Did Newt Gingrich Out Brit Hume’s Dead Gay Son?

[Toro]

Outside of places like TownHall and other loony bins, I really didn't see anyone who actually thought Obama was born in Kenya.

lol

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-voters-are-birfers.html?highlight=Republican

 

[Seawytch]

Actually reading Synthies smear, there's an awful lot of supposition there.

Guy, do you realize the more folks on the left smear Newt, the better the right likes him?

Yeah, but it takes a WHOLE lot of supposition to come up with "Obama is a Kenyan"...

The right doesn't pick the President, just their candidate. The rest of the country picks the President. How do you REALLY think Newt is going to fare on the National stage?

On the GOP side the top two candidates are:

Romney (he of the 1%) and Gingrich (the lobbyist for the 1%)

Outside of places like TownHall and other loony bins, I really didn't see anyone who actually thought Obama was born in Kenya.

Again, I think Obama does have an advantage in being the incumbant, but this will all come down to the economy. If people are feeling better, they'll give Obama a second term. If they feel, hey, the economy is still shit, they are going to show him the door.

My worry is that the 1% really wants Romney, but they are a little wary of Gingrich and his populism of late. If they get Romney as the nominee, they might well trigger a double dip to get him elected.

I also think that if you don't really believe Obama is as much in the pocket of the 1% as the other two, you are kidding yourself. Just look at a list of Obama's top donors.

No I don't think President Obama is as much in the pocket of the 1% that Romney or Gingrich are. Yes, President Obama needs the 1% (their $ anyway) to support him in order to win the election. That is part of what the populist OWS movement is about. But President Obama supports policies that benefit MORE than the 1%...none of the GOP candidates do. Every single one of them (not counting Paul, but who does) have tax plans that would benefit the 1% to the detriment of the rest of us. President Obama's doesn't. Every single one of the GOP candidates opposes more regulations to the financial industry...which is what the American people WANT.

How do you get elected when everything support and represent goes against what the majority of Americans want?

Plus, to top it all off, people actually like President Obama. Gingrich has more negative connotation attached to him than most in modern politics. He comes across anywhere from "angry little attack muffin" to downright prick. And Romney, the cardboard cutout man? NOBODY likes Romney.

 

[Toro]

[
... in South Carolina amongst Republicans.

Finished that for you.

In the meantime, Newt lost badly in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The Democrats are winning if we aren't talking about the economy. We will be talking much less about the economy if Newt is the nominee. If Newt is the nominee, we will be talking a whole lot about Newt.

And Newt's negatives are consistently amongst the highest of all the Republican candidates.

True story.

So what?

New Hampshire and Iowa are not as important as SC. People have won Iowa (Huckabee, Bush-41 in 1980, dole in 1988) and gone on to lose the nomination. McCain came in fourth in Iowa and still took the nomination. Ditto with NH. Neither state is the be all and end all. Bill Clinton lost both states in 1992 (IA to Harken, NH to Tsongas) and still won the nomination.

If Romney's the nominee, we will be talking about the economy, all right, but it won't be in a good way for republicans. It will be a reminder that people like Romney were the ones who stole the middle class, boxed it up and shipped it to China and left us all with McJobs without benefits.

Obama wants to have that argument, and frankly I don't blame him.

Obama would rather not talk about the economy at all. Period. He'd rather we all be talking about a guy who said that women aren't fit for combat, or we should have the death penalty for marijuana smokers, or the benefits of putting giant mirrors in space to light the Interstate Highways. If Newt is the nominee, they are going to drag up every stupid thing he has ever said, and Republicans are going to be bitching and complaining about the "Lamestream Media" 24/7.

"If you are explaining, you're losing." - Lee Atwater.

That's Newt.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama would rather not talk about the economy at all. Period. He'd rather we all be talking about a guy who said that women aren't fit for combat, or we should have the death penalty for marijuana smokers, or the benefits of putting giant mirrors in space to light of the Interstate Highways. If Newt is the nominee, they are going to drag up every stupid thing he has ever said, and Republicans are going to be bitching and complaining about the "Lamestream Media" 24/7.

"If you are explaining, you're losing." - Lee Atwater.

That's Newt.

Wow, is that desperation I smell, Toto? I thought RomneyBot 2000 was inevitable and we'd all bettter learn to suck it up and love our magic underwear.

