Political & Elections

hope · Guru

RE: Newt

hope · Guru

Here's the way I look at it: I prefer a person who aspires to the ideals of virtue and fails, to one who is proud of the fact that he believes in none.

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 11th of January 2012 03:05:05 PM

winchester · Guru

I really don't care what your political policies are as long as you apply them to yourself as well. (I don't think this was about his hypocritical stances on things like "the sanctity of marriage" but it pisses me off that some conservatives can spew "family values" after creating many broken homes in their wake.)
This illustrates one of the reasons for the political divide: Some of the most basic assumptions we humans like to believe about ourselves are false, and we hold each other accountable for not measuring up to those false beliefs.

This is not a liberal thing or a conservative thing. It is a human thing.

Take hypocrisy, for example…..

Possibly the most salient feature of human beings is that they so often act contrary to the principles they publicly extol. People in the process of getting ever more obese sincerely acknowledge that they need to eat less and exercise more. Most Americans freely acknowledge that television is a “boob tube” that makes them stupid, yet they watch an average of 4.5 hours per day. Parents who sincerely claim that spending quality time with their young children is the most important thing they could do, work long hours at the office in order to afford pricey cars, houses and vacations. Most Americans who proclaim that we are in the midst of an energy crisis and global warming are doing next to nothing to change their energy-wasting personal lifestyles. Conservative American church-goers who claim that their highest religious duty is to love their enemies exuberantly support wars in which U.S. bombs shred and burn both enemies and innocent children.

How frustrating it is to try to explain this ubiquitous hypocrisy! This self-contradiction between our (oftentimes sincere) beliefs and our physical cravings defines us so well that we are often surprised when we find humans who are actually living according to the principles they declare to be sacred. Why is it that we such excellent hypocrites?

In The Happiness Hypothesis, psychologist Jonathan Haidt uses a simple metaphor to illustrate the extent to which human beings are profoundly conflicted beings. On pages 12 – 22, Haidt asks us to consider each human being as a tandem enterprise: a lawyer trying to ride an elephant. The part of us that is conscious, careful and calculating (the lawyer) is often outmatched by the huge lumbering bag of electro-chemical processes, appetites and cravings that characterizes the physical human body (the elephant).
Why Are Human Animals Such Hypocrites?

-- Edited by winchester on Wednesday 11th of January 2012 12:35:45 PM

zoosermom · Senior Member

I've always been an admirer of Newt, but I'm so angry right now with his behavior that if we were in the same place, he would have my foot up his butt.

hope · Guru

A bad, bad apple.

hope · Guru

School-to-Work has been around since Newt was in Congress.

Newt just spouts these things as if he alone has had these "brilliant" thoughts.

http://www.fessler.com/SBE/act.htm

It is actually a progressive idea....conservatives typically opposed it. I know I do. Here's what Michelle B. thinks of the idea:

Bachmann became a critic and opponent of Minnesota's School-to-Work policies. In a 1999 column, she wrote: "School-to-Work alters the basic mission and purpose of K-12 academic education away from traditional broad-based academic studies geared toward maximizing intellectual achievement of the individual. Instead, School-to-Work utilizes the school day to promote children's acquisition of workplace skills, viewing children as trainees for increased economic productivity."^[61]

No matter--it's pretty entrenched in most public high schools now.

-- Edited by hope on Thursday 29th of December 2011 09:56:46 AM

john doe · Guru

"In Iowa, both Romney and Paul are each up five points among likely caucus goers from a CNN/Time/ORC poll conducted at the start of December. The new survey indicates that Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, is at 16% support, up 11 points from the beginning of the month, with Gingrich at 14%, down from 33% in the previous poll. Since Gingrich's rise late last month and early this month in both national and early voting state surveys, he's come under attack by many of the rival campaigns."

