Gingrich Says People Bored by Presidential Race

[Dos Equis]

Still early, but so far it has been pretty boring. 

Sunday, Feb. 18, 2007 10:28 p.m. EST
Gingrich Says People Bored by Presidential Race
Newt Gingrich's assessment of the public's reaction to the presidential campaign: Yawn.

As a potential presidential candidate himself, Gingrich said Sunday there may be a market for someone with enough sense not to get into a campaign two years before inauguration day.

"This is going to be like watching bad reruns of 'Survivor,"' Gingrich said. "People are going to say, 'Get them off the island. I don't want to see this anymore."'

Gingrich, the former House speaker from Georgia, said in December that it would not be too late for him to enter the race after this coming Labor Day if he believed no candidate had a clear advantage.

"I'll come back this summer at some point, if you'll have me, and we'll talk about how bored people are with this campaign," Gingrich said.,

He was interviewed on "Fox News Sunday."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/18/222943.shtml?s=ic

[mightymouse72]

Still early, but so far it has been pretty boring. 

Sunday, Feb. 18, 2007 10:28 p.m. EST
Gingrich Says People Bored by Presidential Race
Newt Gingrich's assessment of the public's reaction to the presidential campaign: Yawn.

As a potential presidential candidate himself, Gingrich said Sunday there may be a market for someone with enough sense not to get into a campaign two years before inauguration day.

"This is going to be like watching bad reruns of 'Survivor,"' Gingrich said. "People are going to say, 'Get them off the island. I don't want to see this anymore."'

Gingrich, the former House speaker from Georgia, said in December that it would not be too late for him to enter the race after this coming Labor Day if he believed no candidate had a clear advantage.

"I'll come back this summer at some point, if you'll have me, and we'll talk about how bored people are with this campaign," Gingrich said.,

He was interviewed on "Fox News Sunday."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/18/222943.shtml?s=ic

beach, would you like to see newt run for prez??
i think he would make things very interesting.

[240 is Back]

newt wants to tighten internet free speech greatly, has even said blogs are destroying the USA.

Goodbye political board!

[Dos Equis]

beach, would you like to see newt run for prez??
i think he would make things very interesting.

I wouldn't.  I don't think he can win enough "Reagan Democrats" and independents to win the general.  He would be one person who guarantees we have President Hillary. 

I think his legacy is cemented.  His plan during the 94 elections was brilliant.  He had a huge impact on breaking the stranglehold Democrats had on Congress and there were ripple effects across the country.  That turnover was great for the country. 

But if he runs, his personal baggage will really hurt him.  From what I recall, he dumped his wife while she was suffering from cancer and hooked up with a younger woman (while he was married).  Would not go over well with the base.  He also had too many run-ins with the ethics committee.   

On the other hand, the problem is he is absolutely right about the "boring" candidates.  Someone needs to shake up the race.     

[240 is Back]

he's a brilliant man.  probably smarter than anyone else running. 

but he is very far right and the phrase "Newt World Order" is frequently used for a reason...

[mightymouse72]

I wouldn't.  I don't think he can win enough "Reagan Democrats" and independents to win the general.  He would be one person who guarantees we have President Hillary. 

I think his legacy is cemented.  His plan during the 94 elections was brilliant.  He had a huge impact on breaking the stranglehold Democrats had on Congress and there were ripple effects across the country.  That turnover was great for the country. 

But if he runs, his personal baggage will really hurt him.  From what I recall, he dumped his wife while she was suffering from cancer and hooked up with a younger woman (while he was married).  Would not go over well with the base.  He also had too many run-ins with the ethics committee.   

On the other hand, the problem is he is absolutely right about the "boring" candidates.  Someone needs to shake up the race.     

i did not know that about his wife.  man, that's gotta hurt.

i agree with 240,      he is very brilliant and believes strongly in God as the foundation of this country.

i'd vote for him before rudy, i'm still up in the air about mccain

[240 is Back]

the race is gonna lose serious momentum.  can't keep this pace up til Jan 08 primaries.  Wes Clark will swoop in for the VP nod with hilary.

[Wombat]

newt wants to tighten internet free speech greatly, has even said blogs are destroying the USA.

