Re-Evaluating Newt..

[The T]

Our elected government is more responsive to the public than a private insurance corporation.

Both entities are large and bureaucratic. But only one of them allows me a vote.

Translation: "I will vote to have my liberty, my freedom of choice in my decisions made for me by nameless, faceless bureaucrats..."

Yes, that's what you're supporting. Having your health care decisions made by unknown bureaucrats at BC/BC.

Good posts, Greenbeard. You are a knowledgeable person.

I'm on the side of the private sector and individual liberty. You may dispense with your twisting of my words any time.

 

[Toro]

In the latest McClatchy poll, Gingrich has pulled ahead of Cain, who has fallen to third.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-con... McClatchy-Marist Poll Release and Tables.pdf

 

[JoeB131]

In the latest McClatchy poll, Gingrich has pulled ahead of Cain, who has fallen to third.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-con... McClatchy-Marist Poll Release and Tables.pdf

and Mitt Romney has stayed at the same low level he's always been at.

A "Frontrunner" who can't get more than 25%.

I do think now that Cain is sinking, we are going to see Newt become ascendent.

So watch the MSM start attacking him next.

 

[candycorn]

In the latest McClatchy poll, Gingrich has pulled ahead of Cain, who has fallen to third.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-con... McClatchy-Marist Poll Release and Tables.pdf

Politically, that is really good news for Mr. Obama. In terms of getting the best and the brightest to get their party's nomination, you really have to wonder how either of them have survived this far.

 

[JoeB131]

In the latest McClatchy poll, Gingrich has pulled ahead of Cain, who has fallen to third.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-con... McClatchy-Marist Poll Release and Tables.pdf

Politically, that is really good news for Mr. Obama. In terms of getting the best and the brightest to get their party's nomination, you really have to wonder how either of them have survived this far.

Either one of them has accomplished more in his life than you ever will.

Obama's got bigger problems to worry about. Like how he's going to get re-elected with a 40% approval rating and a 9% unemployment rate.

 

[Toro]

In the latest McClatchy poll, Gingrich has pulled ahead of Cain, who has fallen to third.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-con... McClatchy-Marist Poll Release and Tables.pdf

Politically, that is really good news for Mr. Obama. In terms of getting the best and the brightest to get their party's nomination, you really have to wonder how either of them have survived this far.

The thing about Gingrich is what else can the press dig up about him? All his dirty laundry is out for show. He's an unethical lying philanderer. But we've known that for over a decade. Tell us something we don't know.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Newt. He is very intelligent, articulate, at times a tremendous politicians (and other times not), and - unlike Romney - has enough conservative street cred for at least some of the base to want to knock doors for him, not just against Obama.

Though the odds aren't favourable, I can see Gingrich becoming President. Obama is vulnerable, the Democrats have been incompetent, and the Republican slate of candidates is very weak.

 

[Ravi]

I can't see rational people voting for Newt....the guy behind the contract on America.

Disclaimer: Americans aren't rational.

And I was surprised to read on a Catholic website that he's admirable. Somehow.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Politically, that is really good news for Mr. Obama.

It is.

There’s no way democrats are going to vote for Gringrich. Romney is still the GOP’s only chance, such as it was.

Obama's got bigger problems to worry about. Like how he's going to get re-elected with a 40% approval rating and a 9% unemployment rate.

It doesn’t matter, Americans don’t vote for candidates they don’t like, Gringrich in particular.

 

[Lumpy 1]

In the latest McClatchy poll, Gingrich has pulled ahead of Cain, who has fallen to third.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-con... McClatchy-Marist Poll Release and Tables.pdf

Politically, that is really good news for Mr. Obama. In terms of getting the best and the brightest to get their party's nomination, you really have to wonder how either of them have survived this far.

I find it interesting that Obama is getting away with record payoffs for his re-election bid from the 1% ers and Democrats embrace it..... I dislike the word h y p o c r i s y...

 

[JoeB131]

Politically, that is really good news for Mr. Obama.

It is.

There’s no way democrats are going to vote for Gringrich. Romney is still the GOP’s only chance, such as it was.

Obama's got bigger problems to worry about. Like how he's going to get re-elected with a 40% approval rating and a 9% unemployment rate.

It doesn’t matter, Americans don’t vote for candidates they don’t like, Gringrich in particular.

There's no way the Democrats (the few of them that are left) are going to vote for any Republican.

More to the point, no one has ever won running against "the other guy". Either people approve of the job he is doing, or they don't.

Morning Jay: Can Obama Win By Attacking the GOP? | The Weekly Standard

Jay Cost did this very interesting analysis of the 2004 election. At that time, Bush had a 53% approval rate. Of the people who approved of Bush, 90% of them voted for him. Of those who didn't approve, 93% voted for Kerry.