I was just listening to gingrich. He can't possibly be as stupid as the comments he makes. Sometimes I think these guys are trying to see how much they can get away with. Apparently there are a lot of lunatics who actually believe what they say.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

I earlier saw the tail end of a campaign commercial involving some other candidate and Newt. I don't know what it said exactly, but the end said something like "too much ethical baggage". I really don't care what your political policies are as long as you apply them to yourself as well. (I don't think this was about his hypocritical stances on things like "the sanctity of marriage" but it pisses me off that some conservatives can spew "family values" after creating many broken homes in their wake.) If you're a politician, I don't care how you manage your personal life as long as you don't then turn around and try to legislate the personal lives of others. I hope that makes sense, I'm running on little sleep haha.

I haven't been paying attention (finals week and work and all...) how has he been trending in Iowa and such?

john doe · Guru

Newt is going exactly as expected. As I said before, he will never be the nominee. Even though the Republicans involved in the nomination fiasco are dense, even they aren't that stupid.

winchester · Guru

as recently as a couple of weeks ago he was carrying on about revising child labor laws so poor (read black) kids could experience the world of work as young as age 12. What a brilliant idea! Newt is so brilliant!
This is a great example of what I’m talking about. It’s a great applause line. The problem is, it’s not an honest representation of what he said. Here's a more honest assessment.

Newt Gingrich, who has a unique talent for sounding wrong when he is right, raised a chorus of heckles when he described child-labor laws as “truly stupid.” But he was, as he so often is, on to something: His proposal is to offer teenagers jobs at their schools, which would achieve two goods – marginally reducing the schools’ bloated personnel costs and, more important, providing students with experience to facilitate their entry into the work force. Gingrich at his best is something of an education realist who realizes that the current model of education – which recognizes only one metric of success, receipt of a four-year (or more) college degree – does not in fact serve all students well. Work experience, vocational education, and – most critical – choice among a variety of educational options are essential if we are to maximize the productivity and well-being of the very large number of American students who are not headed for careers as investment bankers and management consultants. About this, Gingrich has nothing to apologize about.
- National Review, December 31, 2011.

I’m not saying that Newt should be the nominee. I’m not trying to defend him or be an apologist for him. The NR Editorial makes some good points (but so does the Andrew McCarthy counterpoint.)

All I’m saying is that he should not be underestimated. I'm also saying there’s something wrong with the way the media covers debates, and politics in general for that matter. It seems to be more about who "won" a battle of oneupsmanship of "gotcha" lines than it is about actual content. A case in point is his comment about letting kids work.

Discussion boards give us the opportunity to be a little more careful than that.

-- Edited by winchester on Thursday 29th of December 2011 07:30:56 AM

winchester · Guru

Well put. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286053/gingrich-s-virtues-andrew-c-mccarthy

-- Edited by winchester on Thursday 29th of December 2011 07:02:49 AM

busdriver11 · Guru

"Mason City, Iowa – Newt Gingrich offered his own version of campaign history Wednesday, saying the luxury cruise he took in the Greek Isles with his wife – which contributed to a major staff exodus from his campaign – was part of a grand design to weed out consultants who didn’t agree with him because he is a “different kind of candidate.”

“I wanted to force – either they would like to be the advisers to my campaign or they needed to leave because I couldn’t be the candidate for their campaign,”

Gingrich told reporters at a media avail. “And I think it worked pretty well. Within two hours of their leaving, we were back on track. We have been growing ever since."

The former House Speaker said he’s “pretty happy” with where the campaign is, although the latest CNN poll of Iowa has Newt Gingrich dropping to fourth place at 14% behind Romney, Paul, and Santorum.

Gingrich told reporters the couple had been planning the trip to the Greek Isles since January because they needed time “to think,” but his consultants didn’t understand “I am a different kind of candidate. I’m determined to be positive. I’m determined to talk about big ideas…We think ideas matter. The consultants found this very mystifying. Very strange.”

In Mt Pleasant a week ago, Gingrich said he nearly dropped out of the race when his top advisers quit but Callista convinced him otherwise, which makes Wednesday’s account a dramatic reversal of his version of the story."

