Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Good luck in your campaign to explain away 3 wives, two cheats, one excuse about how stressful his job was, a $300,000 ethics fine, and 1.6M from a company he claims people should go to jail for working with.
No amount of spin and deflection will get the public to look past the above. So please, run Newt. It'll be the best possible guarantee of an Obama administration until 2016.
That's the point. Newt's record will sink him during the next three months.
How Newt Gingrich won over the tea party
As opponents and the Republican establishment turn on former House speaker Newt Gingrich, he's getting a lifeline of support from a constituency he has ambitiously courted: the tea party.
By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer / December 20, 2011
Newt Gingrich topping Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, and even tea party champion Ron Paul in a 23,000-person tea party straw poll on Monday might seem like another headscratcher in the GOP's bewildering and manic rush to come up with a candidate to unseat President Obama.
Gingrich's record is long, complicated, and hardly the picture of philosophical rigor that the tea party movement seeks to employ in Washington. So, how did Gingrich win over the tea party?
Gingrich's appeal among tea partyers has its roots in a number of factors, including his early support of the movement, his scorched-earth maneuverings in the 1990s that helped guide the country toward balanced budgets and even surpluses, and the fact that he's being targeted for takedown by the same Republican establishment that the tea party has vowed to depose via electoral insurgency.
Gingrich can "express conservative views in ways that are, to that conservative audience, interesting and motivational, and those are his political assets, says Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University, in Atlanta.
Democrats have wasted little time playing up Gingrich's tea party connections. Gingrich was a tea party politician even before there was a tea party
Unfortunately for you, you don't get to chose what things are relevant to voters. If the Republicans are dumb enough to run Newt, I assure you the Democrats will make sure people find these issues relevant.Notice this person points out all these things that aren't really relevant to being president.
Romney, right up to his nomination, will remind primary GOP voters of these points.
Rightly so.
The newties here remind sensible folks that politics remain the art of the possible. Newt is not going to be possible against Romney much less Obama. Romney is conservative enough to hold the right of center as well as the center. Newt cannot pull the center, which he will lose to Obama.
Mumbling about "conservative enough" no longer counts, just isn't enough anymore.
If Romney wins, it will because he slimed his opponents. And his opponents supporters will remember that in November, when they don't show up to support him.
No one ever ran a dirty campaign in the primary and won in the general. Pissing on the people you are going to need to knock on doors is a sure-fire loser... and so is Mittens.
Specious nonsense in both paragraphs. Prove your points. You can't, Joe.
You have no evidence backing your charges, Joe. Please try. Do better.
I would like to know why the "left" is being accused of smearing Newt.
rightwingnuts think anyone who tells the truth about their candidates is "smearing" them.
you'd think they'd just pick better candidates....
but that's what happens when your sole criteria are idealogical purity and the ability to be their attack dog.
If you people could see my face, youd be convinced of my authenticity when I say that I believe the "left" is hoping that Newt becomes the GOP nominee. If he does, THEN he will be smeared.
Duh, Joe. Duh.
In his 2009 book, Real Change, Newt condemned Lockheed Martin for squandering tax payer dollars on the "kinds of waste and fraud that currently plague government programs" without reminding readers of how, during his two decades in congress, Mr. Speaker funneled endless streams of taxpayer dollars to a major Lockheed assembly plant in a neighboring congressional district.Dr. Sowell makes a lot of sense as usual.
Thomas Sowell
The Past and the Present
If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.
What the media call Gingrich's "baggage" concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the next weeks and months.
But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a nation?
This is not just another election and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama's broken promises, glib demagoguery and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election: "We are going to change the United States of America."
Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.
Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and has bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences can be beyond our worst imagining.
Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich's personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics' claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.
Even back in the 19th century, when the scandal came out that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock — and he publicly admitted it — the voters nevertheless sent him to the White House, where he became one of the better presidents.
Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck.
While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich's candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years — followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it "the Clinton surplus" but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was Speaker of the House.
Speaker Gingrich also produced some long overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody makes that claim any more.
http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/the-past-and-the-present.html
Newt, Mitt and Obama serve the 1% not the 99%.
They all choose Wall Street over Main Street every time.
"Choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth Changes nothing.
Newt Gingrich's Lockheed Martin Love Affair | Mother Jones
That would be Democratic president.
In his 2009 book, Real Change, Newt condemned Lockheed Martin for squandering tax payer dollars on the "kinds of waste and fraud that currently plague government programs" without reminding readers of how, during his two decades in congress, Mr. Speaker funneled endless streams of taxpayer dollars to a major Lockheed assembly plant in a neighboring congressional district.Dr. Sowell makes a lot of sense as usual.
http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/the-past-and-the-present.html
Newt, Mitt and Obama serve the 1% not the 99%.
They all choose Wall Street over Main Street every time.
"Choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth Changes nothing.