Now your boy loses one Caucus on an instant replay and a primary badly, and suddenly you are screaching that democracy has come to the GOP, and how dare you not do what we tell you to, and here's some obscure point that Newt made that I'll take out of context and hope it makes him look bad.

Fact is, most people don't trust the media, and when Newt goes after them for their bad behavior, it's golden.

Incidently, I think that Obama is going to win no matter who the GOP puts up. Simply, the voters don't vote out a president's party after one term very often. The last time it happened was in 1980. The last time it happened before that was 1892, and that was kind of questionable because you can argue about who had actually won in 1888.

The only way that Obama really loses is if the unemployment rate spikes above 9% again, and I don't think that's going to happen. If it does, it doesn't really matter who the GOP puts up. So why not elect an honest to God conservative instead of one who is conservative because a focus group told him to be?

 

[rdean]

does it matter, edwards outted Cheneys daughter, so?

R U cheering?

Mary Cheney looks more manly than Chaz Bono. No one needed to "out" her.

Oh shut up. What a horrid thing to say.

That's not funny at all. Not at all. I know many just drop dead beautiful women that are gay. It's not fair to play that card. Not at all.

And you know what? I probably could play hockey against Chaz and be thrilled. How you look doesnt define who you are. And I'm thrilled that the Chaz's sp? and the Mary Cheney's are out there fighting for equality.

Mary Cheney

Chaz Bono

Which one looks more "manly"?

What did I say that was so "horrid"?

 

[Toro]

Obama would rather not talk about the economy at all. Period. He'd rather we all be talking about a guy who said that women aren't fit for combat, or we should have the death penalty for marijuana smokers, or the benefits of putting giant mirrors in space to light of the Interstate Highways. If Newt is the nominee, they are going to drag up every stupid thing he has ever said, and Republicans are going to be bitching and complaining about the "Lamestream Media" 24/7.

"If you are explaining, you're losing." - Lee Atwater.

That's Newt.

Wow, is that desperation I smell, Toto? I thought RomneyBot 2000 was inevitable and we'd all bettter learn to suck it up and love our magic underwear.

Now your boy loses one Caucus on an instant replay and a primary badly, and suddenly you are screaching that democracy has come to the GOP, and how dare you not do what we tell you to, and here's some obscure point that Newt made that I'll take out of context and hope it makes him look bad.

Fact is, most people don't trust the media, and when Newt goes after them for their bad behavior, it's golden.

Incidently, I think that Obama is going to win no matter who the GOP puts up. Simply, the voters don't vote out a president's party after one term very often. The last time it happened was in 1980. The last time it happened before that was 1892, and that was kind of questionable because you can argue about who had actually won in 1888.

The only way that Obama really loses is if the unemployment rate spikes above 9% again, and I don't think that's going to happen. If it does, it doesn't really matter who the GOP puts up. So why not elect an honest to God conservative instead of one who is conservative because a focus group told him to be?

Well, you're not a conservative, so what do you care?

And you're conceding defeat already? Interesting.

 

[JoeB131]

No I don't think President Obama is as much in the pocket of the 1% that Romney or Gingrich are. Yes, President Obama needs the 1% (their $ anyway) to support him in order to win the election. That is part of what the populist OWS movement is about. But President Obama supports policies that benefit MORE than the 1%...none of the GOP candidates do. Every single one of them (not counting Paul, but who does) have tax plans that would benefit the 1% to the detriment of the rest of us. President Obama's doesn't. Every single one of the GOP candidates opposes more regulations to the financial industry...which is what the American people WANT.

How do you get elected when everything support and represent goes against what the majority of Americans want?

Horseshit. Obama's policies have made things worse for the 99%. I'm worse off than I was in 2008 and so is everyone I know.

The one percent. They are still sending Obama bags full of money. So they wink at each other when he kills the Keystone Pipeline for a year to placate the Snail Darter Democrats. Because the Democrats are used to bending organized labor over and doing a Barney Frank on them.

Plus, to top it all off, people actually like President Obama. Gingrich has more negative connotation attached to him than most in modern politics. He comes across anywhere from "angry little attack muffin" to downright prick. And Romney, the cardboard cutout man? NOBODY likes Romney.

