Seems you're the only one talking about or reminding anyone of Newt's seed there feisty...

What's worse a surging Newt'r or Newt'r and Nuts (Mr. phinephancy still goes fetal over that one!)? LOL

How the heck do the Republicans bring these loosers forward??????????????

AFREAKINGMAZING! I wonder if anyone reputable is doing a study on the fringe right wing. Seems to be a collective amnesia going on. Funny how the right wing forgets about Newt's many affairs, his ethics problems...I wish someone would give me a reasonable explanation.

Wonder when either Newt'r or Mittens will self destruct? We could start a pool.

Reb: source: how do YOU know what I think about Bill Clinton?

Why is that those of you on the right INSIST on telling me what I think?

Since most of you are not terribly bright, I think your time might be better spent educating yourselves.

newday, the folks of the party of Christian family values are mind readers as well as sanctimonious hypocrites!

newday,

What a hoot--they're everywhere tonight!

Twice in one night! I seem to draw them out! There must be a repellent for that problem.

"Bill Clinton's 'Bimbo Eruptions'"

Any time I see the loyal opposition raise the irrelevant subject of Clinton's ancient infidelities in response to current events, I begin to think this election is over before it has begun: if that's all the GOP has, then Obama has already won.

Game over.

Red,

Classy, like usual.

Sailcat, love the icon.

Newt is smart enough to run the country, but I am gunning for Romney. Goodness, you people just keep attacking Newt's character - which is acceptable, but I see NO discussion of his policies, which truly scares me.

I guess it's just not Mitt to be.

I had a dream last night------Newt/Cain 2012

We'll change your life

We'll @!$%# your wife

We can open doors

We're political whores

Ask our wives

They love their lives

Because, my honey

It's all the money...that

Keeps them in line.

And me feelin' fine.

Newt/ Cain 2012

I have a vision of Mittens in a room in his mansion kicking and screaming, "But, it was supposed to be MY turn! Waaaa"

@spider

The GOP has no ideas except the destruction of President Obama. Unless you count having children as slave labor. Your 9-9-9 plan just left the building.

Dear God,

I was actually joking when I said I wanted to see the GOP nominate Newt Gingrich to run against President Obama in 2012...but if that's you're plan then I'm extra pleased that you've decided to bless America with such an entertaining "contest."

Thank you, Phinephancy! You're very kind!

Newt is going to implode just like every other top-tier candidate has since August. Ron Paul will win the Iowa Caucuses and it will be written-off as a fluke. Then Romney will probably win New Hampshire and the media will name him the presumptive nominee.

wonder if old Newt is using Viagra for his surges these days?

Reb, why should newday do that? Just to make you happy?

Silver Bells, Silver Bells, It's Christmas Time In The City

You are all aware I hope that now viewing on your tv is - drum roll -

It's a Wonderful Life.

Quick! Tune in before it's over!

You don't want to miss this. Otherwise you'll have to wait a whole year to see it again ...

@tony

If he doesn't, he could always shill for it like Bob Dole did!

Exactly my point REB: Don't act as though you know what I think when you don't.

If he doesn't, he could always shill for it like Bob Dole did!

Uggh! As bad as Newt sounds , the thought of Bob Dole doing it, sickens my stomach. Especially if it were with Liddy!!!!!

Four Points, I think you need to get back on your meds.

It's amazing that we have so many righteous people that have never made mistakes in their lives on here. Especially since I can guarantee there are few people in this world who haven't commited a deceitful sexual act, and if that's the best you can do to fault Mr Gingrich's run for president.....that's weak. Jesus forgave even the most wretched....people can be born again and be the person they should have been all along....and religion doesn't even have to be involved. So feisty redhead......we all know what fiesty redheads are like....I doubt you're any different....especially with the name you give yourself....so don't be a bigot and slam people for something you do yourself most likely. I'm not endorsing Gingrich...but I'm sick of lame attacks on people by people who are no different

Feisty I think you have your terms mixed up! Splooge is the one you are looking for not surge!

Gingrich will be out of contention within two weeks. It's doesn't matter whether he wins the primary. He has far too much baggage and the Republican Party regulars - not the right-wing nuts - will continue to hammer at the fact that he is the ultimate political whore, a sociopath, and a liar of the first order. Gingrich WILL NOT last.

Next up will be Ron Paul, who also is not a favorite of the establishment, but he will move up further in the polls as Gingrich moves down.

What a drag it must be to belong to a party that hates the current President and prefers any crazy Republican over Romney.

As always, my deepest sympathy to true Republicans. The RINO's - the right-wing crazies - are destroying the G.O.P.

Hi Sailcat,

I'm not sure how fair a person you are, so let me ask you directly. You talk about ancient irrelevancies, which is a fair point to make. So is Newt's divorce from his first wife relevant? His second wife? If so, how so? Please explain that you are not, as your fealty to phinephancy implies, simply a partisan hack.

"Newt is smart enough to run the country, but...I see NO discussion of his policies, which truly scares me."

First, you are too easily scared. Second, which of Newt's so-called policies would you care to discuss? His publicly-stated desire to engage in covert military action against Iran? His wildly questionable child labor ravings? His vague and nebulous sound bites about "slashing taxes"? How about the promise (or was it a threat?) Newt made on May 11, 2011, in which he stated, “I know how to get the whole country to resemble Texas.” ?

If I were you, I would be more frightened of Gingrich's deranged policies themselves than the perceived lack of discussion regarding them.

David Walker, I agree with your assessment. Newt is going to tank. Quickly. He isn't prepared to run a national campaign.

Reb, you either need a drink or to get back on your meds. You are losing it.

REB lotsanumbers:

WTF is a "typical lib"?

I really don't think that the Republicans want to win the presidency in 2012. Obama's ratings are very low but wait until he wins second term that's when it will get much lower. The state of the economy is going to punish the next president.

Reb: I think the criticism you are getting is well earned. You are pedestrian in thought, only able to re hash the well worn talking points of the right wing.

My thoughts are my own, I share them with those who are able to operate in the arena of ideas.

Which disqualifies YOU.

Yes... Let's hope Ging"RICH" wins the Republican nomination... Obama will crush him in the election. A vote for Ging"RICH" is BUSH III.

the reason for the ravings against the Newt is that he is the guy who engineered the new reps in the '90s - family values, bible thumping, etc, etc. The only thing that the Newt excels at is hypocrisy!!!

This is the reason that a lot of people bash the Reps for their piccadiloes. They used the bible to attack Carter, the unions and the liberals in the '80s. Yet they keep getting caught with their pants down (with members of bot the same and opposite sex), all kinds of corruption, etc, etc. I believe that any Rep or their supporters who get caught in compromising situations, need to be tarred and feathered and marched down Pennsylvania Avenue. Forget that, not enough tar and feathers in the country.

Nothing really matters right now. It will only matter when a candidate gets chosen and character/policy take center stage.

That being said, I just hate the fact that the right fringe votes who to represent our country.

As for me I don’t make political comments very much, but I will say this, I don’t trust Newt Gingrich, But I do believe he is the smartest one on the stage compared to the other candidates, and he would be the smartest choice if you were to vote republican. But that is just my own opinion.

Have a good day, Tom And Lyn

Gingrich is leading in the Iowa polls ????????

Man, this is a sure sign of desperation for Iowa GOP primary voters. If this con man and scam artist wins the Iowa GOP primary and then the GOP nomination Republican voters may as well stay home on Election Day because this guy lends new meaning to the term “LOSER”. Hey Karl Rove. can you spell "LANDSLIDE"

Obama's ratings are very low but wait until he wins second term

That would be called the Barackolypse.

that's when it will get much lower.

Yea, that's when most of the destructive stuff, like Obamacare, Cross-State, etc. takes effect. That's when energy prices "will necessarily skyrocket", when he will get gas prices to "where they are in Europe" ($8 a gallon), when if you own a coal plant "you'll go bankrupt" (51% of our energy generation is from coal) .... over 1.4 million jobs will be lost due to his Cross State / war on coal alone!

Obamageddon.

The state of the economy is going to punish the next president.

Obama and Geithner are trying to tie us tighter to the IMF, where it will become / where our commitment/ investment is another "too big to fail" proposition - where we go from bailing out our big banks / big auto / big unions to bailing out broke socialist countries. We are already committed to 17% of the IMF, IMF has $100 billion of US money and Obama doesn't want them to use it - he wants another $100 billion for them have - just digging deeper. Insane.

The Middle East could explode because of Obama's lack of a coherent policy and we would be in real bad shape.

But other than that, there is absolutely no structural reason why the economy should not boom with a president that actually was concerned more with jobs and growth than the "transformation" of America / implementation of a radical, big government - statist agenda.

Banks have money, corporations have money, Americans want to start living - start growing the economy again.

This is the worst recovery since the last great progressive president, FDR. Take the Barack boot off the back of the neck of America and America will be fine.

Feisty, you are such an attention-grabber. you want to be at the top of every post and you want to see how many likes you get! You're a freaking joke and this is your life. Newt is going to destroy Obama so you need to get another life now!

More like 4 points shy of being logical, or maybe 4 miles shy.

Four Points, I think you need to get back on your meds.

Well now isn't that just the "Progressive leaning" way. Medicate those that you don't agree with, or are angry, or have a point... or are your children. Very progressive.

