, 04:43:17 PM
Female Voters

How is Gingrich going to be any more competitive than McCain if he cannot win over female voters? Or are we really supposed to believe that Gingrich can improve McCain's female support by 10% or more (i.e., move it from 43% to 47-48%, about a ten percent improvement, which is the the bare minimum needed to beat Obama). Romney is the one who can get the female numbers up there. Unlike Gingrich, Romney has a marital/family background that is squeaky clean and he is an exceptionally handsome individual, especially for his age.

Conclusion: Romney has a higher ceiling

Nobody's Idea of an "Extremist Ideologue" and/or "Dirty"

Furthermore, there are plenty of people who do not support Obama who would not support nor vote for Gingrich, myself included. In fact, I would vote for Obama again if that is the choice. Almost everybody who does not support Obama would support Romney, or at least vote for him. Can you name anybody who does not support Obama who would vote for Obama over Romney? Most importantly, perhaps Romney will unite the nation a bit more by toning down the partisan flames. He is nobody's idea of a "savior," and will just get the job done well and quietly without bells and whistles. That's what we need in Washington, DC, more than anything.

Conclusion: Romney has a higher floor


Title: Re: Why Romney Has a Higher Ceiling and Floor Than Gingrich
Post by: Devils30 on December 02, 2011, 04:46:46 PM
I don't see Gingrich winning the key states. He'll get absolutely destroyed in suburban Philly, DC and South Florida..maybe even worse than McCain in 2008


Title: It's Official: Gingrich Is Friends With Al Gore
Post by: Politico on December 02, 2011, 06:20:44 PM
Al Gore, the Democratic Party presidential nominee in 2000, wanted to know whether Newt Gingrich, the former Republican U.S. House speaker, would appear in a 2008 television ad calling for action to address climate change.

Gingrich, who was promoting his latest book “Contract With the Earth” and urging “green conservatism,” agreed. In an e- mail obtained by Bloomberg News that he wrote to the former vice president, Gingrich thanked Gore “for the opportunity to participate in the Protect Climate ad campaign.” He signed the March 2008 note, “Your friend, Newt.”

Those exchanges led Gingrich, now a Republican presidential candidate, to a chilly, rainy commercial set in April 2008, sitting side-by-side, knee-to-knee on a love seat with then- Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with the cameras rolling.

Gingrich’s primary opponents already are pouncing on the ad as evidence that the former speaker’s record on such core conservative principles as opposing government regulations to curb global warming makes him unsuited for the nomination and less-equipped to defeat President Barack Obama.

While the climate-change ad is the highest-profile bipartisan event Gingrich engaged in between his 1999 retirement from Congress and his presidential campaign, it isn’t the only one. He’s also appeared with marquee Democrats, such as then- Senator Hillary Clinton, in gatherings highlighting health care, global warming and education.

Today, most of Gingrich’s primary competitors deny climate change is happening or that humans have a role in it. Gingrich now says he’s “agnostic” on the issue.

Gingrich’s opponents will have other bipartisan appearances to use as weapons.

A year before his ad with Pelosi, Gingrich teamed with Kerry for a debate on carbon-reduction methods in which Gingrich said, “My message is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere.”

And in 2009, Gingrich appeared with Obama and the Reverend Al Sharpton at the White House to promote changes in education policy, which followed with a Philadelphia appearance on the same issue with Sharpton and Obama’s Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-02/gingrich-accepting-gore-invite-lands-on-love-seat-with-pelosi.html


Title: Re: It's Official: Gingrich Considers Al Gore His Friend
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 02, 2011, 06:22:09 PM
good, Al Gore needs a friend.


Title: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on December 02, 2011, 06:26:04 PM
In 2005, Gingrich appeared with then-Senator Hillary Clinton at an event called “Cease-fire on Health Care” at American University in Washington, where he called for “100 percent coverage,” and a system that involves a “transfer of finances” to help low-income people afford medical insurance.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-02/gingrich-accepting-gore-invite-lands-on-love-seat-with-pelosi.html

Sounds a lot like ObamaCare to me. Mitt Romney recognizes that healthcare is a state issue, not a federal issue. Does Newt Gingrich? Mitt Romney recognizes that there is no one-size-fits-all healthcare policy for every state. Does Newt Gingrich?


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Stardust on December 02, 2011, 06:28:37 PM
You have to understand that economic issues are wholly secondary to the sort of voter who has already thrown in with the Grinch.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 02, 2011, 06:29:38 PM
In 2005, Gingrich appeared with then-Senator Hillary Clinton at an event called “Cease-fire on Health Care” at American University in Washington, where he called for “100 percent coverage,” and a system that involves a “transfer of finances” to help low-income people afford medical insurance.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-02/gingrich-accepting-gore-invite-lands-on-love-seat-with-pelosi.html

Sounds a lot like ObamaCare to me. Mitt Romney recognizes that healthcare is a state issue, not a federal issue. Does Newt Gingrich? Mitt Romney recognizes that there is no one-size-fits-all healthcare policy for every state. Does Newt Gingrich?

yawn...just wake me up when you come to the story detailing Newt sleeping with my wife.


Title: Re: It's Official: Gingrich Considers Al Gore His Friend
Post by: WillK on December 02, 2011, 06:29:54 PM
good, Al GoreGingrich needs a friend.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Yank2133 on December 02, 2011, 06:30:38 PM
I still don't see the point of these Newt threads.


Title: Re: It's Official: Gingrich Considers Al Gore His Friend
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 02, 2011, 06:31:21 PM
So we've found the one issue Gingrich is sorta moderate on.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Politico on December 02, 2011, 06:31:23 PM
In 2005, Gingrich appeared with then-Senator Hillary Clinton at an event called “Cease-fire on Health Care” at American University in Washington, where he called for “100 percent coverage,” and a system that involves a “transfer of finances” to help low-income people afford medical insurance.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-02/gingrich-accepting-gore-invite-lands-on-love-seat-with-pelosi.html

Sounds a lot like ObamaCare to me. Mitt Romney recognizes that healthcare is a state issue, not a federal issue. Does Newt Gingrich? Mitt Romney recognizes that there is no one-size-fits-all healthcare policy for every state. Does Newt Gingrich?

yawn...just wake me up when you come to the story detailing Newt sleeping with my wife.

So the jmfcsts really support ObamaCare? And teaming up with Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore on global warming? Methinks the jmfcsts might want to rethink their support (once again).


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Politico on December 02, 2011, 06:32:15 PM
I still don't see the point of these Newt threads.

Newt essentially coming out in favor of ObamaCare-style federal policy in 2005 is not worthy of discussion now that Gingrich is seemingly relevant?


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Stardust on December 02, 2011, 06:32:27 PM
In 2005, Gingrich appeared with then-Senator Hillary Clinton at an event called “Cease-fire on Health Care” at American University in Washington, where he called for “100 percent coverage,” and a system that involves a “transfer of finances” to help low-income people afford medical insurance.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-02/gingrich-accepting-gore-invite-lands-on-love-seat-with-pelosi.html

Sounds a lot like ObamaCare to me. Mitt Romney recognizes that healthcare is a state issue, not a federal issue. Does Newt Gingrich? Mitt Romney recognizes that there is no one-size-fits-all healthcare policy for every state. Does Newt Gingrich?

yawn...just wake me up when you come to the story detailing Newt sleeping with my wife.

So the jmfcsts really support ObamaCare?

Quite a few of them do; not our resident jmfcst, as he has more money than the usual member of his clan, but many of his brethren love the idea, although they will never admit it.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 02, 2011, 06:36:14 PM
In 2005, Gingrich appeared with then-Senator Hillary Clinton at an event called “Cease-fire on Health Care” at American University in Washington, where he called for “100 percent coverage,” and a system that involves a “transfer of finances” to help low-income people afford medical insurance.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-02/gingrich-accepting-gore-invite-lands-on-love-seat-with-pelosi.html

Sounds a lot like ObamaCare to me. Mitt Romney recognizes that healthcare is a state issue, not a federal issue. Does Newt Gingrich? Mitt Romney recognizes that there is no one-size-fits-all healthcare policy for every state. Does Newt Gingrich?

yawn...just wake me up when you come to the story detailing Newt sleeping with my wife.

So the jmfcsts really support ObamaCare? And teaming up with Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore on global warming? Methinks the jmfcsts might want to rethink their support (once again). Maybe Huntsman or Perry again? Or, god forbid, Romney?
 

Newt is simply an attention whore.  All these photo ops mean nothing.  When the time comes, Newt will be the jmfcsts' bitch in White House just like he was in the House during the 90's.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Politico on December 02, 2011, 06:36:28 PM
I'm just going to say this: Gingrich needs to stop giving Romney a hard time over signing a bill his state wanted. Gingrich lobbied for much more than that, and he did so with Hillary Clinton.

And Gingrich also needs to stop accusing Romney of opportunism. Romney has never looked for photo opportunities with the likes of Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi, or even remotely considered stooping to that level like Gingrich has in the past.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Yank2133 on December 02, 2011, 06:37:07 PM
I still don't see the point of these Newt threads.

Newt essentially coming out in favor of ObamaCare-style federal policy in 2005 is not worthy of discussion now that Gingrich is seemingly relevant?

It is a stupid thread.

Everyone knows about Newt's baggage, you keep starting this Newt thread it just makes you Romney supporters look desperate.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Politico on December 02, 2011, 06:38:01 PM
I still don't see the point of these Newt threads.

Newt essentially coming out in favor of ObamaCare-style federal policy in 2005 is not worthy of discussion now that Gingrich is seemingly relevant?

It is a stupid thread.

Everyone knows about Newt's baggage, you keep starting this Newt thread it just makes you Romney supporters look desperate.

I was not aware of this particular baggage until a few minutes ago. Were you really aware of this 2005 event with Hillary Clinton, and what he was calling for?


Title: Re: It's Official: Gingrich Considers Al Gore His Friend
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 02, 2011, 06:39:40 PM
So we've found the one issue Gingrich is was sorta moderate on.

corrected


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on December 02, 2011, 06:40:02 PM
Politico,

Please put all of your Gingrich rage into one thread. The numerous different threads are annoying.

Sincerely,
Everyone Else


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Yank2133 on December 02, 2011, 06:42:54 PM
I still don't see the point of these Newt threads.

Newt essentially coming out in favor of ObamaCare-style federal policy in 2005 is not worthy of discussion now that Gingrich is seemingly relevant?

It is a stupid thread.

Everyone knows about Newt's baggage, you keep starting this Newt thread it just makes you Romney supporters look desperate.

I was not aware of this particular baggage until a few minutes ago. Were you really aware of this 2005 event with Hillary Clinton, and what he was calling for?

I didn't know about his event with Hillary. But it is irrelevant since he has a history of doing this sort of thing(ex. traveling with Sharpton, photo op with Pelosi.)


Title: Re: It's Official: Gingrich Considers Al Gore His Friend
Post by: Yank2133 on December 02, 2011, 06:44:24 PM
Are the Romney fanboys really that sacred of Newt Gingrich?

Politico's threads just reek of desperation IMO.


Title: Re: It's Official: Gingrich Considers Al Gore His Friend
Post by: Politico on December 02, 2011, 06:45:29 PM

Was this before or after he became enemies with Paul Ryan?


Title: Re: It's Official: Gingrich Is Friends With Al Gore
Post by: Thomas D on December 02, 2011, 06:48:00 PM
George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy would have called each other friend. This is no biggie.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Likely Voter on December 02, 2011, 06:49:23 PM
Politico,

Please put all of your Gingrich rage into one thread. The numerous different threads are annoying.

Sincerely,
Everyone Else
yes, please


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 02, 2011, 06:53:31 PM
Politico, you're a good man -- and I like you.  And you have been loyal to the jmfcsts for years.  I know you have doubts about Newt -- but you need to trust the jmfcsts on this one and show your loyalty by not stepping on the Newt.  Instead, I want you to be fair with Newt and end your relationship with Romney.  I have business that's important with POTUS-Elect Newt -- I don't want it disturbed.

...Look at it this way, Newt simply wants to be a "great man", not a newt...so we're going to give him a chance to be a man, by being, once again, our bitch.



Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: RogueBeaver on December 02, 2011, 07:28:04 PM
Politico,

Please put all of your Gingrich rage into one thread. The numerous different threads are annoying.

Sincerely,
Everyone Else


Title: Re: Why Romney Has a Higher Ceiling and Floor Than Gingrich
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 02, 2011, 08:07:43 PM
I don't see Gingrich winning the key states. He'll get absolutely destroyed in suburban Philly, DC and South Florida..maybe even worse than McCain in 2008

Yes we know that no Republican could possibly win the election and yet lose the District of Columbia. ::)

More seriously, I presume you meant NoVA rather than DC itself.  Yes, Virginia and Pennsylvania look to be swing states, but Florida shouldn't be.  If Florida is seriously in play, it looks to be an excellent night for Obama unless Florida swings considerably less Republican than the country as whole.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Frodo on December 03, 2011, 12:04:55 PM
I wonder if the average Tea Partier will recognize that Newt Gingrich is no different than Mitt Romney in that he is just as craven and ambitious, with no core ideology except of gaining power.

I can easily see Newt falling back to earth within the next couple of weeks -perhaps Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul will offer Tea Partiers a more meaningful alternative?  


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 03, 2011, 12:13:26 PM
I wonder if the average Tea Partier will recognize that Newt Gingrich is no different than Mitt Romney in that he is just as craven and ambitious, with no core ideology except of gaining power.

I can easily see Newt falling back to earth within the next couple of weeks -perhaps Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul will offer Tea Partiers a more meaningful alternative?  

Newt has a proven track record of carrying water for the jmfcsts, Mitt doesn't.  We don't mind nominating a suck-up, we've done it before, but we have to trust that a candidate will carry our water, and we don't trust Mitt.  Period.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Frodo on December 03, 2011, 12:16:35 PM
I wonder if the average Tea Partier will recognize that Newt Gingrich is no different than Mitt Romney in that he is just as craven and ambitious, with no core ideology except of gaining power.

I can easily see Newt falling back to earth within the next couple of weeks -perhaps Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul will offer Tea Partiers a more meaningful alternative?  

Newt has a proven track record of carrying water for the jmfcsts, Mitt doesn't.  We don't mind nominating a suck-up, we've done it before, but we have to trust that a candidate will carry our water, and we don't trust Mitt.  Period.

::)

Why don't you run for President?  Or maybe some lower office in your area?  You certainly have the ego for it. 


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Zarn on December 03, 2011, 12:19:58 PM
Newt was all talk in the 90s. He screwed us over then. What are you talking about?


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Averroës Nix on December 03, 2011, 12:20:49 PM
Does jmfcst's quasi-endorsement of Newt make anyone else more skeptical of the former Speaker's chances?


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Frodo on December 03, 2011, 12:21:16 PM
Newt was all talk in the 90s. He screwed us over then. What are you talking about?

Whom is this directed to, if I may ask?  Jmfcst?


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Zarn on December 03, 2011, 12:57:18 PM
Newt was all talk in the 90s. He screwed us over then. What are you talking about?

Whom is this directed to, if I may ask?  Jmfcst?

Jmfcst.

Apologies to you.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on December 03, 2011, 01:30:34 PM
Aiming for 100% coverage is not what most people have against Obamacare.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Lief 🗽 on December 03, 2011, 01:34:06 PM
If the Republican party opposes everyone in the United States being covered by some sort of health insurance, then they are even crazier than I thought.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 03, 2011, 02:18:11 PM
I still don't see the point of these Newt threads.

Newt essentially coming out in favor of ObamaCare-style federal policy in 2005 is not worthy of discussion now that Gingrich is seemingly relevant?

Wait, you are off by nearly a decade. In the days of Hilliary Care, Newt was applying the example of the formation of AT&T to the health care system. One of principles articulated by the founder of the national phone network Newt mentioned was that it had to be universal.

Of course, universal care is only one part of the analogy. AT&T was a quasi-public regulated monopoly. Apparently, that, too, is Gingrich's vision for health care in America.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 03, 2011, 02:21:33 PM
Aiming for 100% coverage is not what most people have against Obamacare.

Actually, providing even more expansive health care for illegal aliens would be even more of a magnet than the free emergency room care they exploit now.

Even Obama was careful enough to claim that it was a "lie" to say illegals would be included in Obamacare.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Simfan34 on December 03, 2011, 03:17:03 PM
If the Republican party opposes everyone in the United States being covered by some sort of health insurance, then they are even crazier than I thought.

You didn't know this?


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Torie on December 03, 2011, 03:25:15 PM
One can move towards universal coverage, with far fewer freeloaders (that pesky moral hazard thingy), in ways that are considerably different than Obamacare of course, as outlined for example, by yours truly, with a more market based and consumer price sensitive approach.  In addition, in 2005 the US was in considerably better financial shape than now. What can the US afford, and when can it afford it?  

But this should slow Newt down vis a vis hanging Mittens up on a tree over Romneycare. Mittens is going to need to get a bit more specific in outlining just how he approaches this and that differently than Newt, and why.  Hopefully, reducing the body count on stage over time, will give both guys more time for this kind of back and forth.

Also, Newt is not very well positioned to paste the flipper label on Mittens. Heck, Newt flipped on Libya within the same week, from yes do the no fly zone, to no, don't get involved at all, without any real explanation. Newt's arrogance sometimes induces him to mouth off, without adequately pondering matters. That is but one of the reasons I consider him unfit for office and would not be tempted in the slightest to vote for him under any conceivable circumstance. I far prefer the more cautious types.

In a word, this particular old  man, has just come to "know" Newt far too well over the decades. I have not forgotten much of any of it.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on December 03, 2011, 03:39:04 PM
Aiming for 100% coverage is not what most people have against Obamacare.

Actually, providing even more expansive health care for illegal aliens would be even more of a magnet than the free emergency room care they exploit now.

Even Obama was careful enough to claim that it was a "lie" to say illegals would be included in Obamacare.

Obamacare doesn't aim for 100% coverage. The mandate exempts people whose insurance would be too expensive. There will still be hard working people who want health care and won't have it.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 03, 2011, 03:39:14 PM
Gee, man, Romney internet campaign workers are so dull.


Title: Re: Why Romney Has a Higher Ceiling/Floor Than Gingrich
Post by: Politico on December 03, 2011, 05:13:30 PM
Does anybody happen to have a gender breakdown of the voting share by state, and the 2008 exit polls for those states with regards to gender voting patterns (at least the states Obama won and Missouri)?


Title: Re: Why Romney Has a Higher Ceiling and Floor Than Gingrich
Post by: sg0508 on December 03, 2011, 05:19:53 PM
I don't see Gingrich winning the key states. He'll get absolutely destroyed in suburban Philly, DC and South Florida..maybe even worse than McCain in 2008
I'm telling you right now.  Gingrich will lose the suburban vote in America by at least 3:1.  Romney can possibly split it.


Title: Re: Why Romney Has a Higher Ceiling and Floor Than Gingrich
Post by: The_Texas_Libertarian on December 03, 2011, 05:24:17 PM
I don't see Gingrich winning the key states. He'll get absolutely destroyed in suburban Philly, DC and South Florida..maybe even worse than McCain in 2008

Yes we know that no Republican could possibly win the election and yet lose the District of Columbia. ::)

More seriously, I presume you meant NoVA rather than DC itself.  Yes, Virginia and Pennsylvania look to be swing states, but Florida shouldn't be.  If Florida is seriously in play, it looks to be an excellent night for Obama unless Florida swings considerably less Republican than the country as whole.

Or he was talking about the suburbs of D.C. in Virginia, a state that is nearly a must win for the .


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Politico on December 03, 2011, 06:25:34 PM
Politico, you're a good man -- and I like you.  And you have been loyal to the jmfcsts for years.  I know you have doubts about Newt -- but you need to trust the jmfcsts on this one and show your loyalty by not stepping on the Newt.  Instead, I want you to be fair with Newt and end your relationship with Romney.  I have business that's important with POTUS-Elect Newt -- I don't want it disturbed.

