That is HILARIOUS!

Unless you are in that top 1%, and I think it is safe to assume you are not or else you most likely would not be posting here, the Republicans have been F*&$ing you for the last 40 years.

Bet you have supported them all the way!! Vote for Newt Gringrich and do it again .......

Or you could vote for Newt the womanizer and unfaithful to set a better image for our country! He's also described himself a s the Frugal Millionaire! He really Knows about America and Americans when just today that Bachmann said, on FOX, he got $100,000,000,000 as a lobbyist!

They poll 300 republicans ....when he gets in the real world ..its way different !

Newt has to go just for liking that cain 999 tax plan. Also chwyd is newt the only womanizer or is the only one in your mind?

Albert Einstein made a comment about Obama? Ben....do step away from the computer. You need help.

Might as well admit it. The republican party is now officially gone. They might as well change the name to the tea party, and be done with it.

Really, Feisty! You do have to wonder what that was all about.

Fiesty was not the first post today? Are you trying to be subtle?

We really need to help Gingrich get the nomination. Why make things any less easier than they could be? Gingrich or Paul.

The tea people GOP republicans are the ones afraid of Newt. Their afraid of what he might say next. It's funny how the Evangelicals move away from a candidate that has had one affairs to one with multiple affairs.

Brianb,

Sorry, I forgot about Bush Jr.

But in all honesty, remove the obstructionist Republicans from this current mess, and I would be willing to bet that the US would be in better shape economically and socially, today.

Also, if you actually read what you quoted me on, I did not say that it is only the obstructionist parties, just that it is the only thing that has screwed America over. That is a small but pretty distinct difference, but your failure to recognize that actually does prove a point: the education in this country is no where near what it should be and needs some serious TLC.

Comment from the right...

If you run naked around a tree at a speed of 185,999 miles per second, there is a distinct possibility of f*&$ing yourself. Or, you can vote for Obama to obtain the exact same effect -- Albert Einstein.

...and from the left

The only thing that has really screwed this nation over is the obstructionist Republican's in Congress.

Leaving aside the validity of ben's Einstein quote, it seems to me that each side is bent on demonized every idea and action not sourced in their own ideology.

Thus, Obama is somehow responsible for the economic shambles in which he found this country in January of 2009, and the Republicans are guilty of "obstructionism", for not caving to the Democratic agenda on issues like health care and taxes.

There's a grain (or several grains) of truth in both statements. But the whole truth is a great deal larger. Obama did pointlessly waste his political momentum and capital in pursuing a health care reform package which most of the nation abhors, and the Republicans do seem seized by ideology in the current budget debates.

But the economic malaise besetting the U.S. (and world) economy has much deeper roots that anything Obama has or has not done, and crazy ideologues, like Michele Bachmann would not even be in Congress if our nation had not been bleeding jobs and wealth for decades.

The biggest issue facing this nation today is the continued erosion of its manufacturing sector. We simply produce less and less of what we consume and we do not produced sufficient exports to pay for what is imported. All the happy-faces talking about the wonders of globalization, including everybody since and including Reagan had it wrong. We cannot transition to a "service economy" and remain economically healthy. Or, to put in more tactile terms, we cannot all cut each others' hair and call it full employment.

Somewhere, somehow, somebody in our economy has to actually manufacture something worth selling, to pay for all of our designer jeans, flat screen TVs and Lexus automobiles.

As to whom would make the best Republican candidate, I cannot understand why conservative voters have written off Jon Huntsman, a conservative with wide experience in government, who does not have Gingrich's Romney-like propensity for flip flopping on issues.

The reset of the Republican Candidates? You can put in a bottle and send them out with the Japanese current. That would be a win-win export decision.

dman, health care on Jan 2009? that was the month we lost -788,000 jobs as Obama was coming in (now 120,000). Again health care is still as misunderstood as ever. Health issues accounting for most bankruptciees and reucing the health of the workforce and the competitiveness of small businesses (who now get 50% of health care cost tax benefit) makes it an economic issue to address right after the 40% tax cut stimuls bill.

Not long because he's part of it...

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

And 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???

kornfed - it appears your cry for attention went unnoticed by the Redhead . . . at least we do not have to hear the daily dalliances of pimp daddy Cain . . .

Wait a tick, didnt Paul Tie with Obama? Of but of course, they arent going to report on that are they... :/

This is the rise of Newt Gingrich. I guess delegates are going to give him their vote and thus the nomination. Just because you get nominated, doesn't mean you get elected. The other guy needs somebody to run against, just to make it look good. The only thing that'll beat any incumbent is the economy. It happened to Jimmy Carter in 1980 and it happened to Herbert Hoover in in 1932. If the economy tanks and fails miserably, then Americans will have no choice but to elect Gingrich. Just because you get an endorsement from some newspaper in either Iowa or N.H. doesn't mean you'll get elected.

A repost for the one's who wish to censor free speech and thought

Actually, it "ones", not "one's". But that's a minor quibble. It's stupidity we have the most trouble with, not grammar.

J Richter,

Again health care is still as misunderstood as ever.

I couldn't agree more. Good post.

Newt will be the easiest nominee for Obama to knock off in a general election. He is as unstable as nitroglycerine.

Thel4ugh!ngm@n

Wait a tick, didnt Paul Tie with Obama? Of but of course, they arent going to report on that are they... :/

From the article:

The one exception: Paul ties him at 42 percent for each.

Which is why I was going to comment so I could say woohoo!!!!!!
Ron Paul 2012!!

Anything to not talk about Ron Paul owning California and Texas vote... Which means Newt would need to basically take every other state....not happening

Ron Paul 2012

dman, health care on Jan 2009? that was the month we lost -788,000 jobs as Obama was coming in (now 120,000).

JRichter - I'm unclear on your point. I did not blame Obama for the state of the economy in January of 2009. I said that his primary goal over the next two years, health care reform legislation, was a pointless expenditure of political capital and (to expand) crippled his party in the 2010 election; why do you think that Massachusetts, my home state, elected a virtually unknown, republican state senator over a well known, well financed Democrat to succeed Ted Kennedy in the U.S. Senate?

As to the worth of the Health Care Reform legislation, it addresses the issue of which most people were least concerned, universal coverage, and does so with the unpalatable concept of compulsory coverage. It leaves untouched the central issue regarding healthcare in this country, which is cost. Until cost increases can be restrained to something equal to or less than the rate of inflation, universal coverage will eventually become impossible.

Ben

You made my day ! That was great. Im having a tshirt made with that one. Let them try to collapse me.

dman,

Until cost increases can be restrained to something equal to or less than the rate of inflation, universal coverage will eventually become impossible.

The biggest mistake Obama made in regard to formulating a health care policy is that he did not insist upon a single payer system. It is the only way to control costs. So long as health care is under the dominion of for-profit corporations, cost controls will be impossible to achieve. Why on earth would they agree to limiting their profits?

richsoulmatesinglesc

I am a beautiful lady , and now i m seeking a good­ man who can give me real love

You know it's the holidays when, the horn dog/doggies climb out of the woodwork...

We should see advertisements for cheap sun-glasses & knock off designer goods any time now... lol

Pssst... Honey, you took a wrong turn somewhere this is First Read not TheLonelyHeartsClub.com

In Michigan-90

Brianb,

Sorry, I forgot about Bush Jr.

That is a small but pretty distinct difference, but your failure to recognize that actually does prove a point: the education in this country is no where near what it should be and needs some serious TLC.

InMichigan,

Seems you've never met our friend brianb. He fits your post to a T. A right wing, Faux Noise Homer. No one takes him seriously.

Now in all seriousness, it would seem the rethugli-con version of Dance of the Sugar Plum Clowns is about over. Unfortunately for the cons, the last clown standing, be it Mutt, Ron Paul, or Newt, will taste the thrill of victory (in the primaries) and the agony of defeat (in the general election).

BTW: the unemployment rate for November is bogus. We basically "create" the same number of jobs as the month before (not enough to keep up with people entering the labor force) yet the previous month's rate doesn't drop but November's drops .4%. Looks like Obama's administration is already politicing for the votes of center-right.

In michigan, interesting on how you say...

But in all honesty, remove the obstructionist Republicans from this current mess, and I would be willing to bet that the US would be in better shape economically and socially, today.

Yet the democrats have controlled the senate since 2006 and the house from 2006 - jan 2011. They sure have created change we can believe in, right?? If you consider obama and company to be so great, why is obama alwway threatening to veto any legislation he is not in favor off? I wonder how many times bush threatened to veto before legislation was written?

Got an answer for all the democrats not being re-elected in 2010? Tghink the right obstructed voter access to the polls?

I am thinking that brianB is far closer to the truth than any liberal cares to admit. The fun part is that obama has been campaigning since the midterm elections. Think that will play out well for the general populace who expects an incumbent to govern more than he campaigns?

I have educated, smart, family and friends, who are Republicans. They laugh, when they hear Newt is the "surging" in the polls. Most Republicans are not stupid. Actually, I feel sorry for them because they have no viable candidate to run for president.

Newt is a liar and thief, as mention in a previous post, he was ousted from Congress because of illegal doings. He has conned money out of numerous supporters and his private life is in shambles as well. I cannot believe the right, with their moral and ethics codes, would want a man, who cheated on his first two wives, and is currently his third marriage. His first wife was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery when Newt dropped the divorce bomb on her. So are all of thew Next devotees, willing to risk their vote on this cad?

If Newt cheated on his wives, he certainly will cheat on America! He is a may be "intelligent" but that does mean Newt is presidential material.

Newt is in the ranks of Donald Trump, Sarah Palin and Herman Cain. They want to take your money and you're giving to them. They are not as rich as they would have you think. Do you really think a so-called billionaire would host a television show? None of these "candidates have ever held a job that got their hands dirty. They rely on suckers, who believe in them to amass wealth. But when the real work comes along, they not one of them could out last any of the Occupy protesters. People who have worked all their lives but now cannot find a job. People who have earned every penny they have toiled, to obtain. People who actually pay their taxes.

President Obama has had to deal with Republicans like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, who are paid by big business and the wealthy, to do their bidding for them. One day the truth will come out. Hopefully, it will bubble up to the surface before another one of the Faux Republicans can claim the president of the USA title.

