Author Topic: Newt  (Read 23732 times)

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: Gingrich Says He's More Inclined than Not to Run
« Reply #200 on: November 27, 2011, 04:06:14 PM »
I would vote for newt no problem.  He is right that we need to abolish the epa. 
Expand Patriot Act too!!

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39455
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Gingrich Says He's More Inclined than Not to Run
« Reply #201 on: November 27, 2011, 04:09:39 PM »
Expand Patriot Act too!!

You got that w Obama.   Fail. 

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: Gingrich Says He's More Inclined than Not to Run
« Reply #202 on: November 27, 2011, 04:22:37 PM »
You got that w Obama.   Fail. 


but Newt wants more expansion


Double down Remember?

Boom Fail... i win again

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Newt
« Reply #203 on: November 29, 2011, 11:13:10 AM »
Rep. Scott: Gingrich would take South Carolina
Posted by
CNN's Ashley Killough

(CNN) - Political heavyweight and Republican Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina said Monday that if the election were held today, GOP presidential front-runner Newt Gingrich would win the Palmetto State.

"We'd love to see Mitt Romney spend more time in South Carolina, but I believe today if we were to hold the election, those are the two guys that would be at the top of the ticket and Newt would win," Scott said in an interview with CNN's "John King, USA."

The first-term congressman, a tea party favorite, has yet to endorse a candidate but has hosted a series of town halls for the presidential hopefuls stopping in South Carolina. Gingrich was in town Monday night to attend one of the events.

The former House Speaker took heat from the right last week when he said his approach to immigration would be "humane," arguing that longtime illegal immigrants who are well-assimilated into society should be considered for legal status.

Scott said he disagreed with that position but conceded voters in the state weren't looking for "the perfect candidate."

"We are simply a very strong anti-illegal immigration state. We will stay that way," Scott said. "You don't have to find the perfect candidate, however. What we need is someone who can beat President Obama and someone who makes sense."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/28/rep-scott-gingrich-would-take-south-carolina/

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Newt
« Reply #204 on: November 30, 2011, 05:19:44 AM »
More numbers breaking... It looks like it may have been up to $100 million between healthcare and housing company. 

I'm okay with that, as I can understand how the 'system' works.  But there can be ZERO condemnation of obama for being "washington business as usual..." from Newt.  He is the definition of the problem in DC.  Obama's a rookie at it still, in comparison.

He's defending it, still saying "I was never a lobbyist..."

Bindare_Dundat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12227
  • KILL CENTRAL BANKS, BUY BITCOIN.
Re: Newt
« Reply #205 on: November 30, 2011, 05:39:51 AM »
Newt is the globalist schill we need to turn the country around.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Newt
« Reply #206 on: December 02, 2011, 11:15:03 AM »
Just a tad overconfident, but he might be right.   

Gingrich: 'I'm Going to Be the Nominee'
By: Terence Burlij and Quinn Bowman

Newt Gingrich is looking to bring some certainty to a Republican presidential race that has been anything but settled.

"I'm going to be the nominee," the former House speaker told Jake Tapper of ABC News in West Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday. "It's very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I'm going to be the nominee."

. . . .

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/12/gingrich-bets-high-on-his-campaign.html

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Newt
« Reply #207 on: December 02, 2011, 02:19:27 PM »
Everything Newt knows about today's youth, he learned from watching season 1 of the Wire.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Newt
« Reply #208 on: December 02, 2011, 03:00:17 PM »
Just a tad overconfident, but he might be right.   

Gingrich: 'I'm Going to Be the Nominee'
By: Terence Burlij and Quinn Bowman

Newt Gingrich is looking to bring some certainty to a Republican presidential race that has been anything but settled.

"I'm going to be the nominee," the former House speaker told Jake Tapper of ABC News in West Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday. "It's very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I'm going to be the nominee."

. . . .

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/12/gingrich-bets-high-on-his-campaign.html

Well, we all knew it wouldn't be the black guy.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Newt
« Reply #209 on: December 05, 2011, 10:19:49 PM »
Ouch.

Gingrich’s leadership ‘lacking,’ says Sen. Coburn
Posted by CNN Political Unit

(CNN) – A conservative Republican on Sunday openly balked at the idea of a Newt Gingrich presidency, basing his qualms on the former House Speaker’s leadership while in Congress.

