For some reason the concept of demand is lost on people - WORLD WIDE DEMAND.  Our oil prices will go up and down independent to a large extent on our supply.  In the "free market" capitalism, that President Newt, Mitt or Ricky would be expounding, our excess supply will go on the world open market.  We're already exporting oil and the price will keep going up and converge with the Brent price.

john doe wrote:

---

You want to bet "$10000" on who is going to win the election??

None of the Republicans are what I call fiscally conservative.  Increasing the deficit through lower taxes for the rich is fiscally sound????  The rich have had more than 10 years of lower taxes and how many jobs have been created?? 

People will vote for the "devil they know vs the devil they don't" especially if the economy continues to improve.

---

 Sure, I'll take you up on a bet.  I bet PBO wins! I've always said that, even voted for him in '08. Worked against HRC for him to get the nom.  Yep, I bought into the charm, hope and change myself.  I should have used my head and my instincts to realize what a disaster for this country he might be.  But I still think he'll win.  He's grown the entitilement sector vote even larger, and people will forget the over spending, ballooning deficit and all his mis-steps, etc... at least the ones the mainstream media/print chose to report.

Clearly we travel in different circles romani. And I wasn't trying to answer your question.  However, had PBO given Keystone the green light & not let the insane enviro's bully him, we might be inching our way off  the foreign oil crack wagon. Think that would bing oil prices down? I do.

john doe wrote:

---

Newt knows best and if he doesn't I'm sure some other republican candidate does. 

I've voted for the republican nominee every single time from Richard Nixon through GW but not this time especially after the disgraceful nonsense that happened during the debt ceiling debate debacle - and I'm not the only one.  I was talking to an individual the other day who has lambasted Obama on virtually every issue and is now thinking of voting for him.  In his view Ricky is insane - I don't think so but that's another matter.  Others I know who have conservative fiscal views are also going for Obama this time.  These characters running for the republican presidential nominee consider themselves Reagan republicans??? - what a pathetic joke.

---

 Well JD, I guess all the PBO '08 voters I know who will now vote for whomever the R nominee is, will cancel your pals vote. The ABO camp is growing, even in this blue state.  Unemplyment still soaring, Food Stamps highest ever,  > half paying taxes, etc....does not sit well with folks I talk to. BTW- anyone who who says they are A. fiscally conservative and B. voting for a continuation of the economic policies of the Obama admin, are not being truthful............about either A or B.....or both. 

@Romani- It's always easy to blame the guy currently sitting in the WH for gas prices.

I love to read about more ways for the Republicans to spend their campaign money.

He needs this bump.

Go Ron.

I always thought that "evangelical" was used in reference to demonination(s), plural (usually protestant), for which "evangelizing," or "spreading the gospel" through proselytizing, and missions to "convert" were prominent goals

Yes, but the political definition that arose about the same time that the term"values voters" did is something else entirely. Sharing the beliefs of evangelicals today means voting republican, believing in intelligent design, denying that Al Gore is a prophet,.... all the things that make liberals sigh.

I found this:

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2000/09/What-Is-An-Evangelical.aspx

Not all evangelicals take the Bible literally.  My denomination is technically evangelical but is so liberal that you would probably feel completely comfortable.  That's very much the case outside of fundamentalism. 

I always thought that "evangelical" was used in reference to demonination(s), plural (usually protestant), for which "evangelizing," or "spreading the gospel" through proselytizing, and missions to "convert" were prominent goals. Often, those demoninations are marked by a belief in an absolutely literal interpretation of scripture (world created in 7 twenty-four hour days, global flood, Noah and pairs of all the world's animals on a single massive boat, etc.).

The fact we simply can't continue spending money we're borrowing from the chinese and our kids is all, and Romney doesn't strike me as the guy that's willing to bring that cold hard truth to those who've yet to see it. Instead, he'll govern according to the beliefs of those he's likely to be elected by.

Evangelicals will either vote for Newt or not, though I'm inclined to think because of the stakes they'll swallow hard and remember that forgiveness isn't limited to only those the NYT or ThinkProgress say are sufficiently pure of heart.

Gotta say, though, that the fact Newt's both intelligent and serially unfaithful will make me feel a little like I'm pulling the lever for a democrat. And who knows, he may get a lot of cross-over with those credentials.

Well I am a lifelong Catholic "religious person," and, yes, in my tradition those are, for all intents and purposes, three different "religions." Mitt got the Catholic vote in NH. Not many Catholics in SC.

One surprising finding: Santorum, a Catholic, won only about 8 percent of self-identified Catholic voters, a serious underperformance on his part since Catholics accounted for more a third of the electorate Tuesday. Gingrich, also a Catholic, won 10 percent of Catholic voters, according to exit poll interviews.

Romney, a Mormon, dominated among Catholics winning 45 percent of them.