I am scared for my children and grand children. There is such a vast chasm between the classes and the current smorgasbord of Republicans want to take even more of the middle class's earnings.

As for me, I will continue to support President Obama. He desrves an A+ compared to the GOP candidates. (Bums!)

richsoulmatesinglesce... It's the hermie/Blingrich influence bringing out the sex services.

Seriously though, I don't see anybody defending Gingrich or talking about any good that he did. So why is he leading again??? Debating skills!? Geez...........

Gingrinch is simply one of the most corrupt politicians in this country.

you would have to be crazy to vote for this guy !!!!!!!!!

Newt is a swine.... plain and simple. He is a huge hypocrite to the point that he was trying to impeach a president for a hummer while he was at the same time having an affair on his dying wife. What a pig... and we haven't even started to talk about his crazy teabag politics.

Sorry, lefties, infidelity is no longer an issue in presidential politics...not since you all condoned Slick Willy's doing it in the Oval Office. Remember....you guys, and even the media shovelling some crap about how "oh, that's his personal life, and has nothing to do with his ability to govern"? Guess if you don't extend the same copout to Newt you must be a bunch of hypocrites, huh?

For all the occupy folks, try something new you dumb a@@es! You want to sit out where no one cares a RATS A@@ about you, Wall Street!!!!!!!!!!, universities or college campuses!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry universities are just a tool of propaganda in today’s economy!!!

Try occupying the following stadiums, NBA, NFL, NHL, and NASCAR, businesses P&G, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Target, and the list goes on. THE BANKSTERS local locations and then you might impress me, the UPPER 1% runs or own all of that!

The country I once knew and loved is gone, I just might join you then of you go after their BALLS…………………………….

AND BOTH PARTIES HEADQUARTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Spider,

ethics violations. pandering influence, lobbying, etc. in addition to character issues screwing around on all his wives. It ain't just his lousy character. Why don't you or somebody list some of the good that he has done. There must be something, anything??? (other than his good debatin skillz, lol)

GO OCCUPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

marlon, not to say i am a fan, but ....... he was running the house in the mid to late 90's when the spending budgets created the closest thing to balanced budgets we have seen in 40 or 50 years. I always hear people credit Clinton for the balanced budgets, but the bills he signed were passed by a Gingrich led House.

Not crazy about any of the R's or Obama. My only hope is someone, anyone, with some fiscal responsibility will get in before we choke ourselves on debt. If we haven't already.

jus the name speaks for its self..1/2 china corp, 1/2 comic book......

imwhitewolf posted: Seems you've never met our friend brianb. He fits your post to a T. A right wing, Faux Noise Homer. No one takes him seriously.

How about clarifying a bit. No liberal poster takes me seriously because most of what I say passes right over your little brains. I would put money on the fact that most liberals only read a few words and then go to the collapse button. I'm so heartbroken, but vindicated... proving the fact that liberals want to shut down free speech. I know you liberals have to stick together... I've been here way long enough to know most of the bleeding heart players. I am fully aware that Obama has you guys buffooned and sucked into his brand of governing.

Now in all seriousness, it would seem the rethugli-con

Huh? How can you possibly tie the word seriousness with the rethugli-con brand you've placed in your diatribe? If anything your clownish statement sounds pretty sophomoric to me... I guess you just can't help yourself, can you?

Liberals can hope, I'll be working on the change

Sorry, lefties, infidelity is no longer an issue in presidential politics...not since you all condoned Slick Willy's doing it in the Oval Office.

Wrong again, spider. That "condoning" mantra is a resounding part of the right wing's imagination, nothing more. The "liberal" side did not offer a blanket pardon as you seem to suggest, and many were as taken aback as I'm sure there were with Cain...and/or Gingrich.

You seem to forget one of the basic differences between then and now is that Clinton was not out preaching what your morals should be and harping on the "family values" script at every opportunity as some of the GOP candidates are so quick to do, Bachmann, Cain, and of course, Newt-er.

Bachmann should have known that she'd never last to the IA caucus's as anywhere the top spot...too dingy and her "spontaneity" comes off as contrived. Cain's derailment is due strictly to his own philandering tendencies...latest count is up to 5 now, I believe, not to mention his lack of knowledge of world affairs and even what US policy is in some arenas. And then there's Newt...well, there's a book that could be written about his doings on his infidelity issues, his time as speaker of the house, and his influence peddling after he left Congress. I believe he's the only one (speaker) ever asked by his own party to step down after some of his shady dealings were exposed...tax-exempt status for organizations whose only function was to further his political agendas, and fined about $300K for his transgressions.

Now, you want to discuss Newt's hypocrisy at the time of Clinton's presidency? I don't think you can round up enough ammo to fight that skirmish.

I'm of the opinion that the best candidate in the current crop on the GOP side isn't given the time of day, and that's too bad...for you guys.

When looking at the list of the GOP wannabes, both those in the race and those who were or were considering it, and most especially those that have risen to the all-too-quickly-over position of front-runner (think Trump, Bachmann, Romney, Perry, Cain, and now Gingrich), it's readily apparent why your party has such a "clown car" appearance.

God save us from the radical right that are reminding me more and more of the Germany my family left in the 30's!

Ah, yes! The asinine squealings of a card-carrying member of the right wing lunatic fringe as the realization sinks in that none of his favorite GOP losers have a chance in hell of taking the presidency from Obama! Thank god you still have your dark, bleak fantasy land of Teabaggistan to retreat to during these difficult times!

It's a fine commentary on American when the "Family Values"/Divorce my cancer ridden wife who I've been cheating on while she's dying/make the poor kids be their own school janitors/eliminate child labor laws (just to name a few RECENT incidents) Republican candidate can have this strong of a showing. I take that back, it's a commentary on just how revolting the Republican base in America has become, which has been evident during the GOP debates; the "Pro-Life"/Pro-record setting state executions/the incredibly perplexing decisions to say not to pull the plug on Terry Schiavo, and yet in a hypothetical situation where someone was in a coma that didn't have health insurance, they SHOULD die/Support the troops at all costs, unless they're gay...

In general, the Republican base has shown themselves to be pretty damn vile these days. If Gingrich can garner support amongst independents, then America itself is DEFINITELY f%^&ed.

The biggest mistake Obama made in regard to formulating a health care policy is that he did not insist upon a single payer system. It is the only way to control costs.

Well, Jack in Portsmouth, I agree with your conclusion, use of a single payer system is the only way to control costs, at least the only one of which I am aware. But... I would say that the biggest mistake Obama made was in not making a greater effort to a) listen to the concerns of the electorate and b) sell his program to the American people, meaning convince them that this was the best path to take.

Like it or not, we live in an imperfect democracy, consisting of imperfect people, and just being right is not sufficient to succeed in such undertakings; one cannot lead the American people where they do not want to go.

This points to a yet bigger flaw in Obama, a man for whom I did vote; he does not understand the politics of governing, as opposed to the politics of getting elected. Being intelligent and possessed of good ideas is only half the battle; being able to promote those ideas and get some of them enacted into laws is the other half. This is something which Ronald Reagan knew intrinsically, and which Bill Clinton learned after the 1994 off-year elections.

Jimmy Carter never grasped this truth. Obama still has not learned.

(George W. Bush understood the politics of governing, but forgot the part about being intelligent and having good ideas).

Eyes Wide Open-733457

You seem to forget one of the basic differences between then and now is that Clinton was not out preaching what your morals should be and harping on the "family values" script at every opportunity as some of the GOP candidates are so quick to do, Bachmann, Cain, and of course, Newt-er.

ROTFLMAO!!!

No, you're right, he wasn't.

He was just the sitting (or standing or laying, depending on how he wanted Monica to perform on him) President of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!! But I guess a demonstrable level of morality and ethics is asking way too much of Democrat president's, isnt it?

You pathetic Liberals will try to deflect and then project your immorality on anyone as your President's (FDR, JFK and LBJ) seemed to have had a hard time keeping their pants zipped up while in the White House.

But then again it probably all boils down to what the "meaning of the word 'is' is."

Right?

As per Billy Bob Clinton:

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

Some of the most convoluted thinking that ever came out of a world leaders mouth.

Hypocrites!

You pathetic Liberals will try to deflect and then project your immorality on anyone as your President's (FDR, JFK and LBJ) seemed to have had a hard time keeping their pants zipped up while in the White House.

Well, as you righties like to pontificate time and time again, Bush isn't in office anymore and a clue for you FreedomRingsLoud, neither are any of the others you noted. So if you're trying to make a point about prior administrations, it isn't working.

You can compare Clinton's comments with Newt's ad nauseum...but you won't win any argument. There's obviously "wrong" on both sides...it just seems the R's have more of it to go around lately.

Yeah, I guess the world can see where all of this is the fault or the Republican's or the TEA Party.

Well see, there might be some hope for you yet. Personally, I don't lay the blame for anything that comes out of DC entirely on one side or the other...they both are complicit in the carnage. There are some entirely trustworthy R's in Congress, in my view...however they always seem to be overtaken by the R leadership's desires or coerced into voting the party line. But it seems that more and more of them are finding their backbone and standing up for what they, personally, think is the right thing to do. The "my way or the highway" mentality doesn't work when it comes to solving the problems this country is facing...no one side has all the right answers, but many of them, primarily the Tea Party-backed coalition, know that if they even hint at compromising on just about anything, they will be facing candidates from their own party next time around. Witness the '08 debacle in DE (O'Donnell vs Castle) as a prime example.

You should look up the meaning of "hypocrite"...

Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.

Seems to have Newt's name all over it...poster boy material and all.

Enjoy your candidates...I know I am. Haven't laughed this much in years.

Clinton's "is" or Craig's "wide stance" or Cain's "I was just trying to help her". Under Clinton's presidency BUDGET SURPLUS! Under Clinton's presidency government debt low and being PAID DOWN. How many GOP anti gay politicians caught in homosexual scandals? A lot!!! Budget under Reagan HIGHEST RECORD DEFICIT to date. Budget deficit under Bush? BUDGET DEFICIT BREAKS REAGAN'S RECORD. Clinton was a cad but at least he wasn't a financial idiot.