“I’m not inclined to be a supporter of Newt Gingrich, having served under him for four years and experienced, personally, his leadership,” Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn told “Fox News Sunday."

Coburn said he often found Gingrich’s leadership “lacking” in Congress, but he declined to provide specifics.

Gingrich has surged to the top of national polls for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, but hasn’t yet won over Coburn.

“I will have difficulty supporting him as president of the United States,” Coburn said.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/04/gingrichs-leadership-lacking-says-sen-coburn/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Newt
« Reply #210 on: December 05, 2011, 10:24:37 PM »
What an incredibly dumb thing for Pelosi to say.  I'd expect something like this from Biden. 

Pelosi ready to tell all on Gingrich
Posted by CNN Congressional Producer Deirdre Walsh

(CNN) – Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office said Monday that any potentially-damaging information she had on Newt Gingrich was all open to the public, defending earlier comments that she had "a thousand pages" of investigative material on Gingrich during his time as House speaker.

"Leader Pelosi was clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware," said Nadeam Elshami, a Pelosi spokesman, in a statement.

Earlier Monday, Pelosi suggested in an interview she would talk in detail at some point about the House ethics committee's investigation of Gingrich in the late 1990s.

In the interview with the left-leaning news website Talking Points Memo, Pelosi was pressed to talk about her thoughts on the Republican presidential candidate's recent rise in the polls. While the House Democratic Leader demurred, she signaled she'd have more to say later.

"One of these days we'll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich," Pelosi told TPM. "I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."

According to the TPM story, Pelosi "joked" the information would come out "when the time's right."

After hearing about the interview, Gingrich told reporters in New York that he considered Pelosi's comments "an early Christmas gift" and said any information the Democratic Leader might release on the ethics probe would itself be a violation of House ethics rules.

"That is a fundamental violation of the rules of the House and I would hope members would immediately file charges against her the second she does it," Gingrich said. If Pelosi did talk publicly about any private deliberations of the inquiry, Gingrich urged members of the House to file a complaint against her.

At his press conference on Monday, former Speaker Gingrich also noted that 83 charges the House committee investigated were found to be false.

But in 1997 Gingrich became the only speaker to be reprimanded by the House, for giving false information about using tax deductible funds for political purposes to the ethics committee. He was also ordered to pay $300,000 to cover the cost of the panel's inquiry.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/pelosi-ready-to-tell-all-on-gingrich/

Bindare_Dundat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12227
  • KILL CENTRAL BANKS, BUY BITCOIN.
Re: Newt
« Reply #211 on: December 06, 2011, 05:06:59 AM »
Ouch.

Gingrich’s leadership ‘lacking,’ says Sen. Coburn
Posted by CNN Political Unit

(CNN) – A conservative Republican on Sunday openly balked at the idea of a Newt Gingrich presidency, basing his qualms on the former House Speaker’s leadership while in Congress.

“I’m not inclined to be a supporter of Newt Gingrich, having served under him for four years and experienced, personally, his leadership,” Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn told “Fox News Sunday."

Coburn said he often found Gingrich’s leadership “lacking” in Congress, but he declined to provide specifics.

Gingrich has surged to the top of national polls for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, but hasn’t yet won over Coburn.

“I will have difficulty supporting him as president of the United States,” Coburn said.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/04/gingrichs-leadership-lacking-says-sen-coburn/


Ouch? Are you serious? More like, yay!

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Newt
« Reply #212 on: December 15, 2011, 05:19:22 PM »
An opinion piece sent to me by a Romney supporter.  (Shocker)   :)

December 6, 2011, 11:52 pm
The Tempting of the Christian Right
By ROSS DOUTHAT

More than any other Republican constituency, religious conservatives have good reasons to be wary of Newt Gingrich. As the leader of a right-wing insurgency in the early 1990s, he often kept their causes at arm’s length — deliberately excluding issues like abortion and school prayer from the Contract With America, for instance. As Speaker of the House, he undercut their claim to the moral high ground by carrying on an extramarital affair even as his party was impeaching Bill Clinton for lying under oath about adultery.