And that has been the case with nearly every election that included an incumbant. Very few of the disapprovers voted for him. The only exception was 1980, where Carter got the votes of 16% of those who thought he was doing a crappy job, and 1972, where Nixon got 14%.

So if the Democratic plan is to demonize whoever the Republicans put up, that probalby isn't going to work out.

Do you think the guy who has been unemployed going on two years now is going to say, "Man, Obama has really, really sucked on the economy, but I really don't like the way Newt treated his wives!"

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Politically, that is really good news for Mr. Obama.

It is.

There’s no way democrats are going to vote for Gringrich. Romney is still the GOP’s only chance, such as it was.

Obama's got bigger problems to worry about. Like how he's going to get re-elected with a 40% approval rating and a 9% unemployment rate.

It doesn’t matter, Americans don’t vote for candidates they don’t like, Gringrich in particular.

There's no way the Democrats (the few of them that are left) are going to vote for any Republican.

More to the point, no one has ever won running against "the other guy". Either people approve of the job he is doing, or they don't.

Morning Jay: Can Obama Win By Attacking the GOP? | The Weekly Standard

Jay Cost did this very interesting analysis of the 2004 election. At that time, Bush had a 53% approval rate. Of the people who approved of Bush, 90% of them voted for him. Of those who didn't approve, 93% voted for Kerry.

And that has been the case with nearly every election that included an incumbant. Very few of the disapprovers voted for him. The only exception was 1980, where Carter got the votes of 16% of those who thought he was doing a crappy job, and 1972, where Nixon got 14%.

So if the Democratic plan is to demonize whoever the Republicans put up, that probalby isn't going to work out.

Do you think the guy who has been unemployed going on two years now is going to say, "Man, Obama has really, really sucked on the economy, but I really don't like the way Newt treated his wives!"

lmao QFT!! Let then run with it.. it's all they have. Barry can't stand on his record of malaise, record unemployment, loss of productivity in the nation, Highest GDP to debt ratio, gas prices going through the roof, socialized medicine.. but Newt will force him to the table and make him do precisely that. The real question is, "Just how cowardly is Barry?" Does he have the balls to accept Newt's invitation to Lincoln style debate?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gingrich is really nothing more than a standard issue late 20th century Republican whose entire 'plan' is based on the standard refrain:

1. Cut taxes

2. Increase defense spending

3. Balance the budget

How does he accomplish number 3 when numbers 1 and 2 are deadset against achieving number 3?

By the same 'magic' that didn't work for Reagan, or Bush I, or Bush II, and all of the rest of the above referenced crowd of GOP'ers who followed and/or continue to follow that fatally flawed fantasy.

They will either promise to make massive cuts in non-defense spending that will never ever happen, or,

they will make grandiose but ethereal references to how their revolutionary plan of tax cuts will unleash a dynamic economic explosion that will magically generate trillions of dollars of additional revenue out of thin air.

Fall for it at your own risk. You've been warned.

 

[Synthaholic]

In the latest McClatchy poll, Gingrich has pulled ahead of Cain, who has fallen to third.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-con... McClatchy-Marist Poll Release and Tables.pdf

Politically, that is really good news for Mr. Obama. In terms of getting the best and the brightest to get their party's nomination, you really have to wonder how either of them have survived this far.

I find it interesting that Obama is getting away with record payoffs for his re-election bid from the 1% ers and Democrats embrace it..... I dislike the word h y p o c r i s y...

Why do you equate #OWS with Obama supporters?

 

[freedombecki]

Politically, that is really good news for Mr. Obama. In terms of getting the best and the brightest to get their party's nomination, you really have to wonder how either of them have survived this far.

I find it interesting that Obama is getting away with record payoffs for his re-election bid from the 1% ers and Democrats embrace it..... I dislike the word h y p o c r i s y...

Why do you equate #OWS with Obama supporters?

Easy--because Obama supports OWS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NIlRQCPJcew

 

[Amelia]

Gingrich is really nothing more than a standard issue late 20th century Republican whose entire 'plan' is based on the standard refrain:

1. Cut taxes

2. Increase defense spending

3. Balance the budget

How does he accomplish number 3 when numbers 1 and 2 are deadset against achieving number 3?

By the same 'magic' that didn't work for Reagan, or Bush I, or Bush II, and all of the rest of the above referenced crowd of GOP'ers who followed and/or continue to follow that fatally flawed fantasy.

They will either promise to make massive cuts in non-defense spending that will never ever happen, or,

they will make grandiose but ethereal references to how their revolutionary plan of tax cuts will unleash a dynamic economic explosion that will magically generate trillions of dollars of additional revenue out of thin air.

