Now that Newt is a frontrunner...
visagrunt wrote:
Since this is about Gingrich, I was going to ignore the others, but I couldn't resist the image of Santorum for VP. Really? Did you write that on purpose?
If Dan Savage has proved anything in the last five years it is the power of a lone man with a pen to thoroughly destroy the credibility of a target. Given the new meaning that has been successfully attached to Santorum, what candidate is his right mind is going to want to have that on his ticket? (Cue disturbing mental image.)
He was dead before he started.
If Dan Savage has proved anything in the last five years it is the power of a lone man with a pen to thoroughly destroy the credibility of a target. Given the new meaning that has been successfully attached to Santorum, what candidate is his right mind is going to want to have that on his ticket? (Cue disturbing mental image.)
He was dead before he started.
The idea of Santorum as a VP pick is cause he can rally the base. He wouldn't be a likely pick though, if Cain can find evidence to show that these attacks on him were a smear campaign from team Obama, then I am pretty sure Cain will be Gingrich's VP pick.
visagrunt wrote:
Quote:
Newt Gingrich is a lot older and comes across as more mature than when he was speaker of the house. He's managing to piss off all the right people, just won a showdown against Nancy Pelosi. Furthermore, if you look at the "ethics violation" it looks like the truth would be more damaging to the people that did the investigating that it would to Newt Gingrich, considering the IRS announced that there was nothing there.
He got hit with a violation because his lawyer screwed up some paperwork, that's what he had to pay the $300,000 fine over. I mean seriously, if that's what the Democrats intend to use against him they better be prepared for it to backfire, especially since Pelosi has publicly backed off.
Plus now if anything from that ethics investigation shows up, Newt can immediately demand Pelosi be investigated for violating ethics rules. Plus I think, Gingrich may have a point that he can show how much of a political witchhunt the investigation was, and can use the fact the IRS later cleared him as further evidence that the ethics violation was a farce.
He got hit with a violation because his lawyer screwed up some paperwork, that's what he had to pay the $300,000 fine over. I mean seriously, if that's what the Democrats intend to use against him they better be prepared for it to backfire, especially since Pelosi has publicly backed off.
Plus now if anything from that ethics investigation shows up, Newt can immediately demand Pelosi be investigated for violating ethics rules. Plus I think, Gingrich may have a point that he can show how much of a political witchhunt the investigation was, and can use the fact the IRS later cleared him as further evidence that the ethics violation was a farce.
You don't get past something like this by focussing attention on it. Turning the tables on Pelosi does him no good, because he's not running against her. Everytime the words "Gingrich" and "ethics violation" turn up in the same sentence, it's a few more Republicans sitting on their hands on election day, and a few more undecideds opting for "the devil they know."
Ordinarily you would be right, however the fact that we had Pelosi come out and threaten Gingrich, whom turned tables on her by pointing out she would be violating ethics rules (which she already is btw for making the threat), actually may turn the ethics charges into a positive.
The way he responded and the way she is now backing down, suggests that the ethics charges were nothing more than a political hatchet job designed for a charecter assassination. It actually throws the corruption charges right back in Pelosi's face (whom quite frankly should be facing ethics charges anyways), and makes it look like the investigators were corrupt.
Furthermore, if anything comes out from that investigation, Nancy Pelosi is now on the hook for it. Gingrich can start slamming Pelosi and say this is a perfect example of how corrupt Pelosi is.
visagrunt wrote:
At the end of the day, the strongest reason that I can think of that Gingrich is the wrong candidate for the Republicans is this: He's the Republican candidate that I am most impressed with. Since my political views are almost always diametrically opposed to the zeitgeist it seems to me that any candidate that I would prefer is, axiomatically, the candidate that the rank and file membership of the Republican Party are most likely to run screaming from.
I think your analysis is wrong in this case, the fact that the rank and file are going bananas is actually what the conservative base is liking. We all understand Obama is good at giving speeches, and quite frankly Gingrich is the only one that could easily beat Obama in a debate.
The novelty of watching Gingrich mop the floor with Obama in a debate is something that a lot of Republicans would pay money to see. Furthermore, they see that Newt Gingrich is a fighter which is something that Mittens really is not.
