Newt for President.
It seems Newt will win simply by being the last man standing as the other candidates self-destruct around him. As the saying goes, if I give you enough rope you will hang yourself.
Or, maybe not:
Gingrich horrifies viewers when, during a CNN debate, he jumps off the stage and backhands Anderson Cooper for asking him to limit his answer to under three hours.
Gingrich is caught on video telling a little girl at a town hall that her question is "fundamentally defective and dramatically lacking in historical awareness."
Gingrich crashes through a lectern after his increasingly large head leaves him so top-heavy that he becomes incapable of balancing himself.
Gingrich stuns the political world when, just days before the crucial Iowa caucuses, he sets off on a three-week African safari with his wife.
Voters finally realize that this Newt Gingrich is the same guy as the Newt Gingrich from the nineties.
** spoiler omitted **Newt for President.
It seems Newt will win simply by being the last man standing as the other candidates self-destruct around him. As the saying goes, if I give you enough rope you will hang yourself.
Or, maybe not:
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Now that would be funny.
I'm hoping for a Newt vs. Obama show.
Celebrity Death Match: Newt Vs. Obama!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People will realize that although he has been turned into a newt, he will not in fact get better.
Newt is the consummate lobbyist...no thanks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's gonna be another d-bag or crap sandwich choice again isn't it?
It's gonna be another d-bag or crap sandwich choice again isn't it?
It's like that every four years. (Sometimes it's like that every two, depending on your US Representative.)
It's gonna be another d-bag or crap sandwich choice again isn't it?
It is looking that way, yes.
Too often it comes down to voting against the other guy. "Anybody but _____."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the most important issue, one that no one will touch with a 10 foot poll, is our dependency on fossil fuels. We may well have reached peak oil in 2008 and are on beginning of the downward slope to economic catastrophe. Basically, Jimmy Carter was right and we should have been investing in solar these past 35 years. We're too entrenched in a manufactured political battle to see what's coming for us.
In that sense, none of the candidates address my primary concerns about the direction in which this country is headed. Even if we assume that none of the current candidates, Obama is included, will set us on the right path, I'd rather have anyone else than Newt Gingrich who is just a vile douchebag and a hypocrite.
I don't see it either. He just has too much baggage. Same reason I can't see Karl Rove or Dan Quale as president.
It's gonna be another d-bag or crap sandwich choice again isn't it?It is looking that way, yes.
Too often it comes down to voting against the other guy. "Anybody but _____."
You know I was pretty happy with both the candidates in 2008. The only part that really ended McCain in my book was Sarah Palin -- if he had gotten just about anyone else (okay not literally) I was still ready to vote for him.
The 2008 election was one of my happier moments in recent USA politics because I felt that either candidate was a good choice -- for me it was a no lose situation (excluding Palin again).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny, I thought 2008 was very "no-win" myself.
i may never agree with your political views, but it's damn good to have you back, HD.
Well I have a startling tendency to look at the people not the parties so that might have influenced my opinion.
Now McCain's campaign was one that I wasn't too happy with but I would still vote for him in a Presidential race because if nothing else he showed class in his congratulatory speech.
Palin is completely out in my book however since I can't vote for someone that quits like that. I mean if she had stepped down to run under the position of, "I can't both serve and run so I'm going to run and hand the job over to someone with the time and resources to commit fully to it."
I would have been pleasantly surprised, but she waited until everything was done then just dumped and ran -- I'm not down with that.
|
It's gonna be another d-bag or crap sandwich choice again isn't it?It is looking that way, yes.
Too often it comes down to voting against the other guy. "Anybody but _____."
You know I was pretty happy with both the candidates in 2008. The only part that really ended McCain in my book was Sarah Palin -- if he had gotten just about anyone else (okay not literally) I was still ready to vote for him.
The 2008 election was one of my happier moments in recent USA politics because I felt that either candidate was a good choice -- for me it was a no lose situation (excluding Palin again).
I believe I said it before here, but I felt we were doomed since the 2000 election, when the main choice was Bush vs. Gore, instead of McCain vs. Bradley. I mean, you could just watch the strings being pulled in both primaries.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny, I thought 2008 was very "no-win" myself.
I was pretty happy with Obama the candidate (though I never thought he was particularly liberal -- "most liberal president ever" my ass), but he has not lived up to my expectations. He has failed to roll back executive branch abuses, failed to restore civil rights attacked during the Bush years, and frankly failed to stand up to anyone with deep pockets. I still agree with much of what he says, but at best I find him ineffectual. At worst, he is a liar.
