Newt in 2012?

[schaabdl]

No - do some research instead of swallowing a gnat of sound bite. $1.6M over 9 years for a group (he didn't get all of the money) in DC money is miniscule.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

No - do some research instead of swallowing a gnat of sound bite. $1.6M over 9 years for a group (he didn't get all of the money) in DC money is miniscule.

Spoken like a politician.

Newt is a politician! He is seeking more power! I was hoping we could change that. But the choice seems to be among politicians now.

[schaabdl]

No, it is reality - nothing to do with politics. Politics is the people who left Fannie getting 8-figure bonuses. Politics is refusing to look into the facts and accepting that there must have been something underhanded because Fannie couldn't have anything good but then that is only from a myopic perspective. People, the few, or upset that someone got money from an organization they don't like and choose to believe the worse and glam onto the term certain to bring derision - lobbying - but refuse to delve deeper. When someone refuses to look deeper and simply believes the headlines it is they who are playing politics.

[Mad_Dog]

"I'll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, too!", says the witch of the House.

Pelosi plans to reveal information about Gingrich 'when the time is right'

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is holding back some information on Republican Newt Gingrich that could detract from his presidential campaign, according to a report published Monday.

“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi told Talking Points Memo. “When the time is right. … I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”

SOURCE

Really, ho? Bring it.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

Spoken like a politician.

Newt is a politician! He is seeking more power! I was hoping we could change that. But the choice seems to be among politicians now.

It's funny, you lament the political system, then perpetuate it, by making crazy accusations against other Republican candidates. Look where "not being a politician" got Herman Cain! Before Cain announced his "suspension", several news sources were "implying" that he was guilty and had admitted the aledged affair to his wife. This was like the lies and "speculation that surrounded the choice of Sarah Palin to the Vice Presidential spot. Given Palin's expertise as "a politician", she was effectively delivered up to the media for political assasination because, as the Vice presidential candidate, she was limited in what kind of defense she could mount.

I have already expressed my ideal choice of Bachmann as the nominee and eventual prsident, however, Gingrich is way better than Obama or even McCain. He has apparantly repented somewhat since his conversion to Catholicism, so for whatever that is worth. Clinton NEVER repented. And like the biblical saying: "The love of money is the root of all evil", desiring political power isn't evil, wanting it to abuse it is!

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Mad_Dog

"I'll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, too!", says the witch of the House.

Pelosi plans to reveal information about Gingrich 'when the time is right'



SOURCE

Really, ho? Bring it.

Oh really? Isn't that a pledge by Pelosi to release what legally should be Confidential information? I would have a supoena and charges waiting were Pelosi to do that, if I were Bohner.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

No, it is reality - nothing to do with politics.

"in DC money is miniscule"?

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Politics is the people who left Fannie getting 8-figure bonuses.

So corporate execs don't get 8 figures even though the company they have been running is losing money?

Originally Posted by schaabdl

People, the few, or upset that someone got money from an organization they don't like and choose to believe the worse and glam onto the term certain to bring derision - lobbying - but refuse to delve deeper.

It is one thing to get money from an organization I don't like. It is another when a politician is getting money from an organization. Then it gets worse when that organization is getting taxpayer's money.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

When someone refuses to look deeper and simply believes the headlines it is they who are playing politics.

Naw! Just playing dumb! I can't change it or you. And my delving into every detail will change nothing.

Bill Gates got slaughtered several years ago because he ran his business and didn't try to get into politics. Herman Cain has been ruining businesses and not playing politics. But some play both side of the fence. Professional politics is part of what's bringing this country down.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It's funny, you lament the political system, then perpetuate it, by making crazy accusations against other Republican candidates. Look where "not being a politician" got Herman Cain! Before Cain announced his "suspension", several news sources were "implying" that he was guilty and had admitted the aledged affair to his wife. This was like the lies and "speculation that surrounded the choice of Sarah Palin to the Vice Presidential spot. Given Palin's expertise as "a politician", she was effectively delivered up to the media for political assasination because, as the Vice presidential candidate, she was limited in what kind of defense she could mount.

And how is that a plus for the "political system"? And where have I made "crazy accusations against other Republican candidates"?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I have already expressed my ideal choice of Bachmann as the nominee and eventual prsident, however, Gingrich is way better than Obama or even McCain.

This Primary process is partly about getting the skeletons out of the closet before the Presidential election. Clearly the left-wing press is trying to pick Obama's opponent. Unfortunately the entire remaining field is flawed. True, every one would be better than Obama. But there is, as yet, no clear winner.