If he was not misquoted, this looks pretty darn bad. He should have kept his mouth shut about the cruise.

longprime · Guru

Newt is trying to be nice and appeal to the center. Too bad the R fractions are trying to fragment Newt's position, and possibly the Party.

longprime · Guru

It seems that the NR forgot just who negotiated the timetable to withdraw from Iraq.

I also liked Newt's comment: "I'm going to tell the truth, just like Reagan did." Did you ever see the, Iran-Contra Hearings. Least you forgot, we allowed (sold) weapons to be sold to IRAN, so that they could fight Iraq, and we used the money to fund the Contras. Let's count the laws that were broken that specifically prohibited funding the Contras and supplying weapons to the Iran-Iraq conflict, and to Iran specifically. Unknown to Joe Public, Reagan had a bad case of the Alzheimers, known to the top elected officials but knowingly hidden from us.

Keeping the Constitution Safe? or rather Keeping Power Longer.

I'm lending to Ron Paul. At least he tells the truth. And I may not like the truth.

hope · Guru

Well put:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285787/winnowing-field-editors

longprime · Guru

Newt is a pretty good speaker.

He was an accomplished teacher.

A good teacher leads his class by asking questions that gets the class to a specific conclusion.

ex: "2 + 2 = what?

suppose we reverse the order of the 2's.

so now we have 2 + 2 = what?

Good now suppose we have 3+ 4 = what?

Will 4 +3 = the same? Why? confuse

So did the instructor/teacher/politician actually say the answers? But you did come to the same answer as most of us did. There will always be some who will argue otherwise and steadfastly believe till the day is done that they is another answer. ie Birthers. cry

Then again some of us never liked teachers and school. evileye

-- Edited by longprime on Wednesday 14th of December 2011 04:27:53 PM

hope · Guru

Beginning to wonder--why did we ditch Tim Pawlenty? He's looking pretty good right about now. evileye

hope · Guru

I think I have watched every debate on television (at least the major, highly advertised ones). I have really missed Newt's "coherent vision." Maybe you could lay it out simply for us.

Newt wants states to set up "risk pools" of money for "the sickest among us" who can't afford health insurance. As far as I'm concerned, that sounds like the federal government telling the states what to do. I believe Romney has said that these things should totally be left up to the states and has made it clear he will completely repeal Obamacare.

Romney has consistently been labeled the "winner" of these debates, but Gringrich has recently grabbed the attention of the wingnuts with his media bashing, his posture of "rising above squabbling" with fellow R's, and his promise of a "new Newt."That and his "big ideas" that he throws out there - Palestine, jobs for kids and all that other nonsense.

Want to talk about intellectual honesty? Point me to where Gingrich has been forthright and intellectually honest about anything. A man who can be having an affair with a staffer 20 years his junior while labeling Clinton with all kinds of negatively descriptive terms is capable of anything, imo.

Frankly, I think you yourself are very clearly being intellectually dishonest by saying that people have a right to vote on their "general sense" (by which I take it you mean character) of a man, and then attempting to argue on the other hand that this should not matter--we should vote based on some organization's "conservative rating."

winchester · Guru

Everyone has visceral likes and dislikes. There is nothing wrong with using intuition about people to reach conclusions. Very few, if any, people operate on "reason" only.

I could not agree more. This is absolutely correct. The truth is that nobody operates on reason alone. Further, if it weren't for our "intuitions" we would not have the ability to decide at all.

But with that said, when it comes to explaining our intuitions and our likes and dislikes, there's good reason and bad reason, and there's intellectual honesty, and there's not, and your arguments about Newt have been somewhat wanting in both areas.

hope · Guru

"And it's arguably the "general sense" that wins elections."

Everyone has visceral likes and dislikes. There is nothing wrong with using intuition about people to reach conclusions. Very few, if any, people operate on "reason" only. If you think you do, winchester, you are kidding yourself, as well as contradicting yourself in the above quote, and with your "general sense" of Romney.

