Newt Grasping at Straws

[MechAg94]

Based on clips I heard today, Romney is attacking Newt basically saying the same thing Newt said.  Romney is the only one who can defeat Obama, etc, etc. 

One consistent thing about Paul supporters is that everyone else is a statist authoritarian.  While I have seen people sell Paul based on who he is, too often his supporters sell him based on how evil everyone else is.  That is only convincing to those that like him already.

[longeyes]

Not sure how serious you are. You mean by declaring himself to be the victim of discriminatory marriage laws that favor monogamous heteros?


It is somewhat interesting that, compared to serial monogamists like McCain, Gingrich, and so many others, it's the Mormon guy that's just sticking with the one wife for so long. 

I wasn't.

None of the current candidates have it all, and in my view this is because the culture itself is terminally splintered and these candidates reflect partial solutions both politically and individually.  I think we can salvage parts and enhance them, not the whole.  It does not please me to say this.

[Tallpine]

One consistent thing about Paul supporters is that everyone else is a statist authoritarian.

Well, unfortunately that is true 

[seeker_two]

To think Newt could have solved his personal issues just by being a polygamist...

Well....I guess Mitt wouldn't have a problem with that.... 

[slingshot]

I find it interesting and very political the attacks that Romney is leveling on Newt.  The ethics questions and all the crap that happened years ago essentially boiled down to a small breach which he was fined $300,000 for.  He could have paid the fine from his campaign war chest, but he paid it personally.  That is the sign of a strong character.  Did the major media report this....  NO.  Did they run something like 245 stories trashing Newt over this?  YES.  But they completely dropped the "story" when it came out that it was all about nothing.

There is concern apparently among the mony people in the Republican Party about Newt being not the best choice for their nominee.

The one thing you can give Newt is that he is a LEADER which Obama is not.  Romney is not the leader Gingrich.  Romney seems like a nice guy, but I don't think he has it in him to light a fire among voters like Gingrich.  Yeah. Gingrich has done some things that I simply don't agree with, but he has done a lot of what I do agree with.  We need a strong no bs leader as president.

I think ultimately we are likely to be stuck with Obama Care.  But changes are going to be made.  It is important that the Republicans gain the majority in both Houses of Congress.  The Repulicans seldom rammed things down the throats of the citizens just because they could.  They tend to want more support from both parties no matter what the proposed bill is.

If either Newt or Romney buy onto the Fair Tax and Cain's 9-9-9 plan, it will take them to the White House.  We need a dramatic change in the way the US Federal government taxes its citizens.

[Fitz]

Republicans don't ram legislation down our throats???

I lol'd.

[TommyGunn]

.....The Repulicans seldom rammed things down the throats of the citizens just because they could. 

Republicans don't ram legislation down our throats???

I lol'd.

[slingshot]

I guess you are thinking... Homeland Securty issues after 911?  That was a bill that had broad support.

[longeyes]

Any Republican who wins the Presidency this year will need all the leadership qualities he can muster to effect any productive change with the nation in the state it's in.  I think we're all aware of Newt's liabilities, but Newt at least has the amplitude to present the possibility of doing something.  If you want something dramatic you're going to need a Newt.  Romney is liable to be no more than an able caretaker of the (failed) liberal Republican agenda.

[slingshot]

Romney will chip around the edges, but will not affect dramatic change.  You can put down Obama for a lot of things, but he has affected dramatic change.  It is change I don't believe in, but change it was.

[Fitz]

\

Even with "seldom" thrown in there, it's a ridiculous statement

[TommyGunn]

   Neverless it is a different statement than what you attributed to him by a longshot.

In anycase, majority rules.  If you're in the minority you can always whine the other side "stuffed the law down our throats."  It doesn't really help the matter.

[slingshot]

When the Republican party had majorities and could effectively control what legislation moved forward or was passed, they gave the Democrats much more power than they needed to.  Pelosi is a product of that majority period when Clinton was president and we know how she ran the House.  If the Democrats succeed in gaining a majority in the House, we'll have Pelosi back as Speaker.  Guess she misses her government provided private jet.

I guess "ridiculous" is in the eye of the beholder and your core beliefs about the constitution, fiscal and social issues, and taxation.

[lee n. field]

Can we transplant Newt into Mitt's body?

Run them both through the matter transmitter.

[Perd Hapley]

As Newt slowly runs down the political garbage disposal, here is his USA Armageddon last-ditch campaign message:

Anybody remember a week ago, when somebody made the above comment about Newt's chances in the primary?     

Still waiting to hear what was so straw-grasping about Newt's apparently very successful pitch, of course. Get back to me on that when you get a chance. 

[Ron]

I remember when Newt was speaker of the house. I was very politically aware already. This editorial summarizes my recollections pretty accurately.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/25/gingrich-frames-the-debate

Look at his record before you believe all the spin. Votesmart.com has all the records.

Do I think Newt is better than Ron Paul philosophically? No

Would I vote for Newt if he got the R nomination? Yes, grudgingly though.

I hardly have to even weigh it out, Romney to me is worse than McCain. I'd take GW again over Romney.

[Perd Hapley]

Would I vote for Newt if he got the R nomination? Yes, grudgingly though.

I hardly have to even weigh it out, Romney to me is worse than McCain. I'd take GW again over Romney.

Same here.

[roo_ster]

Romney has it all over Newt in the areas if:
1. Illegal immigration.  Newt is going all Perry 2.0 on Romney.
2. (Lack of) sleaze.
3. (Lack of) grandiosity.

Either one would be a bitter pill, but I think Romney would be less dangerous to liberty than Newt.

I could be persuaded otherwise, but that is my thinking ATM.

Again, I wonder, "How has it come to this?"

[longeyes]

It's come to this because the political culture is designed to ensure that "the right people" keep their power, perks, and paramours. 

If we want an honest system we need to choose our political representation by lottery after applying a few very basic filters for eligibility.  Add to that strict term limits on everyone inside government, including the bureaucrats.  It can't be worse than what we have.

[Lee]

I'm a registered Republican.  But I'm embarrassed that Ron Paul has to be associated with the other three.  I'm happy that the popularity of his ideas seems to be having some impact on them, and even Obama (or at least on their talking points).  Government policies that are invasive, illogical, and cost too much (particularly more foreign entanglements during an economic crisis) are unpopular with nearly everyone.   
Romney is probably the best candidate of the three.  But I think he is perceived by a lot of people to be a poster boy for the economic mess we're in. 
Newt has been bashed by everyone he has ever worked with...and an ex wife or two.  Women in general (and many men) don't like or trust him.
Santorum is...Santorum....assuming that is Italian for insanely conservative, illogical, and inflexible.
If elections are won by carrying the white, over 40, conservative, happily employed, male vote...then Obama will lose.