Newt,

You will never get that opportunity for that second contract on America, but have a happy holiday season with Mrs. Stepford!

Bob, I suppose you have not noticed but the people are unhappy with what the republicans have been doing since they gained control.

Take Governor Walker in Wisconsin after his shift to represent the 1% only. Just like the tea party that came to power to create jobs have done nothing but obstruct jobs and continually try to shut down the government to get their own way and their non-willing to compromise to create jobs over a small tax on your second million of income.

Something like 63% of republicans think we should raise taxes on the richest. Hardly representing the people and you think republicans are set to retain their power. I do think it is you too early with the egg-nog.

Bob.

The Democrats re-gaining the House is not out of the relm of possibility.

Just as the Republican's taking the Senate is not out of the relm of possibility.

The moral of the story is that it is a long way from election day, and a whole lot can happen between now and then. Remember, this is not 2010 anymore.

A couple of things to consider. The narrative has changed, and changed to one a bit more freindly to the Democrats. It may, or may not keep going in that direction.

The GOP controls the House, and thus can and will be held responsible by voters. In addition, there is some question as to whether the general public understands the Republicans only control one camber, so they may get most of the blame for the lack of congress getting anything done.

------------------

As far as Newt goes....the Democrats would be wise not to underestimate him. He has flaws, but that does not mean it will be an easy win. Much can happen between now and then, and we just do not know what the narratives will be in a year.

It should be fun to watch, none the less....

Awwww......Come on you guys know its an easy win if any republican is nominated. I mean look at Feistys post....she is sure, so I would go with her and take it easy. Hell I bet Vegas would take her odds. I mean we all know there is no way any republican is going to win anything, after all the bad stuff thats been cast upon this country. Relax have some butter drenched popcorn and hit the barcolounger. Your in like Flint!

Nate Silver, the NYT's polling guy, predicts Newt wins the Republican primary in Iowa, Florida and South Carolina. He sees Romney winning New Hampshire by a wide margin.

I think the Republicans should stick to their instincts, and nominate Gingrich. He is the emodiment of Republican Party. in word and deed. Talks small government and then makes a fortune off the taxpayers. Gingrich would be a lousy President, but when has that stopped the Republicans?

Romney is the smart choice for Republicans.

But, the Tea Party and evangelical drag on the GOP just won't let it happen.

@ Repulicants

Not to counter your point regarding avoiding underestimating anyone...which I agree.

I don't see Newt taking on the independent vote. Newt might sucker in the Fundies and certainly the NeoCons as they're looking for another stooge and are drooling at all the wonderful offerings made available to them.

But Newt's ethics charges that he faced before will surely come back to haunt him. Independents (such as myself) can't stand the guy and I see him like a classic crooked politician looking to make a buck off of the tax payer.

Romney is a different animal. He's got the John Kerry "flop" down and his "corporations are people too" statement is just phenomenal!

I tend to think that either way, Romney or Gingrich, we're looking at the Republicans repeating the 2004 election, just swap the parties around

Republicants,

You are right that there is a lot of space between now and November, and that anything can happen. You are right that for now the momentum is in the direction of Democrats. You are right that it will be a tough year for incumbents in the House and the Senate. I think that Gingrich is the best possible choice for the republican party from my point of view. He is a smart, treacherous, scheming, calculating, crooked, scandal ridden political rascal, and the worst thing for all of us would be for all of the pieces to fall together in his favor. I worry for instance, that if Europe fell to pieces and put us back into recession, that the president would no doubt be blamed for the excesses and misjudgement of those living in "Club Med." The problem is, the republicans have no decent candidate worthy of the office, and any of them will have grover norquist to answer to anyway.

For now its Christmas though, and I would consider this a political gift. I would be pleased indeed to see Newt carry the ball for conservatives. God willing he will continue to trip over his own tongue and never make the endzone.

Can't belive the Reflockagains would even consider Newt. But hey, they flocked to Bachman, then flocked to Perry, and even flocked to Cain....but would have never thought Newt? Now they flock to him. Wonder who is leading this flock of sheep any way?

Good news! Maybe he'll pull some of these congressional candidates on down the toilet with him.

The guy represents all that is wrong with this country. He is a lobbyist that isn't "technically" a lobbyist. He made $M's on the backs of taxpayers. As a perpetual violator of the spirit of laws, he doesn't even rank as an upright mammal to me.

We reward quality patriotic servants with slander, as was Max Cleland by the Rove machine, and reward anyone that crawls to the Christian Taliban for approval.