As to conservatism, to me the definition includes not running off with nutty ideas and then changing one's mind on a whim. I don't know about Newt's "conservative rating," but I wouldn't trust him with my own safety/well-being, let alone the country's.

And here's another thing about Newt: Republicans he actually worked with in Congress, people who have an interest in beating Obama, are coming out en masse to say they do not want Newt to become the leader of the free world. Sen. Tom Coburn, a man I respect, has said he would not support him. I have not read or heard of people who have worked with Mitt coming forward to speak out about his faulty character. Quite the opposite.

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 14th of December 2011 10:04:59 AM

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 14th of December 2011 10:10:46 AM

winchester · Guru

Well we are all trying to "infer or assume" Gingrich's beliefs.

So in sum, you prefer to “infer or assume” Gingrich’s beliefs from a 15 year old book he had little to do with (other than to write a forward) and a similarly old review of said book by a newspaper well known for its strong leftist tilt rather than to learn about his actual beliefs directly from him via books he wrote or from his stated positions and arguments on his campaign web site, or even indirectly from organizations like the American Conservative Union which gave him a 90+ rating for his positions and votes during his 20+ year career in elected politics.

You're making my point for me. You have a visceral dislike for the guy and you're reaching beyond credibility to come up with reasons for it.

Look, I'm not saying Newt will be the nominee, or that he should be. I am only saying that he should not be underestimated or dismissed out of hand, and to do so is head-in-the-sand thinking.

He's a very good arguer, and that's what counts in debates. And so far the general sense one gets from all the debates is that Gingrich is the reasonable adult of the bunch. So far, unlike any of the others, he's had answers on all the issues, not just one or two, and even as the frontrunner and therefore subject to the most slings and arrows nobody has laid a glove on him.

And it's arguably the "general sense" that wins elections.

The only other serious contender so far, Romney, is also a good arguer, but in the end he is Obama-lite because of the way he handled health care in Massachusetts, and is therefore vulnerable. And further, I believe, the "general sense" about him is that he's just a little too slick for his own good.

I think the general tone of the entire Republican campaign so far has been that Romney is an acceptable Plan B who conservatives will "make do" with - despite the pink elephant in the room of RomneyCare - unless and until somebody else with actual depth and knowledge and gravitas accross all the issues makes themself known. One after another, from Bachman to Perry to Cain and the others, has tried and failed to knock Romney off the pedestal, and instead they have been knocked off, and relatively easily. And now it is Newt's turn to try, and unlike all the others, so far at least, he has proven to be not so easy to knock off.

longprime · Guru

Good for newt I worked in the summers in the fields when i was 8 or 9. We all did and we middle class.

hope · Guru

Well we are all trying to "infer or assume" Gingrich's beliefs. This is not easy to do, when as recently as a couple of weeks ago he was carrying on about revising child labor laws so poor (read black) kids could experience the world of work as young as age 12. What a brilliant idea! Newt is so brilliant!

It is a fact he was enamored of the Tofflers in the '90's, so much so that he wrote a foreward for their book: Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave." This book is a sequel to “The Third Wave” authored by Alvin Toffler. Gingrich put the book on his recommended reading list for his colleagues when he became Speaker of the House in the 1990’s. I haven't read the book, but you can easily read about it online.

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v09/09HarvJLTech225.pdf

The Times Review: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/07/books/surfing-the-third-wave.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

And another review:

Gingrich's Gurus

Summer 1995

CREATING A NEW CIVILIZATION: THE POLITICS OF THE THIRD WAVE
Alvin and Heidi Toffler
Foreword by Newt Gingrich
Turner Publishing, 1995, 112 pp.

Newt Gingrich claims that "Alvin and Heidi Toffler have given us the key to viewing current disarray within the positive framwork of a dynamic, exciting future" (p. 14). The book, he thinks, "is an effort to empower citizenslike yourself to truly take the leap and begin to invent a Third Wave civilization" (p. 17).