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
No visagrunt, while you have been rather shallow in the past, you've not been anywhere near as shallow as what quite a few people here have been and I will throw both Jacoby and pandabear on the same list.
Ooohhh... I'm gonna tell a Moderator, and you're gonna be in TROUBLE!! !! !! !
Compared to everything you have called me, what I said was relatively minor. Furthermore, I was only agreeing with visagrunt's assessment of your comments and behavior. I pointed out basically that I've never seen visagrunt behave as shallowly as you do. If you're saying I should apologize for telling the truth, it is not gonna happen.
pandabear wrote:
And, he really should get a job mopping floors. That would suit him.
Ever heard of a figure of speech?
Gingrich is a lot better debater than John McCain was, based on the fact Romney is afraid of debating Gingrich, it's obvious Gingrich is the stronger candidate.
Gingrich however is someone that a lot of Washington insiders are terrified of, and I think that's a good thing. The fact we no longer had balanced budgets after he left kinda shows the real reason why everyone wanted him gone, and that is cause he kept them from spending like lunatics and was focused on what is best for this country rather than playing partisan games.
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
Orwell wrote:
minervx wrote:
Of all the candidates, Newt was one of the few who had years of preparation and policy research. Though you may not agree with his views, he has more intellectual depth, than Republicans such as Cain who only had talking points and Perry who entered without a clear agenda.
Ignoring Hunstman? He has by far the strongest record of actual accomplishment of any Republican in the field.
True. The more I read about him the more I like him (his foreign policy cred is very likable, though he is a bit of an unknown on defense spending). Though I was genuinely impressed by Newt in the values forum he did with Herman Cain.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
Inuyasha wrote:
The idea of Santorum as a VP pick is cause he can rally the base. He wouldn't be a likely pick though, if Cain can find evidence to show that these attacks on him were a smear campaign from team Obama, then I am pretty sure Cain will be Gingrich's VP pick.
Is rallying the base what's needed here? Perhaps. With a candidate like Romney--who is designed to appeal to independents and centrists, I can see that you need a rock solid running mate to get out the knuckle draggers. But what if the running mate turns off more independents than the candidate can attract? Then you've mobilized the base for nothing.
As for Cain, all I can say is, "there's Danté, building a snowfort." There is zero chance that anything with get proved or disproved in the next nine months. He is now solidly yesterday's news and he will be consigned to the oblivion that is reserved for also-rans. The media will turn their attention to candidates with a pulse, and his accusers will be left to languish.
Quote:
Ordinarily you would be right, however the fact that we had Pelosi come out and threaten Gingrich, whom turned tables on her by pointing out she would be violating ethics rules (which she already is btw for making the threat), actually may turn the ethics charges into a positive.
The way he responded and the way she is now backing down, suggests that the ethics charges were nothing more than a political hatchet job designed for a charecter assassination. It actually throws the corruption charges right back in Pelosi's face (whom quite frankly should be facing ethics charges anyways), and makes it look like the investigators were corrupt.
Furthermore, if anything comes out from that investigation, Nancy Pelosi is now on the hook for it. Gingrich can start slamming Pelosi and say this is a perfect example of how corrupt Pelosi is.
The way he responded and the way she is now backing down, suggests that the ethics charges were nothing more than a political hatchet job designed for a charecter assassination. It actually throws the corruption charges right back in Pelosi's face (whom quite frankly should be facing ethics charges anyways), and makes it look like the investigators were corrupt.
Furthermore, if anything comes out from that investigation, Nancy Pelosi is now on the hook for it. Gingrich can start slamming Pelosi and say this is a perfect example of how corrupt Pelosi is.
But this is still taking the fight to Pelosi. And every column inch that gets wasted fighting her is a column inch that is not spent fighting Obama.
Obama has a much larger war chest than the Republican hopefuls, and when one of them emerges from this contest, the candidate is still going to have to fight a quasi-national campaign. (As usual, the myth of national democracy will cover over the fact that the only presidential races that count are the ones in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and their ilk.) Meanwhile, Obama will be able to outspend the eventual Republican candidate, hands down.