Hey Tony, weren't you saying the same sort of stuff about Perry? Bachmann? Cain? Paul?

Newt, Obama, Romney, et al. When you shake them up and roll them out the bottom line remains that unless and until a handle, a serious and real handle, is attached to the current economic and debt problems facing this country, any one of the contenders is essentially nothing more than window dressing.

TO: Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL who wrote:

"Please Santa, if you make sure Newter is the nominee, I'll leave you some extra cookies...With the Newt at the top of the ticket, it's a sure bet the Democrat's will regain the House & retain the Sen ate! Say hello to Madame Speaker! Watching her wrestle the gavel out of Boehner's sweaty dirty fingers will be PRICELESS!"

I'm sure that Boehner will break down and cry (again)!

The democrats do not control the supreme court, its 5/4 conservative leaning.

The problem with Gingrich isn't just his past, he isn't giving any real solutions, he might as well be GW Bush without the charm. He doesn't want to bring our troops home, he wants to increase defense in a time that we simply cannot afford to be the worlds police. We can't afford more tax and spend and we can't afford cut tax and spend, we need someone who will cut spending and ending the wars will help.

As an independent, I would never vote for Gingrich, he is spewing the rhetoric and bluster the tea party likes to hear. If you all really buy into him being any different than ever you are kidding yourself. I think the establishment is right, the election is likely lost anyway, but if and when Gingrich's ego gets the best of him and he implodes, he will take out all of his supporters that are running for congress too. Romney has the best chance of at least a hope at keeping the house. With the unhappiness with congress its not implausible that we will see the house and senate to turn over.

Tony,

I believe you'll find out that away from the teleprompter Obama seems to do better. Recently listened to a round table discussion about how he surprised everyone because he came across so much more real without it. And intelligence? I would bet on Obama. And Feisty being very very afraid? LMAO

I heard he was secretly learning how to wiggle those big ears and smile at just the right time to disorient ol' Newt.

Okay, so you want a real conservative? Newt is a sell-out, how can we begin to trust him with his record. Today you can help show the establishment that we the people want real change!

Participate in Ron Paul's Tea Party anniversary donation drive!

Feisty you make a good point. The generic congressional has shifted to Democrats.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html

We Can Do It......"Romney is the choice for smart republicans"...

Which explains why so few republicans would vote for him.

Have a nice day.

BB,

I am not sure about whether you are joking or not. If you are not, that is so sad. If you are joking, let me know so I can LMAO!

GinGRINCH.

The gift that keeps on giving, lol.

Happy holidays, Democrats everywhere!

Until the tea party wakes up and realizes that the majority of America doesn't care about their ideology, we don't agree with their ideology and we certainly are tired of them shoving their religious crap down our throats, the GOP is screwed by a divided party. Occupy has made its mark, the tides are shifting, they say what the governors were doing in places like Wisconsin and Ohio and it spooked them. The tea party has way over reached and despite the fact that I believe we do need a change, I will never vote for Gingrich.

Obama is so concerned about jobs he's willing to let the Canadian pipeline go to China,15,000 plus jobs, him and Bush must be brothers from another mother.

Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul...

Freaky, "strict constitutionalist."

Give me a break. He's a Republican in wolf's clothing.

The right doesn't care WHO they nominate..

As long as they make rich people richer without having to pay anything forward to the country that allowed them to prosper, and make everybody else pull the weight and grovel at the feet of the elite and priveledged.

Their candidate can bring back the inquisition and they wouldn't give a cr@p, as long as the Koch's and Limbaugh's got to get off scott free.

Have a nice day.

TO: geo-1957883 who wrote:

"Newt will be the nominee. I just can not wait for the debate, a free thinker against a teleprompter..."

That's EXACTLY what Republicans who know Newt are afraid off, is Newt going "off script" because when Newt does that he goes all "gun control" on them, and starts talking EXACTLY like what Republicans call "a socialist".

Isn't it strange how worked up the Dems are to prevent Newt from running? They are so concerned that the Reps run Mitt. Gee, that's nice of them.