Goodbye political board!

hello china...we are moving to a police state...The problem is going to be that we already have a taste of freedom(internet wise)...When these big corps take over the internet it will be heavily policed...But they will not have enough jail cells to keep us quiet...

[240 is Back]

hello china...we are moving to a police state...The problem is going to be that we already have a taste of freedom(internet wise)...When these big corps take over the internet it will be heavily policed...But they will not have enough jail cells to keep us quiet...

i'm just glad it's going to be 3 steps back, 2 steps forward until we reach that.

Today, you have 2/3 of congress fighting back at Bush's movement.  it will rebound for 5 or 10 years, then the globalists will have another win which convinces people to give up freedoms.  In 100 years, people will be so trained they will completely cave.  I'm just glad I'll be pushing up daisies by then.  I can't imagine this world will be a fun place to live in 100 years.

[G o a t b o y]

i'm just glad it's going to be 3 steps back, 2 steps forward until we reach that.

Today, you have 2/3 of congress fighting back at Bush's movement.  it will rebound for 5 or 10 years, then the globalists will have another win which convinces people to give up freedoms.  In 100 years, people will be so trained they will completely cave.  I'm just glad I'll be pushing up daisies by then.  I can't imagine this world will be a fun place to live in 100 years.

George Orwell wasn't wrong...   he was just off by 40 years or so. 

[240 is Back]

George Orwell wasn't wrong...   he was just off by 40 years or so. 

2030 or 2040 is your guess?

I'm guessing more like 2050 or 60.  The world smelling 911 fishiness pushed things back.  Another two generations will have to pass before people buy an outright lie (pearl harbor, gulf tonken, 911) again. 

[BRUCE]

Given the age of both Giuliani and McCain, you would think that a younger a Republican candidate will come to the fore later on in this campaign trail.  I think Obama attracts attention simply because his youth gives the impression of fresh ideas.

Two old blokes in suits?  I'm already bored.

[Dos Equis]

hello china...we are moving to a police state...The problem is going to be that we already have a taste of freedom(internet wise)...When these big corps take over the internet it will be heavily policed...But they will not have enough jail cells to keep us quiet...

How will the government control the internet if "big corporations" take over the internet? 

[240 is Back]

How will the government control the internet if "big corporations" take over the internet? 

There is a more than a slight relationship between big business and the govt.  Only a 9th grade kid with a social studies book would believe otherwise.

[Dos Equis]

There is a more than a slight relationship between big business and the govt.  Only a 9th grade kid with a social studies book would believe otherwise.

That doesn't answer my question.  I think anyone who understands how "big corporations" work and how the "government" works knows there is six degrees of separation between a "big corporation" owning the internet and the "government" controlling the internet based on ownership by a "big corporation."  That's why I asked for an explanation. 

[240 is Back]

That doesn't answer my question.  I think anyone who understands how "big corporations" work and how the "government" works knows there is six degrees of separation between a "big corporation" owning the internet and the "government" controlling the internet based on ownership by a "big corporation."  That's why I asked for an explanation. 

They would label it to be a threat (which newt is loving and china is doing), restrict and license things, tie the telcos to the laws and your worldwide internet would stop working one day.  If you wanted to get online you have to use the new roadrunner or comcast, which runs thru the DC server.

you don't just "get online".  You ask your ISP to put you online.  We're enjoying the golden age of the web.  It will not always be so free.  But I know, you can't fathom how forces and groups would work together for a bigger purpose...

[Dos Equis]

They would label it to be a threat (which newt is loving and china is doing), restrict and license things, tie the telcos to the laws and your worldwide internet would stop working one day.  If you wanted to get online you have to use the new roadrunner or comcast, which runs thru the DC server.

Who is "they"?  Who would do the restricting and licensing? 

And if "they" is the "big corporation," then make the connection between the "big corporation" and the government.

If "they" is the government, all you're talking about is government regulation, which isn't the same as "big corporations" controlling the internet.     

[240 is Back]

Who is "they"?  Who would do the restricting and licensing? 

And if "they" is the "big corporation," then make the connection between the "big corporation" and the government.

If "they" is the government, all you're talking about is government regulation, which isn't the same as "big corporations" controlling the internet.     

Settle down, beavis.

Congress is already working to require any bloggers with an audience of over 250 people to register and be held to the same regulations and liability as a radio station or public speaker.  Newt has made a big deal about the need to tighten the internet strings.  I've posted both stories here.