More like 4 points shy of being logical, or maybe 4 miles shy.

Oh. It is illogical to point out the continued blatant media blackout of a candidate? I see; I wasn't drinking your Kool-aid. I forgot. I'll get back in line and forget about having my own thoughts.... and a point.

four points your favorite was mentioned, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas moved into second place in the Register's poll, with 18 percent, up from 12 percent.

Since there are still seven candidates in the race, and winning one State does not win the nomination, there is still time for Ron Paul to convince the Republican party that he is one of them. Remember this is not his first run for the 'office', but usually he campaigns as a Libertarian, so most Republicans might hold that against him.

What people need to remember is this is a REPUBLICAN nomination so Democrats don't get a vote in this. The Republican party will nominate the candidate that they want to see in office.

Keep in mind, while traditionally the 'sitting President' is usually their parties nomination, the Democrats do have the option of withdrawing their support and nominating another candidate as well. That would result in a three-way race for the office.

Excellent....

Newt is un-electable.

- loss of speaker job in 90's for over 80 ethics violations

- relationship with lobbyists on this financial mess, he actually made about 1.5 million protecting some of the banking communitys

- he's old, ugly, and i cant see the american electing the "gingrich" that stole christmas.

- contract for screwing america

- lastly, he's too busy sucking Grover Norquist's Koch.

- 3 marriage

If Newt is the best the Republicans have to offer Obama will have a field day in the general election. Running a guy with morals as rock-bottom as Newt will only drive voters to not only show up and vote for Obama but will also translate into votes on the congressional races. It looks like it may be tough going for the Republican party with nothing more than billionaire funding, NO message, and Newt.

The Newt is now exploding liberal heads everywhere like popcorn as he continues to SURGE (special emphasis for the delusional red head) in the polls.

Those awful political migraines are affecting Obama and his self defeated campaign as he drops further in the polls.

Teflon Gingrich has been attacked so much that it no longer afftects him because he's inifinitely more qualified than the one termer and Campaigner in Chief.

ABO 2012 even Homer Simpson.

Thanks Dave,

I saw him talked about in the actual article. That is encouraging.

It's just hard not to get infuriated when there has been a relentless action of the main stream to leave him out of headlines and/or stories, constant Editorial comment that he's a "kook" and "unelectable" which the mindless drone readers then have been parroting for the past 8 months.

I'm pretty sure that despite MSN's continued Headline manipulation to exclude him, that the only reason he got a mention is because he's growing so much in support without them, the media has no choice.

(A few examples)

http://ht.ly/6SVln
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUsQBAs1k5g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvibsyKLDSA&feature=player_embedded

The Newt is now exploding liberal heads everywhere like popcorn as he continues to SURGE (special emphasis for the delusional red head) in the polls

Are you kidding? Liberals all over the country are jumping up and down with excitement that Newt actually has a chance to win the Republican nomination.

Paul F

Seems you're the only one talking about or reminding anyone of Newt's seed there feisty...

Oh, I don't know. I'm sure it crossed just about everyone's mind... can't be helped...

Cain is "at peace" (with his piece).

So Cain bails because of transgression(s) and accusations, and where do the voters migrate to? Newt? The transgression king? seriously?

And then this "surge" reference that's "popped up" whenever there's "excitement" in the party?

... just can't be helped. I wonder how the two self-proclaimed smartest people in the world will do in the upcoming debate? I guess two heads are better than 16... at least BIGGER than 16!

Great comment, LMT. What's at work here is an expression of just how much Cultural Conservatives dislike Mittens, as demonstrated by their desperation to embrace ANYONE but Willard Romney. Thing is, he's THE candidate of the big money/big business faction of the Conservative Movement, the people who actually pay the bills (aside from the Koch brothers of course, who are true believers in the insanity of Ayn Rand and their father's John Birch Society.

So what we're seeing is a fracturing of the multiple factions who've aligned with each other to create an electable Republican Party. What happens if the Cultural Conservatives, Liberatarians, and Tealiban manage to put a "true believer" on the ballot? None of them are electable. What happens if big business Republicans manage to get their preferred candidate, Mitt Romney? He's also tragically flawed as a candidate, plus the radical Right hates him more than almost anyone with an "R" behind his name.

This is going to get more interesting before Election Day.

LOL...He's a great talker with nothing more to show than personal debt and a tawdry political past! ROFLMAO at your support for him

Strange analysis... Paul was never in the running. At this point it is either Romney or Newt.

Good to see Newt surging. Surging is exciting. Romney is done. Dr Paul or Newt are the most likely to win the nomination. Go Newt!

I doubt it, we still have a month to go and quite frankly Newt has way to much baggage. I think his popularity will drop has people learn more about him, giving way to either Paul or Rick..

What is with MSNBC??? you mention who is 1st, you mention who is 3rd, but you can not even report the name of the person in 2nd.

WHAT HELL GIVES??

You can't even say his name in the headline. You can only say the names of the candidates you have been promoting......I think you owe the American people less bias.

Newt will have a tough fight on his hands.

Obama has the big banks, wall street, car companies and the unions with their untold millions to run with. As far as I can tell Newt does not have many big money backers and will not have the money to buy the media advertising and the press.

alexpinca what do you mean Paul was never in the running it clearly states that he is in second place

Bill S - Read the article again, slowly.

theo

Gingrich 9 times, Paul 1 time, Romney 6 times

proper ratio for 1st , 2nd , 3rd .....right???

The MSM would love to see Newt as the winner; they are just waiting to pounce later on and bury him under his own dirty laundry. You see what they did to Cain, on the flimsiest of evidence? Mitt doesn't HAVE any skeletons in his closet, so he is a far more credible threat to Mr. Obama in the election. It's very difficult to pin anything substantial on him.

What are you people in Iowa thinking? I guess that Bachmann is just too damed nutty for you folks, Paul would never allowed to be elected by the Military Industrialists. Any one that has said in advance that we wouldn't travel the world looking for trouble and cut the Defense Budget would have their target in their back.

Gingrich? Morality and values? The Midwestern sensibility and value thing? Go figure.

I do agree that Romney is merely a stuffed suit looking for any identity.

Fascinating, Ron Paul gets second place so naturally only the first and third place canidates are listed in the title. Stay classy MSNBC!

If I could graciously join you in your wild celebration, I would be as excited as you for the opposite reasons. If the lizard Newt or Mad Scientist Dr. Paul should win the Republican nomination, a sane President Obama would win by a landslide,

Please control and console yourself with the knowledge that a flip-flopping, clean-cut Mormon( that is the epitome of much hated corporate America) is your best great white hope at this time. Yes, you will lose much of the Christian right because they consider Mormons as blasphemous heathens. Yes, you will definitely lose most of the die-hard Tea Party support that considers him a flaming liberal and Rino. You will also have a serious problem with Independents unable to predict which side this flopping fish may finally land.

All is not lost. Your brightest and finest have refused to enter this contest for very good reason. Christie, Jeb and Bloomberg are much smarter than you. They will rest until the dust settles from the recent Bush implosion before they enter a tainted race. 2016 is marked clearly on their calendar. Despite your mis-placed enthusiasm, you may want to follow their lead.

2012 belongs to the President and his party to put this Republican derailed train back on her tracks. IF they fail, I may join you in looking for new leadership. Our best hope will be a 3rd party that demands serious campaign reform , outlaws criminal lobbyists and insists that Congress live with the same rules that apply to all of us with no exception. Allowing law-makers to exempt themselves from rules applied by them to all of us defies the concept of a Democratic Republic.

You must want Obama to win. Are you a DEMOCRAT, Paul?

Now, Ron Paul... he is a GREAT candidate. The best actually.

alexpinca

Strange analysis... Paul was never in the running. At this point it is either Romney or Newt.

Sure he is, the mainstream media is doing everything in its power to work against him though.

Newt Gingrich - the best line I EVER heard about Newt was this - he is the man that dumb people think is smart.......

Ron Paul is unelectable.

Can't stop me.

What have the liberals done to the "gun laws?" One can carry a gun to President Obamas speeches and anywhere else they want, except for places that ask guns not be carried, such as banks, hospitals etc. So again, Can't Stop Me, what have the liberals done to the "gun laws?" I want to see the FACTS.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

Ron Paul is unelectable.

Ron Paul is according to polls more electable than any Republican candidate. By history Ron Paul has been elected 11 times. Save your lies.

As for me I don’t make political comments very much, but I will say this, I don’t trust Newt Gingrich, But I do believe he is the smartest one on the stage compared to the other candidates, and he would be the smartest choice if you were to vote republican. But that is just my own opinion.

Have a good day Tom And Lyn

The neo-nut whiners on these comment pages are moanin' about who MSN wants as the republiturd winner. So, why don't they crawl over to Faux News and ask them who they endorse, so as to quit their moanin' about MSN?

Get some dignity, neo-nut whiners!

FACT: Newtie Tootie ain't ever gonna be POTUS, anyway! Too ugly, mean, corrupt, & disgusting!!

BTW:Obama in 2012!! No doubt!

"A new Iowa Poll by the Des Moines Register shows that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has surged into a clear lead in the state,"

Desperately, the Right Wing continues to search for a candidate to drop into the Oval Office.

Regarding America's significant economic, political and social problems the GOP and The Tea Party has nothing to offer America.

