Political & Elections

Am I the only one that remembers Newt being run out of DC on ethic charges as an MOC? That is going to come back and bite him the arse with Independents.

How about him saying to WSJ that Fannie was stable back in 07?

That doesn't even touch the 3 wives issue, which will play on those soccer Moms.

You cannot win an election if you don't have the I's., especially against the incumbent. Most people would rather stick with wat they know, than change course mid-stream and risk the unknown.

Romney has flip flopped, but he can overcome that by tieing his change with illustrating that even us 4 yrs ago had different views and have flip-flopped. It is an area that he can over come via personal responsibility.

He is not my guy, but if R's go Newt, they may be too entrenched on the R party.


Again, I think he is smart, and maybe the best candidate, but I am not looking at this from an R perspective. I am looking at it from viability and I believe he is a sure fire way to guarantee Obama's re-election.

I am an Independent that leans R. I could not hold my nose for him or Obama. I will not vote for either, but write in or maybe go for a 3rd party if they are my only choices.

It will take a lot for me to vote for him. I may get over my objections to him later on, but for right now, he is a DC politician just like Obama. I don't trust him. I think he talks out of both sides of his mouth.

To clarify the quote about the card game - I think they are the same guy, different party.  Cancels each other out. We need to fix the country and it's not happening now.  The question is who will best help brink us out of the coming financial disaster of 15 trillion dollars in national debt?  

For a little humor (no offense to our resident lawyer friends) How many Harvard educated lawyers does it take to ruin the country and banking system? Anyone? Anyone?  

Or, the good old standby: How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb?  

Legalize Answer

Q: How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?

 

A: Such number as may be deemed necessary to perform the stated task in a timely and efficient manner within the strictures of the following agreement:

 

Whereas the party of the first part, also known as "The Lawyers", and the party of the second part, also known as "The Light Bulb", do hereby and forthwith agree to a transaction wherein the party of the second part (Light Bulb) shall be removed from the current position as a result of failure to perform previously agreed upon duties, i.e., the lighting, elucidation, and otherwise illumination of the area ranging from the front (north) door, through the entry way, terminating at an area just inside the primary living area, demarcated by the beginning of the carpet, any spill-over illumination being at the option of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) and not required by the aforementioned agreement between the parties. The aforementioned removal transaction shall include, but not be limited to, the following steps:

 

1.) The party of the first part (Lawyer) shall, with or without elevation at his option, by means of a chair, step stool, ladder or any other means of elevation, grasp the party of the second part (Light Bulb) and rotate the party of the second part (Light Bulb) in a counterclockwise direction, said direction being nonnegotiable. Said grasping and rotation of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) shall be undertaken by the party of the first part (Lawyer) with every possible caution by the party of the first part (Lawyer) to maintain the structural integrity of the party of the second part (Light Bulb), notwithstanding the aforementioned failure of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) to perform the customary and agreed upon duties. The foregoing notwithstanding, however, both parties stipulate that structural failure of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) may be incidental to the aforementioned failure to perform and in such case the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall be held blameless for such structural failure insofar as this agreement is concerned so long as the nonnegotiable directional codicil (counterclockwise) is observed by the party of the first part (Lawyer) throughout.

 

2.) Upon reaching a point where the party of the second part (Light Bulb) becomes separated from the party of the third part ("Receptacle"), the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall have the option of disposing of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) in a manner consistent with all applicable state, local and federal statutes.

 

3.) Once separation and disposal have been achieved, the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall have the option of beginning installation of the party of the fourth part ("New Light Bulb"). This installation shall occur in a manner consistent with the reverse of the procedures described in step one of this selfsame document, being careful to note that the rotation should occur in a clockwise direction, said direction also being nonnegotiable and only until the party of the fourth part ("New Light Bulb") becomes snug in the party of the third part (Receptacle) and in fact becomes the party of the second part (Light Bulb).

 

NOTE: The above described steps may be performed, at the option of the party of the first part (Lawyer), by said party of the first part (Lawyer), by his or her heirs and assigns, or by any and all persons authorized by him or her to do so, the objective being to produce a level of illumination in the immediate vicinity of the aforementioned front (north) door consistent with maximization of ingress and revenue for the party of the fifth part, also known as "The Firm".