The GOP does not seem to realize that candidates like Cain and Gingrich are sucking all the air out of the room and will permanently cripple Romney when he eventually gets the nomination. And worse still they keep voices like Huntsman from being heard at all.

Cain is a womanizer, a business cheat, a Fed insider, (for a mathematician) seriously off-base with his regressive 9-9-9 plan and his lack of even rudimentary foreign policy knowledge.

Gingrich is a convicted influence peddler (whose plea deal dropped 84 ethics violations in return for his resignation from the House, a $300k fine, and a promise not to run for elected office ever again {since redefined as a promise not to run for the House again}). He was an unregistered illegal lobbyist to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. He was a deadbeat dad who went two years without paying child support and only paid it when deputies showed up at his door to take him to jail. He is a serial womanizer who has been involved in scores of affairs while married and while single. He is a draft dodger who submitted false academic records to secure an exemption and then married the older teacher under the false understanding that she could not testify against him in court. He is current wife was met in church and he was fired as Speaker because he tried to get her a no-show job with the Department of Agriculture. He was denied tenure track in a small college because of plagiarism. And that's the short list of skeletons ... How many women are going to really vote for a guy who divorced his wife on what was then thought to be her deathbed, telling his cronies that she was "neither young enough or pretty enough to be a President's wife"?

But Romney could have survived this if the sleaze element was not rubbing off on the GOP. But Romney will be the reluctant bridegroom. And given the small percentage of Republicans who just give up because of the sleaze and the element, especially in the South, who consider Mormons as technically non-Christians and would never vote for him, those small percentages of thrown away voting groups --- gays, Latinos, moderate Republicans, African-Americans, environmentalist Republicans, fundamentalist Christians, etc will make it very difficult if not impossible for him to win.

Newt appeals to radicals - no chance he gets any moderate independent votes. I'd at least consider Mitt - Newt is a definite NO Way.

dman,

I would say that the biggest mistake Obama made was in not making a greater effort to a) listen to the concerns of the electorate and b) sell his program to the American people, meaning convince them that this was the best path to take.

Good points, though I was surprised at the vehemence over his health care policy when in point of fact it was a major part of the platform on which he ran. It makes you wonder whether people are "hearing" when they are "listening".

Like it or not, we live in an imperfect democracy, consisting of imperfect people, and just being right is not sufficient to succeed in such undertakings; one cannot lead the American people where they do not want to go.

Ditto what I said above.

Being intelligent and possessed of good ideas is only half the battle; being able to promote those ideas and get some of them enacted into laws is the other half. . . . Obama still has not learned.

I think the jury's still out on this. He seems to be coming around these past 6 months. But it's difficult when the opposition has no intention of allowing you a victory. It's a damned if you [try to lead] and damned if you don't.

An American Voter has to assume ALL Politicians have women on the "side". Wives accept this, as part of their future or present Status.

Most Presidents of the United States have another woman---It is a "privilege" that comes with the Title. FDR, JFK, Clinton, George Washington, Bush, and hey how about "Lincoln"? Harry Truman?--

Gingrich---not much charisma, nor connection with the real people--very aloof.

Someone else will come out of the Republican Political Arena.

All politicians do not preach "family values" to the rest of us sinners.

DEAR ABBY: I have always wanted to have my family history traced, but I cant afford to spend a lot of money to do it. Any suggestions Sam in California

DEAR SAM: Register as a Republican, and run for public office. Abby

Liberals can hope. I'll work on the change.

Come on people…..Newt looks more and more presidential by the minute…..

CorporateShill “Gingrinch is simply one of the most corrupt politicians in this country”……

Could you please name the other corrupt ones??

" I'll work on the change"

I am confident that, when Obama is reelected by a landslide, you will definitely work on changing your Spongebob Squarepants boxer shorts!

The Party of preach one thing and do another ... has found their man!

bedbug007

For all the occupy folks, try something new you dumb a@@es! You want to sit out...

You keep posting the same irrelevant post in topic after topic. Back in the usenet days, that was called "spamming"

Good points, though I was surprised at the vehemence over his health care policy when in point of fact it was a major part of the platform on which he ran.

Jack, I don't have time now to look back at what, in fact, Obama was proposing in 2008 as a part of his health care reform. But... I don't remember mention of a mandate forcing people to buy insurance, in despite of their own personal preferences. Perhaps he did speak of this, and I missed it; in which case, my bad.

But the structure of his health care reform is only a part of the problem. The manner in which it was passed, and the timing, making it his first-year imperative, are the other parts.

Obama would be in a far better position politically, and have a better chance in achieving ultimate success in reforming health care if, he had spent his first year listening to peoples concerns about health care and building a consensus regarding the solution. A great many people were deeply concerned about the cost and availability of health care in this country; he had a ready audience. Instead, he just pressed ahead, in headstrong fashion, which is why you have the republicans in control of the House.

...and it is why he'll probably be running against Newt Gngrich next November.

I think the jury's still out on this. He seems to be coming around these past 6 months.

You are right, he may yet learn. But after 3 years in office, the training wheels should be off, and he should be showing a greater ability at working with both his friends and his enemies in Congress.

Bill Clinton may have been New Gingrich's ideological and political foe. But the two men had no trouble interacting and communicating. Superficially, they have more than a few similarities.

Do you think Obama and Boehner spend much time together outside of the Capital building?

You make some interesting points, Jack. Thanks

dman,

You make some interesting points

You as well. I appreciate your thoughts.

Do you think Obama and Boehner spend much time together outside of the Capital building?

I've heard they golf together. Frankly, they seemed to have had a deal back in whatever month it was last Spring/Summer, but Boehner had to backtrack because he immediately faced stiff opposition in the House. It was a missed opportunity that would have saved us all a lot of headaches.

The real tragedy here is that, increasingly, everyone seems to be interested in short-term gains. That's been going on quite a while now, and it's getting worse year-by-year.

Obama has been a disappointment to a lot of us. He entered office with the hope of changing the way Washington works. It was naive, and had an effect on his management style. You'd have to go back to Carter to find that kind of naivete. Others between Carter & Obama have said they were going to change the way Washington works (playing the "I'm an outsider" game), but they never really meant it and so didn't get caught in a trap. I just hope Obama has learned from his mistakes. . . .

The reason single payer could not be passed because only 42 Democrat Senators felt safe enough to vote for such an option. These people understand - Getting into the senate is the big leagues and once there, anyone would do anything to stay.

It was the Republicans that recognized that the only a national health insurance program could work was if there was an individual mandate. They were also smart enough to realize that such a law was unconstitutional.

Now what the HCL has become is a classic example of how insanely power hunger a politcal party can get. They broke rules to pass it, passed it against the wishes of the majority of Americans, and did it even though parts are clearly unconstitutional. I believe all three of these things constitute arrogancy, don't you?

workhorse2010 -- ...If the economy tanks and fails miserably, then Americans will have no choice but to elect Gingrich...

What's with conservatives and false choices and "If P than Q" complete lack of logic?

The 2012 election will have so many unique variables that all prior historic trends will not be applicable, starting with the fact that the GOP/TP is unable to provide a candidate with any inkling of qualification for the highest office of the land and leader of the free world. And ultimately the Teapublicans must jettison their old debunked platform of legislating morality, voodoo economics, and war profiteering if they want to become a viable Party again.

american-2051576 -- ...democrats have controlled the senate since 2006 and the house from 2006 - jan 2011.

To quote Reagan, "There you go again." A narrow majority means nothing now that Republicans filibuster everything requiring a Super Majority of 60 votes on all legislation instead of a simple majority of 51 votes. As such, the Dems enjoyed a majority for only about nine months.

FreedomRingsLoud - You (along with BedBug and others) are the Poster Boys for what's wrong with this country and the GOP. Haters, all of you, and not well-informed ones at that. There's so much chicken crap in your post, it's hard to know where to begin.

Most notably, it was people like Bachman who wanted to default on our good faith and credit, and Teabaggers who cheered the S&P downgrade. S&P specifically named Republicans and delay caused by obstructionist politics as the reason for the downgrade.

Compared to the 300+ bills passed by Pelosi in only her first term, the legislation by Teapublicans has been dismal. Not just in amount, but in terms of issues like commemorative coins, naming buildings, and most of all recycling previous bills that were rejected. The Teapublicans actually renamed their crap as a "Jobs Bill," though most of it had absolutely nothing to do with jobs.

A study just came out showing FOX Noise viewers are less informed than people who don't watch the news at all. Turn off FOX Noise and Hate Radio, come out of the right-wing Echo Chamber and Cone of Silence into enlightenment. If you hurry it may not be too late!

Jack in Portsmouth & DB Akron -- Interesting discussion... President Obama did not campaign on the mandate, and never intended such a drawn-out ugly debate over health care legislation (thanks to the GOP Heath Insurance and Big Pharma propaganda). Single-payer is what we really need to make health care affordable for all, but the GOP and 1% will always try to block that. Nonetheless, just regulating the health insurance industry and making it more competitive per the Exchange is better than nothing. People will see this when it goes into effect in 2014.

In the meantime, if you want to speculate on "what ifs," think how much better things would be now if Bush did not steal the election from Gore.

True Patriot,

I always enjoy your posts--both of the two above are informative.

Couldn't agree with you more about Bush v. Gore.

Jack in Portsmouth -- Thanks, I enjoy your posts too. There are many FR members who write excellent posts, but don't have time to post more often. Keep the contributions coming!

Ded Grimley

They shouldn't have pulled the plug on Schiavo. There is a recent major study released that shows people in worse states than here actually are still viable. It showed as long as their is brain activity, their is still a chance of recovery. The people studied had no visibled responses where Schaivo had minimal responses that were reported by staff - who were then taken off her room after they reported responses or removed from employment. If they gave her any treament to improve response her husband stepped in and had that help removed.

The husband won that case solely because in Florida, at that time, a husband had supperior standing in court over the concerns of parents. Thank God, the law has been changed since that tragic event.

It was the Republicans that recognized that the only a national health insurance program could work was if there was an individual mandate. They were also smart enough to realize that such a law was unconstitutional.