The GOP "presidential" contenders continue to push:

- the tried and failed "Trickle Down/Supply Side economics

- a complete political "lock out" and disenfranchment of the middle class and the poor

- and a social mantra that would solidify a caste system.

The revolving door of which GOP candidate is in the lead will continue to dog the Republican party.

Thankfully, Cain has fallen off the political stage.

...I truly wonder what kind of misery he has put his wife through.

Why is it that Ron Paul is in 2nd Place, and yet he's not even mentioned?

That's beside the point really, what makes me angry is how gullible people are in this country. First (Not So) Slick Rick, and now Newt Gunray? Ol' Mr. Globalist himself? Cmon GOP, you can do better than this. It's one thing to have support for a caveman with no understanding of the economy, it's another when the party of family values supports a moral midget.

Ron Paul 2012

old-pilot

Newt will have a tough fight on his hands.

Obama has the big banks, wall street, car companies and the unions with their untold millions to run with.

ROFLMAO... the big banks don't like Obama, neither does Wall Street....

more ill informed right wing muck....

Newt is a very bright man. He loves details that most people hate. If I was forming a debate team I would want him on it. He probably knows the answer before the question is even asked. That being said, Newt has a huge ego and will probably self destruct. Brilliant people are often like that. His personal life is really messy. However he knows Washington better than most. I think the WH would be thrilled to have him as the candidate, however, be careful what you wish for.

I agree with Paul about the Federal Reserve. Unfortunately Paul cannot debate and often looks annoyed and frankly tired. I do like his son.

I would say that Obama is a lock for the next 4 year. The republican party is so very divided with way too much emphasis on social issues instead of just staying with the fiscal crisis.

The truth is, the second term of any president in the modern age has been miserable. So while Obama will get re-elected he will be facing even more difficult choices and will be forced off the fence. Obamacare is a disaster. Iran is a disaster. Egypt and other ME countries will force Obama to pick between Israel and the Muslim world. The Euro is dead. China is faltering. Taxes for everybody will go up slowing the economy even more. The divide in the US will worsen with an Obama second term. It is this divide that many enjoy that will bring us to our knees. It is one thing to disagree, as was the case when Newt and Bill chose compromise back in the 90s, but now that is impossible.

I think deep down all of us knows the US will NEVER, EVER pay down that massive 15 trillion and climbing gross debt. Obama and the CBO see deficit spending through 2020. Keep in mind that in 2007 the deficit was ONLY 166 b. How far we have fallen since then.

Ah, but the 2007 deficit somehow failed to mention the two and a half wars we were involved in back then, and the Medicare D charges had yet to be included in the budget.

I thought only China did that kind of accounting.

theboys

You are right about Newt he is the smartest man in the Republican party running for president at this moment, but like I said in my comment above, I don’t trust him, he has way to much personal baggage, but who doesn’t ??? It is a real shame with our nation going down the toilet that we don’t have real leaders that can stand above all of this and stand with the American people during these hard times we are all facing.

We need a leader for a change and not a want to be, we need a leader to stand up for the American people and I don’t care where he or she comes from Republican or Democrat. It is time for the American people to take a stand and ask for real leadership someone whom we could all be proud of and call our president.

Have a good day, Tom And Lyn

Hello ummmm...@ The Devil (who clearly does NOT wear Prada)

"Ron Paul is according to polls more electable than any Republican candidate. By history Ron Paul has been elected 11 times. Save your lies."

Why take what is posted as literal! Ron Paul was elected in TEXAS!!!!! Everyone knows Texas is...welll...bass ackwards. Being elected 11 times by state citizens does not make automatically make someone NATIONALLY electable. By the standards of most conservatives, Paul is viewed as "unelectable."

So...next time please spare of your ill-formed melodrama. It was useless!

Uhh.....Michelle Bachmann also won the Iowa Straw poll, which seems about as relevant. These weekly knee jerk reaction polls are meaningless. I'd be shocked if Gingrich isn't soon the latest casualty in the "surge past romney." Ron Paul will NOT win this.

Newt is not a good candidate for POTUS.---

Have never seen him as a "People Person"; genuinely interested in individual Americans and getting out there, socializing with them.

He is "Book Smart" and has Common Sense. That does not make a Leader.

By the time the Election for POTUS starts, he will fall back in the game--Romney will reach ahead.

Whatever happens, we have 1 more year to go--many things could go wrong in both camps. Democratic President, and Republican Candidates--It's way too early; the Economy will be the deciding factor--

There may be an unknown that will pop up for the Republicans---Newt makes good points--he was Speaker of the House, (during Bill Clinton's Administration) which had already put him in as 3rd in Line for President, if something awful had happened to the President, and Vice President--so he is well-trained.

Still waiting for a solid Candidate--Talking, predicting who will run, and the polls is all SPECULATION.

Speculation is like looking into a Crystal Ball; the Ball drops, and shatters.

I just can't vote for someone who has no moral compass or a conscience. Newt cheated on two wives and divorced both of them after they became sick. One was served divorce papers in the hospital while recovering from surgery. He is now married to his mistress that he cheated on his wives with.

I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama if Newt is nominated.

Newt is a pos. If he "surges" he'll be spreading $hite everywhere. For god's sake, don't pick another ridiculous "celebrity candidate".

Selecting Newt Gingrich is the biggest hypocritical statement from the Tea Party yet! At least pick someone with character and ethics. Choose Ron Paul if you can't go with Romney..

@Rhazes

One was served divorce papers in the hospital while recovering from surgery. He is now married to his mistress that he cheated on his wives with.

Actually, if you listened, he told that story (as did his daughter) and his wife at that time asked that he bring the papers. I hope we can put that to rest...

Obama will finish the job of America's ruination if he is placed in office a second term. Many of us warned of what would happen if he got a first term because some of us researched this POS... He has done exactly what I knew he would, and what others knew he would. Dare I even bother to tell you what's ahead if you vote for him again? You wouldn't believe me if I did tell you (just as people didn't believe the first time).

So, all I can tell you is, if you let your prejudices about his wife 20 years ago get in the way of sound research and good judgement, it's all on you. You're going to decide how you will. For what it's worth, he's been married to Calista ever since then. Grand-kids, etc... the whole bit. That's got to account for something. Are you also perfect? Good luck in your choice.

Are you also perfect? Good luck in your choice.

No, I'm not perfect, but I also wouldn't cheat on my wife much worse multiple wives and parade around the country being a hypocrite calling other people adulterous and saying they have no morals.

Grown adults don't just develop a conscience and morals, the guy was slime then he is now. The only thing he has going for him is he is a great debater.

Ron Paul is a superior candidate. Who still polls good even with the media censoring him, laughing at him and telling its viewers he can't win.

Newt will just continue the Bush/Obama agenda of police state, empire and economic failure.

John-900908

blah, blah, blah

So...next time please spare of your ill-formed melodrama. It was useless!

First, you seemed to have missed the part about polling. Polling consistently shows in a national election that Ron Paul is in a statistical tie with Obama. Polling shows that Ron Paul has significant Democratic support and polls show Ron Paul killing Obama among independents.

That makes Ron Paul more electable because Democrats will vote for Ron Paul while those same Democrats will never vote for Romney or Gingrich. Then you have to look at what Americans want and where the candidates stand. 62% of Americans want our troops out of Afghanistan now. Ron Paul will bring those troops home. Americans are sick of foreign aid. Ron Paul will end foreign aid. Americans are sick of corporate welfare. Ron Paul will end corporate welfare. Americans don't want illegal aliens having the benefits of citizenship. Ron Paul would end that. And you can go right down the list and Ron Paul is closer to the American people then any of these other candidates.

Conservative pundits don't want Ron Paul elected because he will end so many of the BS things they support. Like the imperialistic foreign policy making us all targets for every maniac on Earth. Our military spending is more than every other country on Earth combined. That's insane. Its even more insane when you realize that spending isn't protecting us but protecting corporate, special and foreign interest.

Ron Paul is also the only candidate out there without scandals, without an inconsistent voting record and who doesn't change his opinion based on what he thinks people want to hear. Can you say that about Romney or Gingrich? No! The man is very electable.

Finally, many of us voting for Ron Paul will not vote for any other Republican and many of us will vote Obama out of protest if he's not the nominee. The Republican party is going to have to choose to be for liberty and the Constitution or to be Democrats in disguise.

Newt Gingrich is a crook with bad policies. He's just as bad as any nutcase. Ron Paul is the one that needs to win the primaries.

Hi Rhazes,

I agree Newt has baggage and so does everyone else. Different baggage, sure. But for the life of me I can't remember, ever, Newt pontificating or judging anyone by calling them adulterous and saying they have no morals.

About the only thing I can think you are referring to would be the Clinton impeachment, but Clinton wasn't impeached for committing adultery or for having no morals. He had lied under oath, had failed to uphold his own oath, and more. Sure, the charges revolved around Clinton and Lewinsky/Willey/Jones/et al, but had he only just screwed each of them he'd have never been impeached. Too bad for Clinton that he misused his office and lied under oath.

Or do you mean something else?

ray - big banks and wall street still like obama, thankfully not as much as they liked him in 2008. Please do try to keep up with obamas fund raising news, especially the recent NYC fundraisers. Us common folk can't pay that type of dinner prices.

