23% of Republicans Say they Won't Vote for Gingrich

[Toro]

NRO is the GOP establishment. The guys who got us into this mess... You want to go the way of the Whigs, keep following these fools.

rofl

Of course it is! Just like the WSJ was in on a conspiracy to plant false polls to make Romney look good, eh über-RINO! You're the poster child for confirmation bias. But then again, its quite common for those with a deep vested interest to believe others are out to get them and deny what they perceive as The Truth. I was going to add a caveat wondering when some blind partisan was going to call The National Review "the establishment." Thanks for not letting me down!

 

[Dot Com]

I refuse to do so. Sorry. The man has too many strikes against him in my mind, and all it really took for me was one - the bizarre ass evil cult he belongs to.

You're not an agnostic, you're zany

 

[Toro]

This is what happened in 1932 and 1964: mass far right delusion.

Wow, ignorant of history, too? 1932 they had what they had, an incumbant president who just had the economy shot out from underneath him. I don't think anyone on the GOP side was thrilled with Hoover for a second term, just no one wanted to be the guy FDR trashed.

1964 was a different animal, because you work on the assumption that Nelson Rockefeller could have done any better.

In 1964, you had an excellent economy, we were at peace, we were at the height of our economic and political power, we were finally tackling civil rights issues. Unemployment was under 5%. We were on our way to the freakin' Moon, baby! And LBJ was running on the mantle of a Martyred President. Key point. When a President dies, his party almost NEVER loses the subsequent election. (The exception was 1844, when the Whigs were self-destructing in general.)

So essentially, nominating Rockerfeller would have had the same effect as nominating Goldwater.

lol. Yeah, whatever makes you sleep at night.

Maybe Rockerfeller wouldn't have won, but they said "Goldwater couldn't win," and they were right.

 

[Charles_Main]

Newt and the far right may drive the center and independents squarely into the Dems pockets on this one, Charles.

The center hates Newt. And 23% of GOP will not vote for him.

Not saying I disagree, but then only about 25% of Republicans really want Romney either. Kinda a fucked up situation.

With Newt we risk Pissing off Independents, with Romney we risk Apathy among the Base, Santorum would also Lose us many Independents, and Paul, well IMO Paul Would not stand a chance.

shitty choices again.

 

[Toro]

Who's fault is that. As far as I'm concerned, this issue was settled four years ago when Romney came in third place behind McCain and Huckabee. Now he's losing to Santorum and Gingrich.

He was a sucky candidate four years ago, he's a sucky candidate now. So why are so many people willing to get on that horse again?

Bigoted extremist ***** like you are making sure Obama gets reelected. David Axelrod has a hard on for people like you.

I look at it this way, I'm the only one being steady. I was against Romney four years ago. I'm against him now. Now we are going to see all the liberals who were saying what a wonderful guy Romney was and how sensible he was compare him to the anti-Christ.

And we are going to see all the conservatives who were behind Perry/Newt/Huntsman/Bachmann/Cain/whoever all suddenly learn to Loooooove Mitt Romney.

Which to my mind is bullshit. Romney's support in the GOP is really only about 25%. Most Republicans really don't want him, but most of you will let yourselves be bullied into supporting him.

I refuse to do so. Sorry. The man has too many strikes against him in my mind, and all it really took for me was one - the bizarre ass evil cult he belongs to.

23% of Republicans say they couldn't support Gingrich. 8% say they couldn't support Romney.

True story.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Newt and the far right may drive the center and independents squarely into the Dems pockets on this one, Charles.

The center hates Newt. And 23% of GOP will not vote for him.

Not saying I disagree, but then only about 25% of Republicans really want Romney either. Kinda a fucked up situation.

With Newt we risk Pissing off Independents, with Romney we risk Apathy among the Base, Santorum would also Lose us many Independents, and Paul, well IMO Paul Would not stand a chance. shitty choices again.

If Newt takes the nomination and the Paul goes 3rd party, the GOP could go the way of the Whigs.