Though of course reluctant to disagree with so august a personage as the Speaker of the House, I cannot share his high opinion of this book. The Tofflers, like Karl Marx, think that technology determines history. But Marx got the details wrong. The Tofflers claim that industrial development does not inevitably pave the way to socialism, as he thought; instead, the growth of computers and other types of "open knowledge" will lead to a new type of society. "Third Wave" thinking has now superseded Second Wave industrialism, on which both old-fashioned capitalism and socialism are based. (First Wave or agricultural civilization is even more outmoded.)

In predicting the increased importance of computers, the Tofflers occupy the firm ground of those seers who prognosticate by projecting the immediate past into the future. But they nowhere show that growth in information has the revolutionary effects on society that they postulate. Why must changes in technology alter the structure of the family, make nationalism obsolete, and require us to abandon traditional morality?

They condemn those who "appeal to nostalgia in their rhetoric about culture and values, as though one could return to the values and morality of the 1950s—a time before universal television, before the birth-control pill, before commercial jet aviation, satellites and home computers—without also returning to the mass industrial society of the Second Wave" (p. 77). How do satellites change morality? The all-determining influence of technology operates in the Tofflers' system as an unquestioned axiom.

If their predictions are banal, and their social theory unfounded and simplistic, their recommendations for political change are more than a little sinister. Although constantly calling for decentralization, they also complain that we are "politically primitive and undeveloped" at the "transnational level." Decisions must be transferred "up" from the nation-state (p. 100). Translating the Tofflers' Third Wave argot into English, this is a call for global government. Not surprisingly, those who oppose Nafta are prisoners of the outmoded Second Wave.

Although our authors say some commendably harsh things about socialism, they by no means advocate the free market. Massive job retraining and new forms of collective bargaining are the order of the day: to think otherwise is of course to be enmeshed in Second Wave Thought (p. 53).

But what exactly the anticipatory democracy that they, and Newt Gingrich, see in store for us consists of, they mostly leave vague. To demand specifics is no doubt to fall victim to the discredited analytic approach, pioneered by Descartes (p. 60). These Third Wave thinkers, who take a "systemic or integrative view," have transcended old-fashioned logic.

Creating a New Civilization contains many more gems. We learn, e.g., that St. Augustine thought that those who could add or subtract had made a covenant with the Devil (p. 35). But enough. Readers will have no difficulty in gauging the quality of the Tofflers' intelligence, or the intelligence of those who recommend them. This is not a book, but a symptom.

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 14th of December 2011 07:52:13 AM

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 14th of December 2011 08:11:44 AM

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 14th of December 2011 08:20:17 AM

winchester · Guru

An interesting article indeed.

It is written by Ron Paul’s official campaign blogger, Jack Hunter, who has a vested interest in taking down Newt. Ron Paul? Really?

Hunter’s basis for what Newt believes comes only from an “implication” that is “alluded to” in a book written by somebody other than Newt, which Newt wrote a foreword to, from which Hunter cherry picked a quote out of context.

Hunter then infers, indirectly and through name dropping Russel Kirk and Barry Goldwater, that Newt’s beliefs, which are themselves at best, and this is being exceedingly generous to Hunter, only inferred or assumed, are not really conservative.

Hunter then throws in a few opinions by other people who dislike Newt about as much as he does.

The article is a house of cards built on a foundation of smoke and mirrors.

And it is somehow supposed to be meaningful?

busdriver11 · Guru

That's an interesting article. I am sure that Obama supporters will use that history to tear him apart, should he be the nominee. I am unsure why he claims himself a historian (unless it is upon the basis that he rewrites history). Is it because he taught for awhile at West Georgia college? Or because he wrote many books?

I am suspicious of anyone who thinks of themself as having such superior wit. They are convinced their ideas are always the right ones and will fix everything. You fools, just shut up and do as you are told, I will take care of all of the thinking for you. Maybe I'm not giving Newt a chance to remake himself. I've just always had that feeling about him.