The constitutionality of this law will be decided by the Supreme Court sometime next summer, until such time nobody who is truly smart claims to know anything.

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.

DB - Have you looked at Teri Shiavo's autopsy report? I did while I was debating this with a friend a little while after it happened. That record is searchable and can be found online. Are you telling me that someone with about half of their original brain mass can recover and lead any kind of intelligent life? A very large portion of Mrs Shiavo's brain - mostly her frontal lobe - had died and atrophied. From everything I read...and I read a considerable amount as I have very strong beliefs on this issue....stated that Mrs Shiavo had no intelligent responses...only minor reflexes which do not come about through higher thought or reasoning.

I did not find any reports from any doctor who had actually tested or even visited Mrs Shiavo that stated there was ANY hope of ANY kind of recovery. Maybe, if her family knew that someday some treatment would come available to regrow the major portion of her brain that would allow a person to have actual thought and emotion, they should have had her cryogenically frozen - an EXTREMELY expensive option to be sure, but available for those who choose to pay for it.

The issue I had about this whole thing was not the fight between this woman's parents and her husband. My problem with this whole thing was the GOVERNMENT's involvement. That is NOT the role of government to step in and make medical decisions when there is an argument between family members. I can NOT for the life of me understand how a republican - who, according to the ideology they put out there, think that governement should be smaller and LESS intrusive. This is about as intrusive as you can get into someone's personal life. It was WRONG for government to take a stance, let alone get involved. This was a court issue....not legislative or executive.

Skirvich - You maybe missing Repukelicans opposition to allowing the brain dead to go to the light. Take a look at their Pres candudates. If that crowd of brain dead idiots isn't proof of Repukelicans fear of end of life protocols nothing can convince you that the brain dead live and even prosper from their brain dead followers. At least you can understand why "zombie and the living dead genre is so popular. Just saying.

Newt to Kevin Costner, 'Is this heaven?'. Costner to Newt, 'H@ll no it's Iowa- now get out!'.

The purpose of bringing up the Schiavo case was to show the inconsistency in the GOP; They wanted to keep her on life support, but when a hypothetical situation arose, where they didn't actually see the person in question, they say "let em die."

Of course, it could just be that they'd heard that a Democrat had supported the husband's decision, so they decided they needed to take the opposite. In fact, that seems most likely. The Democrats should be using reverse psychology on the Republicans at all times.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Watch out" New't is in bed with Trump.~~~~~~~~~~~~

OH BOY!! Newt is in control of Iowa. How long can he go without stepping in it?

Are you kidding? Newt steps in it EVERY OTHER DAY!

The fact that he's way out in front shows what a gaggle of idiots and losers the GOP has attracted as Presidential candidates this time around.

This ain't your Grandpa's GOP, and it sure as heck ain't the Party of Lincoln!

instead it's one sentence toward the end of the article that always chaps my hide.

Watching the GOP Debate Forum on 12/03/11 really helped me place each GOP Candidate in proper perspective. I now have a better understanding of each candidate's character and policies, each holds to. I've narrowed my choices to Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney as front runners. This is simply because both come across as the most level headed; showing the experience and knowledge over broad issues. One of my strongest beliefs is reducing Federal government control over the "People" and returning programs and laws back to the state level.

Alternately, I believe Michelle Bachman would make a wonderful Presidential Adviser. Rick Santorian came across sincere; although, he appears too easy-going for the job. I believe the jury is still out on Rick Perry. His intentions and values are good; however, he came across as a little "green" in the Presidential Forum and nervous. A Presidential Candidate needs to be strong and confident in his beliefs. I respect Ron Paul, he obviously truly loves the Constitution and is fighting for more personal freedoms. Although, he appears to lose his train of thought easily. Not good...

In conclusion, I would like the Candidates to address what qualities they are looking for in a Vice Presidential Candidate Co-Runner. This is a two man/woman team. Giving examples of their campaign Vice Presidential Candidate choices would allow the American People to judge, if they are good fits for this nation and where we need to go in the future.

A serial candidate isn't a serious candidate and if you are over 25 you likely haven't cared about Ron Paul for several elections now.

What is it with the thought police here on the vine. Collapsing comments just because you disagree.

Good joke!

Is interesting, no matter how well Paul polls in anything, the media ignores him.

Ron Paul has my vote, from Georgia.

Basically as the primaries get under way the minor candidates like Bachman, Santorium will drop out. Many of their supporters will go to Ron Paul who probably be able to stay in. The problem is what will be the ticket? Romney/ Gingrich, Gingrich/Romney. Or one of them and some unknown not running. If Paul gets a enough support will either want him on the ticket? If not will Paul run as a third party candidate again? If he does Obama wins. If he is on the ticket Obama wins. If he has major influence on the party platform Obama wins. Romney and Grigrich both have all the appeal of Bob Dole. Both have long sketchly records and I am being generous by saying that. The best thing that can be said about either of them is that they are not Sara Palin, Cain or Perry. The GOP has two choices. Help Obama make things better and lose the election because things got better or continue to obstruct his policies and hope they don't get blamed for things not getting better. If the GOP convention turns into Chicago 1968 and it has the potential too. They will lose. Can they succeed with a anybody but Obama strategy? Can the win by continuing to put off Hispanics by being tough on immigration?

It's actually quite dangerous for the Republican Party NOT to endorse Ron Paul. If he runs as a 3rd party he'll take a huge base of supporters with him. And if you know anything about Ron Paul supporters you know they're Ron Paul or nothing. Thus making it almost impossible for whoever the Republican nominee would be to get the votes needed to beat Obama.

One of three things is going to happen:
1. Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination and runs as a third party candidate: The new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll suggests Ron Paul would win 18 percent as a third-part­y candidate running against Obama and Romney(or Gingrich at this point). Obama wins.
2. Ron Paul drops out: fervent and stubborn Ron Paul supporters stay home or write him in. Obama wins.
3. Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination­: Ron Paul gets the following voters: (a. 2008 Obama voters who thought they were going to get 'Change', (b. 2008 Obama voters who voted to end the wars, (c. the VAST majority of the Independen­t vote, (d. the entire GOP voting block who dislikes Obama enough to vote for Ron Paul instead. (e. Ron Paul supporters coming out to vote in DROVES. Ron Paul wins.)

So if your main goal is just to make sure Obama isn't in office for another term, you're seriously going to need learn more about Ron Paul and find the common ground you have with him as opposed to what you don't like."

Ed Ward - Big deal Paul ties Obama in Iowa - now all you have to worry about is the other 49 States

Before people openly endorse Ron Paul, I would suggest that they read the platform of the Libertarian Party. This was written almost entirely by Ron and Rand Paul and reflects their core thinking even though many LP members disagree with one or more of the points.

It can be found at: www.lp.org/platform

You may find that some of the things that Paul stands for would be hard to stomach. For example, he advocates for the abolition of all controls over the flow of people and money between the U.S. and all other countries. He believes that if an Iranian wants to come to this country, he should not even encounter a customs inspector or border checkpopint in his travels. He believes that undiosclosed offshore bank accounts are a good thing. And many many more things that are not exactly mainstream Republican thinking.

If you go by the LP platform, Paul is more of a radical left-winger than a conservative. And when questioned about the platform planks that he and his son wrote, he always flips 180 degrees.

But read them for yourselves and decide.

Ron Paul doesn't fit the Republican manta.

Chris - Ron Paul said he is probably not going to do that. He like most Republicans, including Trump, understand that any third party candidate constitutes an Obama second term. If they don't, they are dumber than a box rocks.

Ron Paul gets a mention even though he has a firm second place, its still an improvement.He may not fit with the republican party but he fits great for the people Ron Paul 2012.

Chris-749391

Above, you gave an excellent analysis of the current election demographics, Pretty much spot on with everyone I have talked with.

Then,

You come out with this tripe about Ron and Rand Paul writing the Libertarian Party Platform? GET A CLUE?

People, if you want to read what Ron Paul is about go straight to the horses mouth, RonPaul2012.com.

It covers every position he takes on all the issues, and many of them are not what the LP is spouting. YES he is a moderate Libertarian. You know, like moderate Republican or moderate Democrat?

Right now there is no more reasonable passionate centrist candidate running than Ron Paul.

Yes he aligns as a Libertarian, but a libertarian for TRUE FREEDOM, restoration of the Rule of Law as laid out in the constitution, Liberty as the Founding Fathers envisioned it should be, The Basic Rights and Freedoms of ALL the Citizens of this nation, not just the passionate few who tow the party rope.

America Wake Up and Get a Clue! Ron Paul Stands for FREEDOM! Not Slavery to the political/business class.

VOTE Ron Paul 2012 for a FREE America!!

I doubt Ron Paul would be able to get any of his ideas passed.

Most of the things Ron Paul wants to do, such as ending the wars and bringing the troops home, and securing our borders, he doesn't need Congress for since there is no declaration of war. That alone is worth my vote.

DB Akron - You some how seem to overlook that any of the Repubs cadudates "are dumber than a box of rocks"! Just had to point that out.

Jake do you relize that when you bring up the religious right you only speak about 30% of the people who vote republican.

There are plenty of people out there that never gave a rats axx about Clinton getting a BJ in the oval nor do we care how many sins an old man like Newt has. I'm sure we all have plenty and in this day and age I think Newt needs to get a tat on his neck and his wife dye her hair pink. Then they'd fit into the norm of todays Americans.

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.

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...

. . .

Jake, I voted for Clinton in 92 & 96, and I am no fan of Clinton. But the dividing line between his indiscretions and Gingrich, is that Clinton actually lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky in a legal deposition, which constitutes perjury and Gingrich did not.

Gingrich has other things of which any prospective voter should keep in mind, such as is ethics censure, by a Republican House back in the 1990s. But as far as whom he slept with when, I couldn't care less.

Jake Reyna

How is it that social conservatives can support Newt or Cain while casting stones at Clinton? Is it ironic that the lead stone thrower was Newt? Seems like the teachings of Christ, like the Constitution, are only relevant if they validate your reality.

Jake,

How does one spell hypocrisy? That's easy----GOP.

How does one spell hypocrit? Even easier----Newt.