During his years in the political wilderness, though, Gingrich found religion – both as a convert to the Roman Catholic Church and as a born-again champion of socially conservative causes. He’s spent the last decade producing books and documentaries about America’s Christian heritage. He raised money for a referendum to recall the judges who legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa. His public rhetoric borrows the tropes of the religious right — emphasizing the dangers of secularism, attacking the usurpations of activist judges, and so on. And when he talks about his checkered personal life, it’s always in the language of sin, repentance and redemption.

Now his path to the nomination depends on this conversion paying off. If Gingrich hopes to outlast Mitt Romney, he needs to win over evangelicals wary of Mormonism and social conservatives worried about Romney’s many flip-flops on their issues. He needs the Republican Party’s values voters to forgive his past indiscretions and embrace him as their champion. And his rise in the polls has prompted a lively debate among religious conservatives, both in Iowa and nationally, about whether they should do just that — whether he’s really changed, whether his various conversions are sincere, and whether they can trust him.

But these are the wrong questions. The real issue for religious conservatives isn’t whether they can trust Gingrich. It’s whether they can afford to be associated with him.


Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images

Newt Gingrich at the 7th annual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C.., on April 27, 2011.Conservative Christianity in America, both evangelical and Catholic, faces a looming demographic challenge: A rising generation that is more unchurched than any before it, more liberal on issues like gay marriage, and allergic to the apocalyptic rhetoric of the Pat Robertson-Jerry Falwell era. To many younger Americans, religious conservatism as they know it often seems to stand for a kind of institutionalized hypocrisy — a right-wing Tartufferie that’s incensed by the idea of gay wedlock but tolerant of straight divorce, forgiving of Republican sins but judgmental about Democratic indiscretions, and eager to apply moral litmus tests only on issues that benefit the political right.

Rallying around Newt Gingrich, effectively making him the face of Christian conservatism in this Republican primary season, would ratify all of these impressions. It isn’t just that he’s a master of selective moral outrage whose newfound piety has been turned to consistently partisan ends. It’s that his personal history — not only the two divorces, but also the repeated affairs and the way he behaved during the dissolution of his marriages — makes him the most compromised champion imaginable for a movement that’s laboring to keep lifelong heterosexual monogamy on a legal and cultural pedestal.

For some religious conservatives, the big question for 2012 seems to be whether Gingrich has done enough to show contrition for these sins. Richard Land, the president of the Ethics and Religious

Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, recently published an open letter urging the former Speaker to “address this issue of your marital past directly and transparently and ask folks to forgive you and give you their trust and their vote,” suggesting that he should “pick a pro-family venue and give a speech (not an interview) addressing your marital history once and for all.”

But repentance isn’t the issue here. Of course Christians are obliged to forgive a penitent, whatever his offenses — though a cynic might note that it’s easy for an adulterer to express contrition once he’s safely married to his mistress. But one can forgive a sinner without necessarily deciding that he should be anointed as the standard bearer for the very cause that he betrayed. Contrition is supposed to be its own reward. There’s no obligation to throw in the presidency as well.

In a climate of culture war, any spokesman for conservative Christianity is destined to be a polarizing figure. (Just ask Tim Tebow.) But a religious right that rallied around Gingrich would be putting the worst possible face on its cause and at the worst possible time.

His candidacy isn’t a test of religious conservatives’ willingness to be good, forgiving Christians. It’s a test of their ability to see their cause through outsiders’ eyes, and to recognize what anointing a thrice-married adulterer as the champion of “family values” would say to the skeptical, the unconverted and above all to the young.

An earlier version of this column incorrectly described Richard Land’s position in the Southern Baptist Convention. He is president of the group’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, not the president of the convention itself.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/the-tempting-of-the-christian-right/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Newt
« Reply #213 on: December 22, 2011, 09:55:19 AM »
Thomas Sowell: I’ll Take Gingrich over Romney
Wednesday, 21 Dec 2011

Economist and conservative author Thomas Sowell says voters should disregard Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s “baggage” and support the former House speaker because defeating President Obama in 2012 is crucial to America’s future.

Sowell cites Gingrich’s solid record of “concrete accomplishments,” which he argues makes him a stronger candidate than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who pushed through one of the liberal healthcare programs in the nation.