...Look at it this way, Newt simply wants to be a "great man", not a newt...so we're going to give him a chance to be a man, by being, once again, our bitch.



Sir, yes, sir! I hope you can forgive the insubordination. It's just that I have it on good authority that the jmfcsts can trust Romney but cannot trust Gingrich. Gingrich is uncontrollable once he gets that nomination. Romney is your bitch if he gets that nomination.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Simfan34 on December 03, 2011, 06:53:48 PM
Let me propose an alternative, and you all know what it is, and the two of you can agree on it.

But seriously, what he said isn't so bad, and Romney can't say anything about it, anyway.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: © tweed on December 03, 2011, 06:55:16 PM

...Look at it this way, Newt simply wants to be a "great man", not a newt...so we're going to give him a chance to be a man, by being, once again, our bitch.

you've actually bought into the whole line of sh**t.  that you have political power.  capital has political power and it has taken Christ along for the ride.  you're a pawn.


Title: Re: Why Romney Has a Higher Ceiling and Floor Than Gingrich
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 03, 2011, 07:20:11 PM
I don't see Gingrich winning the key states. He'll get absolutely destroyed in suburban Philly, DC and South Florida..maybe even worse than McCain in 2008

Yes we know that no Republican could possibly win the election and yet lose the District of Columbia. ::)

More seriously, I presume you meant NoVA rather than DC itself.  Yes, Virginia and Pennsylvania look to be swing states, but Florida shouldn't be.  If Florida is seriously in play, it looks to be an excellent night for Obama unless Florida swings considerably less Republican than the country as whole.

Or he was talking about the suburbs of D.C. in Virginia, a state that is nearly a must win for the .

Which I acknowledged in my reply.


Title: Re: Why Romney Has a Higher Ceiling and Floor Than Gingrich
Post by: The_Texas_Libertarian on December 03, 2011, 07:24:44 PM
I don't see Gingrich winning the key states. He'll get absolutely destroyed in suburban Philly, DC and South Florida..maybe even worse than McCain in 2008

Yes we know that no Republican could possibly win the election and yet lose the District of Columbia. ::)

More seriously, I presume you meant NoVA rather than DC itself.  Yes, Virginia and Pennsylvania look to be swing states, but Florida shouldn't be.  If Florida is seriously in play, it looks to be an excellent night for Obama unless Florida swings considerably less Republican than the country as whole.

Or he was talking about the suburbs of D.C. in Virginia, a state that is nearly a must win for the .

Which I acknowledged in my reply.

But you still felt the need to take a shot at him, so I used it against you.


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 03, 2011, 07:43:44 PM

...Look at it this way, Newt simply wants to be a "great man", not a newt...so we're going to give him a chance to be a man, by being, once again, our bitch.

you've actually bought into the whole line of sh**t.  that you have political power.  capital has political power and it has taken Christ along for the ride.  you're a pawn.

What exactly are you trying to convince me of?  That Romney's, who has all the establishment support and capital, getting killed is a sign capital has more political power than the jmfcsts?


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: Simfan34 on December 03, 2011, 07:45:37 PM

...Look at it this way, Newt simply wants to be a "great man", not a newt...so we're going to give him a chance to be a man, by being, once again, our bitch.

you've actually bought into the whole line of sh**t.  that you have political power.  capital has political power and it has taken Christ along for the ride.  you're a pawn.

What exactly are you trying to convince me of?  That Romney, who has all the establishment support and capital, is getting killed is a sign capital has more political power than the jmfcsts?

Gingrich is a political player, jmfcst. He plays the people, not the other way around. Last time, he kept his play up for five years... can he do it again?


Title: Re: Gingrich Advocated 100% Healthcare Coverage At 2005 Event With Hillary Clinton
Post by: © tweed on December 03, 2011, 07:57:19 PM

...Look at it this way, Newt simply wants to be a "great man", not a newt...so we're going to give him a chance to be a man, by being, once again, our bitch.

you've actually bought into the whole line of sh**t.  that you have political power.  capital has political power and it has taken Christ along for the ride.  you're a pawn.

What exactly are you trying to convince me of?  That Romney's, who has all the establishment support and capital, getting killed is a sign capital has more political power than the jmfcsts?

I'm trying to convince you to renounce Christ and become a Marxist-Leninist, obviously.  as for the rest of that, let us wait and see.  McCain was able to be nominated without the support of capital but eventually fell to the preferred Obama; many rounds are to be fought.


Title: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on December 05, 2011, 02:12:39 AM
How do you win the presidency without being competitive among women voters (53% of the electorate last time)? Let's hear how it is possible. I am, of course, looking at supporters of a certain GOP candidate with John Edwards-style sexual behavior...


Title: Re: How Do You Win Without Getting at Least 47% of 53% of the Electorate?
Post by: Dereich on December 05, 2011, 02:14:44 AM
I thought you were done with the anti-Gingrich threads? And the answer would have to be the popular vote winner over-preforming in uncompetitive states while under-performing in swing states.   


Title: Re: How Do You Win Without Getting at Least 47% of 53% of the Electorate?
Post by: Politico on December 05, 2011, 02:15:50 AM
I thought you were done with the anti-Gingrich threads?

I am. This is an objective question that needs to be adequately answered if one is interested in beating Obama next year.

Quote
And the answer would have to be the popular vote winner over-preforming in uncompetitive states while under-performing in swing states.  

Women were 53% of the electorate in Florida/Iowa/Indiana, 52% in Ohio/Nevada/New Mexico/New Hampshire and 54% in Pennsylvania/North Carolina/Virginia/Missouri. The 50% in Colorado bodes well, of course, but it still begs the question: How in God's name can a candidate with a more sordid sexual history than John Edwards manage to win in these states?


Title: Re: How Do You Win Without Getting at Least 47% of 53% of the Electorate?
Post by: Dereich on December 05, 2011, 02:19:36 AM
I thought you were done with the anti-Gingrich threads?

I am. This is an objective question that needs to be adequately answered if one is interested in beating Obama next year.

What? When you first made this thread, you even included Gingrich's name. Besides, its not this forum you need to tell this to, pretty much all the red and green avatars here agree with you. Probably more then half of the blues too.


Title: Re: How Do You Win Without Getting at Least 47% of 53% of the Electorate?
Post by: RI on December 05, 2011, 02:24:30 AM
In a two-way race, you win 55% of the male vote for a majority (assuming female vote at 46%), but you might be able to get by with 53%-54% of the male vote depending on the exact support of third party candidates. That's how.


Title: Re: How Do You Win Without Getting at Least 47% of 53% of the Electorate?
Post by: Napoleon on December 05, 2011, 02:25:50 AM
Are you talking about Herman Cain or The Frothy One? Oh, I get it, you're attacking Rick Perry for cheating on his wife with men right?


Title: Re: How Do You Win Without Getting at Least 47% of 53% of the Electorate?
Post by: Politico on December 05, 2011, 02:29:26 AM
In a two-way race, you win 55% of the male vote for a majority (assuming female vote at 46%), but you might be able to get by with 53%-54% of the male vote depending on the exact support of third party candidates. That's how.

Theoretically, yes. In practice, Bush managed 55% of the male vote in 2004, and still needed 48% of the female vote to barely win (60,000 vote swing in Ohio and Kerry wins the election). In fact, Bush is the only person in recent history to win the presidency without winning the female vote (and nobody needs a reminder on how close both elections were).


Title: Re: How Do You Win Without Getting at Least 47% of 53% of the Electorate?
Post by: RI on December 05, 2011, 02:33:20 AM
Females also represented 54% of the electorate in 2004. That changes the numbers from what you asked.


Title: Re: How Do You Win Without Getting at Least 47% of 53% of the Electorate?
Post by: Politico on December 05, 2011, 02:39:25 AM
Females also represented 54% of the electorate in 2004. That changes the numbers from what you asked.

We have to consider that all of the polls have a margin of error. The last few election cycles it has been anywhere between 52-54%, so I picked 53% in the original post as it is the average/median.

In any case, how does a candidate with a history of behaving like John Edwards win over 46% of females even? I see those numbers being below 45% but above 40%. I do not see how he gets his numbers up to 46%, let alone 47%, so I do not see how he beats Obama.


Title: Re: How Do You Win Without Getting at Least 47% of 53% of the Electorate?
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on December 05, 2011, 02:55:09 AM
     Gingrich would fail to win 47% of the female vote for reasons largely unrelated to his history with women.


Title: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on December 08, 2011, 02:34:21 PM
In a conference call today, former White House chief of staff John Sununu and ex-senator Jim Talent rapped the former House speaker as "anti-conservative" and "unreliable" as they defended the credentials of their guy, Romney.

"The speaker is running as a reliable and trusted conservative leader, and what we're here to say, with reluctance ... he's not a reliable and trusted conservative leader because he's not a reliable or trustworthy leader," said Talent, a Missouri senator from 2002 to 2007 and former House member.

On the call and in an e-mail, Romney's team hit on Gingrich's comments in the spring calling House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's Medicare plan "right-wing social engineering."

The comment was widely criticized by conservatives as undermining Ryan and nearly derailed Gingrich's campaign just as it began. Gingrich apologized.

Sununu, chief of staff to President George H.W. Bush and an influential voice in New Hampshire politics, says the Gingrich remark was "self-serving."

"For Newt Gingrich, in an effort of self-aggrandizing, to come out and throw a clever phrase that had no other purpose than to try and make himself a little smarter than the conservative Republican leadership, to undercut Paul Ryan is the most self-serving, anti-conservative thing one can imagine happening," Sununu said.

Source: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/12/mitt-romney-newt-gingrich-attacks-john-sununu/1?csp=34news


Title: Discussion of the Values of the GOP Field
Post by: Politico on December 08, 2011, 02:38:55 PM
This thread is for a discussion about the values of the GOP field since the GOP has made values a central part of its plank in recent decades. Feel free to bring up any values subject with regards to the current field. I think it would make sense to start off with marriage and faithfulness since the type of relationship one has with their significant other gives you a pretty good sense of what the candidate is like privately (or at least shows you that somebody can stand the SOB):

Ron Paul - married to the same person for 55 years

Mitt Romney - married to the same person for 42 years

Rick Perry - married to the same person for 40 years

Michele Bachmann - married to the same person for 35 years

Rick Santorum - married to the same person for 32 years

Jon Huntsman - married to the same person for 28 years

Newt Gingrich - married to a third wife who is younger than his daughters


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 08, 2011, 02:39:10 PM
John Sununu, of David Souter infamy, is calling Newt unreliable?!

that's like opebo calling Naso a whore-chaser.


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 08, 2011, 02:42:05 PM
I can't being to tell you what the jmfcsts think of John Sununu's advice...suffice it to say, this is a HUGE boost for Newt


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: RogueBeaver on December 08, 2011, 02:44:20 PM
Right message, wrong messenger.


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: Politico on December 08, 2011, 02:44:47 PM
I can't being to tell you what the jmfcsts think of John Sununu's advice...suffice it to say, this is a HUGE boost for Newt

What about Gingrich's opposition to Ryan? What is wrong with Ryan's plan? Gingrich just wants all of the attention/glory, and cannot stand the idea of there being a brilliant Congressman who came into the House after Gingrich left.


Title: Re: Discussion of the Values of the GOP Field
Post by: greenforest32 on December 08, 2011, 02:44:57 PM
Oh you


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: RogueBeaver on December 08, 2011, 02:55:23 PM
I can't being to tell you what the jmfcsts think of John Sununu's advice...suffice it to say, this is a HUGE boost for Newt

What about Gingrich's opposition to Ryan? What is wrong with Ryan's plan? Gingrich just wants all of the attention/glory, and cannot stand the idea of there being a brilliant Congressman who came into the House after Gingrich left.

Or to paraphrase the Sage of Wasilla, Gingrich retreated while Ryan reloads.


Title: Re: Discussion of the Values of the GOP Field
Post by: Joe Republic on December 08, 2011, 03:00:35 PM
Feel free to bring up any values subject with regards to the current field.

Okay.  Here's the subject of cruelty to animals:


Ron Paul - no known record of animal cruelty

Newt Gingrich - no known record of animal cruelty

Rick Perry - no known record of animal cruelty

Michele Bachmann - no known record of animal cruelty

Rick Santorum - no known record of animal cruelty

Jon Huntsman - no known record of animal cruelty

Mitt Romney - strapped his family dog to a roof rack and drove from Boston to Ontario, pausing to hose the dog down after it crapped itself from the distress


Title: Re: Discussion of the Values of the GOP Field
Post by: Politico on December 08, 2011, 03:05:28 PM
Feel free to bring up any values subject with regards to the current field.

Okay.  Here's the subject of cruelty to animals:


Ron Paul - no known record of animal cruelty

Newt Gingrich - no known record of animal cruelty

Rick Perry - no known record of animal cruelty

Michele Bachmann - no known record of animal cruelty

Rick Santorum - no known record of animal cruelty

Jon Huntsman - no known record of animal cruelty

Mitt Romney - strapped his family dog to a roof rack and drove from Boston to Ontario, pausing to hose the dog down after it crapped itself from the distress

Funny, my dog loves to feel wind blowing into her face as I drive. And a relative of my southern belle still drives his mutts around in the flatbed of his truck (only enough room in the passenger seat for one of them). Can't find a man who loves dogs more than him and I. I did not know all of that constituted animal cruelty these days.


Title: Re: Discussion of the Values of the GOP Field
Post by: Joe Republic on December 08, 2011, 03:22:28 PM
Your misunderstanding of the events aside, that line of attack on Romney is as accurate and politically relevant as yours on Gingrich.


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: CJK on December 08, 2011, 03:22:28 PM
I gotta love how all these Republican insiders, who want to force Romney down our throats and are actually to left of Paul Ryan, are attacking Newt Gingrich, a man who shut down the federal government, as being insufficiently conservative.

Hmm, maybe Newt learned during his speakership that entitlement reform is difficult and openly promising to abolish Medicare is not the best way to win votes.


Title: Re: Discussion of the Values of the GOP Field
Post by: Politico on December 08, 2011, 03:26:02 PM
Your misunderstanding of the events aside, that line of attack on Romney is as accurate and politically relevant as yours on Gingrich.

I have not attacked Gingrich. I have pointed out a basic fact: He is the only one in the race without a history of stability in marriage. Marriage is clearly a values issue among GOP faithful.

Anyway, let's get back to the purpose of this thread: Discussion of the values of the GOP field...


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 08, 2011, 04:42:41 PM
I'm still having trouble believing Mitt is dumb enough to have Sununu craw out from under his rock.

the fear of a repeat of the Bush41/Sununu administration is EXACTLY why the jmfcsts are against Romney...so why roll out Sununu?!

it's as if Mitt doesn't even understand why he never had a path to the nomination to being with...and he's just compounding his problem with this error

the guy is tone deaf


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: Politico on December 08, 2011, 04:47:22 PM
attacking Newt Gingrich, a man who shut down the federal government ...

()

Yeah, that proved to be a real winner in 1996 when Clinton won re-election.


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: Politico on December 08, 2011, 04:48:34 PM
I'm still having trouble believing Mitt is dumb enough to have Sununu craw out from under his rock.

the fear of a repeat of the Bush41/Sununu administration is EXACTLY why the jmfcsts are against Romney...so why roll out Sununu?!

it's as if Mitt doesn't even understand why he never had a path to the nomination to being with...and he's just compounding his problem with this error

the guy is tone deaf

Other than raising taxes, something Romney will never do, Bush 41 wasn't so bad. It certainly beats Bush 43, not to mention eight years of Obama.


Title: Re: Discussion of the Values of the GOP Field
Post by: TomC on December 08, 2011, 05:00:52 PM
Your misunderstanding of the events aside, that line of attack on Romney is as accurate and politically relevant as yours on Gingrich.

I have not attacked Gingrich.

Get real. At least have the 'nads to be honest about what you're doing.


Title: Re: Discussion of the Values of the GOP Field
Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on December 08, 2011, 05:03:53 PM
Didnt Mike Huckabee and his son lynch a dog or something?


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 08, 2011, 05:04:14 PM
I'm still having trouble believing Mitt is dumb enough to have Sununu craw out from under his rock.

the fear of a repeat of the Bush41/Sununu administration is EXACTLY why the jmfcsts are against Romney...so why roll out Sununu?!

it's as if Mitt doesn't even understand why he never had a path to the nomination to being with...and he's just compounding his problem with this error

the guy is tone deaf

Other than raising taxes, something Romney will never do, Bush 41 wasn't so bad. It certainly beats Bush 43, not to mention eight years of Obama.

yeah, Souter has been the pride and joy of the jmfcsts


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: Politico on December 08, 2011, 05:06:21 PM
I'm still having trouble believing Mitt is dumb enough to have Sununu craw out from under his rock.

the fear of a repeat of the Bush41/Sununu administration is EXACTLY why the jmfcsts are against Romney...so why roll out Sununu?!

it's as if Mitt doesn't even understand why he never had a path to the nomination to being with...and he's just compounding his problem with this error

the guy is tone deaf

Other than raising taxes, something Romney will never do, Bush 41 wasn't so bad. It certainly beats Bush 43, not to mention eight years of Obama.

yeah, Souter has been the pride and joy of the jmfcsts

What did you expect after the Bork fiasco? Souter was a necessary compromise. Kennedy would not have had it any other way in 1990. While the timing of his retirement is unforgivable, along with some of his votes, we cannot blame Bush 41 and Sununu for unforeseeable events...


Title: Re: Discussion of the Values of the GOP Field
Post by: TomC on December 08, 2011, 05:14:39 PM
Didnt Mike Huckabee and his son lynch a dog or something?

Is Huckabee running? Cool- someone with a personality.


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 08, 2011, 05:25:02 PM
What did you expect after the Bork fiasco? Souter was a necessary compromise. Kennedy would not have had it any other way in 1990. While the timing of his retirement is unforgivable, along with some of his votes, we cannot blame Bush 41 and Sununu for unforeseeable events...

yeah, I blame B41/Sununu for Souter...100% I do.

they could have went with a known entity like they did with Thomas  - both were nominated in 1990, with Souter being picked and confirmed first.

Nixon/Reagan/Bush wasted most of their SCOTUS appointments.  Bush43 is the ONLY one who passed the SCOTUS test.



Title: Re: Discussion of the Values of the GOP Field
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 08, 2011, 05:29:29 PM
None of them have any values, other than a desire for power. They're all dead-eyed sociopaths who'd murder their own grandparents if it meant an easier path to the top. Except, I suppose, for Ron Paul, who is merely a crazy crypto-fascist with a sexual attraction to gold.


Title: Re: Discussion of the Values of the GOP Field
Post by: minionofmidas on December 08, 2011, 05:31:07 PM
None of them have any values, other than a desire for power. They're all dead-eyed sociopaths who'd murder their own grandparents if it meant an easier path to the top.
Don't you think at least some of them have actually done so already? :P


Title: Re: Discussion of the Values of the GOP Field
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 08, 2011, 05:33:12 PM
None of them have any values, other than a desire for power. They're all dead-eyed sociopaths who'd murder their own grandparents if it meant an easier path to the top.
Don't you think at least some of them have actually done so already? :P

I've always been especially suspicious of Gingrich (the 'ch' pronounced as in Welsh, German, Etc.) and Rhymney on that score.


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: CJK on December 08, 2011, 05:42:19 PM
attacking Newt Gingrich, a man who shut down the federal government ...

()

Yeah, that proved to be a real winner in 1996 when Clinton won re-election.

Why don't you quote the entire sentence instead of taking my words out of context?

I said

Quote
I gotta love how all these Republican insiders, who want to force Romney down our throats and are actually to left of Paul Ryan, are attacking Newt Gingrich, a man who shut down the federal government, as being insufficiently conservative.