People like Obama, but they don't think he's up to the job. Again, it will really all come down to the unemployment rate. above 9%, Obama goes back to Chicago. Below 7%, he gets a second term, and somewhere in between, it's gonna be a race. Both Romney and Gingrich have their flaws. But this will be a referendum on Obama, at the end of the day.

 

[peach174]

Newt is running on Saul Alinsky, who has been dead since 1972!

No,he isn't, fart-face.

Then why did he mention Alinsky at least 3 times during that victory speech?


FAIL.

Because it's this Administrations play book.

 

[California Girl]

Obama would rather not talk about the economy at all. Period. He'd rather we all be talking about a guy who said that women aren't fit for combat, or we should have the death penalty for marijuana smokers, or the benefits of putting giant mirrors in space to light of the Interstate Highways. If Newt is the nominee, they are going to drag up every stupid thing he has ever said, and Republicans are going to be bitching and complaining about the "Lamestream Media" 24/7.

"If you are explaining, you're losing." - Lee Atwater.

That's Newt.

Wow, is that desperation I smell, Toto? I thought RomneyBot 2000 was inevitable and we'd all bettter learn to suck it up and love our magic underwear.

Now your boy loses one Caucus on an instant replay and a primary badly, and suddenly you are screaching that democracy has come to the GOP, and how dare you not do what we tell you to, and here's some obscure point that Newt made that I'll take out of context and hope it makes him look bad.

Fact is, most people don't trust the media, and when Newt goes after them for their bad behavior, it's golden.

Incidently, I think that Obama is going to win no matter who the GOP puts up. Simply, the voters don't vote out a president's party after one term very often. The last time it happened was in 1980. The last time it happened before that was 1892, and that was kind of questionable because you can argue about who had actually won in 1888.

The only way that Obama really loses is if the unemployment rate spikes above 9% again, and I don't think that's going to happen. If it does, it doesn't really matter who the GOP puts up. So why not elect an honest to God conservative instead of one who is conservative because a focus group told him to be?

I suspect that what you are smelling is your own shit.

 

[JoeB131]

The only way that Obama really loses is if the unemployment rate spikes above 9% again, and I don't think that's going to happen. If it does, it doesn't really matter who the GOP puts up. So why not elect an honest to God conservative instead of one who is conservative because a focus group told him to be?

Well, you're not a conservative, so what do you care?

And you're conceding defeat already? Interesting.

I think beating an incumbant is always a difficult task, which is why since 1900, we've returned incumbants to office 16 times and only voted them out four times. Five if you count Ford and I really don't.

As for what defines a "conservative", i think it matters on your definition, doesn't it.

If you define "conservative" as "We think that rich douchebags should make as much money off America's rotting corpse as humanly possible", yup, I can honestly say, I'm not that sort of conservative.

And here's the gag. The GOP rank and file really isn't that kind of conservative, either.

Here's the thing. When people bought into the myth of "inevitablity" in NH and IA, it was pretty much going through the motions. Low turnouts and lax enthusiasm. Umm. who won Iowa? Ummm, who cares.

But given an oppurtunity to have a REAL choice, in SC you had a record high turnout.. much higher than 2008.

BOth parties are turning more populist. The GOP is just resisting a little longer.

 

[bodecea]

does it matter, edwards outted Cheneys daughter, so?

R U cheering?

No, he didn't. It was already common knowledge and Edwards was saying nice things about the Cheneys and their daughter in the comment. Apparently some people don't even want the word gay mentioned except as an insult...which is how they see it.

Get real. When Edwards and Kerry went after Cheney's daughter, the intent was to drive a wedge between fundies and the ticket. Democrats aren't above gay-bashing when it serves their purposes.

It completely backfired on them because people generally don't like it when you go after families. Something Mittens needs to keep in mind if he wants to keep going after Newt's family life.

1. They did not "go after" Cheney's daughter.

2. Mentioning that someone is gay is not an attack.

3. The fundies are idiots. Any attempt to placate them is idiotic.

 

[JoeB131]

I suspect that what you are smelling is your own shit.

Ohhh, Cali, you feeling the butthurt, too, this morning.

Hey, Jeb Bush is running away from Romney faster than a box of missing ballots.

And Romney's going to release two years of tax returns after insisiting it was none of our business.

Heh, heh, heh... What a fun morning.