Wall street and banks will survive the financial reform act regs and the volker rule. Unfortunately, we the middle class and poor will suffer for it in the short and possibly medium terrn. Long term not so much as the middle class and poor will be weaned from easy credit.

Anybody that votes for Gingrich is either shallow and/or ignorant.

Newt didn't think his first wife was pretty or young enough to be the wife of a president! So he went to the hospital where she was being treated for cancer and served her with divorce papers while having an affair. The First Baptist Church in his hometown had to take up a collection to support the family Gingrich had deserted.

And all the while the many "oral" interviews with staff, the pandering, the getting rich while being a career politician.

Oh yeah, he's the one to BEAT alright, literally with a stick, whip or anything handy...

This Republican campaign is weird. It's like watching a pigeon zip past you flying upside down, then landing in a tree like a bat. It's just unnatural. There's a disconnect here and it appears to be a big one. Danger. There is something seriously wrong with this lineup of Republican candidates. Maybe it's not your candidates: maybe it's just that you've pressed your rhetoric so far that instead of frightening people it just makes you look afraid of everything. And no compromise, lots of double talk, lots of finger pointing, talk of job creation while opposing jobs legislation. President Obama's jobs bill was too expensive? What was the reason the entire Republican party rejected the government spending money to stimulate job growth? Is it that unemployment would fall and the president's numbers might go up? It might secure him a second term? Well by the looks of your party, you're doing a better job of re-electing him than anything the Obama campaign or any Madison Avenue ad agency could have ever created. Not in a million years. Your candidates have made incompetence an artform.

I don't know why thoughts of the Donner Party came to mind just now.

Newt Gingrich is one of the most dispicable entrants in this pole. He is a cheater and a smooth liar. He should win the tar and feather award and be run out of town on a rail. This man is nothing but a skunk! Ron Paul is the only one who desirves consideration for President because he is honest and that is why the Republican party doesn't like him.

I am cheering for Paul...who knows, in this environment he actually has a shot. If it has to be yet another establishment candidate, I am happy that it will be Newt, and not Romney.

Mitt doesn't HAVE any skeletons in his closet, so he is a far more credible threat to Mr. Obama in the election.

Neither did Kerry.

theboys -

In 2007 the budget deficit only showed $166B BUT the national debt went up $1T in that same year - how is that possible?

Start with Bush bookkeeping - two wars were kept entirely off the budget with "emergency spending requests". But the national debt numbers don't lie. This is the kind of deceit we can expect from any Republican winner in the next election.

Also note that one of Obama's first actions as a new president was to add war spending to the budget, refusing to fund them with any emergency spending requests. Republicans crucified him for this in the press by showing how much worse his deficits looked compared to Bush's. Yet another example of the kind of deceit we can expect from any Republican winner in the next election.

Rick - everything looks different depending upon a persons orientation. Remember - the earth is round and the people on opposite sides are upside down to the others. On each side of the earth the person on that side being judged by the opposite sides standards will "upside" down i.e. wrong.

Now consider politcally applied. You have China on one side of the earth us on the other, to gain proper perspective about who is really right and wrong economically.

We have the most freedom from government, at least 200+ years ago. Central government had very little power - only enough to protect our nation and keep one state from harming the others. By that model, we became the worlds foremost economic, military and politcal power.

The democratic party has positioned itself outrightly juxtaposed to business by throwing more regulations and taxes on them to the point it is better for them to leave the country to stay in business. They are no different government - they are started and run to stay in existence.

The Democratic party continually positions itself that we don't need so much military, but I see almost every president uses the Military just as much, and as the money gets taken away, we experience an increase of incidents against our country and citizens.

Politically, the democratic party portrays us, mainly republicans as arrogant and stupid. Well let's explain that you are taking the side of those outside the country. Who are we? Well, we were the #1 Economic Power, #1 Political Power, and #1 Military Power. You don't understand what that means - that means as #1 you are the target of everyone - and you are taking their side.

If you take their side - then you must be the slow flying pigeon flying upside down!

Bob - a number of years ago, I'd have agreed with you. i think the reason he is now probably the choice is because he has changed.

In his younger days, he was clearly having affairs - today he is now a one woman only man

In his younger days, he would throw anyone under the bus. Today, he is clearly very concillitory to opposing views - even in his own party.

In his younger days he would do anything for a buck - that was his third point of failure - he has been acting as a person of reason.

Right now, only Herman Cain, Ron Paul were the only other ones other than Gingerich with New ideas and a concise proper focus on what the problems are and giving good alternative solutions. Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas are out of touch with reality - so he won't make it. Herman Cain's family has never dealt with the Washington mob, and probably did the best thing for his family.

That is leaving Romney and Gingerich as the choices. Romney has a record that shows he does not stand firm with his beliefs. The race is now Gingerich's to lose. His history says he will fall, but only time will prove this one way or the other

For many of us, we don't really care about Newt's personal life, but the fact that he rang up a huge number of ethics violations and was booted out of his speakership and DC are much more concerning. That he was allowed to pay his way out of most of those charges does not make him innocent of those charges. He is NOT presidential material. I do not understand why the TPGOP, who are so self-righteous, would vote for someone who has had so many ethics violations. Christian forgiveness is one thing, but these are the people who so constantly harangue about personal responsibility. Actions have consequences, which seem to be only for the 99%, while the 1% not only get away with bad behavior, they are lauded for it. If he has indeed had a "change of heart" he should just fade away and do good works without all the hoopla of public life. The fact of his being in the public eye and is so arrogant leads me to believe that the so-called change of heart is just window dressing. Actions speak louder than words!

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

mr devil as far as im concerned ron paul is the best candidate.i would vote for obama over any other republican and twice for obama if newt is the republican choice

It doesn't matter to conservatives that Gingrich is the Poster Boy for everything we hate about Washington. What's important is a candidate that can debate (and who is not Romney) -- The only thing that matters to right-wing Haters is voting against President Obama. Patriotism, exceptional-ism, individual responsibility, family values, etc. are just lip service from these disgusting traitors of democracy.

DB Akron -- Holy cow, the redemption thing is working? Dude, Gingrich is the same douche-bag he ever was. Calista knows best, since she was the one he had his last affair with. She keeps him on a short leash. Imagine, the only First Lady worse than Calista would be Marcus Bachmann!

Newt entered politics on a teacher's pay and left a multi-millionaire and you think anything about his ethics and pathological lying and Legend In His Own Mind has changed? Gingrich is the biggest turd ever squeezed out of Washington, and if he is better at anything it is spinning to people like you.

@ TruePatriot...If I were a repub, I'd be so ashamed of my party.

It's bad enough...their no. 1 goal was to make Obama a one-termer. But to ignore the economy too. Reckless.

Take That Back

Here is a list of Banned Handguns in the State of Ca.

You will notice that there are Revolvers and 22's on the list.

Did you know that you can not carry an UNLOADED Handgun in the State of Ca.? Just became Law this year.

And you were saying about Liberals and Gun Laws???

Gingrich is his own worst enemy. He will overplay the history and overstate his solution, but will be unable to give any clear picture of the outcome. He is vulnerable to questions about his "serial" monogamy and his prosecution of Bill Clinton while be guilty of the same "crimes" himself, to the extant that his own party threw him out.

If he turns pedantic, he is finished. The percentage he has wants to hear Old Testament christian pronouncements and continued or enlarged agricultural supports. They don't want to hear about Kennedy or Reagan, they can't, or won't, remember them.

Actually it does, and seeing he coverted to Catholisim with the third wife - something changed. I have my own doubts about Newt, but something indeed has changed about him. Time will show how genuine this is.

slodon,

California is a STATE, not the federal government. If you have an issue with their gun laws, take it up there. Indiana now has laws allowing college students with carry permits to carry guns to class, regardless of college rules. VTI again?

The ability and the need are greatly confused here. The Indiana law also says you can carry into a bar, as a patron. Great combination.

Rich-281385 Newt pontificating or judging anyone by calling them adulterous and saying they have no morals.

Well you must not keep up with the Grinch.

GOP hopeful Newt Gingrich defended his stance against certain child labor laws during a campaign stop in Iowa Thursday, saying that children born into poverty aren't accustomed to working unless it involves crime.

"Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works so they have no habit of showing up on Monday," Gingrich claimed.

"They have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of I do this and you give me cash unless it is illegal," he added.

The former House Speaker's comments come weeks after he came under fire for saying laws preventing child labor in America were "truly stupid" and suggested that schools fire janitors and replace them with working class students.

Right there he calls every poor person out there criminals. If he has his way he will have kid sweat shops, so they get some worth ethics.

The best I remember back when the block head was speaker, he didn't pay his alimony.

FR Conservatives scoffed and ridiculed when I started saying several years ago that GOP policies and the Ayn Rand/John Birch Society ideals of the modern Conservative Movement could lead only to the desperate conditions of Dickensian England.

Now the front runner for the GOP nomination is talking seriously of eliminating child labor laws. It isn't just him either, bills to eliminate child labor and minimum wage laws have been introduced by Republicans in legislatures throughout the nation.

Don't buy the GOPTP lie that this is a choice between Capitalism or Socialism, either. This is a choice between the reasonably regulated Capitalism that's been the genius of America through most of our history or a crazy notion of Anarcho-Capitalism that imagines a dog-eat-dog America where millions of people viciously doing whatever is to their advantage at any moment somehow elevates the whole.