At no point did I claim that Gingrich handled it well. I was commenting on the insane assertion that he is less reliable than Romney, who was running away from Reagan and embracing gay and abortion rights at roughly the same time Newt was aggressively confronting Bill Clinton.


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 08, 2011, 10:36:24 PM
What did you expect after the Bork fiasco? Souter was a necessary compromise. Kennedy would not have had it any other way in 1990. While the timing of his retirement is unforgivable, along with some of his votes, we cannot blame Bush 41 and Sununu for unforeseeable events...

yeah, I blame B41/Sununu for Souter...100% I do.

they could have went with a known entity like they did with Thomas  - both were nominated in 1990, with Souter being picked and confirmed first.

Nixon/Reagan/Bush wasted most of their SCOTUS appointments.  Bush43 is the ONLY one who passed the SCOTUS test.

While failing others, in some ways even more than his father. It's funny how the demand for perfectionism only pertains to one side of the political ledger.


Title: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on December 09, 2011, 06:18:18 AM
Excerpts with the bold for personal emphasis (I was not aware of these facts about Gingrich):

Let me start with something important. I have two goals for 2012:

I want to prevent the European debt crisis from consuming America next.

I want to elect a president who will defend the ideas of constitutional conservatism and limited government.

I believe Romney’s candidacy is well-established. He’s a moderate, northeastern, don’t-rock-the-boat Republican, and I think everyone in the party clearly understands that.

But what worries me is that the voters are being sold a bill of goods in Gingrich.

Gingrich began his career as a Rockefeller Republican from the liberal wing of the party. And though he has often spoken and occasionally acted like he left that wing, it is clear from his flip-flops and multiple “apologies” that his heart is still there.

His record features “highlights” such as global warming commercials with Nancy Pelosi, support for cap-and-trade, funding Planned Parenthood, and, recently, announcing that life does not begin at conception.

Not only that, but Gingrich took money as a Freddie Mac lobbyist — one of the well-known government-backed agencies that served as a root cause of the financial meltdown of 2008.

While one candidate in the race, my father, Rep. Ron Paul, was publicly warning about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the crisis they were helping to create, Gingrich was earning millions to not only endorse but also promote the status quo.

One group of Gingrich’s also took in nearly $40 million promoting big-government ideas, such as the individual mandate.

His lobbying and promotion of the housing crisis and the health care mandate have helped to make him a wealthy man, but they have also put him outside the conservative mainstream on most issues.

While in Washington, Gingrich also refused to stand up on right-to-work laws and Second Amendment battles. He supported the Brady Bill and the Lautenberg rifle ban. He voted to create the U.S. Department of Education.

Gingrich will tell how he helped balance the budget and voted for President Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts. So did many Democrats. Those two acts do not excuse the long and exhaustive list of things where Gingrich or other big-government politicians have gone against the principles of the conservative movement both in and out of Congress.

My concerns aren’t limited to the distant past.

In the race that helped launch tea party electoral activism in 2009, Gingrich earned the ire of conservatives nationwide for his endorsement of the liberal establishment Republican in a New York congressional race, just as the conservative, Doug Hoffman, was set to win. Gingrich returned to his Rockefeller liberal roots to support the candidate who favored abortion, and who was anti-right-to-work, anti-gun, and anti-family values.

Once Gingrich’s endorsed liberal Republican candidate realized she had no chance of winning, she chose to endorse the Democrat in the race instead of the conservative, Hoffman.

So much for Gingrich’s desire to put political party over principle. In the end, both lost.

This list could go on. So I will conclude by saying two things: Gingrich is not from the tea party. He is not even a conservative.

He is part of the Washington establishment I was sent to fight. He has been wrong on many of the major issues of the day, and he has taken money from those who helped cause the housing crisis and create millions of foreclosures.

What establishment politicians like Gingrich don’t understand is that the Republican Party wins when it stands up for what it believes in, as many of my new colleagues did in 2010.

We also win when we effectively run against big government. We cannot do that if we nominate a candidate who has both embraced it and been enriched by it.

We have a choice to make in a few weeks. If the tea party is to continue the work we resolved in 2010 to undertake, then we must not make a giant leap backward by electing big government, status quo Republicans like Gingrich in 2012.

Source: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111209/OPINION01/312090025/-1/gallery_array/Rand-Paul-Republicans-would-take-giant-step-backward-by-choosing-Gingrich

So let me get this straight: Newt Gingrich was Ted Kennedy's ally in passing the the Brady Bill, the Lautenberg rifle ban, and the creation of the Department of Education. It begs the question: Was it during these big government buddy-buddy sessions with Ted Kennedy and his ilk that Newt Gingrich picked up his philandering habit?

Here is another video of Rand Paul joking about Gingrich having more positions than wives (From back in March!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62j93NbLL7U


Title: Gingrich's Gay Half-Sister Opposes His Candidacy
Post by: Politico on December 09, 2011, 08:18:39 AM
The Newt Train is beginning to look more and more like the circus train (How soon before it derails?):

The gay half-sister of Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich slammed his position on gay rights on Wednesday and said she will support President Barack Obama, a Democrat, in the 2012 election.

Gingrich is known for his socially conservative views and has said he opposes gay marriage. Gingrich-Jones, a director at the Humans Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group, said he did not attend her wedding.

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-gingrichtre7b70b4-20111207,0,6539803.story


Title: Re: Gingrich's Gay Half-Sister Opposes His Candidacy
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 09, 2011, 08:40:27 AM
ROFL


Title: Re: Gingrich's Gay Half-Sister Opposes His Candidacy
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on December 09, 2011, 08:46:02 AM
The Newt Train is beginning to look more and more like the circus train (How soon before it derails?):

The gay half-sister of Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich slammed his position on gay rights on Wednesday and said she will support President Barack Obama, a Democrat, in the 2012 election.

Gingrich is known for his socially conservative views and has said he opposes gay marriage. Gingrich-Jones, a director at the Humans Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group, said he did not attend her wedding.

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-gingrichtre7b70b4-20111207,0,6539803.story

Please knock off the phony assertions.  Gingrich does NOT has "socially conservative views"!!!  Yes, right now he is sort of pretending to have such views, but his acting job on this matter is even phonier than Romney's.



Title: Re: Gingrich's Gay Half-Sister Opposes His Candidacy
Post by: Politico on December 09, 2011, 09:05:37 AM
The Newt Train is beginning to look more and more like the circus train (How soon before it derails?):

The gay half-sister of Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich slammed his position on gay rights on Wednesday and said she will support President Barack Obama, a Democrat, in the 2012 election.

Gingrich is known for his socially conservative views and has said he opposes gay marriage. Gingrich-Jones, a director at the Humans Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group, said he did not attend her wedding.

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-gingrichtre7b70b4-20111207,0,6539803.story

Please knock off the phony assertions.  Gingrich does NOT has "socially conservative views"!!!  Yes, right now he is sort of pretending to have such views, but his acting job on this matter is even phonier than Romney's.



I could not agree more that Gingrich is a phony's phony, and his family life is something from the Jerry Springer Show.

Thank you for pointing out all of this. I can only start off with so much these days...

This is quickly becoming an embarrassment for the Republican Party beyond what I expected. It looks like the jmfcsts are going to need to come around to Romney or embrace Huntsman. I can live with either decision by the kingmakers.


Title: Re: Gingrich's Gay Half-Sister Opposes His Candidacy
Post by: Holmes on December 09, 2011, 09:11:31 AM
lol, he didn't attend his sister's wedding. Family issues. How sad.


Title: Re: Gingrich's Gay Half-Sister Opposes His Candidacy
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 09, 2011, 09:14:52 AM


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: RogueBeaver on December 09, 2011, 10:05:51 AM
Team Romney is already running with this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vma5oLGmbe0&feature=g-all


Title: Re: Gingrich's Gay Half-Sister Opposes His Candidacy
Post by: © tweed on December 09, 2011, 10:57:55 AM
maybe she'll be holding a joint Obama campaign event with Giuliani's daughter


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: Averroës Nix on December 09, 2011, 11:28:50 AM
First, this seems like a strange issue for Romney to pick up on. Didn't Republicans choose to stop talking about the Ryan plan because it terrifies seniors?

Second, I don't think that Romney has ever seemed more unlikable than he has over the past two weeks, and the overblown attack ads haven't helped. Will Romney will blow the nomination through the mistakes of his own campaign?


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: RogueBeaver on December 09, 2011, 12:23:49 PM
It isn't strange to pick up on the one issue where Romney has been on Gingrich's right for a while now. As to the second point, how's it overblown? There's no exaggeration in that spot.



Title: Re: Gingrich's Gay Half-Sister Opposes His Candidacy
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 09, 2011, 12:29:49 PM
I saw her on Rachel Maddow. The last name is actually pronounced Ging-rick (it only started sounding more like -rich when Newt moved from Pennsylvania to Georgia).


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: Averroës Nix on December 09, 2011, 12:57:42 PM
It isn't strange to pick up on the one issue where Romney has been on Gingrich's right for a while now. As to the second point, how's it overblown? There's no exaggeration in that spot.

1. First, Romney is marginally to the right of Gingrich on immigration. Second, Gingrich said something dumb and quickly backtracked from it. To my knowledge, his current position isn't any less conservative than Romney's. Regardless, I don't think that there are many substantive differences of opinion on policy between Gingrich and Romney. (In fact, one of the interesting feature's of Newt's rise is that he's managed to do so on a platform that is so similar to Romney's.)


2. Most attack ads are overblown; that's how they work. In this case, the use of music alone is enough to merit that label. More importantly, the purpose of the ad is to bring up the most embarassing moment of the Gingrich campaign, despite the fact that it happened over six months ago and without mentioning that Gingrich has retreated from and apologized for the remarks he made on Meet the Press.  Also, consider this statement from the conference call:

Quote from: John Sununu
For Newt Gingrich, in an effort of self-aggrandizing, to come out and throw a clever phrase that had no other purpose than to try and make himself a little smarter than the conservative Republican leadership, to undercut Paul Ryan is the most self-serving, anti-conservative thing one can imagine happening.


Title: Re: Tea Party Senator Rand Paul in Des Moines Register: Gingrich is Big Government
Post by: Zarn on December 09, 2011, 02:00:12 PM
Yeah, I wonder what Paul thinks about Romney.

Not much...


Title: Re: Tea Party Senator Rand Paul in Des Moines Register: Gingrich is Big Government
Post by: Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P! on December 09, 2011, 03:12:13 PM
THIS JUST IN: POLITICO ENDORSES RON PAUL


Title: Re: Tea Party Senator Rand Paul in Des Moines Register: Gingrich is Big Government
Post by: Bull Moose Base on December 09, 2011, 03:20:44 PM
For everyone's enjoyment, I have put back the part of the speech you cut out.  It's in blue!

Excerpts with the bold for personal emphasis (I was not aware of these facts about Gingrich):

Let me start with something important. I have two goals for 2012:

I want to prevent the European debt crisis from consuming America next.

I want to elect a president who will defend the ideas of constitutional conservatism and limited government.

Unfortunately, while all Republican candidates would be an improvement over the present administration, two of the current frontrunners simply do not represent the tea party, the conservative movement, or the type of change our country desperately needs in 2012.

Let me begin with the most obvious reasons:

Both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich supported the outrageous $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, bailouts — “one of the most unpopular government programs in American history,” even according to President Obama’s own Treasury Department.

Both Romney and Gingrich have been outspoken and unapologetic supporters of the individual mandate. This is the heart and soul of ObamaCare.

Since the tea party started as a reaction to Republicans who voted for TARP, and was strengthened into a national political force during the fight over ObamaCare, I believe this disqualifies both Romney and Gingrich from tea party support.

Not only that, but because the single biggest tasks of our next president will be to right our economy and undo President Obama’s signature health care scheme, can we really afford to nominate a candidate who doesn’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to critical issues such as TARP and ObamaCare?

Moving past both those issues, however,

 I believe Romney’s candidacy is well-established. He’s a moderate, northeastern, don’t-rock-the-boat Republican, and I think everyone in the party clearly understands that.

But what worries me is that the voters are being sold a bill of goods in Gingrich.

Gingrich began his career as a Rockefeller Republican from the liberal wing of the party. And though he has often spoken and occasionally acted like he left that wing, it is clear from his flip-flops and multiple “apologies” that his heart is still there.

His record features “highlights” such as global warming commercials with Nancy Pelosi, support for cap-and-trade, funding Planned Parenthood, and, recently, announcing that life does not begin at conception.

Not only that, but Gingrich took money as a Freddie Mac lobbyist — one of the well-known government-backed agencies that served as a root cause of the financial meltdown of 2008.

While one candidate in the race, my father, Rep. Ron Paul, was publicly warning about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the crisis they were helping to create, Gingrich was earning millions to not only endorse but also promote the status quo.

One group of Gingrich’s also took in nearly $40 million promoting big-government ideas, such as the individual mandate.

His lobbying and promotion of the housing crisis and the health care mandate have helped to make him a wealthy man, but they have also put him outside the conservative mainstream on most issues.

While in Washington, Gingrich also refused to stand up on right-to-work laws and Second Amendment battles. He supported the Brady Bill and the Lautenberg rifle ban. He voted to create the U.S. Department of Education.

Gingrich will tell how he helped balance the budget and voted for President Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts. So did many Democrats. Those two acts do not excuse the long and exhaustive list of things where Gingrich or other big-government politicians have gone against the principles of the conservative movement both in and out of Congress.

My concerns aren’t limited to the distant past.

In the race that helped launch tea party electoral activism in 2009, Gingrich earned the ire of conservatives nationwide for his endorsement of the liberal establishment Republican in a New York congressional race, just as the conservative, Doug Hoffman, was set to win. Gingrich returned to his Rockefeller liberal roots to support the candidate who favored abortion, and who was anti-right-to-work, anti-gun, and anti-family values.

Once Gingrich’s endorsed liberal Republican candidate realized she had no chance of winning, she chose to endorse the Democrat in the race instead of the conservative, Hoffman.

So much for Gingrich’s desire to put political party over principle. In the end, both lost.

This list could go on. So I will conclude by saying two things: Gingrich is not from the tea party. He is not even a conservative.

He is part of the Washington establishment I was sent to fight. He has been wrong on many of the major issues of the day, and he has taken money from those who helped cause the housing crisis and create millions of foreclosures.

What establishment politicians like Gingrich don’t understand is that the Republican Party wins when it stands up for what it believes in, as many of my new colleagues did in 2010.

We also win when we effectively run against big government. We cannot do that if we nominate a candidate who has both embraced it and been enriched by it.

We have a choice to make in a few weeks. If the tea party is to continue the work we resolved in 2010 to undertake, then we must not make a giant leap backward by electing big government, status quo Republicans like Gingrich in 2012.

Source: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111209/OPINION01/312090025/-1/gallery_array/Rand-Paul-Republicans-would-take-giant-step-backward-by-choosing-Gingrich

So let me get this straight: Newt Gingrich was Ted Kennedy's ally in passing the the Brady Bill, the Lautenberg rifle ban, and the creation of the Department of Education. It begs the question: Was it during these big government buddy-buddy sessions with Ted Kennedy and his ilk that Newt Gingrich picked up his philandering habit?

Here is another video of Rand Paul joking about Gingrich having more positions than wives (From back in March!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62j93NbLL7U


Title: Re: Tea Party Senator Rand Paul in Des Moines Register: Gingrich is Big Government
Post by: memphis on December 09, 2011, 03:25:03 PM
Not like Rand's dad is in the race or anything.  In any case, the Pauls are not representative of the rank and file Tea Partiers, who are just conservatives with a new name. The Pauls are like wormyguy and Tweed, perpetually dissatisfied with the status quo, no matter what.


Title: Re: Gingrich's Gay Half-Sister Opposes His Candidacy
Post by: California8429 on December 09, 2011, 06:34:52 PM
You guys haven't seen this? I know this a year ago. She did say that she likes Callista because she makes him more sensible and less harsh/throwing less red meat because of Callista.


Title: Re: Tea Party Senator Rand Paul in Des Moines Register: Gingrich is Big Government
Post by: Zarn on December 10, 2011, 12:01:56 AM
Not like Rand's dad is in the race or anything.  In any case, the Pauls are not representative of the rank and file Tea Partiers, who are just conservatives with a new name. The Pauls are like wormyguy and Tweed, perpetually dissatisfied with the status quo, no matter what.

I'm dissatisfied with this post.


Title: Re: Tea Party Senator Rand Paul in Des Moines Register: Gingrich is Big Government
Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on December 10, 2011, 12:41:09 AM
Not like Rand's dad is in the race or anything.  In any case, the Pauls are not representative of the rank and file Tea Partiers, who are just conservatives with a new name. The Pauls are like wormyguy and Tweed, perpetually dissatisfied with the status quo, no matter what.

I'm dissatisfied with this post.


Title: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: Politico on December 10, 2011, 05:05:24 AM
Or how about the colonization of the moon? Because guess what: Newt Gingrich supports these Big Government initiatives...

Excerpts from David Brooks' latest editorial:

Gingrich loves government more than I do. He has no Hayekian modesty to restrain his faith in statist endeavor. For example, he has called for “a massive new program to build a permanent lunar colony to exploit the Moon’s resources.” He has suggested that “a mirror system in space could provide the light equivalent of many full moons so that there would be no need for nighttime lighting of the highways.”

I’m for national greatness conservatism, but this is a little too great.

Furthermore, he has an unconservative faith in his own innocence. The crossroads where government meets enterprise can be an exciting crossroads. It can also be a corrupt crossroads. It requires moral rectitude to separate public service from private gain. Gingrich was perfectly content to belly up to the Freddie Mac trough and then invent a Hamiltonian rationale to justify his own greed.

Then there is his rhetorical style. He seems to have understood that a moderate Republican like himself can win so long as he adopts a bombastic style when taking on the liberal elites. Most people just want somebody who can articulate their hatreds, and Gingrich is demagogically happy to play the role.

Most important, there is temperament and character.

In the two main Republican contenders, we have one man, Romney, who seems to have walked straight out of the 1950s, and another, Gingrich, who seems to have walked straight out of the 1960s. He has every negative character trait that conservatives associate with ’60s excess: narcissism, self-righteousness, self-indulgence and intemperance. He just has those traits in Republican form.

As nearly everyone who has ever worked with him knows, he would severely damage conservatism and the Republican Party if nominated. He would severely damage the Hamilton-Theodore Roosevelt strain in American life.

It’s really too bad. We could have had a great debate about the progressive-conservative tradition. President Obama is now embracing Roosevelt. Gingrich has tried to modernize this tendency.

But how you believe something is as important as what you believe. It doesn’t matter if a person shares your overall philosophy. If that person doesn’t have the right temperament and character, stay away.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/brooks-the-gingrich-tragedy.html?_r=2&hp


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: © tweed on December 10, 2011, 05:09:52 AM
quoting from the NYT only serves to make the jmfcsts point for them


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on December 10, 2011, 05:25:28 AM
David Brooks and George Will do NOT speak for GOP voters... they speak for the establishment. They are Ivy League big city elitists


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: Politico on December 10, 2011, 05:29:02 AM
David Brooks and George Will do NOT speak for GOP voters... they speak for the establishment. They are Ivy League big city elitists

Absolutely, but do you want your taxes going towards mirrors in outer-space and colonization of the moon? Because David Brooks and George Will did not force Newt Gingrich to support those policy objectives. I mean, for crying out loud, this is infinitely more outrageous than George W. Bush's version of Big Government. I fail to see how somebody can support Gingrich and call themselves a supporter of smaller government.


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: Politico on December 10, 2011, 05:29:47 AM
quoting from the NYT only serves to make the jmfcsts point for them

I done goofed. But hopefully they will remain focused upon the absurdity of Gingrich's proposals for outerspace. I mean, I am a bigger supporter of NASA than most people, but putting mirrors into outerspace to light highways and colonizing the moon are absurd, costly projects. There are better ways to use our limited resources.

Obama must be laughing his ass off at the prospect of cruising to re-election against Space Cadet Gingrich.