What's even more pathetic is the Bible thumpers of the 80s/90s, are now the tea baggers of the 00s/10s. They know even less about the Constitution than they knew about the Bible. It's sad that such venerable documents have been trashed by such ignorant people. All for political gain.

Marlon, Typical left wing talking points. Please show me where Newt actually said his first wife was not pretty enough or young enough to be the wife of a president. Further that liberal garbage about serving divorce papers at the hospital is not true and has been proven to be a false accusation.

As far as getting rich as a career politician is really a stupid remark. A lot of politicians get rich, look at President Clinton, and President Obama, neither owned their own homes or even made 6 figure incomes until becoming politicians. In fact, I believe, Clinton never owned a home until he left the White House, and Obama got his house in Chicago through his political ties.

God Damn, how delusional are you? The guy is an ass at best. Why do you think Reagan Dems or Indepedents will vote for this shmuck? They won't. It seems like the GOP is doing everything in its power to guarantee an Obama reelection. American democracy is such a farce anymore!!!!!!!

Why are the Republican candidates throwing cotton balls at each other? Do you think this will happen in the real world?

Marlon

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.

This is a total fabrication from the left - here is the truth from those involved

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/correcting-the-record-newt-gingrich-didnt-divorce-his-first-wife-while-she-had-cancer/

1. His wife did not have cancer, but rather a benign tumor removed
2. The divorce had been in process for several months
3. The divorce was mutual - not him walking out on her.
4. The infamous trip to the hospital was to bring their daughter - not papers.

DB Akron,

Actually being alive at the time, he didn't deny or even respond. He was already in a relationship with his second wife. And second wife was dumped a few years later for "trophy" wife.

Gingrich was crucifying Clinton for a presumed affair, while conducting and covering up his own. He got caught, just like Clinton, but couldn't actually come clean. Eventually got caught up by his own dealings and got kicked out of not only the Speaker position, but the House. He wasn't quibbling about the definition of a BJ, he was trying to lie out of bribes.

Is Newt smart? Yes. Can he stand up to basic questions about his serial adultery, poor moral and legal judgement, and support of failed policies (even within his own party)? Or will he get pedantic, as his nature, and bore his audience by demonstrating his knowledge? Will he reveal his vision?

Newt is very good at providing history, but seems lacking in forward vision. But he will talk in vague generalities, perhaps trumpeting just the right tune for an increasingly out of touch right-wing rural Iowa majority. Now play the same record in Illinois, Florida, Georgia, California or New York.

When did the last Iowa winner get elected?

Bill Marvell

When did the last Iowa winner get elected?

Republican: 2004 G.W. Bush

Democrat: 2008 Barack Obama

For complete results since 1972 when Iowa became the first in the nation,

See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses#Past_winners

**knock, knock** Oh, Mitty! Mitty, are you out there? You'd better wake up soon, seems like the "Republican next in line thing" is not working out for you very well.

If you can be beaten by a sleaze like Newtie, you are in real trouble.

Wasn't it the Republicans who predicted that they would win both Houses in 2010 and then kick Obama out in 2012?

"Twenty-Twelve" instead of "Two-thousand-twelve" is already affecting people, things are gearing up—record black friday/cyber monday sales should've been a heads up that the public's spending appetite has grown during all the paring back the country's been doing. By early 2013, the housing sector projects that foreclosures will be clearing off the market. I think we'll see a lot of new tech next year that will basically prime the pump, and the central bank euro bailout is supposed to make lending easier domestically.

It's not as gloom and doom for Obama as you all would like to paint. Talk about crystal balls.

Super shrug - we could argue all day long about nonforgettable Obama disasters. Of course you would try to come back with some positives but it would be a pointless debate. There are no crystal balls and there is no amount of prognostication that can determine beforehand who will rise to the top in Novemberr 2012.

For anyone to say that Obama is going to win, is just plain foolish.

Likewise, the converse.

Nah. Newt isn't going anywhere for a while if at all. He may be the next president.

He has played this whole thing masterfully. He laid back and let the other idiots make...well, idiots of themselves and now he is coming in looking like the great white hope to save the day.

Further more, Newt is damn smart and politically wise in that he knows how to talk and he knows how to walk. The Machiavellian's Machiavellian. He makes flubs, sure, but not as bad as the ass-clowns who he has been running against. Most importantly he has something intelligent to say and he shows some passion about it.

Finally, his marital issues only make him a little worse than Clinton and JFK and, if we can be honest with ourselves for a second, no one typically cares about that. The other team will always act like infidelity is the end of the world but when it's their 'hero' they will gloss it over.

Get used to Newt being around.

BrianB,

For anyone to seriously argue that any one of the current class of clowns in the Repub lineup will actually succeed in capturing the middle-road independent, they are clearly off their meds. The present lineup are all either foolish, are clearly unequipped for the job, have the wrong religion for the evangelicals, really, really far to the right, or have entirely too many skeletons of their own waiting to be brought out of the closet.

Those independents you are speaking about will either hold their nose and vote "D" again, or just refuse to go to the polls at all.

It's looking like it's going to be Obama 2012, if only by default. I realize you don't like that, but you should get real used to it.

No crystal ball, buddy, just common sense, IMHO.

Right Jim, But why make things any harder? We should be on conservative sites right now touting Gringrich's positives from their corporate and supply-side confused perspectives. That would be greater contribution than on here. Those who can get on the ground in Iowa or anywhere to help Gringrich should do so too and vote or caucus similarly if they are qualified.

It's not his "marital issues" that make him unelectable--it's his ethics issues! Being booted out of his speakership and DC for ethics violations, and paying his way out of most of them and obfusticating about his lobbying, are what make (or should make) Newt unelectable. It is the self-righteous TPGOPers who have made infidelity the end of the world if the democrats are caught doing it--their own get a pass!

Brian, don't need a crystal ball, just look at the tea people GOP republican field it tells you all you need to know. President Obama in 2012 guaranteed.

nurse, please. keep that in the quiver until after April.

Dateline 1976, Jimmy carter?? where did he come from?

Newt is an idiot's version of what a smart person sounds like.

brianb,

Considering the mess Obama faced when elected and what he has had to face in the rethugli-con, obstructionist Senate, he's done rather well. Whether you like it or not our economy has grown, yes, slowly but still it's grown, for 2 1/2 YEARS.

But wait, brian says, the Dems are in control of the Senate. And in this statemet brian and other cons show their ignorance of the American political system. Yes, the Dems are the majority party but in their "infinite" wisdom our founding fathers decided to protect the minority party with the 60% rule. It takes 60 votes to cut off a filibuster. The Dems don't have thatand the rethugli-cants have used the filibuster more times the last two years than ever before. They're addicted to it which is funny because in 2005 they wanted to do away with the filibuster.

Given the public self-destruction of the Republican Party that has been televised on national TV, it makes one wonder about the people who would still make quavering claims that a nebulous GOP candidate will still win the 2012 presidential election. Let's take a quick look at these pretenders to the presidency...

Newt? A corrupt and notorious ex-politician who has so many skeletons in his closet he had to rent space to hold them all.

Romney? A cynical political chameleon who is being excoriated by factions of his own party purely because he is a godless Mormon.

Perry? An intellectual midget who embarrasses himself every time he appears on that rollicking reality show the Republican Party likes to call the GOP Debates.

Paul? A mummified old fart who is still in the race only because he had the good grace to keep his mouth shut.

Bachmann? Puhleeeeeeze!

Cain? I mention him because, like Romney, and Perry, he surged in the polls until people got a good look at him.

None of these losers have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the presidency. The Obama haters on this site can squeal at the top of their lungs but none of their shrill whinings are going to change that fact. The inevitable outcome of next November's elections will be a crushing defeat for the hateful, bigoted policies of right wing lunatic fringe.

Fun Fact: Obama vs. Gingrich

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_gingrich_vs_obama-1453.html

The view from the liberal side is pretty joyeous, isn't it? You guys/gals really think Obama is a shoe-in, dontcha? Your reasoning is the weak republican field. You think there's not a republican in the bunch that can win... keep on thinking that. Obama isn't running against all of them. He will be running against only one of them. I don't think you have that in focus yet.

Since you liberals don't like any of the republican candidates, your view is pretty jaded. It's not a surprise that any and all of you are saying the field is weak... and none of them stand a chance. Personally I think all of you are in a time warp. This isn't 2008... and the election will not be like 2008. The one big difference is... we've seen Obama in action and most of the country, 70% say we are heading in the wrong direction... so sorry Obama... you had the chance to change course but failed.

Liberals can hope, I'll be working on the change.

iamwhitewolf - You can bitch all you like about the republicans. Personally I could give 2 craps in a row. I'm not concerned about what the republicans are doing with the filibuster... that's minor in nature to what the tax and spend democrats have done over the course of the last 3 years.

You call the republicans obstructionists. I call the democrats destructionists. In 2008 the national debt was $10 trillion. Now it's $15 trillion. An additional $5 trillion has been added to the debt under Obama management. Democrats want to raise taxes, republicans want to cut spending.

Why would democrats want to raise taxes on the people? It's taking money they need to run their households, just to give to the politicians to spend... Admit it... you are all for giving the government more money to waste... It has to be... you are pro Obama, pro democrat. Anti republican anti spending control....

Do you see your mentality as viewed by a conservative? Give to the government... take away from the people.

Liberals can hope, I'll be working on the change.

It seems like the Republicans have forgotten about the internet , and think that because they control the news media that everything will be alright, think again.

Sailcat - not a snowball chance that a republican would win?

1. Generic Republican beats Obama by 4 or more points for some months now
2. Ronald Reagan was down to Carter by 29 points in November 1979. He was still down 9 points in July 1980 - and won by 9 points in November 1980.

Oh yeah, although RCP is a great place to get a variety polls, beware how the sampling is taken. LV is the closest to reality. RV is what is possible. I.E. there was only 1 LV in the poll showing Gingerich up by 2. All the other polls are RV - which means IF Obama can get everyone motivated to vote on election day he will win. LV is people already motivated to vote. You never want to be behind in this one, because your people who are more loyal to you are not happy enough with you to vote.