 

[JoeB131]

1. They did not "go after" Cheney's daughter.

2. Mentioning that someone is gay is not an attack.

3. The fundies are idiots. Any attempt to placate them is idiotic.

NO great love for fundies on a personal level, but even Obama has to pretend he believes in Talking Snakes.

There was no reason for them to bring it up at all. It wasn't relevent to anything.

 

[bodecea]

does it matter, edwards outted Cheneys daughter, so?

R U cheering?

No, he didn't. It was already common knowledge and Edwards was saying nice things about the Cheneys and their daughter in the comment. Apparently some people don't even want the word gay mentioned except as an insult...which is how they see it.

I often find that very odd myself. Posters on this forum, left and right, desperately try to insult others by calling them 'gay'. I've been "accused" of being gay on the board. I thought it was funny because, if you think that 'insults' me, you could not be more wrong. I'm not gay, but I have no issue with being 'accused' of it.

* The term "you" is used as 'board members', not bodecea as an individual.

It's an insult if you think being gay is a bad thing.

Go ahead and call me gay all you want. It doesn't bother me in the least.

(BTW...the only people I infer are gay are the closet cases....I have contempt for them)

 

[bodecea]

1. They did not "go after" Cheney's daughter.

2. Mentioning that someone is gay is not an attack.

3. The fundies are idiots. Any attempt to placate them is idiotic.

NO great love for fundies on a personal level, but even Obama has to pretend he believes in Talking Snakes.

There was no reason for them to bring it up at all. It wasn't relevent to anything.

It was in the debate they were having...haven't you even seen it?

Kerry answering a question:

With Respect to Mary Cheney

More on it:

Cheney's Daughter A Flash Point - CBS News


Edwards debate:


Edwards defends choice to mention Cheney's gay daughter in debate

(note...the Freeper comments are hysterical)


So...Kerry brought it up when asked about gays...and Edwards brought it up when asked about equality for all.

 

[Synthaholic]

does it matter, edwards outted Cheneys daughter, so?

R U cheering?

Mary Cheney looks more manly than Chaz Bono. No one needed to "out" her.

Oh shut up. What a horrid thing to say.

That's not funny at all. Not at all. I know many just drop dead beautiful women that are gay. It's not fair to play that card. Not at all.

And you know what? I probably could play hockey against Chaz and be thrilled. How you look doesnt define who you are. And I'm thrilled that the Chaz's sp? and the Mary Cheney's are out there fighting for equality.

I'll look for your comments in the next Rachel Maddow thread.

 

[Synthaholic]

Actually reading Synthies smear, there's an awful lot of supposition there.

Guy, do you realize the more folks on the left smear Newt, the better the right likes him?

It's not MY smear - I didn't write the article.

Apparently you subscribe to the brain-dead wingnut tactic of shooting the messenger.

 

[Synthaholic]

I think it's stupidity. It's a 12 year old rumor. If the Democrats are running on 12year old rumors they have big problems because the GOP is going to run on the economy.

If Newt is the candidate, unfortunately we're not going to be talking about the economy much. Get used to this stuff.

I think the whole Marrianne Bomb showed that the voters don't care about this kind of crap... especially when it's this tangental. Romney threw everything he had at Gingrich, and at the end of the day, the voters still found him preferable to a Weird Mormon Robot.

No it didn't. It showed that an extreme wingnut audience attending the debate is more interested in hearing Newt attack a strawman than actually address the question of his past behaviour.

 

[rdean]

Mary Cheney looks more manly than Chaz Bono. No one needed to "out" her.

Oh shut up. What a horrid thing to say.

That's not funny at all. Not at all. I know many just drop dead beautiful women that are gay. It's not fair to play that card. Not at all.

And you know what? I probably could play hockey against Chaz and be thrilled. How you look doesnt define who you are. And I'm thrilled that the Chaz's sp? and the Mary Cheney's are out there fighting for equality.

Mary Cheney

Chaz Bono

Which one looks more "manly"?

What did I say that was so "horrid"?

Even with Bono's hormone treatment, I still think Mary looks more "butch". I bet she would think that's a compliment.

Even her girlfriend looks more butch.

 

[Synthaholic]

No,he isn't, fart-face.

Then why did he mention Alinsky at least 3 times during that victory speech?


FAIL.

Because it's this Administrations play book.

Why don't you explain to everyone your particular beef with Saul Alinsky?

We will give you some time to go look him up.