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on December 10, 2011, 05:38:30 AM
Point to me where he has proposed these as laws or proposed bills... he is a thinker, he puts ideas forward, and thinks forthe future

It's not like Mitt who has implemented some crazy ideas


Title: Which Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: Politico on December 10, 2011, 05:38:58 AM
Feel free to add any other suggestions. In the meantime, here is a tribute video for Gingrich:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wugY6HNLOCo


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: Politico on December 10, 2011, 05:46:26 AM
Point to me where he has proposed these as laws or proposed bills... he is a thinker, he puts ideas forward, and thinks forthe future

It's not like Mitt who has implemented some crazy ideas

It's all over the web. I could not believe it when I first heard. It's almost as damaging as Al Gore's "I Invented the Internet." Rumor has it that a video is going to surface that is going to make Gingrich look about as serious as this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wugY6HNLOCo


Title: Re: Which Big Government Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 10, 2011, 05:52:15 AM
Option 3 is certainly the most disgusting one.


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on December 10, 2011, 05:55:14 AM
Point to me where he has proposed these as laws or proposed bills... he is a thinker, he puts ideas forward, and thinks forthe future

It's not like Mitt who has implemented some crazy ideas

It's all over the web. I could not believe it when I first heard. It's almost as damaging as Al Gore's "I Invented the Internet." Rumor has it that a video is going to surface that is going to make Gingrich look about as serious as this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wugY6HNLOCo

First of all...I would vote for that guy int he video!

Second- Gingrich never sponsored a bill, was just talking about techonology that is possible from what I understand. Compare that to Romneycare- which by the way I do NOT think is THAT bad - in the eyes of most GOP voters


Title: Re: Which Big Government Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: Middle-aged Europe on December 10, 2011, 06:01:53 AM
How is the repeal of child labor laws "big government" exactly?

Doesn't make sense.


Title: Re: Which Big Government Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: Politico on December 10, 2011, 06:19:19 AM
How is the repeal of child labor laws "big government" exactly?

Doesn't make sense.

Fixed. I started the subject of the thread before deciding upon the choices. The repeal of the child labor laws was an after-thought thrown in for good measure. I am, of course, shocked by Gingrich's Space Cadet proposals, as disgusting as the other proposal is (which is old news compared to the Major Tom stuff).


Title: Re: Which Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: morgieb on December 10, 2011, 06:43:04 AM
The first 2 are silly, the 3rd one is vile.


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: Zarn on December 10, 2011, 10:21:59 AM
Point to me where he has proposed these as laws or proposed bills... he is a thinker, he puts ideas forward, and thinks forthe future

It's not like Mitt who has implemented some crazy ideas

It's all over the web. I could not believe it when I first heard. It's almost as damaging as Al Gore's "I Invented the Internet." Rumor has it that a video is going to surface that is going to make Gingrich look about as serious as this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wugY6HNLOCo

First of all...I would vote for that guy int he video!

Second- Gingrich never sponsored a bill, was just talking about techonology that is possible from what I understand. Compare that to Romneycare- which by the way I do NOT think is THAT bad - in the eyes of most GOP voters

A government program like that would cost a massive amount of money, whether it was an idea or an actual bill. He wasn't pushing the private sector on this one.


Title: Re: Which Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: Zarn on December 10, 2011, 10:29:07 AM
The first 2 are sillymassively expensive, the 3rd one is vile.


Title: Re: Which Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on December 10, 2011, 10:31:06 AM


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: Simfan34 on December 10, 2011, 10:39:46 AM
I would support these proposals.


Title: Re: Which Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: Roemerista on December 10, 2011, 10:40:29 AM
What is so absurd about having students take part in the school? I would think that it would be the duty of the students to clean as a lesson in character, and not even pay them. We have loads  of already useless character development aspects of ed, why not something that gives students a reason not to vandalize things, and an incentive for peers to punish those who do?


Title: Re: Which Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: TJ in Oregon on December 10, 2011, 10:50:05 AM
Seriously folks? Colonizing the moon?!?!? How can #2 not be the most absurd?


Title: Re: Which Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 10, 2011, 11:09:22 AM
Seriously folks? Colonizing the moon?!?!? How can #2 not be the most absurd?

I don't know about you, but I'd rather colonize the moon than reinstating child labor.


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: Iosif on December 10, 2011, 11:17:53 AM
When does this start becoming spam?


Title: Re: Which Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: Torie on December 10, 2011, 11:19:11 AM
Newt's idea to legalize the residency of a host of illegals, but not make it legal for them to earn a living with a green card strikes me as right up there in the nutter category. But yes, there is just so much to choose from. :P


Title: Re: Which Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on December 10, 2011, 11:27:29 AM
Seriously folks? Colonizing the moon?!?!? How can #2 not be the most absurd?

I don't know about you, but I'd rather colonize the moon than reinstating child labor.

I agree.  Lunar Colonization is very absurd and it ranks a close second in my polling, but child labor is just that, child labor.  That reminds me too much of sweatshops.  I don't want our schools to become sweatshops.  It is true that our children need to learn housekeeping, but they're main focus at school should be to learn tools that will get them quite far in life.  Housekeeping can only take them so far.  They should be learning such at the home doing chores, not in school taking time out of their day.  Now, I will say, that if a child spills something on the floor they should be required to clean it up as best they can, but shouldn't be required to clean the hallways or the bathrooms that they did not dirty up.


Title: Re: Which Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: Politico on December 10, 2011, 11:36:20 AM
Never
Enough
Wacky
Thoughts
2012


Title: Re: Tea Party Senator Rand Paul in Des Moines Register: Gingrich is Big Government
Post by: Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P! on December 10, 2011, 11:36:41 AM
Not like Rand's dad is in the race or anything.  In any case, the Pauls are not representative of the rank and file Tea Partiers, who are just conservatives with a new name. The Pauls are like wormyguy and Tweed, perpetually dissatisfied with the status quo, no matter what.

I'm dissatisfied with this post.


Title: Re: Tea Party Senator Rand Paul in Des Moines Register: Gingrich is Big Government
Post by: TJ in Oregon on December 10, 2011, 11:39:40 AM
Newt's quote about when life begins is has one sentence in it that really irritates me:

Quote from: Newt Gingrich
I think that if you take a position when a woman has fertilized egg and that’s been successfully implanted that now you’re dealing with life, because otherwise you’re going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions.

It's as if he thinks our metric for determining the answers to these questions ought to depend not on what actually happens but insted on the political expediency of it.


Title: Re: Which Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 10, 2011, 11:48:33 AM
The various forms of amnesty he has proposed. In particular, his attempt to "Newter" the e-verification system by making it optional.


Title: Re: Tea Party Senator Rand Paul in Des Moines Register: Gingrich is Big Government
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 10, 2011, 11:54:11 AM
Yeah, I wonder what Paul thinks about Romney.

"I believe Romney’s candidacy is well-established. He’s a moderate, northeastern, don’t-rock-the-boat Republican, and I think everyone in the party clearly understands that."




Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 10, 2011, 12:02:46 PM
Or how about the colonization of the moon? Because guess what: Newt Gingrich supports these Big Government initiatives...

Excerpts from David Brooks' latest editorial:

Gingrich loves government more than I do. He has no Hayekian modesty to restrain his faith in statist endeavor. For example, he has called for “a massive new program to build a permanent lunar colony to exploit the Moon’s resources.” He has suggested that “a mirror system in space could provide the light equivalent of many full moons so that there would be no need for nighttime lighting of the highways.”

I’m for national greatness conservatism, but this is a little too great.

Furthermore, he has an unconservative faith in his own innocence. The crossroads where government meets enterprise can be an exciting crossroads. It can also be a corrupt crossroads. It requires moral rectitude to separate public service from private gain. Gingrich was perfectly content to belly up to the Freddie Mac trough and then invent a Hamiltonian rationale to justify his own greed.

Then there is his rhetorical style. He seems to have understood that a moderate Republican like himself can win so long as he adopts a bombastic style when taking on the liberal elites. Most people just want somebody who can articulate their hatreds, and Gingrich is demagogically happy to play the role.

Most important, there is temperament and character.

In the two main Republican contenders, we have one man, Romney, who seems to have walked straight out of the 1950s, and another, Gingrich, who seems to have walked straight out of the 1960s. He has every negative character trait that conservatives associate with ’60s excess: narcissism, self-righteousness, self-indulgence and intemperance. He just has those traits in Republican form.

As nearly everyone who has ever worked with him knows, he would severely damage conservatism and the Republican Party if nominated. He would severely damage the Hamilton-Theodore Roosevelt strain in American life.

It’s really too bad. We could have had a great debate about the progressive-conservative tradition. President Obama is now embracing Roosevelt. Gingrich has tried to modernize this tendency.

But how you believe something is as important as what you believe. It doesn’t matter if a person shares your overall philosophy. If that person doesn’t have the right temperament and character, stay away.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/brooks-the-gingrich-tragedy.html?_r=2&hp

The notion that David Brooks could be a spokesman for "conservatism," let alone "national greatness conservatism" is so absurd that only the NYT could take it seriously. I do not.


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 10, 2011, 12:07:48 PM
quoting from the NYT only serves to make the jmfcsts point for them

True enough. Gingrich should not receive the nomination because he is a moderate. That said, pretending that David Brooks is in an any way conservative, or that the NYT should take seriously as a source of political journalism is not the way to do it.


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: Peeperkorn on December 10, 2011, 12:19:43 PM
Politico, are you an agent provocateur trying that the jmcfdjhsgts hate Romney even more?


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: Zarn on December 10, 2011, 12:47:19 PM
quoting from the NYT only serves to make the jmfcsts point for them

True enough. Gingrich should not receive the nomination because he is a moderate. That said, pretending that David Brooks is in an any way conservative, or that the NYT should take seriously as a source of political journalism is not the way to do it.


Someone said he was conservative?


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: Minnesota Mike on December 10, 2011, 01:28:31 PM
How many anti Gingrich threads do we need?  We get the point already.



Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: Penelope on December 10, 2011, 01:35:40 PM
Those programs sound pretty awesome actually.


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: RogueBeaver on December 10, 2011, 01:44:34 PM
How many anti Gingrich threads do we need?  We get the point already.




Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on December 10, 2011, 02:03:06 PM
How would this damage the "Hamilton-Theodore Roosevelt strain of the nation"? Yes, this scheme does seem Hamiltonian. But how would this damage said "strain" of the nation? Does such a strain exist? What is it? Some of what this article says is kind of weird. "Obama is trying to be Roosevelt. Gingrich is modernizing that". Just a simple couple of sentences, but they don't make sense to me. Strange and interesting article. Gives me a couple ideas...


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: Yelnoc on December 10, 2011, 02:06:18 PM
Mr. Morden, could you combine all of these threads into one, Mega "Gingrich Attack Articles by Politico" thread?  This is becoming spam.


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on December 10, 2011, 02:06:51 PM
Mr. Morden, could you combine all of these threads into one, Mega "Gingrich Attack Articles by Politico" thread?  This is becoming spam.

^^^^

This.


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on December 10, 2011, 02:08:48 PM
BRTD:Music::Politico:Gingrich


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on December 10, 2011, 02:13:40 PM
Those programs sound pretty awesome actually.


Title: Re: Tea Party Senator Rand Paul in Des Moines Register: Gingrich is Big Government
Post by: memphis on December 10, 2011, 02:21:02 PM
Not like Rand's dad is in the race or anything.  In any case, the Pauls are not representative of the rank and file Tea Partiers, who are just conservatives with a new name. The Pauls are like wormyguy and Tweed, perpetually dissatisfied with the status quo, no matter what.

I'm dissatisfied with this post.
Truth hurts sometimes.


Title: Re: Tea Party Senator Rand Paul in Des Moines Register: Gingrich is Big Government
Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on December 10, 2011, 02:32:20 PM
From what I know, Scozzafava was actually generally pro-gun.


Title: Re: Tea Party Senator Rand Paul in Des Moines Register: Gingrich is Big Government
Post by: Averroës Nix on December 10, 2011, 02:40:39 PM
From what I know, Scozzafava was actually generally pro-gun.

Yes, emphatically so. No one could get elected in her assembly district (in which I lived) without being adamantly pro-gun rights. In fact, the NRA endorsed her over Hoffman.


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on December 10, 2011, 02:42:08 PM
Mr. Morden, could you combine all of these threads into one, Mega "Gingrich Attack Articles by Politico" thread?  This is becoming spam.

^^^^

This.



Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 10, 2011, 02:49:27 PM
quoting from the NYT only serves to make the jmfcsts point for them

True enough. Gingrich should not receive the nomination because he is a moderate. That said, pretending that David Brooks is in an any way conservative, or that the NYT should take seriously as a source of political journalism is not the way to do it.


Someone said he was conservative?

David Brooks: "I’m for national greatness conservatism."


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: Averroës Nix on December 10, 2011, 02:49:45 PM
Romney supporters [i.e. Politico]: Are you comfortable supporting a candidate whose favorite book is L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth?


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 10, 2011, 04:29:09 PM
While space mirrors lighting our highways is a bit impractical, largely because there are good reasons to have darkness most places at night, the idea of orbital solar energy satellites is a fairly standard trope of science fiction, and working to develop such things would certainly be a better use of the NASA budget than the useless boondoggle known as the International Space Station.  From an economic point of view, the main hurdle to such a system is the cost to lift the satellites into orbit.  If we ever do reach the point where it becomes desirable to engage in mega-engineering in space, it would be less costly to build a lunar base that would then build and launch the satellites from Luna than to build them directly from Terra.


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: RI on December 10, 2011, 04:32:13 PM

This. This thread makes me support Gingrich a little bit more than before. :)


Title: Re: Which Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 10, 2011, 04:34:29 PM
Number 1 is the most absurd, but only because if we were to build space mirrors to collect solar energy for use, highway lighting directly from the mirrors is one of the more inefficient ways to make use of them, plus it would lead to widespread light pollution.


Title: Re: Which Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on December 10, 2011, 04:54:49 PM
Well, these are two kinds of absurd. 1 and 2 are probably the product of several hours of illegal drug use, and 3 is just horrible.


Title: Re: Which Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: Mr. Morden on December 10, 2011, 04:56:33 PM
Seriously folks? Colonizing the moon?!?!? How can #2 not be the most absurd?

I don't know about you, but I'd rather colonize the moon than reinstating child labor.

I'd like to colonize the moon with child laborers.  We could put them to work making mirrors to illuminate our streets.  That way, if any secular atheists tried to drive up to Ground Zero to build a mosque, we'd be able to catch them, and any plans they have to impose sharia law would wither on the vine.

Of course, I'd only sign onto this plan if I can go to the Moon myself to inspect the work of the child laborers.  But only if I can ride there in Moon Force One, in the front of the rocket, and we can take off from the Greek cruise ship I'll be on, where I'm doing some work for Freddie Mac as a historian, and yelling at reporters who ask me debate questions.

Yeah, that's the plan.  Call it a "Contract with the Moon".  What do you think?  Is this going to work or does it involve too much right wing social engineering?  As long as it isn't guided by a Kenyan anti-colonial worldview, I think we're OK.  Hopefully, this plan will preclude Bob Livingston from going after my job, or my having to pay any $300,000 fines for ethics violations.




Title: Re: Which Initiative Pushed by Gingrich is Most Absurd?
Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on December 10, 2011, 05:15:37 PM
Colonizing the Moon is fun! As for child labor laws, while I'm not in favor of American sweat shops and such, I shall play devil's advocate as usual. For one, it seems people automatically freak and assume that without child labor laws, kids would automatically be forced into said sweat shops. Two, they have prevented kidds from engaging in the marvelous art of capitalism, something I am still restrained from, though not by law as of the moment.


Title: Re: Tea Party Senator Rand Paul in Des Moines Register: Gingrich is Big Government
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on December 10, 2011, 08:33:47 PM
Not like Rand's dad is in the race or anything.  In any case, the Pauls are not representative of the rank and file Tea Partiers, who are just conservatives with a new name. The Pauls are like wormyguy and Tweed, perpetually dissatisfied with the status quo, no matter what.

I'm dissatisfied with this post.


Title: Re: Tea Party Senator Rand Paul in Des Moines Register: Gingrich is Big Government
Post by: Meeker on December 10, 2011, 08:44:06 PM
Gee, I wonder what motivation Rand Paul could possibly have for wanting to tear down Newt Gingrich.


Title: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on December 10, 2011, 11:51:17 PM
It is pretty simple: A man with a wife who is younger than his daughters is not the leader of the party of values. A man who cheats on not one wife, but two wives, is not the leader of the party of values. A man who is fined $300,000 for ethics violations is not the leader of the party of values.

Mark my words: If Gingrich is the nominee, the GOP will lose over 40 states next year in the worst Republican setback since 1964, and the Democrats will regain control of Congress. Yes, it will be THAT bad because only Gingrich can actually revile people enough for enough folks to buy into the Do-Nothing Congress schtick that Obama will successfully push against Gingrich and Co. The worst part: Taxes will be raised to levels not seen since the 1970s upon everybody who thought it was a good idea to nominate Newt Gingrich. And America will look a lot like Europe by the end of the decade. But at least Newt Gingrich will get in a few potshots at Obama, right? That will make it all worth it, right?


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Roemerista on December 10, 2011, 11:52:16 PM
Someone didn't like how the debate went to night I see...


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: © tweed on December 10, 2011, 11:53:51 PM
reminds me of the moment at an Easter Party in 2001 when watching Duke-Maryland in the Final Four that I blurted out "it's been a great game no matter who wins."  my friend's father then said "so David's admitting that Duke is going to win."


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Yank2133 on December 10, 2011, 11:55:37 PM
Politico is at stage two of the Kubler-Ross' Five Stages of Grief.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Politico on December 10, 2011, 11:59:34 PM
I am not saying Gingrich is going to win, but he may win. I admit there is a chance. But I will bet $10,000 on this: If Gingrich does win, people are not going to get what they want. In fact, they're going to deeply regret enabling the return of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. If you thought the original was bad, just wait until you get the sequel. They will shove a tax hike right down your throat immediately in February 2013. And it will ultimately be brought to you by Newt Gingrich's epic loss.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: LastVoter on December 11, 2011, 12:11:05 AM
What are the "values" that you speak?


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: tmthforu94 on December 11, 2011, 12:12:54 AM
When pitching my case for Romney and against Gingrich to friends and family, I often say this. How can we call ourselves the party of family values when we nominate a candidate who's had multiple affairs and had ethics charge brought against them.

Considering how big Santorum is on family, I'm surprised he hasn't launched an all-out attack on Gingrich. Probably campaigning for a VP slot.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Likely Voter on December 11, 2011, 12:16:47 AM
It appears that Politico has moved onto the fourth stage of grief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model#Stages)...depression


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: RI on December 11, 2011, 12:17:10 AM
Stop being a sore loser.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Simfan34 on December 11, 2011, 12:18:28 AM
He's right, you know.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Politico on December 11, 2011, 12:26:14 AM
Someone didn't like how the debate went to night I see...

Ever notice how Democrats, on television or in the streets or even on here, are pretty much quiet about Gingrich? They cannot believe the GOP is even considering nominating him. They could be not be more delighted by the prospect. It's not only a path towards getting Obama re-elected, but getting Nancy Pelosi back in charge of the House of Representatives. Get ready for a massive tax hike! But at least Newt will get in a few jabs at Obama. That should make it all worthwhile, right?


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Bull Moose Base on December 11, 2011, 12:30:33 AM
No longer?


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Frodo on December 11, 2011, 12:31:18 AM
1972 (with Obama as Nixon, and the Newt as McGovern), here we go.....   


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Averroës Nix on December 11, 2011, 12:45:16 AM
Ever notice how Democrats, on television or in the streets or even on here, are pretty much quiet about Gingrich?

No, both Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi have made highly-covered comments about Gingrich.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Politico on December 11, 2011, 12:46:23 AM
Ever notice how Democrats, on television or in the streets or even on here, are pretty much quiet about Gingrich?