There is no such thing as a "Generic Republican" and the polls clearly show Obama is leading all GOP wannabes. Wishful thinking is not going to get you what you want, DB, and willful ignorance is no virtue.

edgewater

It seems like the Republicans have forgotten about the internet , and think that because they control the news media that everything will be alright, think again.

You make me laugh. The Republicans don't think they control the news media at all. They know that 79% of the media journalists are registered Democrats. They hope that they can get just a fair shake - even that concept is laughable at best.

In Michigan-90

Wasn't it the Republicans who predicted that they would win both Houses in 2010 and then kick Obama out in 2012?

Yes it was, unfortunately, if the Republicans had gotten out of the Tea Party's way it would have happened also.

Lonnie,

You mean "if Congress brings him a bill that RON PAUL DOES NOT THINK is not supported by our Constitution, he will VETO it."

And, you are wrong about our founders. They did adopt legislation not specifically spelled out in our Constitution, because they believed that those laws were still constitutional. For instance, Congress created a Bank of the United States, both in 1791 and 1816. Even though the Constitution did not authorize a Bank of the United States, our founders believed it was constitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause. Are you trying to tell us that Ron Paul has a better understanding of what is constitutional than James Madison--the man who wrote the Constitution and the man who signed a bill creating the Second Bank of the United States in 1816?

You brought up the Amero? Just put your tin-foil hat on now.

"Don't let the men and women that have fought and died for our country, die in vain, to a socialist that doesn't care about our country and our way of thinking."

Yes, that hat is long overdue. I presume you're speaking of Obama as the "socialist?"

Ron Paul is unelectable, and knows nothing about the Constitution.

Ron Paul is an Alzheimer's sufferer and a nut on the Libertarian right. He wants to legalize all illegal drugs.

Yep.

Marty in Boulder, you are saying that James Madison also caved in to special interest? Madison should have amended the constitution! We need to elect someone who is for us not for themselves and special interest.

clwyd, didn't you know that Libertarians are just Republicans who do drugs?

Excellent line for a Sunday morning, lbjack! This may be my new favorite quote! Well done.

Can't tell newday anything about the Constitution... newday knows who knows the Constitution and who doesn't. Doesn't everyone realize that newday is a Constitutional scholar... can leap tall buildings in a single bound and can change the course of mighty rivers.

Alzheimer's, Drugs, unelectable, who cares, he is the best shot we have of getting out of bankruptcy. We can not continue to manufacture money and be considered a legit country to do business with. China will own us!

Ron Paul is unelectable, and knows nothing about the Constitution.

Don't tell that to his 'cult members'... lol

I love saying that to his cultists. The are so easily upset.

And thank you Brianb: how good of you to recognize my skills.

Feisty please stop attacking unelectable potential nominees this early. That doesnt make sense. You should be helping them or saying nothing at this point.

@Marty:

The Bank of the United States is NOT the same thing as the Federal Reserve Bank. And the Founding Fathers WARNED us about the dangers of creating a central bank.

The FED is a privately owned and operated central banking system, which operates in secret outside the control of Congress by a group of unelected officials. Since its inception in 1913, it has NEVER been audited prior to this year. Thanks to a bill co-sponsored by Ron Paul, the FED received a *partial* audit completed in July 2011 which revealed 16 TRILLION dollars in secret bailouts doled out to banks and corporations, $5 TRILLION of which was sent OVERSEAS. That's more money than our current deficit which took years to accumulate, and more money than we've spent for 10 years of war in the Middle East. There are also recent headlines outlining additional *trillion* dollar secret bailouts discovered.

A link to the Audit report is in this article:

The bottom line is, while the idea of the FED regulating our money may sound like a good one, it is a corrupt, secretive institution that undermines the law of the Constitution and is the REAL root cause of our economic crisis.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

I love saying that to his cultists. The are so easily upset.

We don't get upset we ignore y'all because you just make yourselves look silly saying innacurate things. If we're Ron Paul cult members does that make you Obama cultists? *shakes head* so silly.

One of three things is going to happen:
1. Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination and runs as a third party candidate: The new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll suggests Ron Paul would win 18 percent as a third-part­y candidate running against Obama and Romney(or Gingrich). Obama wins.
2. Ron Paul drops out: fervent and stubborn Ron Paul supporters stay home or write him in. Obama wins.
3. Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination­: Ron Paul gets the following voters: (a. 2008 Obama voters who thought they were going to get 'Change', (b. 2008 Obama voters who voted to end the wars, (c. the VAST majority of the Independen­t vote, (d. the entire GOP voting block who dislikes Obama enough to vote for Ron Paul instead. (e. Ron Paul supporters coming out to vote in DROVES. Ron Paul wins.)

Rather be a Ron Paul cultist than a sheep who's support changes weekly along with the flavor-of-the-month "Front Runner".

Consistency > Everything else.

"Consistency > Everything else."

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

How can you be so naive to say that the GOP is wholly owned by Wall St. and elitists and yet support the democrats. It is a fact that most Wall St. types, the bankers and the hedge fund managers are democrats. They contribute more money to democrats that republicans. The democrats constantly give them billions every year in grants so that they can get rich. I understand if you call both parties corrupt, but to single one out is silly.

PAF,

Your kidding right? Republicans are the ones who fight against a sir tax to the top .02%, and have created loopholes in the tax code big enough to fit billions of dollars through.

You are right to suggest that both parties are corrupt, but it should be easy to see that one is worse than the other.

You should look again at who created all the loopholes. You will notice that a majority of the loopholes were created by the democrats. Yes the republicans oppose a surtax, but they oppose tax increases on anyone. They are being consistent to their belief that individuals spend money wiser than the government and protect everyone from tax increases. The democrats want the surtax, but they will turn right around and funnel that money to their friends (Solyndra, GE, Brazil Oil, etc.) Look a little deeper and you will see that one party isn't worse than the other. One party is clear on their stance, while the other tries to do everything in backroom deals.

"but they oppose tax increases on anyone."

Nah.

Not exactly. In an interview on CNBC, Norquist was asked his opinion on the flat tax proposals by Perry and Cain. He said he was in favor of such a tax plan, even though, it would greatly increase taxes on the poor and middle class.

Isn't Norquist a lobbyist and not an elected official? I am not sure why he is relevant. And yes, many support the fair tax because it removes all the loopholes that congress uses to give money to their rich friends. Everyone knows that a flat tax wouldn't work without a poverty exemption. But the idea of making sure that everyone pays their fair share is appealing. Why are you against it?

PAF,

No, they only oppose tax increases on the top 1%. Shows who REALLY has the backing of Wall Street.

Again, most of the Republican tax plans that have been suggested thus far are great increases to the bottom 99%'s taxes.

They only oppose the taxes on the 1% because that is all that the democrats are asking for, right now. There is no tax on the middle class to defend. But when they had the tax cuts, they gave a majority of the tax cuts to the middle class and the poor, not the rich. The suggested tax plans are simply "fair tax" schemes to simplify the code and not well thought out. We all know that 9-9-9 was a marketing gimmick. Besides, taxes is just on issue. Look at the way the democrats are able to give away billions through the tax code. Are they calling for a stop to ethanol or green energy subsidies?

PutAmericaFirst Well according to Norquist's pledge, which has been signed by all but six republican's in congress, they vowed not to vote for any legislation, that raised taxes or eliminated any deductions on anyone.

Just out of curiosity, who received the most funds from Wallstreet Obama or McCain? Who is owned by Wallstreet? Odumbo is owned by big labor and Wallstreet, get a clue.

Just out of curiosity, who received the most funds from Wallstreet Obama or McCain? Who is owned by Wallstreet? Odumbo is owned by big labor and Wallstreet, get a clue

Quote from (M)ann Coulter, Rush, Beck(is he still around?), or some dumb$hite from Faux News???? You're supposed to cite your sources!!

Marlon

Please google top democratic donors 2008 campaign. Too many to post. I think I'll stick with Brandon's assessment. Next time it might be wise to double check your facts before making your comments!

hockey girl,

You've got to be kidding. I'm supposed to take your word for it??!

you Teabaggots made the point so it's up to you to provide both Cain and Obama's numbers and the sources. And, if you really wanted to be relevant, the same numbers for donors so far in this election.....(and no, M/ann Coulter is not a legitimate source!)

MarlonJacobs

Here ya go,

www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Shows you who the "Heavy Hitters" are (lots of blue at the top of that list)

Or, if you like less intensive discussion format from before the 2010 election go here:

The 10 Biggest Corporate Campaign Contributors in U.S. Politics

www.dailyfinance.com/2010/10/13/the-10-biggest-corporate-campaign-contributors-in-u-s-politics/

Or, if you prefer a political bent, go here:

articles.cnn.com/2010-04-20/politics/obama.goldman.donations_1_obama-campaign-presidential-campaign-federal-election-commission-figures?_s=PM:POLITICS

Oh, don't forget to put the http:// in front...

Have a nice day.

Before the womanizer stuff should be considered, however true or untrue, his abominable record and expulsions should be first criticized.

The measure of his manhood is just icing on the cake as he 'ascends' to the top of any poll.

To be enjoyed by President Obama in the debates...

And if Obama doesn't eat him up, he deserves to be replaced and the United States deserves everything else that happens to it thereafter.

I wonder what the Men In Black will decide as our fate? If the vote doesn't go 50-30-15, Obama, Newt, Paul, it will be because Paul beats Newt in the Rep Primary. Which won't be allowed. Paul will be the Republican Spoiler like Ralph Nader was to Gore 2000. Funny how things turn. Just not funny like a clown. Paul still has more integrity in his pinky than Newt does in his, uh, well, um...anywhere! But RP will never be given the chance to do all the things he says he would without supporting cast in Congress. You think President Obama got stinkeye from Republicans?!?! RP would get it from all sides as they scurried to cover their assets!

Gingrich Boom Is Just Latest Republican Bust: Margaret Carlson
By Margaret Carlson Nov 22, 2011 6:00 PM CT

In Gingrich, Republicans at least have a candidate who, unlike Cain, understands that the Taliban aren’t threatening to take over Libya (although Gingrich was for President Barack Obama’s intervention there before he was against it). Republicans can be certain that Gingrich’s overactive brain won’t freeze when confronted with rudimentary questions. It may, however, overheat.

more here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...t-carlson.html

Before the womanizer stuff should be considered, however true or untrue, his abominable record and expulsions should be first criticized.