Over the next decade, as bloggers gain more power and influence (even if you consider 911 inside job to be BS, you CANNOT deny the web has converted millions of people with Loose Change alone), Congress will put more and more restrictions to 'settle people down' and ensure anything posted can be tracked and dealt with instantly.  If someone uploaded a JFK or 911 smoking gun today using a proxy, you'd have ten million people downloading it before the atty gen could even get paperwork started to stop it.  That's bad for a nation who makes its living delivering spoonfuls of info to a hungry and obedient populace.

watch "who killed john oneill" for the corporation/govt breakdown.  Anyone who's ever seen it will attest to the connections being very clearly made.  I have led the horse to water...

[Dos Equis]

Settle down, beavis.

Congress is already working to require any bloggers with an audience of over 250 people to register and be held to the same regulations and liability as a radio station or public speaker.  Newt has made a big deal about the need to tighten the internet strings.  I've posted both stories here.

Over the next decade, as bloggers gain more power and influence (even if you consider 911 inside job to be BS, you CANNOT deny the web has converted millions of people with Loose Change alone), Congress will put more and more restrictions to 'settle people down' and ensure anything posted can be tracked and dealt with instantly.  If someone uploaded a JFK or 911 smoking gun today using a proxy, you'd have ten million people downloading it before the atty gen could even get paperwork started to stop it.  That's bad for a nation who makes its living delivering spoonfuls of info to a hungry and obedient populace.

watch "who killed john oneill" for the corporation/govt breakdown.  Anyone who's ever seen it will attest to the connections being very clearly made.  I have led the horse to water...

Who needs to settle down?   

What you've just described is government regulation, which still doesn't address my question.  I think what is obvious is it doesn't matter whether a "big corporation," a sole proprietor, a partnership, a limited partnership, or a limited liability company "takes" over the internet.  The government will always be able to regulate the internet if enough people in Congress pass a law.  It has nothing to do with a "big corporation."   

[240 is Back]

What you've just described is government regulation, which still doesn't address my question.  I think what is obvious is it doesn't matter whether a "big corporation," a sole proprietor, a partnership, a limited partnership, or a limited liability company "takes" over the internet.  The government will always be able to regulate the internet if enough people in Congress pass a law.  It has nothing to do with a "big corporation."   

It's actually a larger group of coorps.  but hey, if you're gonna enjoy your feed this evening better believing that, then don't watch "john oneill".  You asked a Q, I told you where the answer was.  They detail the connections using real names and real evidence.  If you don't want the answer, stop asking.

[Dos Equis]

It's actually a larger group of coorps.  but hey, if you're gonna enjoy your feed this evening better believing that, then don't watch "john oneill".  You asked a Q, I told you where the answer was.  They detail the connections using real names and real evidence.  If you don't want the answer, stop asking.

If you don't understand the question (which you don't), quit trying to answer it.  I didn't ask for reference to some documentary or whatever the heck it is.  I asked a question, which wasn't directed to you, but I welcomed your explanation (which didn't address my question).  I didn't ask for that conspiracy crap either. 

[240 is Back]

If you don't understand the question (which you don't), quit trying to answer it.  I didn't ask for reference to some documentary or whatever the heck it is.  I asked a question, which wasn't directed to you, but I welcomed your explanation (which didn't address my question).  I didn't ask for that conspiracy crap either. 

as long as you classify the provable truth as "conspiracy crap" there's nothing to really talk about.

[Hedgehog]

Given the age of both Giuliani and McCain, you would think that a younger a Republican candidate will come to the fore later on in this campaign trail.  I think Obama attracts attention simply because his youth gives the impression of fresh ideas.

Two old blokes in suits?  I'm already bored.

Good observation.

Republicans only producing Giuliani and McCain.

While the Democrats have at least four potential candidates who could hold their own if they won the primary: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore.

I count Gore in, as he could enter at any time and be more competitive than Edwards.

But the fact of the matter is, that either of these four would IMO beat either Giuliani or McCain.

Edwards being the weakest of the four IMO.

Whoever wins the Democratic primary should also win the Presidential election.

But it ain't over until the fat lady sings. So McCain or Giuliani could be the comeback kids of the Republican Party, although it's very unlikely.

-Hedge