No, both Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi have made highly-covered comments about Gingrich.

Higher powers shut them up about it rather quickly, and I don't blame them one bit.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Averroës Nix on December 11, 2011, 12:47:43 AM
Ever notice how Democrats, on television or in the streets or even on here, are pretty much quiet about Gingrich?

No, both Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi have made highly-covered comments about Gingrich.

Higher powers shut them up about it rather quickly, and I don't blame them one bit.

"Higher powers"?


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Politico on December 11, 2011, 12:54:02 AM
Ever notice how Democrats, on television or in the streets or even on here, are pretty much quiet about Gingrich?

No, both Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi have made highly-covered comments about Gingrich.

Higher powers shut them up about it rather quickly, and I don't blame them one bit.

"Higher powers"?

Team Obama, of course. Nothing nefarious/conspiratorial.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Bacon King on December 11, 2011, 12:56:56 AM
Isn't forgiveness a pretty big Christian value?



Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Zarn on December 11, 2011, 01:07:25 AM
It's surprising how many people support this guy.

If I was more pro-military intervention everywhere, my guy would be Santorum not Gingrich. At least go with someone genuine.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on December 11, 2011, 01:33:31 AM
Isn't forgiveness a pretty big Christian value?



Last I checked it is. But I'm not supporting Newt on policy grounds. Not moral ones.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on December 11, 2011, 09:10:47 AM
Isn't it about time Politico got quarantined into his own Neal Patel-style thread for all his anti-Gingrich rants?


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: memphis on December 11, 2011, 09:32:23 AM
How on Earth has the GOP ever been the Party of Values? I suppose we all value different things in life, but Newtie was their Speaker of the House. He didn't just fall out of the sky several months ago to run for President.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Middle-aged Europe on December 11, 2011, 10:55:22 AM
It is pretty simple: A man with a wife who is younger than his daughters is not the leader of the party of values.

Still, he doesn't break the half-plus-seven rule.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: © tweed on December 11, 2011, 11:06:10 AM
It is pretty simple: A man with a wife who is younger than his daughters is not the leader of the party of values.

Still, he doesn't break the half-plus-seven rule.

well, when they were married Gingrich was about 57 and Callista was about 34; (57/2)+7 = 35.5.  would have been invalid in BRTDland.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Middle-aged Europe on December 11, 2011, 11:08:47 AM
It is pretty simple: A man with a wife who is younger than his daughters is not the leader of the party of values.

Still, he doesn't break the half-plus-seven rule.

well, when they were married Gingrich was about 57 and Callista was about 34; (57/2)+7 = 35.5.  would have been invalid in BRTDland.

Dammit.

It's interesting to note though that Gingrich's first wife broke the half-plus-seven rule herself. She was 26, he was 19. Then again, the rule probably doesn't apply to women anyway. :P


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: © tweed on December 11, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
It is pretty simple: A man with a wife who is younger than his daughters is not the leader of the party of values.

Still, he doesn't break the half-plus-seven rule.

well, when they were married Gingrich was about 57 and Callista was about 34; (57/2)+7 = 35.5.  would have been invalid in BRTDland.

Dammit.

It's interesting to note though that Gingrich's first wife broke the half-plus-seven rule herself. She was 26, he was 19. Then again, the rule probably doesn't apply to women anyway. :P

the BRTD rule has a 'cougar clause' that allows for heterosexual marriages in which the women are older.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Zarn on December 11, 2011, 02:09:03 PM
How on Earth has the GOP ever been the Party of Values? I suppose we all value different things in life, but Newtie was their Speaker of the House. He didn't just fall out of the sky several months ago to run for President.

I guess you never heard of abolitionists?


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Stranger in a strange land on December 11, 2011, 02:21:57 PM
The scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, and Larry Craig exposed the campaign line that Republicans are the "party of values" for the raging hypocrisy it is. Gingrich is perhaps the biggest hypocrite of them all, impeaching Bill Clinton for having an affair with an intern while he himself was carrying on an affair.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 11, 2011, 04:35:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc_LIR5ExIU&feature=related


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: sg0508 on December 11, 2011, 06:49:46 PM
What defines moral values anyhow? I bet no two people will define it alike.  Also, since when is the GOP the party of values? The party is a laughingstock based upon its platforms.

Then again, Newt got what he wanted with the GOP revolution post 1994.  Careful what you wish for.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Valu
Post by: TomC on December 11, 2011, 08:32:21 PM
Why is it that I detest Gingrich, want Romney to win the nomination, yet these threads annoy the crap out of me?


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: memphis on December 11, 2011, 09:04:11 PM
How on Earth has the GOP ever been the Party of Values? I suppose we all value different things in life, but Newtie was their Speaker of the House. He didn't just fall out of the sky several months ago to run for President.

I guess you never heard of abolitionists?
The original GOP was a free soil party, not an abolitionist party. Real abolitionists wouldn't be caught dead in any major party. And no major party would want them.  But yes, the GOP was better a long long time ago when it was the more progressive party. But, alas, that was a very very long time ago. You got me on the "ever." Touché.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on December 11, 2011, 11:55:54 PM
Mooooooooooo


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: Free Palestine on December 11, 2011, 11:57:42 PM
I look forward to the day the GOP stops being the "party of values."  I also look forward to the day when the Democratic Party does the same.

However, America will always be moralfriend country.


Title: The Second Choice of Supporters of the Current Anti-Romney is...
Post by: Politico on December 12, 2011, 06:32:44 PM
...Romney. In other words, there are no more potential anti-Romneys after Gingrich. One slip by Gingrich, and this is going to end early.

"And while another round of NBC-Marist polling data shows Gingrich with double-digit leads in South Carolina and Florida, there is a large silver lining for Romney: More than half of Gingrich’s supporters in both states picked the former Massachusetts governor as their second-choice pick."

Source: http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/12/9389121-first-read-shades-of-hillary-in-late-07


Title: Re: The Second Choice of Supporters of the Current Anti-Romney is...
Post by: Lief 🗽 on December 12, 2011, 06:34:49 PM
cool thread bro


Title: Re: The Second Choice of Supporters of the Current Anti-Romney is...
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on December 12, 2011, 06:35:58 PM


Title: Re: The Second Choice of Supporters of the Current Anti-Romney is...
Post by: Politico on December 12, 2011, 06:37:24 PM
Hardy-har. I know it may look like I am grasping, but this is significant.


Title: Re: The Second Choice of Supporters of the Current Anti-Romney is...
Post by: Reginald on December 12, 2011, 06:45:49 PM
So in the event Gingrich doesn't implode, you'll at least be comforted by the fact that Mitt came just that close?


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Bacon King on December 13, 2011, 01:04:50 AM
Here we go. Every Politico thread from the last two weeks, all in one convenient location! Politico, post your new threads here, unless they have nothing to do with Romney and/or Gingrich. Also, feel free to change the thread title if you want.

(PROTIP: if you're reading back through this thread, and get confused, just look at the subject of each post to see which thread it was posted in)


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 13, 2011, 02:46:37 AM
Jim, "We learned from Reagan not that amnesty doesn't work, but, you can't call it amnesty" Talent and John Sununu are hardly representative of "conservatism."

In a conference call today, former White House chief of staff John Sununu and ex-senator Jim Talent rapped the former House speaker as "anti-conservative" and "unreliable" as they defended the credentials of their guy, Romney.

"The speaker is running as a reliable and trusted conservative leader, and what we're here to say, with reluctance ... he's not a reliable and trusted conservative leader because he's not a reliable or trustworthy leader," said Talent, a Missouri senator from 2002 to 2007 and former House member.

On the call and in an e-mail, Romney's team hit on Gingrich's comments in the spring calling House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's Medicare plan "right-wing social engineering."

The comment was widely criticized by conservatives as undermining Ryan and nearly derailed Gingrich's campaign just as it began. Gingrich apologized.

Sununu, chief of staff to President George H.W. Bush and an influential voice in New Hampshire politics, says the Gingrich remark was "self-serving."

"For Newt Gingrich, in an effort of self-aggrandizing, to come out and throw a clever phrase that had no other purpose than to try and make himself a little smarter than the conservative Republican leadership, to undercut Paul Ryan is the most self-serving, anti-conservative thing one can imagine happening," Sununu said.

Source: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/12/mitt-romney-newt-gingrich-attacks-john-sununu/1?csp=34news


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 13, 2011, 02:50:31 AM
I'm still having trouble believing Mitt is dumb enough to have Sununu craw out from under his rock.

the fear of a repeat of the Bush41/Sununu administration is EXACTLY why the jmfcsts are against Romney...so why roll out Sununu?!

it's as if Mitt doesn't even understand why he never had a path to the nomination to being with...and he's just compounding his problem with this error

the guy is tone deaf

I'm 100% against Gingrich, and jmfcst is 100% right about this.


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 13, 2011, 02:57:38 AM
I'm still having trouble believing Mitt is dumb enough to have Sununu craw out from under his rock.

the fear of a repeat of the Bush41/Sununu administration is EXACTLY why the jmfcsts are against Romney...so why roll out Sununu?!

it's as if Mitt doesn't even understand why he never had a path to the nomination to being with...and he's just compounding his problem with this error

the guy is tone deaf

Other than raising taxes, something Romney will never do, Bush 41 wasn't so bad. It certainly beats Bush 43, not to mention eight years of Obama.

Let me get this straight.

Cheating on your most solemn vow to the electorate doesn't show a disqualifying lack of character, but, cheating on your spouse does?

Forchristsake man don't you remember David Souter!


Title: Re: Sununu: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Will Be Great Team; Gingrich Unreliable
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 13, 2011, 03:00:54 AM
I'm still having trouble believing Mitt is dumb enough to have Sununu craw out from under his rock.

the fear of a repeat of the Bush41/Sununu administration is EXACTLY why the jmfcsts are against Romney...so why roll out Sununu?!

it's as if Mitt doesn't even understand why he never had a path to the nomination to being with...and he's just compounding his problem with this error

the guy is tone deaf

Other than raising taxes, something Romney will never do, Bush 41 wasn't so bad. It certainly beats Bush 43, not to mention eight years of Obama.

yeah, Souter has been the pride and joy of the jmfcsts

What did you expect after the Bork fiasco? Souter was a necessary compromise. Kennedy would not have had it any other way in 1990. While the timing of his retirement is unforgivable, along with some of his votes, we cannot blame Bush 41 and Sununu for unforeseeable events...

Um, Bush 41 used his appointment of David Souter as example of why he believed that he had been unfair criticized for trying to pack the courts with conservative ideologues.

Can we blame him for being unapologetic about appointing Souter?


Title: Re: Gingrich's Gay Half-Sister Opposes His Candidacy
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 13, 2011, 03:07:37 AM
I saw her on Rachel Maddow. The last name is actually pronounced Ging-rick (it only started sounding more like -rich when Newt moved from Pennsylvania to Georgia).

That's a funny way of saying that Newt pronounces his last name "Ging-rich" not "Ging-rick."

We could go on at length about how "Murkowski" is really pronounced "Mur koff ski," but, that would serve absolutely no purpose. People Anglicize the pronunciation of their names all the time.


Title: Re: Gingrich Supporters: Do You Want Your Taxes Paying for Mirrors in Space?
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 13, 2011, 03:15:40 AM
While space mirrors lighting our highways is a bit impractical, largely because there are good reasons to have darkness most places at night, the idea of orbital solar energy satellites is a fairly standard trope of science fiction, and working to develop such things would certainly be a better use of the NASA budget than the useless boondoggle known as the International Space Station.  From an economic point of view, the main hurdle to such a system is the cost to lift the satellites into orbit.  If we ever do reach the point where it becomes desirable to engage in mega-engineering in space, it would be less costly to build a lunar base that would then build and launch the satellites from Luna than to build them directly from Terra.

Correct, the luna idea is absurdly expensive, while the terra idea is orders of magnitude even more costly.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 13, 2011, 03:17:03 AM
I am not saying Gingrich is going to win, but he may win. I admit there is a chance. But I will bet $10,000 on this: If Gingrich does win, people are not going to get what they want. In fact, they're going to deeply regret enabling the return of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. If you thought the original was bad, just wait until you get the sequel. They will shove a tax hike right down your throat immediately in February 2013. And it will ultimately be brought to you by Newt Gingrich's epic loss.

The same could be said of Newt Romney, err, Mitt Romney.


Title: Re: Gingrich May Win, But If He Does the GOP Will No Longer Be the Party of Values
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 13, 2011, 03:17:56 AM
The scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, and Larry Craig exposed the campaign line that Republicans are the "party of values" for the raging hypocrisy it is. Gingrich is perhaps the biggest hypocrite of them all, impeaching Bill Clinton for having an affair with an intern while he himself was carrying on an affair.

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, not adultery.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Colbert on December 13, 2011, 07:29:28 AM
Quote
:     Which is the most absurd objective proposed by Newt Gingrich?
Putting mirrors in outerspace to light highways
Colonizing the moon for resources such as moon rocks
Repealing child labor laws so children can spend time in school being janitors rather than learning


answer : ALL OF THEM


(and btw, gingrich 1) have a ridiculous surname "newt"... 2) have a unprononciable name "gingrich"... 3) have a ugly face with is microscopic nose )


for parodiate trey parker and matt stone "I hate conservative, but I really ing hate liberals and VERY really ing hate neocons'"


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 13, 2011, 07:43:12 AM
(PROTIP: if you're reading back through this thread

I think we can safely say that this is unlikely to be a major problem.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on December 13, 2011, 11:00:36 AM
Folks, you cannot make this up: The Gingrich Doodles:

http://www.slate.com/slideshows/news_and_politics/gingrichs-doodles.html

Look at those doodles and tell me that man belongs anywhere near the White House...


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Jacobtm on December 13, 2011, 11:14:21 AM
Folks, you cannot make this up: The Gingrich Doodles:

http://www.slate.com/slideshows/news_and_politics/gingrichs-doodles.html

Look at those doodles and tell me that man belongs anywhere near the White House...

His incessant focus on ''civilizing america'' and being a leader of ''civilizing forces'' reminds me of his, what was it, his thesis on how colonialism in the Congo was beneficial to the people of the Congo?

And his solutions to our lack of ''civilization'' is child labor...


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 13, 2011, 11:34:31 AM
O
R
G
A
S
M
I
C


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Yelnoc on December 13, 2011, 11:57:37 AM
I luv u 4evar, Bacon!


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Bacon King on December 13, 2011, 01:00:55 PM
Folks, you cannot make this up: The Gingrich Doodles:

http://www.slate.com/slideshows/news_and_politics/gingrichs-doodles.html

Look at those doodles and tell me that man belongs anywhere near the White House...

Oh, God. I think my favorite one is "NEWT ACTION"


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on December 13, 2011, 01:17:16 PM
Here is his latest doodle:

()


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: © tweed on December 13, 2011, 01:49:40 PM
Folks, you cannot make this up: The Gingrich Doodles:

http://www.slate.com/slideshows/news_and_politics/gingrichs-doodles.html

Look at those doodles and tell me that man belongs anywhere near the White House...

this is Gold


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 13, 2011, 03:02:35 PM
(PROTIP: if you're reading back through this thread

I think we can safely say that this is unlikely to be a major problem.

Considering Bob went back through the threads after they were merged to make replies to 8 different posts, it would seem that Bob does not put safety first.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Yelnoc on December 13, 2011, 04:31:55 PM
Folks, you cannot make this up: The Gingrich Doodles:

http://www.slate.com/slideshows/news_and_politics/gingrichs-doodles.html

Look at those doodles and tell me that man belongs anywhere near the White House...

Quote from: Doodle 3
1. Articulate the vision of civilizing humanity and recivilizing all Americans (TASK 1)

LMFAO


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 13, 2011, 04:58:11 PM
Thank you BK.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Simfan34 on December 13, 2011, 05:14:43 PM
I'm officially allying with Politico against Ron Paul.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: The Mikado on December 13, 2011, 06:13:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bob-cehwZGM


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: greenforest32 on December 13, 2011, 06:17:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bob-cehwZGM

B-b-but Reagan!


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Gustaf on December 13, 2011, 06:19:42 PM
I love the doodles. They look like the kind of stuff psychologists would study to evaluate someone locked up in an asylum.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: The Mikado on December 13, 2011, 06:23:48 PM
Ron Paul's new ads about Gingrich are pretty stunning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRdqGKA782A  (Watch this)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY

Ron Paul's ad guys are good.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Oakvale on December 13, 2011, 06:33:31 PM
Those Gingrich doodles are like the ramblings of a serial killer that the FBI would find in an isolated cabin.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P! on December 13, 2011, 06:43:21 PM
Those Gingrich doodles are like the ramblings of a serial killer that the FBI would find in an isolated cabin.

I'd sure like to meet a serial killer who can impersonate such a wide variety of TV talking heads with such accuracy.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Lief 🗽 on December 13, 2011, 06:46:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bob-cehwZGM

awesome. (though he is of course correct)


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Foucaulf on December 13, 2011, 06:48:44 PM
Read through the entire thread.

Much have I travelled in the realms of gold,
And many sickly states and kingdoms seen;
Round many ethereal islands have I been
Which bards in fealty to Romney hold.
Oft of one wide expanse had I been told
That deep-browed Gingrich ruled as his demesne;
Yet did I never breathe this unserene
Till I heard Politico speak out bold:
Then felt I like some reader of the Times
When a new candidate swims into his ken;
Or like Pawlenty when with eagle eyes
He stared at the caucus — and all his big names
Looked at each other with a wild surmise —
Silent, atop a tractor in Ames.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Mr. Morden on December 14, 2011, 01:30:26 AM
Reading the subheds on this succession of Iraq columns by Gingrich is a hoot:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/newt-gingrich-on-iraq-a-timeline-of-questionable-judgment/249904/


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Mr. Morden on December 14, 2011, 06:35:11 PM
Gingrich fed tigers on national TV back in the 1990s:

()

Do you really want his finger on the button?


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: © tweed on December 14, 2011, 08:16:18 PM
doodles prove his current obesity is something he is both aware of and wishes were not true.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on December 14, 2011, 09:06:14 PM
Ron Paul's new ads about Gingrich are pretty stunning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRdqGKA782A  (Watch this)


This is probably the best ad of the cycle thus far. If this gets heavy rotation in Iowa right before the caucuses, even just a condensed variant of it, Gingrich is in big trouble. I really like the soundtrack of it, too. Anybody know if it is original?


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: tmthforu94 on December 14, 2011, 09:57:29 PM
More and more bits and pieces are surfacing about Gingrich's past, and he'll probably keep apologizing and saying he's made mistakes. So if Barack Obama stood up tomorrow and said "You know what, I've made some mistakes during my Presidency, and I'm sorry for those. Will you please support my Presidential candidate?" Under Newt's logic, everyone should just forgive him and give him another term.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: tmthforu94 on December 14, 2011, 10:41:37 PM
An excellent article about Gingrich:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2011/1214/Gingrich-s-tax-plan-takes-him-from-irresponsible-to-reckless

Cain 2.0


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: RogueBeaver on December 14, 2011, 11:20:05 PM
An excellent article about Gingrich:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2011/1214/Gingrich-s-tax-plan-takes-him-from-irresponsible-to-reckless

Cain 2.0

You're using Robert Reich? In a GOP primary? IMO the most devastating critique of Gingrich is from David Brooks essentially saying Gingrich is even to his left.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: greenforest32 on December 17, 2011, 02:36:42 AM
Pivotal endorsement for Newt: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/carl-paladino-for-newt-107795.html


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: redcommander on December 17, 2011, 02:38:19 AM
Pivotal endorsement for Newt: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/carl-paladino-for-newt-107795.html

My reaction :P


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: tmthforu94 on December 17, 2011, 06:21:29 PM
We all were saying a week or two ago when Newt shot up that it wasn't over, that Romney was still going to win, and by the way things are starting to look, I think we're going to be right. :)


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 17, 2011, 07:05:20 PM
We all were saying a week or two ago when Newt shot up that it wasn't over, that Romney was still going to win, and by the way things are starting to look, I think we're going to be right. :)

If so, then Obama likely gets a second term.