 

[JoeB131]

The state of his soul is not what qualifies him for being President.

He can be sorry all he wants. That doesn't make up for a lifetime of out of control behavior - out of control in more ways than just sexually. Well, being sorry might get him into heaven. But it doesn't qualify him for being president.

It's great that he has straightened up his personal life. But even if he hasn't cheated on his wife in the past 13 years, he still shows every sign of being dishonest.

Freddie Mac hired him because they needed a historian? What?

When he is on the defensive, he joins the OWS to start attacking Mitt Romney?

He was for a federal healthcare mandate from 1993 to 2009, and only got off that wagon when the Dems decided to have one?

No honor. Not true to his ideals. I see that you don't think his past sex life should keep him out of the presidency, but his current sex life doesn't qualify him for it. The reasons to question Newt are about so many other things than sex.

YOu know, if Newt was a Lobbyist, all it would take is one GOP congressman to come forward and say, "Yup, Newt Lobbied me on HB 2484 about Freddie Mac!" Not a one has done so up to this point. So you can make a lot of inuendo about him being a lobbyist. I suspect he was just exactly what he says he was- a consultant. Frankly, have no use for consultants myself. Whenever I've worked for a company that brought them in, bad stuff usually followed.

As for a Mandate- here's the problem. The only reason THE ENTIRE GOP turned on mandates was because that's where Obama ended up by accident. From 1993 (when Hillary first proposed her program) to 2009, the GOP was all about the Mandates and the Private Sector solutions. Newt, Dole, the Heritage Foundation, even Bush-43. ONly when Obama stumbled into one because he couldn't get a public option into the conference committee did people realize, "Oh my god, ObamaCare is a mandate. Mandates are bad, right?"

My problem with mandates is that they don't solve the actual problem, which is spiralling out of control costs. It just spreads the pain around a bit more.

I don't believe in souls or Sky Pixies or Heaven or any of that nonsense. I take great comfort in the fact they are all fairy tales for people who can't deal with death as a concept. I look at the more practical comparison.

Whatever Newt did to his wives, he's sorry about it now.

Romney isn't the least bit sorry for what he did to the AmPad workers.

Greed is a more venal sin than Lust, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Newt will destroy the GOP, and that is what JoeB wants.

 

[Toro]

Whatever Newt did to his wives, he's sorry about it now.

Really? How do you know?

 

[JoeB131]

23% of Republicans say they couldn't support Gingrich. 8% say they couldn't support Romney.

True story.

Either number is enough for the GOP to lose. McCain lost 10% of the Republican vote.

And I should point out that whatever Newt's negative are, it's taken them 20 years of constant attacks to develop them.

Romney's rep has deflated in a matter of weeks. Probalby over the minute he said, "I like to be able to fire people".

NOw, if you want to argue that maybe the GOP should get someone else to step up to the plate, that's fine. Arguing over which one of these guys is going to lose less embarrassingly to Obama is kind of pointless. I'd rather lose for who I am than lose for something I despise.

 

[Charles_Main]

Newt and the far right may drive the center and independents squarely into the Dems pockets on this one, Charles.

The center hates Newt. And 23% of GOP will not vote for him.

Not saying I disagree, but then only about 25% of Republicans really want Romney either. Kinda a fucked up situation.

With Newt we risk Pissing off Independents, with Romney we risk Apathy among the Base, Santorum would also Lose us many Independents, and Paul, well IMO Paul Would not stand a chance. shitty choices again.

If Newt takes the nomination and the Paul goes 3rd party, the GOP could go the way of the Whigs.

Doubt it would "go the way of the Whigs" but it would certainly guarantee an Obama win. But then that would be Paul's Fault. I am sorry if he runs 3rd party he knows Damn well he is Assuring an Obama victory. Paul would pull close to 10% easy in a General as a 3rd party in this Election and Obama would walk in.