Truly, I think the reason "evangelicals" are willing to forgive good old boy Newt his marital infidelities/multiple affairs is that he's preferrable to a Mormon in their eyes.

As for the knife fight, I think it was Howard Fineman who said the other night that when Newt was in Clinton's presence he "folded like a cheap suit" (I remember that from back then).  Better hope he doesn't do that in the presence of The One.

Edit: A cool interactive:

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gnoreligion/flash.htm

-- Edited by hope on Sunday 22nd of January 2012 06:13:01 AM

-- Edited by hope on Sunday 22nd of January 2012 06:13:56 AM

I find it more than uncomfortable to have Newt as the final nominee. Here was guy who pressed for impeachment based on a lie of infidelity, At least that is how the House R's framed the impeachment. 

However, I think that the people saw the impeachment based on the infidelity and not the lie. 

So what's the difference? You can lie about your infidelities (Newt) but you can't lie about lying on the infidelity (clinton) 

"Just a few months ago, James Carville was telling Obama to panic about the GOP and to fire lots of his staff, because things weren't working on Obama's team. "

A few months ago, it was a different ballgame - the economy is improving as evidenced by the jobs number etc plus the the suicidal tendencies of the GOP as witnessed tonight.

Carville's unhinged. This is what Newt, or whomever, will be running against:

Hello, everybody. On Thursday, I went down to Florida to visit Disneyworld. To Sasha and Malia’s great disappointment, I was not there to hang out with Mickey or ride Space Mountain. Instead, I was there to talk about steps we’re taking to boost tourism and create jobs.

Tourism is the number one service we export. Every year, tens of millions of tourists come from all over the world to visit America. They stay in our hotels, eat at our restaurants, and see all the sights America has to offer.

That’s good for local businesses. That’s good for local economies. And the more folks who visit America, the more Americans we get back to work. It’s that simple.

We can’t wait to seize this opportunity. As I’ve said before, I will continue to work with Congress, states, and leaders in the private sector to find ways to move this country forward. But where they can’t act or won’t act, I will. Because we want the world to know that America is open for business. And that’s why I announced steps we’re taking to promote America and make it easier for tourists to come and visit.

Frequent travelers who pass an extensive background check will be able to scan their passports and fingerprints and skip long lines at immigration at more airports. We’re going to expand the number of countries where visitors can get pre-cleared by Homeland Security so they don’t need a tourist visa. And we’re going to speed up visa processing for countries with growing middle classes that can afford to visit America – countries like China and Brazil.

We want more visitors coming here. We want them spending money here. It’s good for our economy, and it will help provide the boost more businesses need to grow and hire. And we can’t wait to make it happen.

Too often over the last few months, we’ve seen Congress drag its feet and refuse to take steps we know will help strengthen our economy. That’s why this is the latest in a series of actions I’ve taken on my own to help our economy keep growing, creating jobs, and restoring security for middle-class families.

In September, we decided to stop waiting for Congress to fix No Child Left Behind and give states the flexibility they need to help our kids meet higher standards. We made sure that small businesses that have contracts with the Federal Government can get paid faster so they can start hiring more people. We made it easier for veterans to get jobs and put their skills to work. We took steps to help families whose home values have fallen refinance their mortgages and save up to thousands of dollars a year. We sped up the loan process for companies that want to rebuild our roads and bridges – putting construction workers back on the job. And I appointed Richard Cordray to be America’s consumer watchdog and protect working Americans from the worst abuses of the financial industry.

These are good steps. Now we need to do more.

On Tuesday evening, I’ll deliver my State of the Union Address, where I’ll lay out my blueprint for actions we need to take together – not just me, or Congress, but every American – to rebuild an economy where hard work and responsibility are rewarded. An economy that’s built to last.

I hope you’ll tune in. In the meantime, I’m going to keep doing everything I can to make this country not only the best place to visit and do business – but the best place to live and work and build a better life.

Thanks for watching. Have a great weekend. And I’ll see you on Tuesday

Hits the nail right on the head:

Carville to GOP: You have a disaster on your hands

Maybe Newt can recruit Shecky Greene for his VP. Wouldn't it be great to have two one-liner comedians on the ticket.

Well, not Newt:

During his tenureship as speaker his popularity within congress gradually diminished as he was increasingly seen as a lighting rod for controversy.^[3] He was disciplined in January 1997 by the House of Representatives for ethics accusations, although a full hearing was avoided. Following a poor Republican showing in the 1998 Congressional election, Gingrich resigned from the House on November 5, 1998, under pressure from his Republican colleagues.

Watched the debate. So we're throwing away a temperate, competent man who has an actual chance of winning against Obama in favor of a hysterical, egomaniacal blowhard because he's good at producing soundbites?

Revolting.

What goes around comes around!

Curtains for Newt after the interview tonight with Marianne.

good for you, Cat.

RP is the only true R around.