I will grant that Romney as the nominee should secure the GOP taking control of the Senate and retaining the House, but unless something unexpected happens, I don't see where Mitt can overtake Obama.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Torie on December 17, 2011, 07:09:11 PM
Quote
I don't see where Mitt can overtake Obama.

Have you seen an optometrist lately?  :)


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: The Mikado on December 17, 2011, 07:52:17 PM
Yeah, Romney as nominee pretty much guarantees a highly competitive general.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: tmthforu94 on December 17, 2011, 08:22:35 PM
I'm not going to sit here and say Romney's going to be the next President - Obama has at least a 45% against him right now. But Romney is the only GOP candidate who would have a competitive race against Obama if the economy is roughly the same. Just like any other candidate, he'd probably lose if we had an economic boom (though not as badly). However, if the economy gets worse, Romney would have a pretty solid chance of winning the White House. If economic conditions decline with any other GOP candidate, this race goes from lean-Obama to toss-up.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 17, 2011, 09:54:21 PM
Quote
I don't see where Mitt can overtake Obama.

Have you seen an optometrist lately?  :)

Have you taken a good look at the polls?  Based on current polling, Obama has a solid win in the electoral college versus Romney.  Mitt is not a good enough campaigner to change those numbers on his own, and frankly the Republican "optimism" that if the economy goes in the toilet so does Obama's chances of reelection strikes me as wildly optimistic.  In order for the economy to feel significantly worse than it does now will require a European collapse or some other comparable external shock. If you think a multi-millionaire ex-CEO of a private equity firm with a reputation of getting its acquisitions to be profitable by laying-off employees is the ideal candidate for the Republicans to field in such a situation, then I think you are quite mistaken.

If Romney does become the nominee, I expect the general election against Obama to much more resemble his 1994 loss to Kennedy than his 2002 plurality victory over O'Brien.  O'Brien was hobbled by having to exhaust her early fundraising to win the primary, so she was unable to respond to Romney's attack ads as effectively as she wanted.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 17, 2011, 09:57:07 PM
I'm not going to sit here and say Romney's going to be the next President - Obama has at least a 45% against him right now. But Romney is the only GOP candidate who would have a competitive race against Obama if the economy is roughly the same. Just like any other candidate, he'd probably lose if we had an economic boom (though not as badly). However, if the economy gets worse, Romney would have a pretty solid chance of winning the White House. If economic conditions decline with any other GOP candidate, this race goes from lean-Obama to toss-up.

If Mitt Romney is the GOP's only real hope in 2012, then, for the first time, I'm really sorry for this party.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Torie on December 17, 2011, 09:58:20 PM
OK Ernest, no problem. I evaluate the candidates, and how they will perform against Obama, not so much on current polls, but how I think they will hold up, and what the defection rate will be, and so forth. Romney imo is an even money bet against Obama, maybe a tad better, unless the economy materially improves. Other than Huntsman, I don't think that of the other candidates. I think they are all losers. Granted I would not myself vote for any of them over Obama (the other candidates), but that is just me.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: tmthforu94 on December 17, 2011, 09:59:43 PM
Romney has lead or tied Obama in Ohio, led in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Maine and Connecticut are somewhat close with Romney as the nominee, and NJ and IA aren't out of reach.

I'm not trying to say Romney will be headed into the general election with an advantage, but I certainly don't Obama has a "solid win in the electoral college". Maybe against Gingrich, but not Romney.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Torie on December 17, 2011, 10:05:09 PM
Romney has lead or tied Obama in Ohio, led in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Maine and Connecticut are somewhat close with Romney as the nominee, and NJ and IA aren't out of reach.

I'm not trying to say Romney will be headed into the general election with an advantage, but I certainly don't Obama has a "solid win in the electoral college". Maybe against Gingrich, but not Romney.

The other bit, which has a lot of truth, is that undecideds tend not to vote for the incumbent. They just want to be reassured that the alternative is not a risky scheme. Fox was hawking a poll last night, or the night before, that 53% don't think Obama should be re-elected, about a 10 point deficit after factoring in the undecideds. Whatever Mittens is, it will be very hard to paint him as a risky scheme. As to Newt, well the answer is obvious.

The polls that really matter will be the ones after we have a nominee, and the post convention bounce fades.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on December 17, 2011, 10:13:38 PM
There is not another person capable of running for president who is as squeaky clean as Mitt Romney. You want to talk about a good guy with a clean background, he's your man. If Obama has to use serious resources on Pennsylvania and Michigan in October, a distinct possibility against Romney, Obama is Jimmy Carter 1980 at worst and Al Gore 2000 at best. It will be a one term proposition for the president.

Everybody thinks the EC is going to keep looking a lot like it did from 2000-2008. All bets are truly off. This is a different America that is really fed up with the way things are going. I see massive backlash next year against Obama. People like the guy, I still do, but somebody needs to take the blame for things not improving, and fair or not it's going to be him. I have said it before, and I'll say it again: Romney could blow this thing right wide open. I am not saying it is going to happen, but do not be THAT shocked if Romney wins the most EVs since George H.W. Bush in 1988. That is all I am saying.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 17, 2011, 10:29:09 PM
If Obama has to use serious resources on Pennsylvania and Michigan in October, a distinct possibility against Romney, Obama is Jimmy Carter 1980 at worst and Al Gore 2000 at best. It will be a one term proposition for the president.

The only evidence so far  that Obama is in serious trouble in Michigan are a pair of very questionable EPIC/MRA polls.  Obama might have a problem there if the economy goes into another mild stall, but I don't see that happening.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: tmthforu94 on December 17, 2011, 10:50:43 PM
If Obama has to use serious resources on Pennsylvania and Michigan in October, a distinct possibility against Romney, Obama is Jimmy Carter 1980 at worst and Al Gore 2000 at best. It will be a one term proposition for the president.

The only evidence so far  that Obama is in serious trouble in Michigan are a pair of very questionable EPIC/MRA polls.  Obama might have a problem there if the economy goes into another mild stall, but I don't see that happening.
Two other polls by two different firms had Obama leading Romney by 3 and 1 points, respectively. Certainly not good news for Obama, considering he easily won the state in 2008.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on December 28, 2011, 09:22:32 PM
I do not know what is going to happen in Iowa, but I am pretty sure that Newt Gingrich is not going to win there. It could go to Romney, Paul or maybe even Santorum based on current polling trends. Based upon everything I have seen, I am quite certain that New Hampshire and Nevada are locked-up for Romney regardless of what happens in Iowa and South Carolina.

If Romney wins Iowa, even by the slimmest of margins, it is really hard to see him not steamrolling to victories in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, etc., and basically ending this race much earlier than most expected. Iowa has always been a reach for Romney, but maybe it will happen.

Here is the big question: If Paul or Santorum wins Iowa, what kind of momentum boost will they get in New Hampshire and how will that boost there translate to South Carolina? It is really hard to see Gingrich winning South Carolina if he comes in third or fourth place in Iowa and New Hampshire, but who knows? And, let's face it, it is really hard to see Paul or Santorum winning the nomination. It also seems abundantly clear that Perry and Bachmann are write-offs.

My guess, and I've held this all along: All of this is a matter of when, not if, Romney will become the nominee...


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: RogueBeaver on December 28, 2011, 09:24:50 PM
Paul has a hard ceiling and can't go beyond Iowa. Remember GOP nominees Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan? As for Santorum, like the Huckster, he doesn't have the resources to go beyond Iowa and he knows it, whatever he might say on the trail.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: tmthforu94 on December 28, 2011, 09:29:58 PM
Amen. Even in early December when many were writing Romney off, I remained firm. The only time I ever even came close to doubting a Romney nomination was when it was rumored Christie would run. Even though I figured he wouldn't, the small chance that he did would have probably ended Romney's hopes.

Barring a major scandal (unlikely), I don't see any real possibility for Romney to win Iowa and lose the nomination. He's downplayed it so much that winning there as well as a big win in New Hampshire will likely lead to a 50-state sweep.

If Paul or Santorum wins, it benefits Romney. Anyone but Gingirch winning in Iowa actually benefits Romney, and considering Gingrich's chances in Iowa are very low, there's about a 99% chance Romney will be happy after January 3rd. Santorum would probably be the best of the two, as he has virtually no chance in New Hampshire, and him winning would turn South Carolina into a battleground with Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry all splitting the conservative vote. That'd probably be enough, considering the momentum he'd have after New Hampshire and his string of endorsements, for Romney to squeeze through. And once he had those three, he'd likely easily win in Florida as well.

Now, Paul winning Iowa would be interesting. Probably the most important thing for Romney then would be how Gingrich places - a 5th or 6th would dampen the Gingrich campaign even more. I believe that once anti-Gingrich ads start hitting the airwaves in SC and FL, his lead there is going to evaporate. Paul winning Iowa would likely turn this into a three-person race, though considering his cash, Perry will probably make a strong play for South Carolina as his last stand. Paul winning Iowa could also help Romney, as many would be worried of a potential Paul nomination, and unite behind the person best suited to beat him.

Caucus night is going to be big, but I don't think it'll be nearly as nerve-wracking for Romney supporters this time as it was 4 years ago, when we absolutely needed either a win or a close second there.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Averroës Nix on December 28, 2011, 10:58:53 PM
Anyone but Gingirch winning in Iowa actually benefits Romney,

Disagree - then again, I've always doubted the potency of the Gingrich campaign. Romney would probably prefer that Paul or Bachmann takes the caucuses, but Santorum or Perry winning Iowa could make the campaign more difficult for Romney than a Gingrich victory would have.



Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: tmthforu94 on December 28, 2011, 11:41:37 PM
Anyone but Gingirch winning in Iowa actually benefits Romney,

Disagree - then again, I've always doubted the potency of the Gingrich campaign. Romney would probably prefer that Paul or Bachmann takes the caucuses, but Santorum or Perry winning Iowa could make the campaign more difficult for Romney than a Gingrich victory would have.


Are you sure about that? Santorum or Perry winning would give the momentum to make it a race in South Carolina, where they would likely draw most of their support from Gingrich, turning what is currently a two man race there into a three person race. Gingrich winning Iowa would solidify his position as a frontrunner and make it essentially a two-person race in South Carolina and Florida. While Romney still would have a shot, I think it'd be hard for him to win either against only Gingrich. Meh.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Averroës Nix on December 29, 2011, 12:01:16 AM
Are you sure about that? Santorum or Perry winning would give the momentum to make it a race in South Carolina, where they would likely draw most of their support from Gingrich, turning what is currently a two man race there into a three person race. Gingrich winning Iowa would solidify his position as a frontrunner and make it essentially a two-person race in South Carolina and Florida. While Romney still would have a shot, I think it'd be hard for him to win either against only Gingrich. Meh.

I didn't realize that we weren't working under the shared assumption that after Iowa, Gingrich will be a non-factor. He's squandered his chance at victory there and at this point he'll be lucky if he finishes fifth.

Gingrich doesn't have the money, the organization, the party support, or the endurance to withstand a poor performance in Iowa. If no one else breaks out, he may continue to draw double-digit support in the early Southern contests, but  I can't imagine his presence being much of an obstacle to a surging Santorum or Perry.



Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Yelnoc on December 29, 2011, 10:36:20 AM
Are you sure about that? Santorum or Perry winning would give the momentum to make it a race in South Carolina, where they would likely draw most of their support from Gingrich, turning what is currently a two man race there into a three person race. Gingrich winning Iowa would solidify his position as a frontrunner and make it essentially a two-person race in South Carolina and Florida. While Romney still would have a shot, I think it'd be hard for him to win either against only Gingrich. Meh.

I didn't realize that we weren't working under the shared assumption that after Iowa, Gingrich will be a non-factor. He's squandered his chance at victory there and at this point he'll be lucky if he finishes fifth.

Gingrich doesn't have the money, the organization, the party support, or the endurance to withstand a poor performance in Iowa. If no one else breaks out, he may continue to draw double-digit support in the early Southern contests, but  I can't imagine his presence being much of an obstacle to a surging Santorum or Perry.


He could be enough to split the conservative vote in South Carolina like Thompson did to Huckabee last cycle, allowing McCain to win.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Averroës Nix on December 29, 2011, 05:10:22 PM
Any candidate who is doing well enough to take the nomination from Romney will, necessarily, have no problem beating him in South Carolina, Newt or no Newt.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on January 19, 2012, 04:51:10 AM
The former Massachusetts governor led his campaign in opening a fusillade against Gingrich, who's persisted at or near the top of the polls in tests of Saturday's first-in-the-South primary.

In a sign of how seriously his campaign is taking Gingrich as a threat, Romney broke from his usual form on the campaign trail -- which usually involves attacking only President Obama -- to instead deliver a rebuke of Gingrich's claims on his record on job creation.

"The speaker the other day at the debate was talking about how he created millions of jobs when he was working with the Reagan administration. Well, he'd been in Congress two years when Ronald Reagan came into office, " Romney said. "That'd be like saying 435 congressmen were all responsible for those jobs. Government doesn't create jobs. It's the private sector that creates jobs. Congressmen taking responsibility or taking credit for helping create jobs is like Al Gore taking credit for the Internet."

The assault began earlier this morning with a web video released by the Romney campaign entitled "Undisciplined Leader," in which former New York Rep. Susan Molinari, who served with Gingrich in the 1990s, delivered the first blow.

"I served with Newt Gingrich in Congress. Newt Gingrich had a leadership style that can only be described as leadership by chaos,” Molinari said in the video. "I worry about the Republican Party’s chances to defeat President Obama if Newt Gingrich is the nominee."

On a conference call with reporters later in the morning, former Missouri Sen. Jim Talent, another Romney supporter, continued the attack, and warned that if Gingrich were to become the Republican nominee it would hurt the party.

"Each one of us [who served with Gingrich] has personal stories we can tell about going home and having to clean up after our speaker," Talent said. "It had an impact on the 1996 presidential election and, if he's the nominee, it will have an impact on the 2012 election and the impact's not going to be good for the conservative movement and the Republican Party."

Source: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/18/10183299-romney-campaign-launches-offensive-against-gingrich

Newt's Response:

()


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Ebowed on January 19, 2012, 07:10:05 AM
<politico>So you are taking the man who singlehandedly delivered on a Contract with America and trashing him because Ross Perot stole enough votes from Clinton to deny Bob Dole a victory in 1996?

Stay classy, Senator Talent.</politico>


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on January 19, 2012, 04:55:53 PM
A Mannequin Third Wife for First Lady?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGeDfaN9K30

There is no way that poor woman is not told to be that way.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on January 19, 2012, 10:14:33 PM
The most enigmatic quote from the second wife:

She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.

"And I just stared at him and he said, 'Callista doesn't care what I do,'" Marianne Gingrich told ABC News. "He wanted an open marriage and I refused."

Marianne described her "shock" at Gingrich's behavior, including how she says she learned he conducted his affair with Callista "in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington."

"He always called me at night," she recalled, "and always ended with 'I love you.' Well, she was listening."

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-gingrich-lacks-moral-character-president-wife/story?id=15392899#.Txjbj4FnSuI

So what DOES he do that Callista doesn't care about him doing? Or, perhaps more aptly, WHO does he do that Callista doesn't care about?


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: tmthforu94 on January 19, 2012, 10:26:14 PM
I can't imagine how this many can carry the Family Values banner into the General Election against Obama...scum of the Earth.

Not too much longer until we can forget about Newt and focus on taking down Obama with Governor Romney as our nominee.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on January 21, 2012, 02:23:16 AM
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that Gingrich tries to pass himself off as a hardcore southerner despite spending the first sixteen or seventeen years of his life in Pennsylvania and on military bases? And he has about as much of a southern accent as Chris Matthews does (i.e., absolutely none).


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on January 21, 2012, 03:01:23 AM
I can't imagine how this many can carry the Family Values banner into the General Election against Obama...scum of the Earth.

Not too much longer until we can forget about Newt and focus on taking down Obama with Governor Romney as our nominee.

I for one would love to see a bunch of family values oriented voters vote for Obama.


Title: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Politico on January 21, 2012, 02:53:24 PM
Or will we be left to wonder if he inherited his mother's manic depression? Will we be left to wonder if mental illness was the reason why he was declared exempt from the draft? To this day, Gingrich has not clarified why he was declared exempt from the draft. Why? Why did he not follow in his father's footsteps by serving in the military like he claims he wish he had?

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair1.html

Sooner or later, Gingrich needs to prove that he did not inherit his mother's manic depression. The nation cannot have a sick president who cannot handle the stressful demands of the job.


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on January 21, 2012, 02:55:10 PM
Where are Romney's tax forms?


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Politico on January 21, 2012, 02:56:39 PM

Romney's tax returns have nothing to do with whether or not he is mentally capable of handling the presidency. One look at Obama in 2007 versus 2012 (or Bush in 2000 versus 2009, or Clinton in 1992 versus 2001) should make it abundantly clear that the presidency is a stressful job that only a healthy person should take on.

By the way, Romney's tax return will be released in April, as is customary. He'll probably release every tax return he's ever filed if that is what it takes to make this issue go away.


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on January 21, 2012, 02:58:16 PM

Romney's tax returns have nothing to do whether or not he is mentally capable of handling the presidency. One look at Obama in 2007 versus 2012 should make it abundantly clear that the presidency is a stressful job that only a healthy person should take on.

By the way, Romney's tax return will be released in April, as is customary.

If Romney wants to wait until April 15th to do his 2011 taxes, fine, but I think people want to see Romney's old forms.


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Insula Dei on January 21, 2012, 02:58:28 PM
Ouch, if Romney goes that way I lose all respect I have for the man. Very, very, very vile, this.


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Stranger in a strange land on January 21, 2012, 03:00:14 PM
Newt spent the late 60s and early 70s in a PhD program, so he probably qualified for a student exemption. He's a chickenhawk, but I doubt anything more sinister is afoot.


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Politico on January 21, 2012, 03:01:05 PM
Ouch, if Romney goes that way I lose all respect I have for the man. Very, very, very vile, this.

Romney won't, but somebody will. If not somebody in the Republican Party, definitely Obama. It's just a matter of time.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. The signs are all there: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2011/12/is_newt_gingrich_nuts_consider_the_symptoms_.html


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Napoleon on January 21, 2012, 03:02:39 PM
Ouch, if Romney goes that way I lose all respect I have for the man. Very, very, very vile, this.

What is so vile about it?


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: bgwah on January 21, 2012, 03:05:13 PM
Or will we be left to wonder if he inherited his mother's manic depression? Will we be left to wonder if mental illness was the reason why he was declared exempt from the draft? To this day, Gingrich has not clarified why he was declared exempt from the draft. Why? Why did he not follow in his father's footsteps by serving in the military like he claims he wish he had?

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair1.html


Getting desperate, I see.


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Politico on January 21, 2012, 03:06:46 PM
Or will we be left to wonder if he inherited his mother's manic depression? Will we be left to wonder if mental illness was the reason why he was declared exempt from the draft? To this day, Gingrich has not clarified why he was declared exempt from the draft. Why? Why did he not follow in his father's footsteps by serving in the military like he claims he wish he had?

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair1.html


Getting desperate, I see.

This isn't desperate. There is smoke:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2011/12/is_newt_gingrich_nuts_consider_the_symptoms_.html

Is there fire? If not, Gingrich should dispel the rumors by releasing his medical records.

Sooner or later, Gingrich needs to prove that he did not inherit his mother's manic depression. The nation cannot have a sick president.


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: bgwah on January 21, 2012, 03:11:29 PM
lol


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Insula Dei on January 21, 2012, 03:12:56 PM
Ouch, if Romney goes that way I lose all respect I have for the man. Very, very, very vile, this.

What is so vile about it?