Newt Gingrich's Lockheed Martin Love Affair | Mother Jones
Mother Jones. You should just go find a nice, quiet place and put yourself out of the misery of being such a pathetically gullible loser. I didn't know IQs could be measured in negative integers, but you have corrected that misapprehension.
Good luck in your campaign to explain away 3 wives, two cheats, one excuse about how stressful his job was, a $300,000 ethics fine, and 1.6M from a company he claims people should go to jail for working with.The truth is not a smear. And the truth about Newt is:
1) He's 3x married, twice divorced, cheated on both his first two wives and claimed that it was due in part to the stress of his job.
2) He supported a health insurance mandate before he opposed a health insurance mandate.
3) He claims credit for balancing a budget despite the fact that he vehemently opposed a significant portion of the legislation that balanced that budget.
4) He thinks congress should fire judges with whom they disagree.
5) He and his consulting firm were paid 1.6M by the GSE's, while at the same time claiming that any politician who took money from them should be in jail.
6) He paid the single largest fine related to ethics violations in the history of the House of Representatives.
I could go on....Those aren't smears, they are facts. If the far-right is so blind as to think they can pass this guy through a national election with that baggage, more power to ya. Please run him.
Look up the facts. It takes two to make a marriage. How many people in this nation are divorced after bad choices. A personal life does not make a world leader.
Issues that were 30 years ago change.
His ethics violation, One out of 84 accused by the Democrats, involved teaching a class with the help of his aides.
He had a consulting firm and he was a consultant.
He worked with Clinton, a Democratic president and listen to the kudos he received from him on the OReilly thread on this board.
No amount of spin and deflection will get the public to look past the above. So please, run Newt. It'll be the best possible guarantee of an Obama administration until 2016.
Unfortunately for you, you don't get to chose what things are relevant to voters. If the Republicans are dumb enough to run Newt, I assure you the Democrats will make sure people find these issues relevant.The truth is not a smear. And the truth about Newt is:
1) He's 3x married, twice divorced, cheated on both his first two wives and claimed that it was due in part to the stress of his job.
2) He supported a health insurance mandate before he opposed a health insurance mandate.
3) He claims credit for balancing a budget despite the fact that he vehemently opposed a significant portion of the legislation that balanced that budget.
4) He thinks congress should fire judges with whom they disagree.
5) He and his consulting firm were paid 1.6M by the GSE's, while at the same time claiming that any politician who took money from them should be in jail.
6) He paid the single largest fine related to ethics violations in the history of the House of Representatives.
I could go on....Those aren't smears, they are facts. If the far-right is so blind as to think they can pass this guy through a national election with that baggage, more power to ya. Please run him.
Notice this person points out all these things that aren't really relevant to being president.
I would like to know why the "left" is being accused of smearing Newt.
rightwingnuts think anyone who tells the truth about their candidates is "smearing" them.
you'd think they'd just pick better candidates....
but that's what happens when your sole criteria are idealogical purity and the ability to be their attack dog.
Actually, we think you wouldn't know the truth if it crawled up your pants legs and bit you on your left asscheek.
And if Obama is your idea of "better candidates", you can have him. Good luck to you running on THAT record. Most people don't seem to think deliberately destroying the country is a good idea, for some odd reason.
Call us when you get a REAL Presidential candidate, and maybe someone will give a shit what you "think" about Republican candidates . . . or anything at all.
If you people could see my face, youd be convinced of my authenticity when I say that I believe the "left" is hoping that Newt becomes the GOP nominee. If he does, THEN he will be smeared.
Duh, Joe. Duh.
I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that. I also have no doubt that if we could see your face, we'd have to press charges for assaulting our optic nerves.
But you keep congratulating yourself on what an easy time you're going to have fielding Barack "Presiding over the decline of America" Obama.
That would be Democratic president.
No, it wouldn't. The fact that you idiots want to rewrite the dictionary to try to show yourselves in a better light doesn't change English for those of us who don't give a shit about you OR your bullshit.
The Republican Party contains Republicans.
The Democrat Party contains Democrats.
We don't call the first one "The Republicanian Party", so why would we call the second one "The Democratic Party"?
Bill Clinton was a Democrat, from the Democrat Party; therefore, he was a Democrat President.
Dr. Sowell makes a lot of sense as usual.
Thomas Sowell
The Past and the Present
If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.
What the media call Gingrich's "baggage" concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the next weeks and months.
But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a nation?
This is not just another election and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama's broken promises, glib demagoguery and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election: "We are going to change the United States of America."
Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.
Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and has bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences can be beyond our worst imagining.
Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich's personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics' claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.
Even back in the 19th century, when the scandal came out that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock and he publicly admitted it the voters nevertheless sent him to the White House, where he became one of the better presidents.
Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck.
While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich's candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it "the Clinton surplus" but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was Speaker of the House.
Speaker Gingrich also produced some long overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody makes that claim any more.
http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/the-past-and-the-present.html