Sowell, one of the nation’s most respected conservative columnists and a senior fellow on public policy at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, writes in his nationally syndicated column: “What the media call Gingrich’s ‘baggage’ concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress.

“But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of the nation?”

Sowell points to Obama’s economic policies, which have taken the country down a path that has “led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.”

He also cites a foreign policy that has “pulled the rug” out from under America’s allies while seeking to “cozy up” to our enemies, and says the failure to deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons development could have consequences “beyond our worst imagining.”

“Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich’s personal life matter?” Sowell asks.

Voters should recognize Gingrich’s “concrete accomplishments” when he was House speaker — the first Republican takeover of the House in 40 years, welfare reform, and the first balanced budget in 40 years, Sowell says.

The real question, he observes, is whether Gingrich is better than Obama — and better than “smooth talker” Mitt Romney.

He concludes: “Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich’s past, rather than on the nation’s future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: ‘If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.’ If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means we’ve lost, big time.”

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/sowell-romney-gingrich-obama/2011/12/21/id/421814

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Newt
« Reply #214 on: December 22, 2011, 02:04:43 PM »
Thomas Sowell: I’ll Take Gingrich over Romney
Wednesday, 21 Dec 2011

Economist and conservative author Thomas Sowell says voters should disregard Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s “baggage” and support the former House speaker because defeating President Obama in 2012 is crucial to America’s future.

Sowell cites Gingrich’s solid record of “concrete accomplishments,” which he argues makes him a stronger candidate than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who pushed through one of the liberal healthcare programs in the nation.

Sowell, one of the nation’s most respected conservative columnists and a senior fellow on public policy at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, writes in his nationally syndicated column: “What the media call Gingrich’s ‘baggage’ concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress.

“But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of the nation?”

Sowell points to Obama’s economic policies, which have taken the country down a path that has “led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.”

He also cites a foreign policy that has “pulled the rug” out from under America’s allies while seeking to “cozy up” to our enemies, and says the failure to deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons development could have consequences “beyond our worst imagining.”

“Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich’s personal life matter?” Sowell asks.

Voters should recognize Gingrich’s “concrete accomplishments” when he was House speaker — the first Republican takeover of the House in 40 years, welfare reform, and the first balanced budget in 40 years, Sowell says.

The real question, he observes, is whether Gingrich is better than Obama — and better than “smooth talker” Mitt Romney.

He concludes: “Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich’s past, rather than on the nation’s future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: ‘If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.’ If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means we’ve lost, big time.”

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/sowell-romney-gingrich-obama/2011/12/21/id/421814

Newts "baggage" is his repution with his own party from people who were unfortunate enough to personally experience his type of "leadership".    This will sink him more than his horribly hypocrtical and un-christian personal problems.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Newt
« Reply #215 on: January 05, 2012, 03:19:44 PM »
 :o

Paul: Gingrich a 'chickenhawk'
Posted by
CNN's Kevin Liptak

(CNN) – Rep. Ron Paul said Wednesday that rival Newt Gingrich was a "chickenhawk" for voting to send American troops into war while never having served in the military himself.

Paul was responding to a question from CNN's Soledad O'Brien on the program "Starting Point" about Gingrich's assertion that the Texas congressman would be a "dangerous" candidate.

- Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

"You know, when Newt Gingrich was called to serve us in the 1960s during the Vietnam era, guess what he thought about danger? He chickened out on that and got deferments and didn't even go," Paul said. "Right now he sends the young kids over there and the young people come back and the ones in the military right now, they overwhelmingly support my campaign."

Paul pointed to the number of veterans who are supporting his bid for the GOP nomination, citing their endorsement for his platform of limited American involvement overseas

"We get twice as much support from the active military personnel than all the other candidates put together," Paul said. "So Newt Gingrich has no business talking about danger because he is putting other people in danger. Some people call that kind of a program a 'chickenhawk' and I think he falls into that category."

Paul has previously criticized the former House speaker for deferments he received during the Vietman era. Paul himself served as a surgeon in the U.S. Air Force after attending medical school.

Paul also said Wednesday he had no idea who posted a snarky message about rival candidate Jon Huntsman on his official Twitter page.