Medical information is private, or it is where I'm from. And attacking Newt on his mother (which is essentially the point here) is just sickeningly wrong.


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Politico on January 21, 2012, 03:13:24 PM

You're lol'ing right now because, yes, in all likelihood Obama would cream Gingrich. But what if, somehow, some way (another financial meltdown?), Gingrich did win the presidency? What then?


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Politico on January 21, 2012, 03:14:25 PM
Ouch, if Romney goes that way I lose all respect I have for the man. Very, very, very vile, this.

What is so vile about it?

Medical information is private, or it is where I'm from.

It is customary for presidential candidates to release their medical records to prove they are healthy and fit to handle the stressful demands of the most demanding job on the planet. I know there can be a tendency for us political junkies to treat all of this like it's just another game of political football, but we are talking about the presidency here, not some seat in Congress or a governorship.

Quote
And attacking Newt on his mother (which is essentially the point here) is just sickeningly wrong.

Manic depression is commonly inherited from one's parents. This is a medical fact:

"McMahon et al. (1995) found evidence to suggest that manic-depression was more likely to be inherited from mothers than from fathers, proposing that the gene for the disorder would be different in women and men."

Source: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro99/web1/Bromwell.html


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Napoleon on January 21, 2012, 03:20:07 PM
Ouch, if Romney goes that way I lose all respect I have for the man. Very, very, very vile, this.

What is so vile about it?

Medical information is private, or it is where I'm from. And attacking Newt on his mother (which is essentially the point here) is just sickeningly wrong.

Perhaps, but the US cannot afford to have someone mentally ill with control of nuclear arms and armed forces. The Palin effect.


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 21, 2012, 03:55:01 PM
This is a really, really disgusting thread. Tempted to hit the report button, but, I don't know. Perhaps we need proof of how low some will go and all that.


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Oakvale on January 21, 2012, 04:03:31 PM
Well, this thread might be the worst thing I've ever read in my life.

Ouch, if Romney goes that way I lose all respect I have for the man. Very, very, very vile, this.

What is so vile about it?

Medical information is private, or it is where I'm from. And attacking Newt on his mother (which is essentially the point here) is just sickeningly wrong.

^ This, this, this, this. I understand the argument that a Presidential candidate should be open about their health, but I don't agree with it. Medical privacy should be of paramount importance in a decent society.


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: TheGlobalizer on January 21, 2012, 04:59:36 PM
Troll thread.

That said, this:

This is a really, really disgusting thread. Tempted to hit the report button, but, I don't know. Perhaps we need proof of how low some will go and all that.

is also unnecessary.  Report for what?


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Bacon King on January 21, 2012, 05:00:39 PM
A few things to say here.

This has been reported and I think it comes very close to crossing the line. I want to delete this. However, I guess there's a bit of precedent regarding politicians and psychiatric disorders, such as Thomas Eagleton, and Politico did cite legitimate news organizations here when asking his questions. However, this really should belong in the megathread; after all, it was created for a reason. I'd rather not see half of the front page devolve into a bunch of Politico threads again, with each one making one specific accusation.

Also, for the record, "manic depression" hasn't medically been a thing for 32 years now; the term was changed to "bipolar disorder" by the DSM III in 1980. If you're going to be making borderline-trollish accusations, at least get your facts right plz.

But yeah, moving this thread to the megathread.


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: TheGlobalizer on January 21, 2012, 05:23:18 PM
A few things to say here.

This has been reported and I think it comes very close to crossing the line. I want to delete this. However, I guess there's a bit of precedent regarding politicians and psychiatric disorders, such as Thomas Eagleton, and Politico did cite legitimate news organizations here when asking his questions. However, this really should belong in the megathread; after all, it was created for a reason. I'd rather not see half of the front page devolve into a bunch of Politico threads again, with each one making one specific accusation.

Also, for the record, "manic depression" hasn't medically been a thing for 32 years now; the term was changed to "bipolar disorder" by the DSM III in 1980. If you're going to be making borderline-trollish accusations, at least get your facts right plz.

But yeah, moving this thread to the megathread.

Serious question, can you point me to some standard that is used on the board for acceptable discourse, or is this a "you know it when you see it" pornography definition?


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Bacon King on January 21, 2012, 05:29:28 PM
A few things to say here.

This has been reported and I think it comes very close to crossing the line. I want to delete this. However, I guess there's a bit of precedent regarding politicians and psychiatric disorders, such as Thomas Eagleton, and Politico did cite legitimate news organizations here when asking his questions. However, this really should belong in the megathread; after all, it was created for a reason. I'd rather not see half of the front page devolve into a bunch of Politico threads again, with each one making one specific accusation.

Also, for the record, "manic depression" hasn't medically been a thing for 32 years now; the term was changed to "bipolar disorder" by the DSM III in 1980. If you're going to be making borderline-trollish accusations, at least get your facts right plz.

But yeah, moving this thread to the megathread.

Serious question, can you point me to some standard that is used on the board for acceptable discourse, or is this a "you know it when you see it" pornography definition?

"You know it when you see it"; different mods have different standards, but I usually try to err on the side of leniency unless something is way over the line.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: TheGlobalizer on January 21, 2012, 05:42:07 PM
A few things to say here.

This has been reported and I think it comes very close to crossing the line. I want to delete this. However, I guess there's a bit of precedent regarding politicians and psychiatric disorders, such as Thomas Eagleton, and Politico did cite legitimate news organizations here when asking his questions. However, this really should belong in the megathread; after all, it was created for a reason. I'd rather not see half of the front page devolve into a bunch of Politico threads again, with each one making one specific accusation.

Also, for the record, "manic depression" hasn't medically been a thing for 32 years now; the term was changed to "bipolar disorder" by the DSM III in 1980. If you're going to be making borderline-trollish accusations, at least get your facts right plz.

But yeah, moving this thread to the megathread.

Serious question, can you point me to some standard that is used on the board for acceptable discourse, or is this a "you know it when you see it" pornography definition?

"You know it when you see it"; different mods have different standards, but I usually try to err on the side of leniency unless something is way over the line.

Fair enough.


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: BigSkyBob on January 21, 2012, 06:51:33 PM
Or will we be left to wonder if he inherited his mother's manic depression? Will we be left to wonder if mental illness was the reason why he was declared exempt from the draft? To this day, Gingrich has not clarified why he was declared exempt from the draft. Why? Why did he not follow in his father's footsteps by serving in the military like he claims he wish he had?

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair1.html

Sooner or later, Gingrich needs to prove that he did not inherit his mother's manic depression. The nation cannot have a sick president who cannot handle the stressful demands of the job.

It must be particularly painful to see your favored candidate lose to a person whom you believe is a nutter.

What are you asking? We sequence his mothers DNA [isn't she dead?], sequence Gingrich's DNA, determine which genes we are debating, and "prove" Gingrich didn't have those particular genes?

First, this is disgusting and pathetic.

Second, even if true, you are merely suggesting that Gingrich shares an attribute with Winston Churchill. Churchill was able to function quite well as head of state in a time of crisis though he suffered from manic depression.


Title: Any Presidential Nominee in the Last Thirty Years Not Released Medical Records?
Post by: Politico on January 21, 2012, 08:04:04 PM
Has any major presidential nominee of the past thirty years not released their medical records?


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Politico on January 21, 2012, 08:06:49 PM
A few things to say here.

This has been reported and I think it comes very close to crossing the line. I want to delete this. However, I guess there's a bit of precedent regarding politicians and psychiatric disorders, such as Thomas Eagleton,

Yes, there is a history of a candidate hiding their medical history from the population and paying the price.

Quote
Also, for the record, "manic depression" hasn't medically been a thing for 32 years now; the term was changed to "bipolar disorder" by the DSM III in 1980. If you're going to be making borderline-trollish accusations, at least get your facts right plz.

I thought I was being kind to Gingrich by referring to it as "manic depression" rather than "bipolar disorder."

Quote
But yeah, moving this thread to the megathread.

Fair enough, but I guarantee somebody else will re-create the thread again down the line if Gingrich makes this a serious run.


Title: Re: Any Presidential Nominee in the Last Thirty Years Not Released Medical Records?
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on January 21, 2012, 08:10:54 PM
I do not think medical records are what people are upset with a candidate not releasing nowadays my friend... your boy needs to get on his tax returns!


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Politico on January 21, 2012, 08:13:45 PM
Or will we be left to wonder if he inherited his mother's manic depression? Will we be left to wonder if mental illness was the reason why he was declared exempt from the draft? To this day, Gingrich has not clarified why he was declared exempt from the draft. Why? Why did he not follow in his father's footsteps by serving in the military like he claims he wish he had?

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair1.html

Sooner or later, Gingrich needs to prove that he did not inherit his mother's manic depression. The nation cannot have a sick president who cannot handle the stressful demands of the job.

It must be particularly painful to see your favored candidate lose to a person whom you believe is a nutter.

Strom Thurmond Country going to Gingrich is really not much of a surprise to me.

Quote
What are you asking? We sequence his mothers DNA [isn't she dead?], sequence Gingrich's DNA, determine which genes we are debating, and "prove" Gingrich didn't have those particular genes?

Of course not. If Gingrich has no health problems, he should have no problem releasing his medical records to show he does not have a history of bipolar disorder.

Quote
Second, even if true, you are merely suggesting that Gingrich shares an attribute with Winston Churchill

And Adolf Hitler.

A history of mental illness is now an "attribute" we should look for in our next president? I knew some Republicans were crazy, but I did not think they were crazy enough to believe somebody with mental illness can win the presidency, let alone function properly in the role of the president for four years...

Quote
Churchill Hitler was able to function quite well unwell as head of state in a time of crisis though he suffered from manic depression.

Now do you realize how inane your argument is?

Have you ever had to associate with people who have bipolar disorder? I do not want that type of person in the Oval Office for obvious reasons.


Title: Re: Any Presidential Nominee in the Last Thirty Years Not Released Medical Records?
Post by: Oakvale on January 21, 2012, 08:17:56 PM
I do not think medical records are what people are upset with a candidate not releasing nowadays my friend... your boy needs to get on his tax returns!


Title: Re: Any Presidential Nominee in the Last Thirty Years Not Released Medical Records?
Post by: Likely Voter on January 21, 2012, 08:23:51 PM
I put this guy on ignore. It was my fist ignore. I thought it would hide all his stupid threads but alas they remain. 


Title: Re: Any Presidential Nominee in the Last Thirty Years Not Released Medical Records?
Post by: Politico on January 21, 2012, 08:24:06 PM
I do not think medical records are what people are upset with a candidate not releasing nowadays my friend... your boy needs to get on his tax returns!

Why the wealth of a candidate does not matter (i.e., richest president ever):

()

Why the health of a candidate matters (i.e., the presidency is the most demanding job on the planet):

()
()


Title: Re: Any Presidential Nominee in the Last Thirty Years Not Released Medical Records?
Post by: Penelope on January 21, 2012, 08:55:01 PM
Don't you already have a thread for this crap?

EDIT: OH HEY I WAS RIGHT LOLOLOL


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on January 21, 2012, 08:59:34 PM
Somebody moved my question, but here it is: Has any presidential nominee in the past thirty years NOT released their medical records?

I cannot think of anybody, but I would like to hear if there is somebody who kept their medical records under lock-and-key.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 21, 2012, 09:05:01 PM
I'll be putting a post in here... basically pointing out why Romney is in this mess.

And it is all his own creation...


Title: Are You Really Surprised By the Results of Strom Thurmond Country?
Post by: Politico on January 21, 2012, 10:08:07 PM
Especially when you consider that Gingrich is from neighboring Georgia, and no northeastern ("yankee") candidate in the Democratic Party, let alone the Republican Party, has ever won the South Carolina primaries before.


Title: Re: Are You Really Surprised By the Results of Strom Thurmond Country?
Post by: Vote UKIP! on January 21, 2012, 10:10:39 PM
Trolls gonna troll.


Title: Re: Are You Really Surprised By the Results of Strom Thurmond Country?
Post by: Politico on January 21, 2012, 10:13:46 PM

When your post count exceeds mine, then you can accuse me of trolling. The question is only common sense. Somebody from Massachusetts winning South Carolina against somebody from Georgia would be like somebody from Mississippi winning Vermont against somebody from Connecticut.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on January 21, 2012, 10:16:56 PM
Yeah, Politico! Insult the most reliably GOP part of the nation! That will go over well in Florida!


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on January 21, 2012, 10:31:09 PM
Yeah, Politico! Insult the most reliably GOP part of the nation! That will go over well in Florida!

I have done no such thing. I have simply explained why South Carolina has never gone to a northeasterner from either party. I am not making any judgments. They have their identity elements just like every other region of the country.


Title: Re: Are You Really Surprised By the Results of Strom Thurmond Country?
Post by: Vote UKIP! on January 21, 2012, 10:43:01 PM


Title: Re: Any Presidential Nominee in the Last Thirty Years Not Released Medical Records?
Post by: BigSkyBob on January 21, 2012, 10:46:48 PM
Has any major presidential nominee of the past thirty years not released their medical records?


Bill Clinton.


Title: Re: Are You Really Surprised By the Results of Strom Thurmond Country?
Post by: Penelope on January 21, 2012, 10:47:02 PM

When your post count exceeds mine, then you can accuse me of trolling. The question is only common sense. Somebody from Massachusetts winning South Carolina against somebody from Georgia would be like somebody from Mississippi winning Vermont against somebody from Connecticut.

Quantity does not matter. What really matters is quality. The quality of your posts has been somewhat poor.


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: BigSkyBob on January 21, 2012, 10:55:39 PM
Or will we be left to wonder if he inherited his mother's manic depression? Will we be left to wonder if mental illness was the reason why he was declared exempt from the draft? To this day, Gingrich has not clarified why he was declared exempt from the draft. Why? Why did he not follow in his father's footsteps by serving in the military like he claims he wish he had?

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair1.html

Sooner or later, Gingrich needs to prove that he did not inherit his mother's manic depression. The nation cannot have a sick president who cannot handle the stressful demands of the job.

It must be particularly painful to see your favored candidate lose to a person whom you believe is a nutter.

Strom Thurmond Country going to Gingrich is really not much of a surprise to me.

Quote
What are you asking? We sequence his mothers DNA [isn't she dead?], sequence Gingrich's DNA, determine which genes we are debating, and "prove" Gingrich didn't have those particular genes?

Of course not. If Gingrich has no health problems, he should have no problem releasing his medical records to show he does not have a history of bipolar disorder.

Quote
Second, even if true, you are merely suggesting that Gingrich shares an attribute with Winston Churchill

And Adolf Hitler.

A history of mental illness is now an "attribute" we should look for in our next president? I knew some Republicans were crazy, but I did not think they were crazy enough to believe somebody with mental illness can win the presidency, let alone function properly in the role of the president for four years...

Quote
Churchill Hitler was able to function quite well unwell as head of state in a time of crisis though he suffered from manic depression.

Now do you realize how inane your argument is?

Have you ever had to associate with people who have bipolar disorder? I do not want that type of person in the Oval Office for obvious reasons.

I see you have chosen to combine the ad hominem fallacy with the ad Hitler fallacy.

Again, Churchill suffered from manic depression. You don't dispute that fact. Again, Churchill was able to govern effectively in a time of crisis in spite of suffering from manic depression. You don't dispute that fact either. Instead, you give some ad hominem tripe about how, "Now do you realize how inane your argument is?"

Do you?


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: patrick1 on January 21, 2012, 10:56:11 PM
Thanks to the mods for establishing this quarantine zone.


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Politico on January 21, 2012, 11:23:56 PM
Or will we be left to wonder if he inherited his mother's manic depression? Will we be left to wonder if mental illness was the reason why he was declared exempt from the draft? To this day, Gingrich has not clarified why he was declared exempt from the draft. Why? Why did he not follow in his father's footsteps by serving in the military like he claims he wish he had?

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair1.html

Sooner or later, Gingrich needs to prove that he did not inherit his mother's manic depression. The nation cannot have a sick president who cannot handle the stressful demands of the job.

It must be particularly painful to see your favored candidate lose to a person whom you believe is a nutter.

Strom Thurmond Country going to Gingrich is really not much of a surprise to me.

Quote
What are you asking? We sequence his mothers DNA [isn't she dead?], sequence Gingrich's DNA, determine which genes we are debating, and "prove" Gingrich didn't have those particular genes?

Of course not. If Gingrich has no health problems, he should have no problem releasing his medical records to show he does not have a history of bipolar disorder.

Quote
Second, even if true, you are merely suggesting that Gingrich shares an attribute with Winston Churchill

And Adolf Hitler.

A history of mental illness is now an "attribute" we should look for in our next president? I knew some Republicans were crazy, but I did not think they were crazy enough to believe somebody with mental illness can win the presidency, let alone function properly in the role of the president for four years...

Quote
Churchill Hitler was able to function quite well unwell as head of state in a time of crisis though he suffered from manic depression.

Now do you realize how inane your argument is?

Have you ever had to associate with people who have bipolar disorder? I do not want that type of person in the Oval Office for obvious reasons.

I see you have chosen to combine the ad hominem fallacy with the ad Hitler fallacy.

Again, Churchill suffered from manic depression. You don't dispute that fact. Again, Churchill was able to govern effectively in a time of crisis in spite of suffering from manic depression. You don't dispute that fact either. Instead, you give some ad hominem tripe about how, "Now do you realize how inane your argument is?"

Do you?

Bob, Montana is my favorite state, but you are way off base here. Churchill and Hitler both had bipolar disorder. Do you really want to roll the dice on somebody like that? You want to talk about erratic, look no further than Gingrich. Myself, I would rather have a healthy president


Title: Re: Any Presidential Nominee in the Last Thirty Years Not Released Medical Records?
Post by: Politico on January 21, 2012, 11:28:39 PM
Has any major presidential nominee of the past thirty years not released their medical records?


Bill Clinton.

And now we know why some candidates do not release their medical records. That is all I am going to say about that.

I fully expect the nominee to release their medical records, and I will not support a nominee who does not. It is absolutely critical that the nation know the health of the candidates, in these trying times more than ever.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Bacon King on January 21, 2012, 11:36:53 PM
Has Romney (or any other candidate, for that matter) released their medical records?


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: BigSkyBob on January 21, 2012, 11:38:29 PM
Or will we be left to wonder if he inherited his mother's manic depression? Will we be left to wonder if mental illness was the reason why he was declared exempt from the draft? To this day, Gingrich has not clarified why he was declared exempt from the draft. Why? Why did he not follow in his father's footsteps by serving in the military like he claims he wish he had?

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair1.html

Sooner or later, Gingrich needs to prove that he did not inherit his mother's manic depression. The nation cannot have a sick president who cannot handle the stressful demands of the job.

It must be particularly painful to see your favored candidate lose to a person whom you believe is a nutter.

Strom Thurmond Country going to Gingrich is really not much of a surprise to me.

Quote
What are you asking? We sequence his mothers DNA [isn't she dead?], sequence Gingrich's DNA, determine which genes we are debating, and "prove" Gingrich didn't have those particular genes?

Of course not. If Gingrich has no health problems, he should have no problem releasing his medical records to show he does not have a history of bipolar disorder.

Quote
Second, even if true, you are merely suggesting that Gingrich shares an attribute with Winston Churchill

And Adolf Hitler.

A history of mental illness is now an "attribute" we should look for in our next president? I knew some Republicans were crazy, but I did not think they were crazy enough to believe somebody with mental illness can win the presidency, let alone function properly in the role of the president for four years...

Quote
Churchill Hitler was able to function quite well unwell as head of state in a time of crisis though he suffered from manic depression.

Now do you realize how inane your argument is?

Have you ever had to associate with people who have bipolar disorder? I do not want that type of person in the Oval Office for obvious reasons.

I see you have chosen to combine the ad hominem fallacy with the ad Hitler fallacy.