The measure of his manhood is just icing on the cake as he 'ascends' to the top of any poll.

To be enjoyed by President Obama in the debates...

And if Obama doesn't eat him up, he deserves to be replaced and the United States deserves everything else that happens to it thereafter.

I wonder what the Men In Black will decide as our fate? If the vote doesn't go 50-30-15, Obama, Newt, Paul, it will be because Paul beats Newt in the Rep Primary. Which won't be allowed. Paul will be the Republican Spoiler like Ralph Nader was to Gore 2000. Funny how things turn. Just not funny like a clown. Paul still has more integrity in his pinky than Newt does in his, uh, well, um...anywhere! But RP will never be given the chance to do all the things he says he would without supporting cast in Congress. You think President Obama got stinkeye from Republicans?!?! RP would get it from all sides as they scurried to cover their assets!

Gingrich Boom Is Just Latest Republican Bust: Margaret Carlson
By Margaret Carlson Nov 22, 2011 6:00 PM CT

In Gingrich, Republicans at least have a candidate who, unlike Cain, understands that the Taliban aren't threatening to take over Libya (although Gingrich was for President Barack Obama's intervention there before he was against it). Republicans can be certain that Gingrich's overactive brain won't freeze when confronted with rudimentary questions. It may, however, overheat.

more here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...t-carlson.html

He can't even be a decent one term president. What makes you think another 4 years of poor leadership is going help?

He's done fine, you're exaggerating.

Personally, I don't think he is doing fine. He has promoted policy that hurt our recovery chances. He does a lot of "astro-turfing". He makes things look good by passing jobs bills, Wall St. reform bills, health care reform, but in reality, they were all very poor bills that didn't really do anything to make our country better.

Personally, I like having my credit card payments applied to the highest interest charges first.

That's nice. I am not sure what you are getting at. The problem is that he isn't making the credit card payments. He is simply opening new accounts with higher interest charges.

It was one of the reforms he passed...

I also enjoy having a house, but that's neither here nor there.

I didn't have that problem, because I read the fine print, but now all my interest rates and fees went up because of the bill. I know pay a whole lot more because of that bill. It hurt my middle class family.

PutAmericaFirst -- First, what the Obama administration is trying to do is dig us out of the pile that your GOP put us under. Second, if you're talking bailout, then it's been a success and will come close to costing the taxpayer nothing, AIG's payback being an example. Our huge deficit is the result of revenues lost by the recession, caused by the GOP's 30 years of plunder and their two botched wars. Third, if what Obama has passed is flawed it's only because your treasonous Senate GOP has made 60 votes necessary for passage of anything, with the express purpose, as GOP swine Mitch McConnell has declared, of making Obama a one-term president. And then there's that cohort of Tea Party lunatics in the House....

PutAmericaFirst? That's a hilarious name for someone who really means, "PutMeFirst and to blazes with everybody else". That's your GOP/Libertarian credo. All I see from you are mindless platitudes fed you by the GOP's Big Lie machine, which right-wingers like you, who equate greed with patriotism, eagerly lap up.

Have you watched him talk recently? He's much more likely to destroy himself before nomination.

That is really only Newt's upside. He is knowledgeable. Unfortunately, too many people vote based on a 30 second sound bytes and have very little clue about policy and won't even watch the debate.

Newt's biggest problem is Newt's Political and personel record. Both will come back to haunt him. He's in for a really rough ride ahead.

Newt will do fine in the debates? Ummm, no. He is very likely to implode. He speaks without thinking. The beauty of Newtie is that he uses VERY LARGE WORDS so the undereducated thinks "Gee whiz, is he ever smart."

If you pay attention to what he says, it generally makes little sense.

True Newday. And President Obama will pick his big words apart and make him eat them. The president will also pick apart Newt's lies.

"When voters are considering the best person to elect as our President, we need to hold that person to a high standard. He must be honest; he must have a moral compass by which he lives; he must be a role model for Americans and for the world to respect; he must have already demonstrated unwavering courage and integrity while under fire; he should have a humble attitude toward others and possess self-discipline. Unfortunately, I do not see these attributes in Newt Gingrich; and I do not want him to be elected President nor chosen as Vice President where he could be merely a breath away from assuming the Presidency." Donna Garner educationviews.org/2011/10/03/newt-gingrich-not-fit-for-president-nor-vice-president/

further...

"Marianne Gingrich was married to Newt for 18 years. He asked Marianne to marry him while his first wife Jackie was dying of cancer. Later on when Marianne was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, she found out that Newt had been having an affair with Callista Bisek for six years. Callista and Newt now live a luxurious lifestyle because of the wealth he has gained from American Solutions, Center for Health Transformation, and Citizens United.

The most telling part of the Esquire article to me is the following quote which Marianne evidently stated without undue malice:

He asked her [Marianne] to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused.

He’d just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he’d given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values.

The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, “How do you give that speech and do what you’re doing?”

“It doesn’t matter what I do,” he answered. “People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”

..... iow, I take advantage of suckers for a living!!!!!!!!!!

It's amazing how complete ineptitude didn't ruin Obamas Presidential run? What exactly were his "Credentials"

At least O didn't have many in the NEGATIVE column whereas Newt Grabass's negatives certainly overwhelm the positives where you can find them..

(btw, what are Blingrich's accomplishments??????? other than getting rich from public service)

Marlon Jacobs,

Newt is a serial adulterer, pompous, unethical, has-been politician.

He is lucky that the GOP have resurrected their dead in their search for a nominee.

He is a "dead man walking" in the minds of every woman voter ...

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think that once the GOP decides on a candidate, they will rally together and oppose Obama and force him to run on his record. He has borrowed a ton of money from our future and has very little to show for it. We need a politician that quits trying to dig the whole larger.

We need a politician that quits trying to dig the whole larger.

HAHA good luck with that!

Sorry PUT, I disagree. Newt will NOT be the nominee. The southern evangelicals would never support him and corruption in congress will only be part of the baggage Newt brings with him.

I don't know if newt will be the nominee or not. I think that whoever is the nominee will make things interesting if the economy is still poor.

Put, just take a good look at the republican candidates.

I have and I take a look at Obama and it looks like we have an even battle. It is very obvious that Obama doesn't have a clue when it comes to the economy. He is a one trick pony. Since government deficit spending didn't work as planned, he is out of ideas.

MaryM, I agree that Newt will never get close to a nomination, however, your option of voting for Obama makes me throwup!

Demetrious - Since you didn't vote for Obama the first time you won't be missed!

Now you don't have to throw up - like you didn't do voting for McCain and Sister Sarah

SuperShrug
We need a politician that quits trying to dig the whole larger.

HAHA good luck with that!

Well, gee, you arnt forgetting about a certain guy who wants to cut spending by $1 trillion are you?
Before you say Ron Paul is crazy, think if you have actually taken the time to personally look up his positions and actually understand why they are the way they are. Writing someone off based on seconds long soundbites and hearsay is a rediculous way to go about things. Imagine what someone might think of you if all they decided to go on was hearsay and seconds long soundbites.

If Newt or any of the other hopefuls become the candidate, the Ron Paul either will not vote, (like me) or will write him in.

The republicans better get with the peoples program, if their candidate is not Paul, they WILL lose the election.

As Rush would say: Callista By-seks

Doesn't matter, all you have to do is explain to someone the circumstances of it and they can discern that he's a cad.

Electing Newt will never happen. That would mean having a first lady that is a home wrecker. You can forget that.

I for one will NEVER forget he LEFT HIS SICK WIFE WHILE SHE WAS BATTLING CANCER.. gawd what horrible thing to do.. leave her in the hospital and go off with his mistress.. gggggrrrrrrrrrrr doesn't matter if it was a year ago or 20 years ago..

Exactly Linda, and that is just one reason newt will not get the nomination of the GOP/TP party.

Are you kidding, what about the "oral" interviews with staffers??? Not affairs but still...

Actually not that I'd ever vote for Newt but when his wife was in the hospital having her tumor removed they had already mutually decided to get a divorce, he didn't serve her with papers in the hospital that is a myth that has been debunked many times by his own family

Hello 1SGFitzsWife4ID!

Newt should be destroyed by his horrible political record/weaselness, but you already know the Machine will keep Ron Paul from being all he wants to be...or any of it. Like OWS, his words are heard, but his ability to pull it off is going to fall on permanentlydeaf ears of the GOP/Tea Partier detractors/distractors. This includes fanning the flames of how "Great" Newt is 'Doing In The Polls'...while ignoring Ron Paul as usual. But I admire his supporters, as it would take radical change to change this mess we are in. Not just manipulate it to the same ends which always support the continuous upward hording of Wealth to the Top $ %ers.

@!$%#e is already so deep that once it is clearly past too late to even the most steadfast deniers, solutions will be moot.

Right or Wrong, this is how it pans out, I believe.

Should RP run as an Independant, it would be the only twist which could have an impact on the Other Two.

Peace

hiya notso-

Dr. Paul has already said he will not run us an independent.

Unfortunately it will take radical change to fix the mess that both sides have created, we're all going to get some bumps and bruises along the way, but it has to be done to get our country back on the right track.

If Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination, like someone said above, us supporters will either not vote or we'll write him in (me) if nothing else we are consistent when it comes to voting ;)

Have a great day!

Just ask and give credit to the republicans for bringing us to gridlock by blocking everything to help America's Middle Class over helping the millionaires and billionaires!

Hey clueless, our country is built on gridlock it is what makes it great. We are not supposed to have one pary rule it leads to anarchy and usually has a very harmful outcome look back at 2009-present. This admin policies have started the downward spiral of our nation. Too many takers and not enough givers.

You're correct Brandon. and the wealthiest among us just keep taking.

Ron Paul does speak the truth and he tells it like it is, this is why I think he is unelectable. most people of this country don't realise how close we are to economic collapse or how much trouble we are in. his different approach to problem solving makes some people uneasy. For instance his view on drugs. Legalise them: IF you legalize drugs you can now tax and control them at same time put cartels out of business. Drug related crimes will eventually drop saving law enforcement billions nation wide. Ron Paul has been great running over the years he educated millions of people and we all should thank him for that.