The post, which appeared late Tuesday as results were being complied in the Iowa caucuses, read: "@JonHuntsman, we found your one Iowa voter, he's in Linn precinct 5 you might want to call him and say thanks."

"I didn't quite understand even what you just read, but, obviously, I didn't send it," Paul said. "So, I don't even understand. I'm sorry, I didn't catch the whole message there about Jon Huntsman. I haven't talked about Jon Huntsman in a long time. I don't know what's going on there."

The message was sent from the account @RonPaul, which is the candidates official feed. Paul admitted Wednesday that he "has some help tweeting."

  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/04/paul-gingrich-a-chickenhawk/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Newt
« Reply #216 on: January 25, 2012, 11:52:31 AM »
Fearing Gingrich, Both Sides Say He's Unelectable
Tuesday, 24 Jan 2012
By Matt Barber

What do establishment Republicans and liberal Democrats have in common? They’ve long labored under a shared misconception: conservative candidates are unelectable.

In 1980, conventional wisdom held that Ronald Reagan didn’t stand a chance against Jimmy Carter. The GOP leadership, the mainstream media and liberal politicos alike lined up against the Gipper in an attempt to derail his presidential campaign.

Rush Limbaugh recently addressed this phenomenon on his radio program: “Gerald Ford said that Ronald Reagan was unelectable. George H.W. Bush said that Ronald Reagan was unelectable. The entire Republican establishment thought Ronald Reagan was unelectable because they were governed and informed by the Goldwater landslide defeat. That’s what they think will happen to every conservative.”

That’s what they think will happen to Newt Gingrich.

As it became clear last week that the former House speaker was on his way to an impressive victory in South Carolina, liberal strategist and MSNBC talking head Lawrence O’Donnell summed up bipartisan conventional wisdom by suggesting, against all the evidence, that Mr. Gingrich “cannot win a national election … It’s impossible.”

On “Meet the Press,” fellow MSNBCer and mushy moderate Joe Scarborough declared, “Republicans are panicked in Washington, D.C., for good reason.”

Indeed, Mr. Gingrich’s solid win, coupled with another surge in Florida, has the establishment squealing and darting about like a flaming pot-bellied pig. Massachusetts moderate Mitt Romney’s campaign has trotted out surrogates like Ann Coulter and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to nip at the speaker’s heels.

Coulter, who has moved briskly leftward in recent years, even joining the Republican gay activist group GOProud, has stooped to personal attacks against South Carolina voters. “Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall,” she said.

Of South Carolina conservatives’ willingness to forgive Mr. Gingrich for his past marital infidelity — something he has long admitted to and repented for — Coulter snipped, “I think South Carolina is going back to its Democratic roots. I mean, to not care about that, that’s the position of the Democratic Party.”

Still, RINO Republicans’ fear of Mr. Gingrich stems from something entirely different from that which drives the left. The GOP leadership actually believes that he cannot win a general election, while — with a traumatic Reagan presidency still fresh in their minds — left-wing “progressives” know that he can.

It’s the liberal media and Democratic National Committee, in fact, that has largely pushed the self-serving “Romney-is-the-inevitable-nominee” meme.

In a recent Fox News interview, Sarah Palin, who has all but officially endorsed Mr. Gingrich, said, “I believe the mainstream media and Obama want to face Mitt Romney in the general election.”

And why wouldn’t they? In terms of his ability to inspire the base and get out the vote, Mr. Romney is a bit like Bob Dole without all the honorable accomplishments. After last week’s debacle in South Carolina, it’s little wonder that The Washington Post is reporting Romney will no longer commit to any further Florida debates. He finds himself in a Catch-22: he must either debate and lose to Mr. Gingrich or not debate and lose to Mr. Gingrich.

Guess who else doesn’t want to debate Mr. Gingrich? Hint: his initials are BHO.

I’ll state the obvious: Mr. Gingrich is not a perfect man. Neither is he the perfect candidate. Who is? The question is, do we allow repentance for personal sin? Do we forgive others their trespasses as we wish to be forgiven?

I’m reminded of the biblical account of King David. As a shepherd boy, he slew a giant. As a man, he fell into sin — marital infidelity and even murder. Yet through it all God called him “a man after [His] own heart.” Through it all, David remained a great leader.