 

"Yet, I don't think he [Mitt] could beat Obama in a card game, much less the presidential election."

Why do you think that, SLS? I find your viewpoint interesting, because obvously a lot of people are thinking the same thing.

 Right now, I'm leaning toward this feeling-- that Newt is a"toadlike, know it all, cheating douchebag" .  I didn't have to hold my nose all that much to vote for McCain, but Newt is another story. I think his hubris could be dangerous for the country.

 

-- Edited by hope on Thursday 1st of December 2011 06:33:00 PM

Hope,

I supported Romney in the last election.  He looked great in the primaries, but in the end he didn't have the kind of consistent support from people across the GOP sprectrum.  

He doesn't now, either.

I want a candidate who can win.  Most of us do.  I think Gingrich will end up being the GOP challenger to Barack Obama, because Romney is just not that exciting.  Watching him speak now kind of bores me.  He is so bland and yet, so predictable as a politican.  If he weren't a politician, he would be a car salesman. An upscale luxury car salesman, but a car salesman, nonetheless.

If I was a supporter and voted for him the last time and don't think he can be elected now, then what's changed?

Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  His rhetoric is the same old rhetoric.  I am not enthusiastic about his campaign and it's not because he isn't a smart guy.  I think he has the stuff.  Yet, I don't think he could beat Obama in a card game, much less the presidential election.

In my decidedly non-conservative state, immigration will be huge for the next campaign.  The largest segment of new voters is going to be children of immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries - anchor babies.  They will vote for the candidate who has the most sensible immigration policy.  In  my opinion.  

Even folks like me, born and raised in the state, a third generation caucasian California resident who leans right...wants sensible immigration policy.

Mitt doesn't have it.

Gingrich...maybe.  

He was controversial, no doubt.  He also worked pretty well with Clinton and passed some substantial legislation, fairly quickly after becoming Speaker of the House.  A balanced budget looking pretty appealing to me right now, and he had the good fortune to help lead our government to one after quite a number of decades without a balanced budget.   

I am not sure if he can win against Obama, but I think he has the best chance of it, in this current GOP field.  

He may have been a philandering ass who couldn't keep it in his pants.  However, that doesn't seem to stop politicians, now does it?  

Newt seems like a pretty impressive guy (except he can't seem to keep his pants zipped, big negative). For some reason, he has never really appealed to me though. My husband pointed out something in a debate that kind of struck me. Newt always does great in the debates, he's very smart, can think on his feet, always has a good answer. But he had an interaction with Romney, where Romney tore into him about some issue or another where Newt had changed his opinion, and wouldn't let go of it. Newt had all these great comebacks, but finally when he was pinned, he just grinned....if it was a private debate, he would have said, "Yeah, you got me." It just seemed so lawyerly, complete bs, a moment of clarity for me.

When I read "blow hole" I thought this was the Barney Frank thread.

It will be interesting to see, but I am putting my money on Newt. 

Mitt is very similar to Obama in many ways.   Newt is going to appeal to more middle of the road voters, who never thought they would vote Republican.  Just watch.  

He may seem like a doddering old blow hole, or whatever you just said, hope...but honestly, so did Reagan to many people.  

 

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Thursday 1st of December 2011 04:12:57 PM

I kinda like Newt. So what if he's a jerk towards his women. He's mellowed out his rhetoric after being out of power these pass 16 years. 

He's my choice. I can see it now, national debate of two college professors.

I'd have gone with "National Scold" or maybe "National Hypocrite", zoose, but to each her own.

Newt's not mine either but he's preferrable by about any measure.

A gut-sick dog stands a good chance of polling better than Obama at this point in the cycle. The funny thing is, that Obama's polling just about like Jimmuh did way back in the bad old days is probably making him want to do some sympathy heaving right along with Rover.

Newt's offensive in more than one or two ways but I wouldn't figure the extra-marital sex angle would bother a lot of those who wouldn't be caught dead voting for him anyway.

Look at all the haters.

Newt latest poll number show he can beat Obama.

With that said, I prefer Romney. We need a business manager without baggage. Newt is a brilliant idea guy, but he has so much baggage.

Imagine all of America held hostage to his lectures for four years......

e x c r u c i a t i n g

Could shorten my life span.