In that scenario, every ad, every column inch and every second of broadcast is precious. When you go off message, you waste those resources.
Quote:
I think your analysis is wrong in this case, the fact that the rank and file are going bananas is actually what the conservative base is liking. We all understand Obama is good at giving speeches, and quite frankly Gingrich is the only one that could easily beat Obama in a debate.
The novelty of watching Gingrich mop the floor with Obama in a debate is something that a lot of Republicans would pay money to see. Furthermore, they see that Newt Gingrich is a fighter which is something that Mittens really is not.
The novelty of watching Gingrich mop the floor with Obama in a debate is something that a lot of Republicans would pay money to see. Furthermore, they see that Newt Gingrich is a fighter which is something that Mittens really is not.
(shrug) If sanity, reason and mature decision making prevail in this contest I will be pleased. But I don't see such a sea change in American politics happening during the next 11 months.
_________________
--James
Has anyone else noticed that Gingrich is an extremely easy person to ridicule?
Let's face it, he screams "candy-ass" quite loudly.
He looks high in that picture, and his hair looks unnatural and strange.
Quote:
Declared 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate
Former Speaker of the House
Newt Gingrich
Gingrich position on Marijuana
Newt started off as a user and an advocate of marijuana legalization (at least, medical marijuana), before becoming one of the most passionate opposition of legalization.
“Gingrich’s response to questions about his youthful drug experimentation (“That was a sign we were alive and in graduate school in that era”) was uncharacteristically graceful and in perspective and mature… ”
1 May 1995, New York Magazine, page 42
In 1982, Gingrich, in his capacity as a member of the House of Representatives, wrote a letter to the Journal of the American Medical Association expressing his support towards medical marijuana.
“The American Medical Association's Council on Scientific Affairs should be commended for its report, "Marijuana: Its Health Hazards and Therapeutic Potential" (1981;246:1823). Not only does the report outline evidence of marijuana's potential harms, but it distinguishes this concern from the legitimate issue of marijuana's important medical benefits. All too often the hysteria that attends public debate over marijuana's social abuse compromises a clear appreciation for this critical distinction….
http://2012.republican-candidates.org/G ... ijuana.php
His attempt to run on a "moral values" ticket is misguided. Although he is hardly Satan's right-hand man, any truly sincere evangelical Christian will find it hard to be enthusiastic over him. Obama's admission to doing drugs in high school scored him brownie-points with the liberal populists. Gingrich admitting to doing weed in grad school isn't going to fly well with the base he's pandering to. If you're going to support medical marijuana and want to run for President, you had better be a sober-looking Democrat with an enthusiastic liberal base and strong credibility with independents.
Romney may have some annoying chimerical qualities, but he overall comes across as far more "presidential" than Gingrich. He has greater overall credibility than Gingrich.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... UOM9QvhG5I
Of course, Obama's people have virtually been salivating over him.
visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
The idea of Santorum as a VP pick is cause he can rally the base. He wouldn't be a likely pick though, if Cain can find evidence to show that these attacks on him were a smear campaign from team Obama, then I am pretty sure Cain will be Gingrich's VP pick.
Is rallying the base what's needed here? Perhaps. With a candidate like Romney--who is designed to appeal to independents and centrists, I can see that you need a rock solid running mate to get out the knuckle draggers. But what if the running mate turns off more independents than the candidate can attract? Then you've mobilized the base for nothing.
The way everyone in the establishment is pushing for Romney indicates that they probably have something that can torpedo his chances.
Romney can be painted as a Wall Street Fat cat, Newt however can't and that disrupts the class warfare song and dance.
visagrunt wrote:
As for Cain, all I can say is, "there's Danté, building a snowfort." There is zero chance that anything with get proved or disproved in the next nine months. He is now solidly yesterday's news and he will be consigned to the oblivion that is reserved for also-rans. The media will turn their attention to candidates with a pulse, and his accusers will be left to languish.
They said Newt's campaign was dead a few monthes ago, and he's now the front runner.
visagrunt wrote:
Quote:
Ordinarily you would be right, however the fact that we had Pelosi come out and threaten Gingrich, whom turned tables on her by pointing out she would be violating ethics rules (which she already is btw for making the threat), actually may turn the ethics charges into a positive.