Do you here him explain examples of a janitors job? Does anybody out there remember the orphanage comments that some children would be better off in an orphanage, he's right, some probably would. This simplistic ideology is what these Iowan's want? What is the GOP thinking? And they say that Obama has destroyed this country in 3 years??? You people want me an Independent to think of all the great GOP alternatives to Obama??? Where is this man or woman your talking about?? I'm not convinced to change my vote away from Obama.

I know you are not surprised!

Any half-baked politician that spouts venom toward Obama and right wing propaganda can be a leading candidate for the right wing fascists.

Newt was cited as a crook by Congress? Geesus, you people are just nutty. I mean partisan bat-crap nutty. He's a flawed man, and he was under investigation on dozens of ethics complaints. Each of them but one the committee dismissed, and rather than fight it (you can decide his motive) he instead agreed to pay the penalty.

I could wait for Jesus to return if it's perfection that we must have before voting, but then I'd be waiting a long time. And during that time you'd do what? Continue to elect small people like the current president? How about we do this with a twist that I'm sure you leftists will find onerous--let's fight about ideas instead of who is prettier, who smells better, or who reads a teleprompter better?

Like him personally or not (and I don't know him personally so I can't say) but Newt is idea-rich. He makes a big target not because he's overweight, but because he has a voluminous and consequential history. And on the vast array of policy choices he makes President Obama look like the ineffectual class warfare artist he is.

So let's go, if you want, on ideas. But can you juveniles please quit whining about that which you do not know? Or should we talk about Obama's connections to radicals? As if that would be any more useful.

typo-nazis ! what next.

"I could wait for Jesus to return if it's perfection that we must have before voting, but then I'd be waiting a long time"

WTF I thought he was still here and living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in DC

I hope Mr. Gingrich wins the Republican nomination. He ahs so much baggage, it will be an easy reelection win for Mr. Obama.

Come on Old Pilot - get your deities straight. It's Mohammed living at 1600 Pa Ave.

long view - I'd take Newt's baggage over Obama's record any day of the week. I believe a lot of Americans feel as I do.... Not the liberals of course... they don't even understand the concept.

Ron Paul 2012

"You say to somebody, you shouldn't go to work before you're what, 14, 16 years of age, fine," Mr. Gingrich said. "You're totally poor. You're in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I've tried for years to have a very simple model. Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they'd begin the process of rising."Not only that he thinks children should work.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/newt-gingrich-thinks-school-children-should-work-as-janitors/248837/

He thinks children should work as janitors. That will sure end poverty!!!!!

Where do you get the Right is fascists? Wow you people will just saying anything out your mouths. I think its ridiculous. OBAMAS HITLER OBAMAS HITLER!!
FACSIST RIGHT WINGERS!!!

I hope you keep showing how ignorant you are and keep slinging mud because thats really all any of you know how to do anyway! No one has said anything in here that wasnt said to make it appear that they have some incredible knowledge on politics while throwing mud when most of your beliefs are clear speculation and side taking. Grow UP AMERICA!

Obama a class warfare artist? What about Newt painting a whole (black) neighborhood as not working and not decent role models for their children the other day? What was that? I thought that broad brush stereotyping went the way of the KKK. Most decent, caring folks would be ashamed to think and spout such racist drivel to get a vote, but not Newt. Strom Thurmond lives, albeit younger and morbidly obese, but alive and well in OUR country. I am ashamed that so-called smart folks can get away with this type of hate speech; and only Al Sharpton can be bothered to call him out for it. Where are our statesmen on the right? They are nodding in agreement with Newt most likely. Shame.

What can you expect from candidates and supporters who booed a military veteran, and I heard no one in the place rose up to speak agains it.

@Rich-281385

Very well worded remarks. Enjoyed your comments. I remember Newt's issues. If I recall correctly, I think he was tossed for ethics (which was that he admitted to cheating on his then wife) during the Clinton Impeachment. Yeah there was some other crap, but he wasn't convicted of that stuff or tossed for it. But, he did own up to it when asked and they only asked once if I remember. That's more than one can say for Clinton.

Clinton on the other hand, walks into the Grand Jury for all practical purposes, with her cum stained dress in hand and proudly proclaims; "See, I did not have sex with that woman!" (all the while smiling)... then leaves office a martyr and hero for the left... I mean really, he perjured himself, gets impeached and then still walks away a hero... It wasn't that Clinton had sex. It's that he perjured himself and impeded the investigation (sound familiar Barack?)

I don't want to hear anyone trash talking Newt... ya know? Gingrich is definitely a brilliant mind - perhaps the most brilliant mind we have in politics today.

I'll take Newt over anyone on that stage and definitely over O'Disaster, any day of the week and twice on Sunday!!!

@BillBuff

I am waffin my friggin ass off at your remark that Al Sharptongue is some kind of racial role model... You must be kidding - Right? He can't even rightfully call himself a Reverend, much less a man of the cloth. There are only a few in the country more racist than Sharptongue, and Newt ain't among them...

Nice try though...

Well, I predict Newt will get almost no woman's vote based on the fact that he has acted like a complete pig and looks like a complete pig. If you knutbaggers pick Knut Gingrich, Obama's re-election is assured. How you gonna win without the woman vote, geniuses???

And I predict it will be the last straw for TeaBaggotry. Picking Gingrich will be the height of hypocrisy and show the american public that TP stands for the very worst in america.

Alexpinca - Yepper just like obamas attacks on the right and his lack of fiscal responsability and getting America back on a path of economic recovery.

The obama way, blame the right and threaten to veto any bill that crosses his desk that doesn't follow his personal mandate.

OMG - Obama Must Go!

Let's set the record straight on Newt...

He was Speaker of the House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. During that time:

1. Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against him. Eighty-four!! and not one had anything to do with his personal life.

2. On one of the ethics charges, an investigation by the House Ethics Committee led to a reprimand and a $300,000 fine. The House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators (Newt lied his ass off) represented disregard of House rules. He was the only Speaker of the House to be reprimanded for ethics in the entire history of the House of Representatives.

3. In 1998, his Republican colleaques drove him out of the House of Representatives. His own party could not stand the stench of the man!

4. He resigned in Nov, 1998, just 3 days after being re-elected for an 11th term. I am sure he would show the same dedication to the job of president if elected!

As I recall, the only ethics charge against Newt that wasn't dismissed was for stealing money from a charity (nice). He chose to pay a 300,000 fine and resign from the House rather than defend himself against this allogation.

This guy is, not only a crook, he has no morals and it would be a sad state of affairs if the republican party elected him as their nominee.

Sara - you are more accurate than E engineer, but still incorrect.

The bulk of the charges lacked real evidence and proof and the reason they went as far as they did was Gingerich was evasive in his answers. Those charges were ticky-tacky at best.

The one Gingerich was nailed on was teaching a course that was more political than educational - and receiving money for it - that he did not report as income to the IRS. In the Reprimand he received he admitted he had misrepresented what the course was about at the college. The committee dropped the failure to report income because it was an IRS issue that they didn't want to be over-ruled over and thus embarrased. They were wise on that one because the IRS ruled some time later that Gingerich was correct in not reporting the funds.

Brianb,

"Come on Old Pilot - get your deities straight. It's Mohammed living at 1600 Pa Ave."

Yes, and you can't believe the birth certificate presented by the Republican governor of Hawaii either. Is Hawaii even a state in your world view?

DB Akron,

Read EEngineer's post and disregard your prior thoughts. The charges weren't pressed because other Reps would have been implicated. The whole House Post Office Affair was pretty well documented at the time. And it included scores of Representatives.

The HORPO was small potatoes. Newt was facing much larger charges when he bailed. You now expect us to believe after bargaining out of that and playing/gaming into lobbying jobs, that Newt is different? I hope wife #3 has an ironclad take-it-all pre-nup.

From the OWS website:

OWS Tells Newt Gingrich to "Take a Bath"

Posted 5 minutes ago on Dec. 5, 2011, 12:39 a.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

Newt Gingrich told Occupy Wall Street protesters to "go get a job, right after you take a bath." Funny coming from a filthy rich politician who is rolling in dirty money. Since leaving the House of Representatives over a decade ago in a cloud of ethics violations, Newt has amassed a fortune of between $7.3 million and $31 million by the peddling of political influence. He has been personally paid $840,000 by the Chamber of Commerce, more than $1.6 million from Freddie Mac, and $575,000 from Growth Energy, an ethanol lobby. His for-profit "think tank", the Center for Health Transformation, was founded to lobby on behalf of health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations, such as Wellpoint and Pfizer. His 527 group, American Solutions for Winning the Future, was funded by big oil and coal companies and worked to oppose climate change legislation and promote offshore drilling. Newt peddles political influence and corrupts our democracy so he can maintain his $500,000 account at Tiffany's. Filthy.

On Monday, Newt is in town to raise money from the 1%. OWS will be there to greet him.

super x

The word is Talent. Please use your spell check.

REB: and the word "talent" is not a proper name. Before you correct others, understand that you are not perfect.

Yep, I was right about the RWNJ's. Not only sanctimonious hypocrites, but ones who think they have the right to cast stones on typo's.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

Perhaps I should have put it in italics. I am not perfect and don't claim to be but please use the spell check that is given to you so you don't appear more stupid than you may or may NOT be. Caps added just for you.