Sadly I suspect that I will find him more palatable than the Republican alternative.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Gaff i: (spoiler omitted)INIGO: You keep-a using that word. I do not think it means what-a you think it means.
Although "gaff" is a word, the word you meant to use is gaffe. Or, as we Americans say, "screw-up." - Sorry, I'm not usually the Grammar Squirrel, but I think any exhortation for a presidential candidate will have best effect if it is correctly spelled.
(That said, I don't think Newt is a viable candidate - but he wouldn't be the first nonviable candidate put forward by a major political party...)
Depends if he means a blunder (in which case you are correct) or harsh criticism (in which case he would be) ... or perhaps he is listing reasons Newt should be put on a big iron hook ... ;)
Happy Funny Joke Gaffe #1: He tells the OWS people to not give up, then turns round as soon as is convenient and tells them all to take a shower and get a job.
Oh, wait. He actually did that.
Funny, I thought 2008 was very "no-win" myself.I was pretty happy with Obama the candidate (though I never thought he was particularly liberal -- "most liberal president ever" my ass), but he has not lived up to my expectations. He has failed to roll back executive branch abuses, failed to restore civil rights attacked during the Bush years, and frankly failed to stand up to anyone with deep pockets. I still agree with much of what he says, but at best I find him ineffectual. At worst, he is a liar.
Sadly I suspect that I will find him more palatable than the Republican alternative.
Well to be fair there is very little the president can do in many cases. In fact he has an imperative from the laws we passed after 9/11 to continue doing some of the exact stuff he wanted to end (the language was "will do" not "can do") -- it's legally awkward to work around.
That and the fact that the Democrats completely failed to tell the Republicans to simply shut up and get out of the way when they actually had the ability to get anything done.
The credit card reform stuff however was rather good.
Yeah...I like Newt. I'm over the infidelity he hasn't committed in a couple of decades and repeatedly apologized for. He stands for great ideas and knows his history. He knows how to cut and balance the budget, delegate and pursue solutions based on merit, and he can use his DC connections to move the football. Now, I don't like that he has all those connections, and I don't like that he consulted for an arm of government that should never have existed, and I don't like that he has supported establishment candidates instead of prevailing grass roots candidates with better conservative credentials. But he's ben big enough to apologize for some of those things. And ultimately, it's more about solutions than aprty with me. So I'd prefer a spotless candidate with perfect ideas and zero exposure to corruption, but there's only one of those and He's not back yet.
I'm happier with the thought of Newt than anyone else (currently) running on the Republican side.
Though I'm not sure I would trust his version of the right thing to do.
Yeah, that's one cynical version of events. The other would be that Newt loves his country and its history enough to defend it against reshaping by expanding statism. You could even argue that he had just witnessed the fall of a statist regime that made the same promises to its people that resident socialists made here, and then impoverished the majority of them, even resorting to mass murder to quell dissention, seize wealth and lower the bills. You may have heard that the Clinton White House played some very dirty pool - coached by some of the same players that gave us this administration, and that Gingrich felt his presence and criminal acts soiled the office of Chief Executive.
You could say that Bill Clinton was morally reprehensible and deserved impeachment after lying under oath and attempting to intimidate witnesses in legal precedings against him, which predated his presidency and were not ginned up by any of his political opponents. Were all the Supreme Court justices who turned their backs o him conservatives? No? Must be a different conspiracy.
It's gonna be another d-bag or crap sandwich choice again isn't it?Which one is Newt?
(Sorry, I don't follow HISTORY.)
Is either a good choice? Which is better?
|
Easy there, Sensei - I make no apologies for Clinton. He was a born hornswoggler and I'll never understand how he avoided perjury charges.
I simply feel that the Republicans of that period were spending far too many resources on personal attacks against the President when their energies could have been spent preventing the "expanding statism" of which you speak.
Whenever members of either party start focusing on personal antagonism rather than pursuing (their perception of) the public's best interests, they're straying from the reason we send them to Washington. You agree with me there?
That depends on what your definition of IS, is.
Yeah, that's one cynical version of events. The other would be that Newt loves his country and its history enough to defend it against reshaping by expanding statism. You could even argue that he had just witnessed the fall of a statist regime that made the same promises to its people that resident socialists made here, and then impoverished the majority of them, even resorting to mass murder to quell dissention, seize wealth and lower the bills. You may have heard that the Clinton White House played some very dirty pool - coached by some of the same players that gave us this administration, and that Gingrich felt his presence and criminal acts soiled the office of Chief Executive.