Going the way of the whigs sounds like wishful thinking from a Liberal to me. The GOP just 2 short years ago was swept in across the country in an Unprecedented Sweep of State Houses, as well as the US Congress. They also gained in the Governorship count. I don't see how losing the Presidential Election in 2012 could take them from that to Dead. Remember the GOP lived thought 40 Years of Democrat control of the house and came back. Don't count them out.

 

[JoeB131]

Whatever Newt did to his wives, he's sorry about it now.

Really? How do you know?

He's said he is, and his daughters believe he's sincere enough.

BUt if you want to do a polygraph, I'm game for that one. As long as we get to do one on Romney as well.

"Governor Romney, do you really think that all other religions are an abomonation unto the Lord, as it says in the Book of Mormon?"

That would be fun. As long as we are examining Souls, that is.

 

[Care4all]

The state of his soul is not what qualifies him for being President.

He can be sorry all he wants. That doesn't make up for a lifetime of out of control behavior - out of control in more ways than just sexually. Well, being sorry might get him into heaven. But it doesn't qualify him for being president.

It's great that he has straightened up his personal life. But even if he hasn't cheated on his wife in the past 13 years, he still shows every sign of being dishonest.

Freddie Mac hired him because they needed a historian? What?

When he is on the defensive, he joins the OWS to start attacking Mitt Romney?

He was for a federal healthcare mandate from 1993 to 2009, and only got off that wagon when the Dems decided to have one?

No honor. Not true to his ideals. I see that you don't think his past sex life should keep him out of the presidency, but his current sex life doesn't qualify him for it. The reasons to question Newt are about so many other things than sex.

YOu know, if Newt was a Lobbyist, all it would take is one GOP congressman to come forward and say, "Yup, Newt Lobbied me on HB 2484 about Freddie Mac!" Not a one has done so up to this point. So you can make a lot of inuendo about him being a lobbyist. I suspect he was just exactly what he says he was- a consultant. Frankly, have no use for consultants myself. Whenever I've worked for a company that brought them in, bad stuff usually followed.

As for a Mandate- here's the problem. The only reason THE ENTIRE GOP turned on mandates was because that's where Obama ended up by accident. From 1993 (when Hillary first proposed her program) to 2009, the GOP was all about the Mandates and the Private Sector solutions. Newt, Dole, the Heritage Foundation, even Bush-43. ONly when Obama stumbled into one because he couldn't get a public option into the conference committee did people realize, "Oh my god, ObamaCare is a mandate. Mandates are bad, right?"

My problem with mandates is that they don't solve the actual problem, which is spiralling out of control costs. It just spreads the pain around a bit more.

I don't believe in souls or Sky Pixies or Heaven or any of that nonsense. I take great comfort in the fact they are all fairy tales for people who can't deal with death as a concept. I look at the more practical comparison.

Whatever Newt did to his wives, he's sorry about it now.

Romney isn't the least bit sorry for what he did to the AmPad workers.

Greed is a more venal sin than Lust, as far as I'm concerned.

Avarice(greed)

The deadliest of the 7 deadly sins, according to dante's inferno.....

 

[Dot Com]

Newt will destroy the GOP, and that is what JoeB wants.

True but JoeB, claimed he was an athiest a couple weeks back, thinks mormonism is a cult like the others aren't Besides, ever heard of Art VI of the Constitution JoeB?
Article VI | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

 

[freedombecki]

From an ABC poll

Gingrich has considerable vulnerabilities that Romney must exploit to convince voters that Gingrich would lose in the general election. The former speaker is unpopular nationally and with independent voters. He is also unpopular in his own party. In New Hampshire exit polls, more than 60 percent said they would not be happy if he were the nominee. National polls show the same thing. In a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, 23 percent of Republicans said they would not support him. Only Ron Paul did worse. Women voters, an important swing voting bloc, do not like Gingrich.

Gingrich wins South Carolina: How can Romney recover from his terrible defeat? - Slate Magazine

That's not so bad considering that 35% of all Democrats may not care to vote for Obama again, either.