Again, Churchill suffered from manic depression. You don't dispute that fact. Again, Churchill was able to govern effectively in a time of crisis in spite of suffering from manic depression. You don't dispute that fact either. Instead, you give some ad hominem tripe about how, "Now do you realize how inane your argument is?"

Do you?

Bob, Montana is my favorite state, but you are way off base here. Churchill and Hitler both had bipolar disorder. Do you really want to roll the dice on somebody like that? You want to talk about erratic, look no further than Gingrich. Myself, I would rather have a healthy president

Well, Hitler attempt to violently overthrow the German government. That was his track record. Churchill did no such thing. If you don't mind ignoring critical distinctions such as that, I would note that both Hitler and Romney are White males. Do you really want to roll the dice on somebody like that?

Politico, don't you want Romney to win the election? Think for a minute. There are tens of millions of Americans whom are, or have a family member, whom is significantly overweight. There are tens of millions of American whom are, or a have a family member, whom suffers from manic depression.  Your dog isn't hunting, but, it is needlessly alienating millions of voters Romney will need to win both the primary and general election.

I suggest early tomorrow morning you read the new marching orders from the Romney campaign to cease attacks on these lines. I am 100% confident I am right in this prediction, if not tomorrow, in the near future. The only question is whether Romney's campaign "gets it" before it is too late.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: milhouse24 on January 21, 2012, 11:39:39 PM
Romney is the only one who can Restore our Future!


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Joe Republic on January 21, 2012, 11:41:35 PM
Well, Hitler attempt to violently overthrow the German government. That was his track record. Churchill did no such thing.

I'd say Churchill was actually rather instrumental in violently overthrowing the German government.  ;)


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: The Mikado on January 22, 2012, 02:11:40 AM
I'm beginning to suspect that Politico likes Mitt Romney more than Mitt Romney likes Mitt Romney.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 22, 2012, 08:08:35 AM
Well, Hitler attempt to violently overthrow the German government. That was his track record. Churchill did no such thing.

I'd say Churchill was actually rather instrumental in violently overthrowing the German government.  ;)

Quite so. But Stalin even more so. Therefore, Newt Gingrich is a Communist.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on January 22, 2012, 08:17:40 AM
Has Romney (or any other candidate, for that matter) released their medical records?

None of the candidates have released their medical records yet. It usually does not happen until after the nomination is clinched. The only person in the past thirty years who has broken this is Bill Clinton, who we now know has some pretty serious health issues (good thing he was elected in his mid 40s, not late 60s). In my opinion, it would be wise for Romney to disclose the medical records shortly after Romney releases his tax records. Or even do it right now, saying he is being open and has nothing to hide. Let somebody else turn it into pressure upon Gingrich to do the same. I am willing to bet that Gingrich has health problems. Gingrich deserves this after his anti-business plays over tax records the past few days.

The wealth of a candidate does not matter (Washington is the richest president ever, much richer than Romney), but one look at Obama now versus four years ago should make it quite clear to everybody that the health of a candidate matters now more than ever. It is a stressful job and thank goodness Obama and George W. Bush were as healthy as one can be when they entered the White House. You have to consider all that has happened over the past ten years (i.e., 9/11, financial meltdown,etc.). We obviously cannot have somebody in the White House who cannot handle the most demanding job on the planet.


Title: Re: Will Gingrich Release His Medical Records?
Post by: Politico on January 22, 2012, 08:25:25 AM
Well, Hitler attempt to violently overthrow the German government. That was his track record. Churchill did no such thing. If you don't mind ignoring critical distinctions such as that, I would note that both Hitler and Romney are White males. Do you really want to roll the dice on somebody like that?

Utter rubbish. Hitler being a white male had nothing to do with his erratic behavior. Did Hitler's manic depression (bipolar disorder) have something to do with his erratic behavior? ABSOLUTELY!

Quote
Politico, don't you want Romney to win the election? Think for a minute. There are tens of millions of Americans whom are, or have a family member, whom is significantly overweight.

Yes, and obviously there is no shame in being overweight. Nobody is saying that. However, when you are 69 years of age and significantly overweight, being president is probably not a good idea. Take a look at a healthy Obama four years ago versus today. It is a stressful job. Can somebody without optimal health really handle the job? I do not think so. I certainly do not want to find out.

Quote
There are tens of millions of American whom are, or a have a family member, whom suffers from manic depression.  Your dog isn't hunting, but, it is needlessly alienating millions of voters Romney will need to win both the primary and general election.

There is no shame in having manic depression (bipolar disorder), but I am sorry: It does disqualify you from being President of the United States of America. Stating this should not alienate millions of people who suffer, or have family members who suffer, from bipolar disorder. If anything, these people, more than anybody else, can attest to the fact that somebody with bipolar disorder should not become POTUS.

Quote
I suggest early tomorrow morning you read the new marching orders from the Romney campaign to cease attacks on these lines. I am 100% confident I am right in this prediction, if not tomorrow, in the near future. The only question is whether Romney's campaign "gets it" before it is too late.

It's going to get ugly. After Gingrich's anti-business rhetoric, practically aligning himself with Occupy Wall Street, he deserves what is coming to him.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: BigSkyBob on January 22, 2012, 12:56:37 PM
Well, Hitler attempt to violently overthrow the German government. That was his track record. Churchill did no such thing.

I'd say Churchill was actually rather instrumental in violently overthrowing the German government.  ;)

But, he didn't attempt to violently overthrow the British government.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Joe Republic on January 22, 2012, 01:14:03 PM
Yes, and obviously there is no shame in being overweight. Nobody is saying that.

I'd say it.


Well, Hitler attempt to violently overthrow the German government. That was his track record. Churchill did no such thing.

I'd say Churchill was actually rather instrumental in violently overthrowing the German government.  ;)

But, he didn't attempt to violently overthrow the British government.

Wow, really?  I had no idea.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on January 24, 2012, 10:41:09 AM
I've thought about it, and I think if you take away the applause Gingrich gets from sideshow debates, not real debates like the one last night, Gingrich is pretty much the Republican version of Chris Dodd: An angry, old, fat has-been with lackluster ethics/morals.

We are electing the next president, not seeing who can do the best impersonation of Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity.


Title: Leaders of the Republican Party Who Resigned in Disgrace
Post by: Politico on January 24, 2012, 11:11:32 AM
Which individuals have led the Republican Party in the past and yet were forced to resign their position as de facto leader of the party? I can only think of two: Nixon and Gingrich. But I can only think back about forty years. What about before 1969? Are there any $1.6 million historians around to enlighten us?

1969-1974: President Richard Nixon (RESIGNED)
1974-1977: President Gerald Ford
1977-1980: Minority Leader John Jacob Rhodes
1980-1981: President-elect Ronald Reagan
1981-1989: President Ronald Reagan
1989-1993: President George H.W. Bush
1993-1995: Minority Leader Robert H. Michel
1995-1999: Speaker Newt Gingrich (RESIGNED)
1999-2000: Speaker Dennis Hastert
2000-2001: President-elect George W. Bush
2001-2009: President George W. Bush
2009-2011: Minority Leader John Boehner
2011-2012: Speaker John Boehner


Title: Re: Leaders of the Republican Party Who Resigned in Disgrace
Post by: Is Totally Not Feeblepizza. on January 24, 2012, 11:24:32 AM
Tom DeLay was pretty powerful. So was Karl Rove.


Title: Re: Leaders of the Republican Party Who Resigned in Disgrace
Post by: Politico on January 24, 2012, 11:25:52 AM
Tom DeLay was pretty powerful. So was Karl Rove.

Yeah, but they were not THE leader of the party at anytime.


Title: Romney Paid $6.2 Million in Taxes The Past Two Years...
Post by: Politico on January 24, 2012, 11:45:22 AM
...which is more than every socialist on this board will pay in taxes over their entire life. That $6.2 million has probably fed 500 Americans via food stamps, alone. I'd like to see anybody on here feed 500 Americans for an entire year.

On top of the $6.2 million, he contributed over $7.0 million to helpful charities. That's about 30% of his income to charities/government, which is probably more than the vast majority of people on here.

Romney paid what he owed, and not a dollar more or a day later. Anybody who says they would do otherwise is a liar or a buffoon.


Title: Re: Romney Paid $6.2 Million in Taxes The Past Two Years...
Post by: Yelnoc on January 24, 2012, 12:01:33 PM
Any particular reason you feel a need to attack "us"?


Title: Re: Romney Paid $6.2 Million in Taxes The Past Two Years...
Post by: © tweed on January 24, 2012, 12:01:59 PM
this is my favorite Politico thread yet


Title: Re: Romney Paid $6.2 Million in Taxes The Past Two Years...
Post by: greenforest32 on January 24, 2012, 12:03:53 PM
Absolute dollars is different than percents. What is your view on taxing income Politico?

A. Progressive income tax system, same rate for earned/unearned income
B. Progressive income tax system, lower rate for unearned (current system)
C. Progressive income tax system, unearned is untaxed
D. Flat income tax, same rate for earned/unearned income
E. Flat income tax, lower rate for unearned
F. Flat income tax, unearned is untaxed
G. There should be no income tax


Title: Re: Romney Paid $6.2 Million in Taxes The Past Two Years...
Post by: Peeperkorn on January 24, 2012, 12:04:53 PM
fed 500 Americans via food stamps, alone. I'd like to see anybody on here feed 500 Americans for an entire year.

So taxes are a good thing?

On top of the $6.2 million, he contributed over $7.0 millions to helpful charities. That's about 30% of his income to charities/government, which is probably more than the vast majority of people on here.

Tax evasion.



Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Bacon King on January 24, 2012, 12:08:58 PM
The Republican base loves them some Limbaugh/Hannity, though.


Title: Re: Romney Paid $6.2 Million in Taxes The Past Two Years...
Post by: Politico on January 24, 2012, 12:09:56 PM
Absolute dollars is different than percents. What is your view on taxing income Politico?

A. Progressive income tax system, same rate for earned/unearned income
B. Progressive income tax system, lower rate for unearned (current system)
C. Progressive income tax system, unearned is untaxed
D. Flat income tax, same rate for earned/unearned income
E. Flat income tax, lower rate for unearned
F. Flat income tax, unearned is untaxed
G. There should be no income tax

One, capital gains are not "unearned." "Unearned income" is called welfare. And there is no shame in reaching out for help if one really needs the help. Charities should be the first line of defense with government the last resort. I am not Atilla the Hun, and neither is Romney.

For the record, I am in favor of minimal changes to the current rates. I am in favor of eliminating the capital gains tax for those who earn under $200,000 a year. It would also be wise to look into cutting corporate tax rates if doing so would make American companies more competitive in the global economy. Of course, streamlining the tax code would save everybody a lot of time and resources.

History has demonstrated that the best way to lower deficits is through prudent spending cuts during upturns in the business cycle.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 24, 2012, 12:11:03 PM
We are electing the next president, not seeing who can do the best impersonation of Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity.

And that's how you want to win over the Republican base?


Title: Re: Romney Paid $6.2 Million in Taxes The Past Two Years...
Post by: Politico on January 24, 2012, 12:11:50 PM
fed 500 Americans via food stamps, alone. I'd like to see anybody on here feed 500 Americans for an entire year.

So taxes are a good thing?

Nobody likes paying taxes, even those who benefit from public services, but they're like death: you cannot avoid them.

Quote
Tax evasion.

Romney paid what he owed, and not a dollar more or a day later. Anybody who says they would do otherwise is a liar or a buffoon.


Title: Re: Romney Paid $6.2 Million in Taxes The Past Two Years...
Post by: Peeperkorn on January 24, 2012, 12:15:32 PM
fed 500 Americans via food stamps, alone. I'd like to see anybody on here feed 500 Americans for an entire year.

So taxes are a good thing?

Nobody likes paying taxes, even those who benefit from public services, but they're like death: you cannot avoid them.

That's not an answer.



Title: Re: Romney Paid $6.2 Million in Taxes The Past Two Years...
Post by: Politico on January 24, 2012, 12:17:47 PM
fed 500 Americans via food stamps, alone. I'd like to see anybody on here feed 500 Americans for an entire year.

So taxes are a good thing?

Nobody likes paying taxes, even those who benefit from public services, but they're like death: you cannot avoid them.

That's not an answer.



How about this: Collecting some taxes is a necessary thing. Courts, national defense, highways, policemen/firemen, etc. need to be paid via taxation, obviously. Collecting too many taxes, specifically to fund things the government has no business being involved in, is a bad thing.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: King on January 24, 2012, 12:28:53 PM
Could you provide examples of "no business being involved in?" About $1 trillion's worth if you can.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on January 24, 2012, 12:34:52 PM
Could you provide examples of "no business being involved in?" About $1 trillion's worth if you can.

We were not running $1 trillion deficits twenty five years ago after the stock crash of 1987, when tax rates were lower than they are today, so obviously there is a spending problem. We are clearly spending more than we need to on areas where the government should be involved (e.g., national defense and Medicaid). Giving out $500 million loans to politically-connected fly-by-night operations is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Who knows what the next administration will uncover?


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: King on January 24, 2012, 12:55:40 PM
Could you provide examples of "no business being involved in?" About $1 trillion's worth if you can.

We were not running $1 trillion deficits twenty five years ago after the stock crash of 1987, when tax rates were lower than they are today, so obviously there is a spending problem. We are clearly spending more than we need to on areas where the government should be involved (e.g., national defense and Medicaid). Giving out $500 million loans to politically-connected fly-by-night operations is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Who knows what the next administration will uncover?

Tax rates were not lower then than they were today.  Even if somehow they were, the Reagan Tax bill in 1986 flat-taxed the Romney bracket earners and he would have paid an effective 28% on all income no more, no less--as opposed to just the 15% he paid on TOP income.

The reason we have deficits today is because people like Romney, who likely isn't even in the top 100,000 richest Americans paid only half the income tax they did 25 years ago.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on January 24, 2012, 01:20:57 PM
The reason we have deficits today is because people like Romney, who likely isn't even in the top 100,000 richest Americans paid only half the income tax they did 25 years ago.

()


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: King on January 24, 2012, 01:24:44 PM
...


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Vote UKIP! on January 24, 2012, 04:26:08 PM


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on January 24, 2012, 06:33:40 PM
Gallup:

Gingrich 31% (+3)
Romney 27% (-2)
Paul 12% (-1)
Santorum 12% (+1)
Other 3% (-2)


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Vote UKIP! on January 24, 2012, 09:55:52 PM
Gallup:

Gingrich 31% (+3)
Romney 27% (-2)
Paul 12% (-1)
Santorum 12% (+1)
Other 3% (-2)

Mitt's more or less where he has been all along: at 25%.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on January 24, 2012, 10:32:17 PM
Gallup:

Gingrich 31% (+3)
Romney 27% (-2)
Paul 12% (-1)
Santorum 12% (+1)
Other 3% (-2)

Mitt's more or less where he has been all along: at 25%.

~70-75% of the primary electorate just doesn't like this guy. With Gingrich being the clear frontrunner and proving he can win base states decisively, the base is closing ranks.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Vote UKIP! on January 24, 2012, 10:43:13 PM
Gallup:

Gingrich 31% (+3)
Romney 27% (-2)
Paul 12% (-1)
Santorum 12% (+1)
Other 3% (-2)

Mitt's more or less where he has been all along: at 25%.

~70-75% of the primary electorate just doesn't like this guy. With Gingrich being the clear frontrunner and proving he can win base states decisively, the base is closing ranks.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on January 27, 2012, 01:26:55 AM
 If Romney wins Florida, and I would bet on it at this point, I think it's safe to say that the threat of Gingrich winning the nomination is finally over. If possible, I would like to see this thread locked immediately after Romney is declared the winner of Florida.

The nation has averted a crisis, and we did it without the nuclear option.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: BigSkyBob on January 27, 2012, 01:48:55 AM
If Romney wins Florida, and I would bet on it at this point, I think it's safe to say that the threat of Gingrich winning the nomination is finally over.

Didn't Gingrich win South Carolina after losing in Iowa and New Hampshire?

Romney has already collapsed as the frontrunner in favor of Gingrich twice. If Romney regains the lead again, who is to say that he is incapable of folding to Gingrich a third time, fourth, or fifth time?


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on January 27, 2012, 04:15:42 PM
If Romney wins Florida, and I would bet on it at this point, I think it's safe to say that the threat of Gingrich winning the nomination is finally over.

Didn't Gingrich win South Carolina after losing in Iowa and New Hampshire?

Romney has already collapsed as the frontrunner in favor of Gingrich twice. If Romney regains the lead again, who is to say that he is incapable of folding to Gingrich a third time, fourth, or fifth time?

Where is another comeback going to occur? Gingrich's home state of Georgia is the closest state to much of Florida. If Gingrich cannot win Florida, and could not even place in the top three in New Hampshire and Iowa, then where can Gingrich win besides South Carolina and Georgia? Mississippi and Alabama are not going to change the race, if that is what you are banking on. Furthermore, after a few more wins under his belt, Romney will be the presumptive nominee and decline to participate in the final scheduled debates (February 22, March 1, March 5 and March 19). As a result, CNN, NBC and PBS will almost surely cancel these scheduled debates.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Mr. Morden on January 27, 2012, 04:51:26 PM
Take this quiz:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/the-atlantic-politics-quiz-newt-gingrich-as-visionary/252150/


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Simfan34 on February 09, 2012, 10:54:10 AM
Why have we let go of this? Politico is running rampant over the forum.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Politico on February 09, 2012, 04:40:40 PM
Why have we let go of this? Politico is running rampant over the forum.

We all know why Gingrich is bad. That's the purpose of this thread.

Why Santorum is not the best option is the purpose of the thread "Santorum: Prince of Pork..."


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Free Palestine on February 09, 2012, 08:07:54 PM
Oh Politico, you so funny.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 09, 2012, 11:22:15 PM
Romney, good. Romney win.

Santorum, bad. Santorum lose.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacul
Post by: TomC on February 09, 2012, 11:26:34 PM
Oh, come on guys, the mirrors lighting highways thing is a decent idea and the other two are extremely loony and cruel, respectively.


Title: Re: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
Post by: greenforest32 on February 10, 2012, 12:56:08 AM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair1.html

Quote
The Gingriches entered marriage counseling, but Newt continued to behave as if other people's rules didn't apply to him. Dot Crews observes, "It was common knowledge that Newt was involved with other women during his marriage to Jackie. Maybe not on the level of John Kennedy. But he had girlfriends --some serious, some trivial."

One of those women, Anne Manning, became romantically involved with Gingrich during his '76 campaign. The curly-haired young Englishwoman, then married to another professor at West Georgia, Tim Chowns, was an avid volunteer in Newt's Carrollton office. "I did have a relationship with him," she discloses for the first time, "but when it suited him, he would totally blow you off."

In the spring of 1977, she was in Washington to attend a census-bureaus workshop when Gingrich took her to dinner at a Vietnamese restaurant. He met her back at her modest hotel room. "We had oral sex," she says. "He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, "I never slept with her." Indeed, before Gingrich left that evening, she says, he threatened her: "If you ever tell anybody about this, I'll say you're lying."

She tells me this, she says, because she fears that Newt might become president someday. "I don't claim to be an angel," she says, but she is repelled by Newt's stance as Mr. Family Values. "He's morally dishonest. He has gone too far believing that 'I'm beyond the law.' He should be stopped before it's too late."

Kip Carter, who lived a few doors down from the couple, saw more than he wanted to. "We had been out working a football game --I think it was the Bowdon game-- and we would split up. It was a Friday night. I had Newt's daughters, Jackie Sue and Kathy, with me. We were all supposed to meet back at this professor's house. It was a milk-and-cookies kind of shakedown thing, buck up the troops. I was cutting across the yard to go up the driveway. There was a car there. As I got to the car, I saw Newt in the passenger seat and one of the guys' wives with her head in his lap going up and down. Newt kind of turned and gave me his little-boy smile. Fortunately, Jackie Sue and Kathy were a lot younger and shorter then.

Oh Newt...