Jaysus: phinephancy, let him who is without the first typo scream for correction.

REB: again: before you correct others, realize that you have your own problems.

No amount of excuse making changes that you are simply wrong.

I looked out my window just be sure, and it's only a half moon--yet the loonies have really gone off the path tonight.

"Geez, "loosers" and "tallent"....I guess all of these libs went to public schools."

"Geez" is a euphemism for Jesus. You are simultaneously failing to use proper English and taking the Lord's name in vain. Are we going to play grammar police all night?

And they are all making their presence known on FR.

Comfortablynumb, I did the same thing. Must be the idea of The Donald moderating a debate got them all fired up. (Pun intended - on your fired)

@newday

You would think they would have something better to do than look for typo's

One would think so--I need a drink...

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

And you should know.

@comfortably

I have beer & wine in the mini fridge in the closet (don't ask why I have a mini fridge in my bedroom closet). The fridge in the kitchen has the mixers for the stuff in the liquor cabinet. Help yourself.

Oh good for you REB: you are so without any ability of critical thought that your comeback is that of a 12 year old. How very impressive!

newday,

We're going to have to help you find a better repellant.

phinephancy,

Thanks much--I'm there!

No kidding, comfortablynumb: Have you been here before, I don't recognize the moniker, but this has been fun!

"Geez" is a euphimism for Jesus.

Lizzie: No, it isn't. Geez used to stand for Gee whiz as in ( I'm shocked). It's crazy how liberals are changing the way how words are. Pretty soon, we will all need a dictionary to understand their street slang.

phinephancy-4252115,

You wrote, "Yep, I was right about the RWNJ's. Not only sanctimonious hypocrites, but ones who think they have the right to cast stones on typo's." I'm a progressive, and, like many educated people, I happen to appreciate good spelling and grammar. Although I can accept "typo" as a shortened version of "typographical error," I can't accept the use of an apostrophe to indicate a plural noun. Apostrophes indicate possession, as in "that bike is John's," or to indicate a contraction, like "cannot" can be shortened to "can't", "won't" is short for "will not."

It's (that's short for "it is") hard to have confidence in a writer who demonstrates ignorance of spelling rules and poor grammar.

Oh man, how the heck do we get out of grammar class.

newday,

I've been here for a few months. I don't always contribute, but now and then something interests me. I read First Read articles at work during my breaks, and sometimes at night and on weekends I feel like jumping in.

It has been fun.

Time to skip "class" now, I think.

I'll catch up with you on another thread.

phinephancy,

Oh No---No little gold star for you to stick on you paper!

f&*king infants!

phine & fancy - thanks for illustrating in your post that you are one of the LWNJ's. But many of us already knew that.

Regardless, REB's original post above mentioned neither party.

So tell us, is the new Libs-r-us still adhering to the old libs-r-us policies?

yep, the Republican presidential hopefuls are starting to resemble the movie "Ten Little Indians" where one by one, they get knocked off.

And the wheels on the bus came off.

AAAHHH Yes! Iowa, the land of family values and integrity. LMAO

Playing party politics does that to people. The Republicans stated that their main goal isn't to help bring jobs to America, find ways to bring down the deficit or stand up for their values. It is simply to defeat Obama. Newt knows the system and what it takes to win. He might be the candidate with the best hope of beating Obama. Newt can lean heavily on the fact that he was in Congress during a time of peace and economic prosperity.

The past four years have essentially been Republican rule as Obama has caved to nearly every demand. I want to get rid of him and replace him with someone with courage. However, the only Republican I would consider voting for currently has few votes than Mickey Mouse.

What kind of courage are you looking for Obama to show? That's such a dumb argument.

Slippery pull your head out of your a** and read the article his daughter wrote to set the facts straight!

http://www.creators.com/conservative/jackie-gingrich-cushman/setting-the-record-straight.html

Lizzie - I have an analogy for you - say you own a company and all of your employees say no to your every suggestion and you cannot fire them - however you've got them for another year when you can hire new employees who will say yes to your suggestions - what would you do? I for one would hope that the people who put forth these new employees were of like mind - to get my agenda out there

Now Filabusters is a different animal - however at the begining of each new Congress, the Senators can change the Rules of the Game and again go after majority rules and anyone who filibusters or puts a hold on a piece of legislation must identify themselves and stand on the floor and give reasons

Now this was done before and must be done again

Hey SlipperySam,

If only one of the three problems in your list were true then I suppose you could easily persuade me, if Newt is nominated, to vote for someone else. But Newt didn't leave his wife on her death bed--they were already separated and getting a divorce by that time. What he did was bring the papers to the hospital for her to sign. Unseemly, but far from the lie you repeated.

Newt wasn't kicked out of Congress. He was fined by Congress, but he left Congress on his own.

You last lie is that Newt worked as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, what you call a "liberal issue". Which sort of makes this a compound lie. But, what the heck, you're a liberal so it's expected. Newt's firm did have a contract with Freddie Mac, but it wasn't to lobby. They called it consulting, but I think the fairer read of it was that Freddie Mac wanted to blunt criticism by conservatives that it was a serious danger. Bush and others made such claims and the thinking goes that with Newt offering advice to the board of FM that conservatives would be less inclined to reform the company.

You could call that lobbying, but unless and until we see the kinds of advice Newt gave to the FM board we probably should stick with the facts. Well, I did note that as a liberal you were perfectly willing to lie, so why should you care about facts?

Well, of course that makes it SO much better, Rich. His wife wasn't dying, so it is okay that he was having an affair? At the same time he was going after Clinton? Really? How do you on the right wing excuse all of this and still advertise yourselves as holier than Christ Himself?

There is no bigger crook than Newtie, and all of you on the right who support him are hypocrites.

Hi newday,

No, having an affair wasn't right. Lying about Newt's past wasn't right either, and that is what I responded to. It's not refreshing to see you ignore the list of lies told about Newt in order to switch to a new topic--his infidelity.

Second, as an atheist I do not think I am holy, let alone holier than Christ. Before you spout your self-righteous clap-trap you might want to know what you are talking about. However, as a liberal, I doubt you ever know, really, what you are talking about.

Third, Newt isn't a crook. Some argue all in Congress are crooks. Some dimwits, perhaps you are one, think all republicans are crooks, and others think all democrats are. We didn't find ourselves in this situation because one person or one party, or one presidency, failed us. In fact, I think what has failed us is, well, us. People like you, newday, who can't imagine a country where you don't get free stuff, or who can't imagine a country where we are actually compelled to follow the constitution, or who can't imagine why they should pay for the government they freely elect but other people should.

Newt is flawed. Obama is flawed. You and I are flawed. Can you get past this and think past your self-absorbed ego and begin, just a teensy little bit, to deal with issues and policy responses to them? For pete's sake, for the future of the nation, can you at least, and for once, try?

The gorilla in the room is that no one is talking about WHY Romney is in third place. The guy is squeaky clean, intelligent, business savy, good looking, family man and an all-American kind of guy. I keep waiting to hear something more than "he's changed the some of the views he had to compromise on in order to get elected in a state with a liberal congress". Have we met a politician that hasn't evolved? Reagan was a democrat before he turned republican....talk about flip-flop. Is that the worst thing about Romney? Is that enough to burn him at the stake. It's gotta be something else.

Best Destiny, I was about to fall asleep until I read your post. Now I'm laughing my head off in bed. Good post!

Hi Best Destiny,

History may not be your long suit, so let me help you out. Nixon was under investigation and was about to have articles of impeachment voted on by the whole House. His process of adjudication was only about to begin. Contrast that with Gingrich's.

He had been cleared of every ethics charge but one, and he chose not to take his case further and instead would pay the fine. His process of adjudication had ended. The House could do one of four things. It could have rejected the committee findings, or reprimanded Gingrich, or censured Gingrich, or removed Gingrich from the House. It decided to reprimand Gingrich, the lowest of the three punishments available to it.

Now could you please find some facts to back up your pathetic, self-righteous, and sanctimonious rant? Or shut up and like a good party hack just go to bed.

Hi Jackie,

I think Romney's mill stone is the health care reform he signed in Massachussetts. I've heard him on this and what he says makes sense--not that the bill is good, but that it's a matter of each individual state producing the kind of policy it wants.

But there's a problem with this too. You put your finger on it. His previous words, and not all that long ago, indicate that he thinks, or at least thought, that what he helped to achieve in his state should be "a model for the nation". So maybe his view has changed, or his audience has changed and so he says what he thinks we want to hear, but either way things have changed.

You are right to say Reagan was once a democrat and he changed, and that changing positions is not only okay, but even expected. The difference, at least so far to me, is that Romney hasn't made the case for why he has changed. In the case of Reagan he didn't just explain why, he went around the nation over many, MANY years, debating liberals and explaining how deeply he had come to understand what he once favored was wrong for America, and how what he came to believe was right.

I think Romney can do this. It doesn't help his case though when he criticizes Newt for an immigration idea that Romney himself has publicly stated he holds. Who is Romney, really, beyond the punch list you wrote? If, in the case of immigration, he really does think Newt is wrong that is fine, but say why and say why his position over just the past few months has evolved.

I'm uncomfortable with people who change their mind but who have no explanation why. Like Obama with GITMO. Right evolution, but no explanation. At rock bottom it seems gutless to me, and we face so many problems that I think gutlessness is what we don't need.