A couple of years ago, before he started running for office, I heard an interview on the radio with him. It was about global warming. His philosophy was, who cares whether it is happening or not, let's get creative and get business involved in innovations, and let's make money off of this. It was a compelling argument, until I realized, oh yeah, he's talking about making money off the taxpayers.

hope · Guru

It was sad to see McCain come up against Obama, and also sad to see him choose Palin.

This might interest you, winchester. And it's not the only piece I've seen addressing this particular Gingrich trait:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/does-newt-gingrich-want-the-constitution-to-die/

longprime · Guru

If only McCain, hadn't chosen Palin as a running mate.

Why is it that the mainstream R's have to suckup to the, far wacko right (FWR)?

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I liked McCain, too. But he couldn't win in that field. I don't think he could have won against Hillary, either.

He was one of the most moderate Republicans around. He almost never toed the party line, and the renegade label stuck for a reason. And as much as I respected him, I didn't think he had the heart to fight the big fight. It was hard to see him so clearly outmatched by Obama at the end of the campaign.

hope · Guru

I'm "emotional" about some things,winchester--hardly different from most. I am sixty-two years old, and have seen enough of these political characters to last a lifetime. After a while, you go with your gut. The guy is a snake. I would not be proud to have him as the leader of my country. At least McCain was a man one could respect. If this is the best my party can do--I don't want any part of it. And don't think I am the only one blinded by dislike. My son and his fellow students at Penn were willing to get behind Romney. They will not be caught dead backing Gingrich. Two very different generations--same conclusions. My own self-respect is more important to me than throwing Obama out. Gingrich makes Obama look like a statesman.

And btw, those who do support him had better get used to the idea of four more years of Obama.

I wish others here would chime in with their opinions.

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 13th of December 2011 02:17:19 PM

winchester · Guru

Yes, you are missing something. You're letting your emotional dislike of him get in the way of your understanding of him.

hope · Guru

"That's why Newt is surging. He has a coherent vision and it shows. The others, not so much."

What is Newt's "coherent vision?" Does it include excusing taking money from Frannie and Freddie? Does it include endorsing single-payer health care at one point? I know he believes there are "no such thing as Palestinians," and that poor kids don't have access to role models who are employed (very offensive, btw).

I'm not seeing any coherent vision whatsover with Newt. The only coherent vision I see is the inflated one he has of himself. Perhaps I am missing someting.

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 13th of December 2011 12:39:12 PM

winchester · Guru

Are any of you surprised how many R's are coming out and attacking Newt. I am not sure I have ever seen anything like it.

Not surprised at all. It happens to the frontrunner of the non-incumbent party, D or R, every single presidential election cycle.

winchester · Guru

Yes, he is correct that foreign policity can't be digested in 30 seconds. Further, that's true of many more issues than just foreign policy.

Which is why I don't like debates. They're more about who "won" a battle of of oneupsmanship of "gotcha" lines than they are about actual content

But with that said, the candidates' vision can sometimes gradually appear out of the haze.

That's why Newt is surging. He has a coherent vision and it shows. The others, not so much.

longprime · Guru

Foreign Policy and National Security Debate, St Anseim College, NewHamshire.

Newt. for some reason when I hear Newt Gingrich, I see a Newt the Gecko lizard.

Watching last part on CSPAN2.

Newt said that these debates on FP is not doing justice. No FP can be digested in 30 second sound bites. OMG, he's correct, isn't he?

winchester · Guru

Don’t underestimate Newt.

Sure, he has baggage. Who doesn’t?

There’s a reason he’s surging in the polls. Ideas. Specifically, ideas that appeal to a deep seated grasp of what this country is really (supposed to be) about.