Like David, Mr. Gingrich has proven to be a man with many flaws. But like David, he has also proven to be a great leader. It was Mr. Gingrich, of course, who led the 1994 “Republican Revolution” that launched the political careers of many establishment Republicans who now fear their past leader’s future nomination.

Our volatile times require a man who will decisively and decidedly lead from the helm. We cannot survive four more years of “leading from behind.”

That’s why we need Newt Gingrich.

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is vice president of Liberty Counsel Action. 

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Gingrich-Republican-Florida-Primary/2012/01/24/id/425363

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Newt
« Reply #217 on: January 25, 2012, 11:53:25 AM »
is FOX taking sides against Newt?

During SC primary results FOX didn't cover Gingrich's victory and speech: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12513372
 

Currently MSNBC is showing the President live in Iowa.

Currently CNN is flipping between Gingrich in Florida and the President in Iowa

Currently FOX is showing an update about snow in Washington State, and other blather but neither Gingrich nor the President live.
 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39455
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Newt
« Reply #218 on: January 25, 2012, 07:37:40 PM »
Skip to comments.

Nancy Reagan 1995: Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt
Legal Insurrection ^ | January 25, 2012 at 9:50pm | William A. Jacobson
Posted on January 25, 2012 10:20:04 PM EST by Utmost Certainty

There is something truly obscene about the full blown assault on Newt Gingrich’s strong Reagan conservative history from and on behalf of Mitt Romney, who unabashedly ran away from the Reagan legacy and conservative principles in his 1994 Senate campaign and 2002 gubernatorial campaign. Truly obscene.

The latest iteration comes from Elliott Abrams writing in National Review, quoting pieces of a single speech Newt apparently gave on the floor of the House on March 21, 1986, in which Newt criticized certain foreign policy decisions of the Reagan administration. Abrams does not link to the full speech or to other speeches of Newt at the time.

Instead much of the anti-Newt conservative media — including a screaming Drudge banner — accuses Newt of “insulting” Reagan.  It is part of a smear campaign which started when Newt surged in Iowa and National Review unloaded with it’s infamous “Marvin the Maritan” issue, and now it has resurfaced once again now that Romney is in electoral trouble.

A more honest assessment comes from Jeffrey Lord at The American Spectator.  Lord, who was in a position to know because he witnessed first hand Newt’s interaction with Reagan, has written a critical column, Reagan’s Young Lieutenant,  Much like Byron York’s column debunking Romney attacks regarding Newt’s ethics charges, Lord’s column is a critical contribution to the truth in a sea of shameless lies.

Lord portrays Newt in a much more favorable light:

(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Newt
« Reply #219 on: January 25, 2012, 08:25:10 PM »
mitt is running nonstop ads against newt in FL.

I'm talking CSI on CBS....  on MSNBC.... on ESPN....I think i even saw one of the ads on nickelodeon.

I think FL will be closer than ppl thing... lots of mitt votes were mailed weeks ago, long before s carolina.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Newt
« Reply #220 on: January 25, 2012, 11:22:54 PM »
Newt wants to put a base on the moon.

No waste of money there.

::)

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19434
Re: Newt
« Reply #221 on: January 26, 2012, 10:03:43 AM »
 :D

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39455
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Newt
« Reply #222 on: January 26, 2012, 10:04:37 AM »
:D


Newt, or even a random idiot out of the phone book, would be better than what we have now. 

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: Newt
« Reply #223 on: January 26, 2012, 11:09:16 AM »

Newt, or even a random idiot out of the phone book, would be better than what we have now. 


weaker than a wet noodle your "argument" is

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39455
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Newt
« Reply #224 on: January 26, 2012, 11:14:17 AM »

weaker than a wet noodle your "argument" is

Actually it is not you 95% moron.   

Obama basically said that unless he gets 60 plus votes in the Senate plus the house of reps back he cant get anything done.   

In 2012 - there is literally no scenario where obama gets 60 plus seats in the Senate and the house is still up for grabs.   


So why vote for him again when he already told you that an obama second term will literally mean 4 more years of bullshit?   no my words, his!