On the other hand would Romney be better, easily better, than Obama? Sure. But so would any of the republicans running. Being Non-Obama matters, but it matters more what you are and why. All that said I still think the problem is not with Obama or with any of the candidates wanting to replace him. The problem can be seen right here on this site. Just look at the vast majority of the posts.

Newt was charged with 85 counts of ethics violations and in return for his resignation, 84 of those were dropped however, he was fined $300,000 for the one not dropped.
He left in disgrace.

Yes, TeaBaggots know how to pick em.... Just because he's got good debating skillz. Geez.

Slimy Newt seems to be a bad guy, but what about his policies? They're okay, aren't they?

NO THEY AREN'T. THEY SERIOUSLY SUCK.

Let's vote for Ron Paul.

Rich: I have read all of your posts, and I am trying to think of when I have seen such a bunch of claptrap in my life. We have several right wingers that post here that have a similar style, and all of you take the word "disingenuous" to heights that are hard to imagine.

I often wonder if it is simply a case of "my crook right or wrong". But here are the facts: Newt Gingrinch is a sleaze extraordinaire. He has spent YEARS raping the tax payers. His history of marital infidelity and inability to take responsibility for it defies credulity. And those of you who support him are in a word: hypocrites.

Newt was knee deep in the House Banking scandal. His claim that he is paid to be a historian and not a lobbyist is laughable, and that it is taken seriously by people like you, worrisome.

He didn't choose to leave Congress after his record ethics violation: his party leaders gave him no choice. Read: House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker, John E. Yang; January 22, 1997.

There is only one thing Newtie cares about and that is himself, and his ability to take money from anyone who will give it to him. That makes him dangerous in public service. There is NO excuse to support a crook like Gingrinch and people like you who are seemingly educated do, is sad beyond belief.

Quit making excuses for Newtie. You are embarrassing yourself.

Well, far from being "cleared of every ethics charge but one", let's see Forbes' take on this:

Eighty-four ethics charges were brought against him. In order to avoid a full hearing, Gingrich negotiated a settlement in which eighty-three of the charges were dropped, and he was sanctioned for the remaining charge by a House vote of 395 to 28 and fined $300,000 on January 21, 1997. And let’s not forget that this was while the Republicans had a majority in the House!

Except for Ron Paul. Jon Huntsman's a good guy but still a loser. The rest are determined to derail the country.

This may well be the best explanation given.

Good point. I have to say, every time I see the phrase Newt is surging in the media, I immediately think about backed up sewerage pipes.

Um, um, um....some more of those sophisticated, intellectual liberal comments.

It does bring that to mind, Sailcat.

Sophisticated? Really, Spider?

Scatological humor may be considered the height of sophistication in your trailer park, Spider, but the reality is that we were merely using crude humor to describe that bottom feeder, Newt Gingrich, in terms that are commensurate with his poor character.

You may want to check a dictionary to get a better grasp of the term sophisticated, by the way.

@Sailcat

LOL I have to clean off my monitor now! My adult beverage just spewed all over it! (At least it didn't surge)

I seem to recall a sewer cleaning service some years back called SurgePro. Suppose Newt provided "historic background"?

Hey Buddy,

Despite your clearly non-biased positions there is something in your post that draws my attention. It was Freddie Mac to, my factually challenged friend. Anyhow, if working for Freddie Mac was corrupt, then logic and reason dictates that Freddie Mac is itself corrupt. And if Freddie Mac is corrupt, then what do you make of the legion of democratic lawmakers, including our current and recent-past democratic presidents, who support Freddie Mac (Fannie Mae too) and objected to any reforms of Freddie (or Fannie for that matter) which would have reined in their excesses?

In short, are you equally willing to condemn those on the left who actively supported not just the mission of Freddie and Fannie, but their operations and outcomes even after the housing market began to collapse and we saw what both firms had been doing? Or is it simply republicans, who generally have opposed how Freddie and Fannie have operated themselves, who gain your ire?

such timing would be nice but my bet is he'll be through before ground hog day. Huntsman maybe? Paul is too real for republicans to put up with.

Ground Hog Day! Ground Hog Day! Watching these GOPers climb to the front and then implode is beginning to feel like Ground Hog Day! And it's getting just as boring, too.

Paul will try to fix things. Huntsman will try to fix things. The rest will permanently break the country while insisting that they're fixing things.

Spartan,

At least you have an honest view of things and men. I don't agree with Ron Paul, but I find him more honest than his son. Huntsman is too bright and too honest for his own good. The rest are in it for their own glory and wallet.

Jerrcy

Actually "undecided" at 11% is in 4th place. So 11% are saying, WTF is that all we got to pick from?

The actual caucus is a lot different. You gather somewhere large enough to hold the expected turnout, and then some. A school gym, government foyer. a LARGE living room, heated barn, etc.. You register, people talk, people lobby, and they all try to steer you to their pennant before the vote. If the first vote does not produce a clear majority winner, you start again, without the bottom tier losers. Repeat until someone wins and go home, unless you are a committee worker. If you are, next stop candidate headquarters for the party or wake. For the average Iowan, 45 minutes to 3 hours plus travel time.

I believe Carter was the last successful pick.

Sally or whoever is monitoring,

I believe I have tried to remained balanced and civil. How about twoo improvements to your sites.

First, 90% of my posts don't need to be spam checked.

Second, Decide on pop-up ads, sidebar ads, or oversized page content so a 3 gigabit processor with over 2 meg of memory can load your page.

Thank you.

My last post #16.3 was spam checked. My point

Unfortunately Bill Maxwell, Newsvine considers abuse of their automated system to be a feature, not a bug.

republicans have no new ideas using same old lie steal cheat spend borrow lie...... just keeps working 1% gets rich another 1% keep supporting that republican base. This election 98% vote and republicans suffer biggest defeat ever.

Give a hoot don't vote for newt

They are waiting for 2016.

They are going to lose in 16 too.

As opposed to the democrat's plan of procrastinate, blame, spend and tax? And because of democrats, the other 99% prefer to stay there simply because, it would mean they would have to rely on themselves more and wouldn't be able to blame anyone else.

Are you people capable of logical thought? I read your posts and I am sad for my nation. Here's why. Let's pretend that your stupid claim that republicans cater to the wealthy and that democrats cater to everyone else is accurate. It's clear both republicans and democrats want to be elected, and then re-elected. It's also clear that income is one predictor, but a major one, of which party you tend to vote for.

So using just these basic facts one would have to logically conclude that republicans would favor no policy which makes or keeps people poor, as poor people would vote against republicans in favor of democrats. Similarly, democrats would favor no policy which makes or keeps people wealthy since wealthy people support republicans more than they support democrats.

I would rather vote for those who support policies that make people wealthier, rather than poorer. I guess you can support who you want, but please, at the very least, quit making the ludicrous claim that one party cares about the poor more, and is therefore more noble. Your santimonious crap is just a bit much.

Did that in the last election. How's that working out for everyone. Someone should have listened to Larry Sinclair and maybe done some real research. The new blood was not such a good idea.

Hmmmm...Rich,

Generalizations are never completely accurate; however, there are truths to the blanket statements you find to be ludicrous.

I'd be curious to see how social policy/ideology defines party alignment as well. I the majority of the wealthy people live in the "heartland" of the USA...just sayin'

Hey unhappy...does the term "filibuster" mean anything to you? Just curious

Hmmmm...Rich,

Generalizations are never completely accurate; however, there are truths to the blanket statements you find to be ludicrous.

I'd be curious to see how social policy/ideology defines party alignment as well. I DON'T think the majority of the wealthy people live in the "heartland" of the USA...just sayin'

Newt is morally corrupt and so are the people that support him.

Christian family values huh? My a$$.

Newty has no values.

@Ted

He has value at Tiffany's

Newt's family values are "All for one, and all for one".

@phinephancy: hahahahahahahahahaha

ROFLMAO!!!

Hey James,

Yeah, you are so right. I mean we are all going to be so much better off if poor young people don't work. Those habits about getting up and being productive? Hah! What century is this anyhow? Dude, I gotta be honest...you are just BRILLIANT!

Well, for a liberal anyhow.

Poor young people aren't given the opportunity to work and hard-working old people are laid off when their salaries get too high. Is that what you want, Rich?

Hi SPARTAN,

No, I don't want what you suggest I want. Neither does Newt. Or anyone else I've ever heard speak on the subject. You are part of the problem since you purposely mischaracterize your political opponents' positions so that you can then more easily dismiss them as nutty, evil, dumb, or whatever.

Public schools in the inner cities are, by virtually any measure, failures. Too few kids get an education which is worth anything close to the $200k or so it cost to provide it to them. Too many kids from these schools don't graduate, but even many of those that do lack skill sets they will need to succeed. Things like a work ethic, or even adequate comprehension of English, are often absent.

Newt's idea is to look for a way to short-circuit this cycle. Frankly it is too late for the parents. We might be able to help them survive, but the odds they will ever prosper are dismal. So why not have kids maintain their school? They might earn money, but without a doubt they will learn the habits of work. They might clean their school, but without a doubt they will take ownership OF their school.