There’s a good analysis in Forbes.
Gingrish vs Obama - American Exceptionalism vs The Reconquest of America by Europe

The presidential contest of 2012, like 1912, thus presents as a textbook case of populism vs. elitism. Two versions of a People’s Paladin are attacking the entrenched cronyism of the Insiders. Obama proposes to loot the wealthy and spread it around among the have-nots. Gingrich proposes to remove obstacles so that the have-nots can make themselves into haves. The issue is joined.

longprime · Guru

I think its a good strategy to attack, in mass, in turn, one another. Confuses people who is for or against what, when, why, and how. The problem is that it makes the R's unsure of their direction and representation. The candidate(s) may look good against Obama but the MOC who are up for reelection, are open for attack not only their positions but by asscciation for being Republican. IMO.

busdriver11 · Guru

I'm not surprised. They want to win. There's a reason why Newt has been in the low single digits for most of the campaign, because people remember him from decades of politics. The only reason he should be polling at the top is because people think he will beat Obama, and is the best candidate, but I think it's because they've run through every other candidate and he has been able to remake himself in people's eyes in the debates. It's quite extraordinary, really.

Tom1944 · Senior Member

Are any of you surprised how many R's are coming out and attacking Newt. I am not sure I have ever seen anything like it.

john doe · Guru

"Never say never. Much more improbable things have happened. "

There is a finite probability for almost everything including that the book on my desk is going to jump off the table and onto the floor - but it so unlikely that one can say not in my lifetime. I would gladly make the bet that Newt is not the nominee.

Tom1944 · Senior Member

I wonder if there will or can be pressure to ask Newt to release the Congressional ethics report and all documents. It could put him in a pretty unsettled position- if he says no his opponents can imply he is hiding things and if he says yes and it gets released I would be shocked if there was not some unflattering potentially damaging documents in there.

winchester · Guru

Aint gonna happen

Never say never. Much more improbable things have happened.

Like the election of our currrent president, for example.

catahoula · Guru

I don't recall any provisions for extenuating circumstances that would make lying under oath acceptable to the law, longprime.

You've got your adulterers and then you've got your lying, above the law, predatory adulterers and, while they might be loved by their enablers, they're still a seperate class all by themselves.

john doe · Guru

Aint gonna happen: Newt doesn't have the ability to clean anybody's clock except his own if he debates himself and his previous positions. He will never be the nominee.

geeps20 · Senior Member

love to watch newt clean obama's clock in the debates

longprime · Guru

Again I kinda like Newt. A jerk towards his women, but a thinker and will take contrarian advice.

He led the Contract With America successfully and then somehow his party's Congressmen lost that Contract in 2000.

Ron Paul, has stayed true to the Contract and firm in his beliefs and I don't particularily like Ron.

-- Edited by longprime on Saturday 3rd of December 2011 10:42:21 PM

longprime · Guru

So if BC told the truth, would that have satisfied the Whitewater investigation?

If BC told the truth, would Hil and Chel still be with him today? I don't necessarily condone what BC did but nor do I condone the witch hunt the R's did on him and Hilary.

I am looking for Leaders, not a god.

catahoula · Guru

Didn't he lie under oath, lp?

Not that I feel personally betrayed but at one time that was a pretty big deal to people who felt lying was one of those sins that corrupts relationships to point that it's darn near impossible to have a meaningful one.

And that's pretty much what's always bothered me about the relationship Clinton's supporters thought they had with him.

longprime · Guru

Cheating Bill: only two people mattered, Hil and Chelsea. Just like regular folks

longprime · Guru

I kindA like the new Newt. Not as abrasive, more consideratory, and still looking for that contract with America. I wish he was around during W's first term to keep the Budget balanced and his Party from from going crazy on Earmarks.

-- Edited by longprime on Friday 2nd of December 2011 05:56:37 PM

busdriver11 · Guru

I don't think people care whether someone is divorced, but a serial cheater is another story. Bill Clinton got away with it because people absolutely loved him, they didn't care whatsoever that he was a scumbag. I think alot of people are looking for any alternative but Romney, not that they are completely entranced by Newt. There is a reason that he has been very low in the polls until just recently, and I don't think this wave will last him. I know the Obama camp is thrilled, because it's going to be just as easy to beat him as it would be McCain.

I was so certain that Obama would be a one term president, and now I'm afraid it's going to be two.