You could say that Bill Clinton was morally reprehensible and deserved impeachment after lying under oath and attempting to intimidate witnesses in legal precedings against him, which predated his presidency and were not ginned up by any of his political opponents. Were all the Supreme Court justices who turned their backs o him conservatives? No? Must be a different conspiracy.
I agree -- that is another cynical version of events. ;-)
Easy there, Sensei - I make no apologies for Clinton. He was a born hornswoggler and I'll never understand how he avoided perjury charges.
I'd guess it was the thriving economy and the complete irrelevance of the charges to the inquiry that created them?
Lying under oath isn't perjury if you deem the charges as irrelevant...
I'll have to remember that one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lying under oath isn't perjury if you deem the charges as irrelevant...
I'll have to remember that one.
Well, I'm an atheist, and I think the oath is meaningless. So, if everyone in that trial was supposed to be loyal to the country and the constitution, then yes, I think dropping the whole stupid thing was the Right Thing to Do.
You'd have a hard time convincing me that the Bible or the Law are capable of creating magic words which, if violated, mean a man should lose his job because something completely irrelevant occurred years before he had said job.
I think Clinton did a lot of harm to this country, especially when it comes to media regulation and corporate restraint. But the way to take him to task for that was NOT outlined in The Scarlet Letter.
So... Because enough time has gone by, you are willing to forgive one man his infidelity, but not another? That's just comic.
|
I'm not entirely sure the GOP has a viable candidate. Gingrich is just the latest not-Romney. Rising to the top because everyone else has imploded and the base really doesn't want Romney.
When Gingrich implodes we'll see if Romney's support moves up at all. It hasn't yet, as they've run through upstart front-runner after front-runner.
There's still a few candidates who haven't had their turn yet.
Maybe the flavor of the month for December will be John Huntsman...
So... Because enough time has gone by, you are willing to forgive one man his infidelity, but not another? That's just comic.
Wait, what?
I don't care about anyone's infidelity, except insofar as it affects their job performance in public office.
If I thought Newt Gingrich would make a good president (which I don't) I would vote for him. His marital history matters as much to me as his shoe size.
Lying under oath isn't perjury if you deem the charges as irrelevant...
I'll have to remember that one.
Well, I'm an atheist, and I think the oath is meaningless. So, if everyone in that trial was supposed to be loyal to the country and the constitution, then yes, I think dropping the whole stupid thing was the Right Thing to Do.
You'd have a hard time convincing me that the Bible or the Law are capable of creating magic words which, if violated, mean a man should lose his job because something completely irrelevant occurred years before he had said job.
I think Clinton did a lot of harm to this country, especially when it comes to media regulation and corporate restraint. But the way to take him to task for that was NOT outlined in The Scarlet Letter.
agreed on the latter. Please explain the former.
So... Because enough time has gone by, you are willing to forgive one man his infidelity, but not another? That's just comic.Wait, what?
I don't care about anyone's infidelity, except insofar as it affects their job performance in public office.
If I thought Newt Gingrich would make a good president (which I don't) I would vote for him. His marital history matters as much to me as his shoe size.
oh no, that was aimed more at ancient sensei than at you. I'm having a hard time replying to posts on my phone.
"I'm an atheist so the law doesn't apply because the g-word is in it."
I'll have to remember that, too.
"I'm an atheist so the law doesn't apply because the g-word is in it."
I'll have to remember that, too.
Sure, if you believe that was my point, rock on.
Laws are laws, lies are lies, and that empeachment was a waste of time and money.
The same goes for Gingrich. His home life becomes relevant only when he deigns to regulate the marital affairs of Americans.
If I thought Newt Gingrich would make a good president (which I don't) I would vote for him. His marital history matters as much to me as his shoe size.
...because oaths don't matter. Got it.
They take one when they get inaugurated, ya know. Presidents do.
Prolly has the g-word in it someplace, too, I bet.
We wouldn't want them to honor that one either, I suppose.
...and that empeachment was a waste of time and money.
This I won't disagree with. It was a total witch hunt.
A magic promise is just a promise if there is no magic.
I'm not saying perjury isn't a crime. I'm saying enforcement of perjury law when it is tangential at best is an abuse of law, and I am glad it went nowhere.
Alright, you caught me being sloppy! Fine!
I'm on my phone, bored and opinionated. I guess you can see my point in their somewhere if you look hard enough.
Alright, you caught me being sloppy! Fine!
I'm on my phone, bored and opinionated. I guess you can see my point in their somewhere if you look hard enough.
I forgot a smiley :P
I was about 85% being facetious, anyway.