Or we could continue to do what you and the people you vote for do, which is to pretend all is well except that we just need to spend a few hundred billion a year more, and then we will find educational nirvana. And why not? What you continue to favor, despite all facts to the contrary which prove it a failure, has had one enduring success...it has provided democrats with lots of votes.

Rich, you think kids who refuse to take ownership of their education will buck up and take ownership of their school if they are paid. It's great to hear Newt is actually thinking about these issues; however, he is kidding himself if he thinks that will break the cycle.

Work habits are developed primarily through the guidance of parents (i.e. at home). Thus, do you really think it would matter if compensation is offered as an alternative to (or even in combination w/) education?

Hi John,

Directly the answer is yes, it will matter. Will it matter for all, or all at the same time? No, but if we can positively affect the lives of just 1 or 2 or 3 percent of young inner-city kids beyond what we already do the trend will be positive in all respects. What I know doesn't work, because it hasn't worked at all, is our current "system". I would rather try various "outside the box" ideas than simply shrug off the loss of millions of Americans to a life of dismal opportunity, or, worse, criminality.

So let's look back rather than reinvent the wheel, or run on the four flats we currently have, and talk about what has in the past worked. And yes, working works at developing pride and pride of ownership. One simple example. Two weeks ago my son and daughter were playing around and my son yanked on my daughter's pants cuff. She thought he was going to tear it or something. And she told him to be more careful. Why? Because at 12 years old I have her out working (she referees soccer) to make money, money she then uses to buy what she wants, in this case a pair of jeans. A side benefit is that she is learning the relationship between work and reward. Another side benefit is that she is learning how to deal with difficult situations calmly and fairly. Another side benefit is that she is learning how to apply interpretive rules (LOTG) to various and spontaneous situations. I can go on if you like.

So who cares more about what they have, the person who had it given to them, or the person who earned it? In a single sentence this is, to me, the difference between conservatives and liberals, with liberals favoring that which works least, if at all, in dealing with issues that confront us.

ps--there is absolutely no reason why the vast majority of kids should not work in some capacity. We aren't talking about sweat shop sewing here, or coal mining in caves. Just simple chores would help. By 12 years old I was raising a truck crop for sale, I had 125 sheep I owned selling the wool and spring lambs, and in the summer I began working on a road paving crew. And I look back on it all now wistfully. Partly because I had lots of money for a kid my age, and I was able to spend it on what I wanted. I reject, entirely, the concept that inner-city kids are simply fated to a substandard life.

Rich I hate to burst your bubble b/c I too would like to try approaches outside of the box; however, you cannot simply spend $$$ on a project without empirical proof demonstrating such an idea might actually beneficial. In a utopia, yes, we could try idea after idea and continually use students as guinea pigs with the hope that we eventually discover something that works better than "baseline." WE DO NOT LIVE IN A UTOPIA! IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

The issue here is NOT whether or not kids should take on additional responsibility outside of their schooling. I would support such a policy! The issue is whether implementing such a policy would produce desired results. If the issue is work ethic, then implementing such a program WILL ALSO FAIL, especially if you decide not to control for environmental factors that have an EXTREMELY significant impact on your "subjects."

I am a bit baffled you would even attempt to use your kids as an example as to how mandating increased responsibility outside of the classroom will ensure a higher rate of success. Would you say your kids are comparable to the example of kids you used to support your thesis? I WOULD THINK NOT! In fact, I would argue they are vastly different. Considering you are outspoken and have no trouble presenting an argument on this board leads me to believe your kids are growing up in AT LEAST a stable home with a good role model. You cannot say the same for the kids this plan, of which you speak, would particularly target. Comparing apples with oranges has never worked!

I also think it is a bit remiss of you to say " In a single sentence this is, to me, the difference between conservatives and liberals, with liberals favoring that which works least, if at all, in dealing with issues that confront us." To suggest this is the difference between conservatives and liberals only tells me your view of the world, politics, and those who identify with an ideology is definitely through rose colored glasses. There are a myriad of instances where conservatives have been satisfied with the status quo despite such status quo proving to be detrimental to the majority. THIS IS BEYOND RIDICULOUS...to the point where the fact that you even suggest it is HILARIOUSLY ABSURD!!!

Joe::: Trouble with Newt's two brain cells is that they are NOT between his EARS!

Newt is smart in a bad way. He's no nutcase because he deliberately screws people over instead. Look at his policies if you want more information.

Now dang Newt ster where did you misplace the hardworkin brain cell? Are ya sitten on er ?

Why? What is Paul going to do other than bring that special brand of libertarian stinginess and turn you back on your own people that republicans seem to admire so much?

We became a great nation because we were there for each other. Do you think we would be where we are today if our previous leaders had Ron Paul's I got mine so f the rest of you attitude. You know Ron Paul style freedom, I am free to keep all my money and all the rest of you are free to starve, die etc. Where he turns his back and walks off muttering not my problem.

Isn't Ron just another one that wants to privatize social security? Social security works for the people, I could never figure out why republicans are just dying to get rid of it.

If you really truly think the deficit is a big problem the first thing you would do is raise taxes on especially those who have reaped big money from tax cuts for the last 10 years. Ron won't raise taxes no matter the needs of America and its people. Then you want to believe his crap about wanting to give the government back to the people while he makes sure the money and the power stays in the hands of the richest.

Paul sits on that fence where he claims he is for the people and yet he still protects the rich no matter the cost to the rest of us.

You are missing the point.

It is moral obligation the drives us to support our fellow man. It should not be law. When charity is law it is resented.

I stop at accidents to help because I can not because I should or am required by law to.

You can teach a man to fish or you can provide him with fish.

Ron Paul 2012

Matt Papke

USMC

Hi reverance,

I'm not a Paul supporter in the primary but only because a president's major power resides in foreign affairs and Paul, I think, is off base a bit there. Domestically and economically the guy is spot on.

I just wanted to say that seeing a post such as yours is a welcome diversion on this site. The person you were responding to will never understand your point. It's inconceivable to him that a government that he wants that has enough power to take your money to give to someone else could ever become a government with enough power to take your money just because you have it. Funny, in a sad way, that we evolved from serfdom in order to see many (with luck still not most) Americans eagerly voting for a return to it.

Foreign affairs? That's exactly what caused the recession in the first place!

It's incredibly stupid to focus on foreign affairs when your own country is in @!$%#. America's no different from a frog that inflates itself to look bigger. Why not actually grow a bit and stop inflating yourself?

@Americans First-3238795
You know, what you're asking for is socialism. You do understand that raising taxes on the rich doesn't create nearly enough revenue to balance the spending of our government. Big businesses aren't even the problem, big government is. There are just too many federal regulations on everything for anything to function properly, which is why businesses take their business to other countries where they have less strict rules and regulations.

And where do you get your information from?
"Do you think we would be where we are today if our previous leaders had Ron Paul's I got mine so f the rest of you attitude."
This is NOT Ron Paul's attitude. If you actually did your research instead of believing everything that mass media (or whatever other biased source you may use) tells you, you would know this.

"You know Ron Paul style freedom, I am free to keep all my money and all the rest of you are free to starve, die etc."
You say this as if you don't have any money yourself. You say it like youre living on the streets at no fault of your own. You say as if you should receive free hand outs at your demand and as if you're entitled to them. Are you starving right now? Are you dying because you have no money? Do you see people dying and starving on the streets? No, you're not. If you don't like not having any money then go out, get a job or two, and make yourself some money. There, I solved your problem.

Dr. Paul is very dangerous to Capitalists (as they now know Capitalism). I would vote for Paul if he had Jessy Ventura as a running mate.

Much of you what you say makes sense, except for the fourth word. It isn't "stupid"... it is reprehensible.

Better word, and more accurate.

What difference does it make, Ron Paul is nothing but a libertarian stuffed in a Republican skin with over simplistic solutions that he throws out there just to make him look different then the other 7. He's not electable and the GOP electorate know it.

Perry = Frequently can't hold a thought in his mind long enough to make an embarrassing statement about it.

I think you are right Sailcat, yep think you are right. Now Newt???? He had eight years to do something as speaker of the house. Sat on his but and only gave lip service. HOWEVER he talks my language on the federal government and the democrats push for total control of our lives. Like servants of the state.

HOWEVER he talks my language on the federal government and the democrats push for total control of our lives. Like servants of the state.

Seta maybe you missed it but it is the republicans who are opting for total control. You remember the person-hood amendment that republicans are pushing to pass that would make a miscarriage a murder investigation. Wanting to monitor every pregnancy and even dictate if you could use contraception.

Can you even imagine the scope of government it would take to do that on a national scale? The large government, if the republicans had there way would be in the middle of the most personal part of our lives.

Apparently that is not pushing for total control and you are more worried about some imaginary Newt fear scenario where you become a servant of the state?

You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

Paul = fringe candidate with better policies than everyone else

Spartan how can you argue they are better if they have NEVER been implemented within the current setting of our existence as a country. That makes no sense.

That means Obama wins probably, unless they can muster up something were not seeing.

Don't forget a while back when he said some children from dysfunctional fimilies would be better off in orphanages. And with the relaxed labor laws that inner city children that have no "work ethic" should be trained to be janitors.

If he's not already with #4 or #5 by then!

MoonDawg::: He won't let #3 go-- he needs her money. Unless #4 or #5 are richer than #3.

@ Alan1234 Guess you haven't seen the one we have now, I'll bet she howls at the moon!!!