I'm looking at the presidential elections differently: I look at it as who will be the next president. Who do i think will do the best job for the nation as a whole.. As of right now Gingrich is looking good. That could change. mathematical an independent could take the presidency as well it is so up in the air at this point in time.

Not to mention there are allot of Democrats out there who are not happy with obama. These are votes that could go the republican way if the candidate is flexible. I think Gingrich could pull these votes.

You're living in a fantasy land if you think any Democrat will ever vote for Gingrich.

L O L

between Oboma and Gingrich - Gingrich is the lessor of two evils.....

No, he isn't and the electorate will say so if the opportunity presents itself next November.Chances are, however, that Gingrich's closeted skeletons and previous indiscretions will haunt him until he is eliminated from the race.

Sailcat...Obama is a proven socialist activist that did associate with terrorist bombers...everyone knows that but none of the socialist supporters will actually tell the truth....The false vision of socialist utopia must be so strong for you that you will help Obama hide his shamefull past....and present....The Obama lies are being supported by the left....

"Obama is a proven socialist..."

Please provide evidence that Obama is a socialist. You can't, of course, because you have a pattern of anchoring your feeble arguments in lies because you have the same lack of integrity and honest as your political heroes.

Fail.

This is why we can't even have a civilized conversation anymore: People convince themselves of something that's a bold faced, flat out lie... Just absolute and utter bull@!$%#... there's no reality attached to it of any kind. BUT, it fits their world view, and that makes them happy, so they're going to go out and make the entire rest of the world pay for their profound ignorance, or perhaps a better term, considering that detachment from empirical fact and observable truth, would be insanity. They might seem sane enough, but rest assured, these people have no use in intelligent society.

"Obama is a proven Socialist activist that did associate with terrorist bombers"...

If he WAS a Socialist activist, he sure as Hell isn't anymore. We've only inched further and further away from anything resembling Socialism under his administration. If anything, we'd have to become more socialist just to get back to a democratic republic. Our nation is in a state where you can actually trace the money that's bought all of the legislation that's passed, and it's not anything socialist that's getting passed. Obamacare seems to be the trump card, and yet, forcing people to buy a private company's product is actually FASCIST, the OPPOSITE of socialism. Our country runs on corporate money. Obama has passed NOTHING even possible to confuse with socialism. The brief ownership of the auto industry, which would've been completely gone without someone intervening, was temporary, and is over. If the auto industry were actually socialized, though, your tax dollars would have to have paid for your car, and all tax payers would be getting a free car or truck for it. That's what it would've had to have taken to be "Socialist".

And then the Weather Underground ties... Please. He knew a guy who committed a crime. Everyone knows someone who's committed a crime. The Weather Underground group, terrorist though you may call them, and fit the definition they might, were never widespread killers. But they were never Al Qaeda, and Obama never really had anything to do with them.

This kind of rhetoric makes the country dumber. It might sound hyperbolic, but it really does. Because people have to take time to point out how you're wrong, and you don't accept the facts anyway. It does me no good to correct you, but rest assured, you're dumbing the entire country down. And ask the Socialist party how proud they are of Obama's achievements. I'm guessing it's about as proud as your civics teacher is of you today.

sailcat and dead grimley....You should actually try to read some of Obamas radical background...Yes, that is part of his secret background that the media does not mention....Maybe you should start by reading The book "Radical in Chief"....and there are others....but, why bother, you guys are sold on the fairy tale utopia of Obama socialism....Without question, whithout being rational...The fact is that Obama had no friends or associates who were not leftist radicals....That is all that he associated with...that is the total of his background....He never had time for anyone who wasnt a socialist and every association that he supported was radical....

And, remember, that even the media named him as the farthest left of all the liberal senators in office.....

*facepalm*

Yea, I remember that when I was a toddler, I had to wear a diaper. As it turns out, I don't wear a diaper now that I'm in my 30s.

As for "even the media", the media isn't leftist. The media is corporatist. It's not out to push a massive left wing agenda. Most especially since the 80s, the media is forced, by law, as it's almost entirely owned by only a few different corporations, to be run maximizing profits. If the media were entirely left wing, there would be no media, because they wouldn't have a big enough audience.

The idea of the "left wing media" came from the people who've likely warped your mind into the ego-centrical world in which you live. When reality doesn't work in your favor, the facts are somehow biased. The media is every bit as right wing as it is left wing. It depends on to whom their selling their product. If you try to refer to the entirety of media as liberal, which the right wing media does, they seem to forget that they themselves are the media reporting on how terrible all of the media is, which would mean that they themselves are horrible.

"Even the media"... Yea, the right wing half did.

Dead grimley... Yea, sure. Everyone must know that the media doesnt favor the left....sure. I dont think that even you believe the crap that you say....

J.A. I know you are typing furiously on your little keyboard but all I see you saying is Waaaaaaaaaaaahh!

Try to man up and accept the fact that you and your failed political ideology are heading for a resounding public defeat next November.

I am not into predicting who will or will not win an election, but I hope the country has come to its senses just a little bit and recognize what a loser that Obama and his fellow socialists are...I cant see how it is possible that people dont realize that after three yrs of worse and worse stupid decisions by this administrations....That we are headed downhill with little hope for a good future....If anything, you leftists have proven how wrong you are and that your crap will never work...unless you are looking forward to a crappy gov check every month to pay the rent in a crappy place....I guess that is OK for those who dont want opportunity and are satisfied with a dull existance where thinking and effort are not needed or wanted.... Of course I dont think that will make you quit whining that you think one of your neighbors has more than you....

I am not sure what you mean by your line about my neighbors having more than I do...I assume this is just your attempt to deflect attention away from your weak arguments and poor character by injecting a lie into the discussion..,.but the fact remains that Obama's reelection next year will drive a stake into the heart of your benighted and hateful political ideology. Americans are moving away from the right wing lunatic fringe, a group that you exemplify quite nicely, J.A., and we will be casting our votes for Obama and against divisiveness, obstructionism, and destructive uncompromising politicking.

Obama will win by a landslide and the GOP will be forced to recognize that right wing bigotry of the sort you endorse is a liability, not an asset, and they will broom you and your bleak political garbage into the gutter where you belong. When that happens, it will be a bright day for all Americans, J.A.

Sailcat...If you are correct, maybe we can all qualify for food stamps and government assistance....But, but, but...where will the gov get the money to pay for all that.???

You will have more important problems to worry about, J.A., such as, where are you going to work when the circus pulls out of town?

I forgot, I'm dealing with one of the people who consider taking things on blind faith and gut feelings as fact.

Yep, You may have hit the nail on the head there. The republicans are hoping for a total collapse of the economy and government. In 2016 they will send up their best chance to win it all....................... Jeb Bush?????

It's way to soon to put a third Bush in the Whitehouse. The people still remember DUBYAH.

they are running their best candidate, it's just that the ultra right establishment wing of the Demo/Republican Party are trying to silence him,

I"ve been saying it for almost three weeks now, Paul consistently polls even with Obama nationwide, nobody else even comes close.

Anybody but Paul, and it's Obama's race.

Thank You for confirming my Post #11.

Spoken like a TRUE TEAPUBLICAN!!!

Cain already played the race card.

Obama didn't really play the race card last campaign, he mostly tries not to talk about it. With that in mind, your avatar, and that your worldview refers to the actions of political parties by political stance first destroys the sum of your credence in my mind. You barely seem rational let alone independent.

Do you really think the republicans will defund the government (or make it responsible again)? I am not that optimistic. I still remember how they acted from 2000-2008. If they would act like 1994-2000 it would be great.

Your assessment is most likely accurate and depressing, for it will mean more stall and delay, at a time when we can least afford it. It will mean 4 more years of spinning our wheels while the world passes us by and we watch it go .....

Carl is a independent? You mean comedian.....hilarious

I agree with you the government needs to be defunded- kind of like hitting the reset button. it needs to be done - the only bad part is it will add to the unemployment numbers in a large way. On the other hand anyone who works for government is an expense. We need to cut expenses to raise revenue to pay down debt and loan money out to other countries and have them pay down our debt as well.

our monetary system is based on borrowing and lending we should be doing the lending not the borrowing.

I luv it how the TP try to pass themselves off, on occasion, as Independent or Black when they post here. It's obvious as hell who they are and what they're trying to do. You teabaggots are ridiculous. You do not influence anybody you pathetic fools...

Paul-794119

Republican women will state they support Newt. But then on election day close the curtain and vote against a home wrecking first lady.

Not when the other choice is to burden our kids with the debt for life like we have now.

Things like FREEDOM FROM DEBT FOR LIFE are far more important than past private life smears from you.

I won't be voting for Newt. I'll be voting against Obama.

The last time we had a balanced budget, Bill Clinton was president. Don't you think George Bush and his made up war had something to do with this mess? Sure, everything went up in flames during the Obama administration, but it was in the making under Bush and Cheney.They made their fortunes at a cost of the lives of many young Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Don't let the immorality of that bother you though. Just keep voting Republican so they can continue to focus on anti-abortion legislation and making sure the 1% keep what they have. Let the payroll tax run out so what's left of the working class has to struggle harder and harder to pay for the non--working and the wealthy. Doesn't it bother you that the Republican congress is doing this?

Actually - it went up in flames in October of 2008. Some have a memory and facts on their side.

Mrs. Hermie is a shining example....and Mrs. Newt III

Pretty sure Jack and Jackie Kennedy started that trend; duplicated by the Clintons.

I'm pretty sure it started well before the Kennedy's.

All this conversation about Newt; well it really doesn't matter who becomes the Republican candidate, because when it's all said and done I like all republicans will go to the poll and vote straight republican. It is the only way to get the Liberal majority changed in the Senate and further strengthen the Congress. If our eloquent speaking President should win again, he will be a Lame Duck just as he is today! This country was founded on democracy and the people in this country will never allow socialism.

Tom

You're right the people won't allow socialism. But it's sad people like you are allowed to spread stupid paranoid lies about Democrats and this President being a socialist.