Every party has a lot of swing voters.

 

[JoeB131]

I think Dante put Avarice on a lower run of Hell than Lust.

Reminds me of that great line from the Firefly movie, Serenity.

The Operative: "Do you know what your sin is, Mal? "

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: "Ah Hell... I'm a fan of all seven. But right now... I'm gonna have to go with wrath. "

 

[JoeB131]

Newt will destroy the GOP, and that is what JoeB wants.

True but JoeB, claimed he was an athiest a couple weeks back, thinks mormonism is a cult like the others aren't

Are you actually saying that the Branch Davidians. You know the assholes who were molesting children and shooting federal agents, are no morally different than your middle of the road Methodist church with the pancake breakfasts?

Just because I doubt that there is a God doesn't mean I can't see that some religions or cults are more venal than others. And the Mormons are closer to the Davidians than the Methodists.

The difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh? Original and Extra-Crispy.

Besides, ever heard of Art VI of the Constitution JoeB?
[]

Sorry, guy, that's not what it means and never did. It was never meant as a "don't you dare consider a candidate's batshit crazy beliefs if he calls them a religion". It was meant so we didn't have the bullshit England had where you lost your position (and sometimes your head, Thomas More) if the King wanted a divorce this week and changed the national religion.

 

[Dot Com]

Newt will destroy the GOP, and that is what JoeB wants.

True but JoeB, claimed he was an athiest a couple weeks back, thinks mormonism is a cult like the others aren't

Are you actually saying that the Branch Davidians. You know the assholes who were molesting children and shooting federal agents, are no morally different than your middle of the road Methodist church with the pancake breakfasts?

Just because I doubt that there is a God doesn't mean I can't see that some religions or cults are more venal than others. And the Mormons are closer to the Davidians than the Methodists.

The difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh? Original and Extra-Crispy.

Besides, ever heard of Art VI of the Constitution JoeB?
[]

Sorry, guy, that's not what it means and never did. It was never meant as a "don't you dare consider a candidate's batshit crazy beliefs if he calls them a religion". It was meant so we didn't have the bullshit England had where you lost your position (and sometimes your head, Thomas More) if the King wanted a divorce this week and changed the national religion.

IF you were an atheist all that blather you just posted and a dime wouldn't buy you a cup of coffee Ever read this before?

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

 

[Amelia]

23% of Republicans say they couldn't support Gingrich. 8% say they couldn't support Romney.

True story.

Either number is enough for the GOP to lose. McCain lost 10% of the Republican vote.

And I should point out that whatever Newt's negative are, it's taken them 20 years of constant attacks to develop them.

Romney's rep has deflated in a matter of weeks. Probalby over the minute he said, "I like to be able to fire people".

NOw, if you want to argue that maybe the GOP should get someone else to step up to the plate, that's fine. Arguing over which one of these guys is going to lose less embarrassingly to Obama is kind of pointless. I'd rather lose for who I am than lose for something I despise.

Right, over the minute that conservatives joined the other side in taking his comment out of context.

We're going to have enough trouble with Democrats. What we didn't need was people on our side being dishonest in order to try to take Romney down instead of standing up for what was right. The middle are going to get plenty of disinformation. Gingrich's willingness to help spread it shows why he's not the right man for the job.


I can think of plenty wrong with Obama keeping the presidency. But Newt could still be worse. One of the main mantras of the right has been how Obama's policies have increased uncertainty in the market place. Gingrich would not inspire confidence.

I started to say "will not inspire confidence". I changed it to "would not inspire confidence" because he's not going to even inspire enough confidence to get to the White House to try his hand at economic policy. He's going to be painted as a wild-eyed mad man. And yes, Obama gets it in a landslide.

I don't know if even 10% unemployment going into October would be enough to convince Americans to hand it over to Newt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We could go into a Great Depression and that would not elect Newt.