Fall for it at your own risk. You've been warned.

Have you actually listened to Newt recently?

 

[SAT]

I'm not sure how anyone can rationally be in favor of corruption on Wall Street.

Voters are aware of GOP intransigence. That factors into how they see the economy.

Newt's likability problem is more than his serial infidelity.

 

[Amelia]

All people have to do is watch Newt in a debate and the so-called likability problem will evaporate.

Newt is adorable on stage!

Obama is going to be sweating and huffing and Newt is going to be cute and charming as he smacks Obama around.

 

[Foxfyre]

Gingrich is really nothing more than a standard issue late 20th century Republican whose entire 'plan' is based on the standard refrain:

1. Cut taxes

2. Increase defense spending

3. Balance the budget

How does he accomplish number 3 when numbers 1 and 2 are deadset against achieving number 3?

By the same 'magic' that didn't work for Reagan, or Bush I, or Bush II, and all of the rest of the above referenced crowd of GOP'ers who followed and/or continue to follow that fatally flawed fantasy.

They will either promise to make massive cuts in non-defense spending that will never ever happen, or,

they will make grandiose but ethereal references to how their revolutionary plan of tax cuts will unleash a dynamic economic explosion that will magically generate trillions of dollars of additional revenue out of thin air.

Fall for it at your own risk. You've been warned.

Have you actually listened to Newt recently?

Anyhow, the economy--GDP growth, job creation etc.--was mediocre after the Clinton administration pushed through a big tax increase in 1993. But when Gingrich and company pushed through a major tax CUT in 1997 along with welfare reform, and held Clinton's feet to the fire until he signed it, the economy really took off and boomed allowing a semblance of a budget surplus to be achieved.

There is a good discussion on that here:
Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom

The effects of a tax increase are usually a more sluggish economy. The positive effects of properly structured permanent tax cut are well documented. The effects do top out and level out after a period of time, but the economy then settles in at a stronger place than when it started.

Nobody has a better grasp on these concepts than Newt Gingrich.

 

[BenNatuf]

I'm not sure how anyone can rationally be in favor of corruption on Wall Street.

Voters are aware of GOP intransigence. That factors into how they see the economy.

Newt's likability problem is more than his serial infidelity.

Yeah, it was intransigent for a majority of the house GOP to vote against providing the bailouts the OWS is protesting and really looking out for the little guy for the democratics to vote almost unanimously for the bailouts the OWS are protesting.

******* liberals... what a bunch of lunatics.

 

[SAT]

All people have to do is watch Newt in a debate and the so-called likability problem will evaporate.

Newt is adorable on stage!

Obama is going to be sweating and huffing and Newt is going to be cute and charming as he smacks Obama around.

You can't be serious.

Gingrich is really nothing more than a standard issue late 20th century Republican whose entire 'plan' is based on the standard refrain:

1. Cut taxes

2. Increase defense spending

3. Balance the budget

How does he accomplish number 3 when numbers 1 and 2 are deadset against achieving number 3?

By the same 'magic' that didn't work for Reagan, or Bush I, or Bush II, and all of the rest of the above referenced crowd of GOP'ers who followed and/or continue to follow that fatally flawed fantasy.

They will either promise to make massive cuts in non-defense spending that will never ever happen, or,

they will make grandiose but ethereal references to how their revolutionary plan of tax cuts will unleash a dynamic economic explosion that will magically generate trillions of dollars of additional revenue out of thin air.

Fall for it at your own risk. You've been warned.

Have you actually listened to Newt recently?

Anyhow, the economy--GDP growth, job creation etc.--was mediocre after the Clinton administration pushed through a big tax increase in 1993. But when Gingrich and company pushed through a major tax CUT in 1997 along with welfare reform, and held Clinton's feet to the fire until he signed it, the economy really took off and boomed allowing a semblance of a budget surplus to be achieved.

There is a good discussion on that here:
Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom

The effects of a tax increase are usually a more sluggish economy. The positive effects of properly structured permanent tax cut are well documented. The effects do top out and level out after a period of time, but the economy then settles in at a stronger place than when it started.

Nobody has a better grasp on these concepts than Newt Gingrich.

Then how does Newt explain the economy since the huge tax cuts put in place by Bush the Lesser?

I'm not sure how anyone can rationally be in favor of corruption on Wall Street.

Voters are aware of GOP intransigence. That factors into how they see the economy.

Newt's likability problem is more than his serial infidelity.

Yeah, it was intransigent for a majority of the house GOP to vote against providing the bailouts the OWS is protesting and really looking out for the little guy for the democratics to vote almost unanimously for the bailouts the OWS are protesting.

******* liberals... what a bunch of lunatics.

You mean the '08 bailout?