The way he responded and the way she is now backing down, suggests that the ethics charges were nothing more than a political hatchet job designed for a charecter assassination. It actually throws the corruption charges right back in Pelosi's face (whom quite frankly should be facing ethics charges anyways), and makes it look like the investigators were corrupt.
Furthermore, if anything comes out from that investigation, Nancy Pelosi is now on the hook for it. Gingrich can start slamming Pelosi and say this is a perfect example of how corrupt Pelosi is.
The way he responded and the way she is now backing down, suggests that the ethics charges were nothing more than a political hatchet job designed for a charecter assassination. It actually throws the corruption charges right back in Pelosi's face (whom quite frankly should be facing ethics charges anyways), and makes it look like the investigators were corrupt.
Furthermore, if anything comes out from that investigation, Nancy Pelosi is now on the hook for it. Gingrich can start slamming Pelosi and say this is a perfect example of how corrupt Pelosi is.
But this is still taking the fight to Pelosi. And every column inch that gets wasted fighting her is a column inch that is not spent fighting Obama.
Yes and no, Gingrich isn't spending any money on campaign ads against Pelosi, he just turned tables on her and moved on. The ethics violations attack no longer works because she miscalculated and now the ethics violations look like nothing more than a typical left wing smear campaign. Furthermore, Pelosi is so disliked by Republicans and Independents, it generates support for Gingrich.
visagrunt wrote:
Obama has a much larger war chest than the Republican hopefuls, and when one of them emerges from this contest, the candidate is still going to have to fight a quasi-national campaign. (As usual, the myth of national democracy will cover over the fact that the only presidential races that count are the ones in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and their ilk.) Meanwhile, Obama will be able to outspend the eventual Republican candidate, hands down.
Which is why we need someone that is very good at turning tables on a hostile media and used to taking all kinds of smear attacks. Sorry but Romney lost his cool in an interview with Bret Bauer (sp?) of Fox News. If he can't handle questions from Fox News, I seriously doubt he can handle the general election.
visagrunt wrote:
In that scenario, every ad, every column inch and every second of broadcast is precious. When you go off message, you waste those resources.
However, Gingrich hasn't been harping on the Pelosi thing, he pretty much destroyed her attack within 24 hours, and in fact Pelosi could be put up on ethic charges right now.
visagrunt wrote:
Quote:
I think your analysis is wrong in this case, the fact that the rank and file are going bananas is actually what the conservative base is liking. We all understand Obama is good at giving speeches, and quite frankly Gingrich is the only one that could easily beat Obama in a debate.
The novelty of watching Gingrich mop the floor with Obama in a debate is something that a lot of Republicans would pay money to see. Furthermore, they see that Newt Gingrich is a fighter which is something that Mittens really is not.
The novelty of watching Gingrich mop the floor with Obama in a debate is something that a lot of Republicans would pay money to see. Furthermore, they see that Newt Gingrich is a fighter which is something that Mittens really is not.
(shrug) If sanity, reason and mature decision making prevail in this contest I will be pleased. But I don't see such a sea change in American politics happening during the next 11 months.
I think you are wrong.
The only person that is really good at articulating the conservative viewpoint effectively is Newt Gingrich. I mean seriously, instead of slogans, he's already thinking of policy what would work, what probably wouldn't.
Newt's advantage here is his experience and the fact everything went to hell in a handbasket after he left office. Unlike Romney, he wasn't running for the Presidency since 2007, he is only in it because he's worried about which way this country is going, and he's worried about his grandkids' futures.
If it comes down to a contest between Newt Gingrich and a trained pig, I'll vote for the trained pig.
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
Inuyasha wrote:
Fnord wrote:
If it comes down to a contest between Newt Gingrich and a trained pig, I'll vote for the trained pig.
You'd also probably be voting for the Socialist in Chief Obama anyways, so I really couldn't care less.If it came down to Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich, I'd still vote for the trained pig, whether or not it was a candidate.
Which would you choose:
Arnold Ziffle (Green Acres)
Babe (Movie of the same name)
Wilbur (Charlotte's Web)
Swine #22734
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.