Bachmann has some pros. But I find a lot of negatives as well. Santorum was right on the money about SCOTUS not having the last word. But both of them advocate too religious conservative aspirations to suit me. Same with Perry. Cain was about the Business aspect, which I feel is what we need right now. He was not brought down by "politics". He was brought down by people possibly willing to lie, and a legal system, "freedom of speech" and all, that allows people to get away with that. How's that go? "All's fair in politics"? Romney isn't pushing religious dictates. Yet that seems to be what too many are against him for. I just don't trust his positions, whatever they are at the moment. Paul? What can one say?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

He has apparantly repented somewhat since his conversion to Catholicism

So he didn't know any better when he was a Protestant? From what I have heard he did not come to Catholicism on his own. He married a Catholic and was pressured to adjust to her faith.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

so for whatever that is worth. Clinton NEVER repented.

Is this to say "Newt isn't that bad"? Justifying bad behavior by comparing it to bad behavior?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

desiring political power isn't evil, wanting it to abuse it is!

That's in the Bible too?

I was depressed when Palin didn't jump in. Cain was my second choice. Seems I latch on to losers. Now I'm really depressed. But wait! There's still The Donald.

[schaabdl]

I would agree with the idea of getting skeletons exposed if it was true for all - however the standards are not the same. The GOP is once again in the process of snatching defeat from the jaw of victory.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

I would agree with the idea of getting skeletons exposed if it was true for all - however the standards are not the same.

That's the reality we are in. If it were a "fair playing field" Herman Cain might still be the leader. So are you now reaching in desperation for any candidate that can beat Obama?

Originally Posted by schaabdl

The GOP is once again in the process of snatching defeat from the jaw of victory.

Unfortunately the GOP and conservatives don't all think the same. Neither do Liberals. But the Liberals have the Press on their side. So where you have the conservatives trying to work with the TEA Party, the Libs already have the press as their ally.

Although, maybe a little early, you can see that Pelosi is already threatening to bring Newt's past back to the mainstream. He is not a shoe-in to beat Obama. So the question is "Who is?"

[FoundingFather]

Conservatives seem to be conditioned to repeat the same behavior over and over.

We want the best candidate for President, and the Dems, media, and establishment all try and tear down all of them but the one they want.

As a result, we get shellshocked into believing that the best candidate has so many flaws that they cannot possibly win.

Then, we settle (see McCain,John).

I'm really sick of being told that we have to go for who they dictate is "the most electable".

I'm picking the one who I want, and let the chips fall where they may.

[schaabdl]

I've always gone with "my choice" at the primary and then come election either vote the lesser of bad (don't really want to say evil) or, as often is the case in my state, not vote the top of the ticket because it won't matter.

[David]

When Gingrich’s Big Thoughts Backfire

SOURCE

[David]

Some Democratic strategists worry about Gingrich’s potential appeal

SOURCE

[schaabdl]

The NY Times article was just stupidity in print. The WA Post article really shows how low they think of the electorate - the opposition gets excited to vote against someone, rather than far someone. Of course, there are some who do just that but that is not where the enthusiasm comes from - Clinton did quite well with anti-Clinton fervor as did GWB in his second term.

[Rafael]

Originally Posted by jtdc

Bachmann has some pros. But I find a lot of negatives as well. Santorum was right on the money about SCOTUS not having the last word. But both of them advocate too religious conservative aspirations to suit me. Same with Perry.

Romney isn't pushing religious dictates. Yet that seems to be what too many are against him for. I just don't trust his positions, whatever they are at the moment. Paul? What can one say?

So he didn't know any better when he was a Protestant? From what I have heard he did not come to Catholicism on his own. He married a Catholic and was pressured to adjust to her faith.

Is this to say "Newt isn't that bad"? Justifying bad behavior by comparing it to bad behavior?

That's in the Bible too?

I was depressed when Palin didn't jump in. Cain was my second choice. Seems I latch on to losers. Now I'm really depressed. But wait! There's still The Donald.

You really have a thing about Christianity.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rafael

You really have a thing about Christianity.

As do you! What's your point?

[Mad_Dog]

Glen Beck disses Newt

Transcript of Newt Gingrich interview

Now I know I'll support Gingrich. Oh, Glen Beck... if there is a better example of a s***-licking ass clown in the media, I've yet to hear of them. Just do the show you always wanted to do. Three hours of you shouting "Me! Me! ME!" into the mike. Douche.

[FastEddy]

" ... I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.” ..." - The wicked witch of the west, she said smilingly.



Imagine being stuck in a room with Nancy for a year! .... Argheeeee

[FoundingFather]

Originally Posted by FastEddy

" ... I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.” ..." - The wicked witch of the west, she said smilingly.



Imagine being stuck in a room with Nancy for a year! .... Argheeeee

Is that about the same time as his conversion?