I think someone from the news literacy project, which educates kids in 10 cities to separate fact from fiction in fast moving social media said "With the recent class warfare by President Obama and the rise of the occupy movement, we need to educate our children to separate fact from fiction, so they don't end up biting the hand that feeds them" I don't care for any of the republican views on social issues or global warming, but Obama has become dangerous especially to anyone making over 250k. I feel I've finally made it with only 5 years of junior college (Harper college, to you Feisty from Roselle). We need a historian in the white house and and insider that knows there way around, so hopefully Newt can keep the religious right crap off the table and bring the country out of this recession before someone gets hurt. Hey Feisty and America First the last young person I saw going to protest at occupy had to barrow money and the car from their rich BG family, so you need to wake up or go away, because that my friends is INSANE.

American Girl, the tea party will latch on to anyone willing to spew their rhetoric and continue to believe in them no matter what mistakes they make, no matter how unethical they are. Jerry Sandusky could win them over if he would just spew the same anti Obama propaganda. They don't have to know foreign affairs, they don't have to have a plan. They just have to have the same hatred for Obama as they do. Its illogical, its irrational and if they think independents will fall in line, they are sadly mistaken. I don't put and I by my name to cave to either parties extremism.

Go for it. Go with Gingrich. Got to love how the righteous wingers are going to justify their adulterous candidate.

gillinator,

It is the same old story. Candidate commits adultery, candidate denies adultery, candidate's adulteress contacts media, candidate finds Jesus, and all is forgiven.

Wayne,

Yes I am joking. I like the idea of living in a bankrupt third world country, so I will sit around and wait for my TV to tell me who to vote for.

Like the libs did Clinton? Newt never lied under oath, like Clinton. Never accused of rape, like Clinton. Etc.

wlee-950886

Obama is so concerned about jobs he's willing to let the Canadian pipeline go to China,15,000 plus jobs, him and Bush must be brothers from another mother.

That requires some explanation. How will China build a pipeline from Canada through the US? And--when the pipe goes in the ground, the jobs are gone. If there's to be jobs in the US, they need to tax corporations that manufacture abroad at such a high rate that they will be forced to return the jobs--or lose the largest consuming economy in the history of the world--the US. It's not just lead painted kid's top. It's heavy equipment, cars, and other durable goods.

Corporate America--in quest for the perfect employee. No benefits or protection and $.50/hour. What a plan.

Honestly what exactly has Gingrich promised to do that will make this tremendous difference?

Abolish Obamacare? Not within presidential powers, it has to be done by congress and signed into law by the president or the supreme court will address it. Congress isn't going to do anything when the supreme court is addressing it already.

Invade Iran with special forces to take out their nuclear plants that we really have little information on? That is just going to cause a war.

Keep troops in Afghanistan and take back Iraq? That is just going to cost more money.

Privatise medicare? He changed his mind on the social engineering only to get votes, anyone with 2 brain cells to put together would know this would collapse the healthcare system. The private sector cannot possibly take on the by far biggest users of healthcare and are just walking pre existing conditons. Do away with social security? They would have to have 60% of both houses of congresses and get the supreme court to agree with constitutional changes, and 2/3 states. Its not going to happen.

He is fools gold and GW Bush junior, he will keep us at war to keep his defense contractor friends in business and screw the rest of us.

stanboy - no Newt played around on both wives because he loves the country so much (right out of his mouth!) Wonder who he's playing with now? Although why anyone would touch that piece of garbage is beyond me. No Newt will not carry the conservatives if it comes right down to it. They see through him and will just stay home - not vote at all.

BB,

Thanks for clearing that up! LMAO!

Post #1 No sign of Human Intelligence ....

(article)many of the Republican candidates seeking election to Congress next fall don’t appear to share the concerns the GOP establishment seems to have about the impact Gingrich would have on downballot races as their presidential nominee.

* * *

As a party, Republicans should ALWAYS vote their conscience, chuck Romney as a phony, and vote for Newt because he is REAL.

To all those who think Democrats are the "champions of the little guy," please point to legislation to support that hypothesis. And don't use the whole "tax the rich" excuse because it's a red herring -- if wasteful spending by the government were cut, we wouldn't need to be raising taxes on anybody.

And yet continuing the tax cuts for the middle class is chicken sh*t according to our esteemed house majority leader. Explain how the republicans are champions for anything but the rich? Both of them do a crappy job.

Do the math if you cut revenue and continue to spend, you are building the deficit, Bush spent on artificial revenue based on the gamble mortgage companies took on high risk borrowers. When that collapsed so did the economy, and republicans still want to keep those tax cuts and keep us in 2 wars and likely take us to war with Iran too. If you cut taxes, you have to cut spending too. If your income decreases and your already in the red, and you keep spending at the same rate, the deficit goes up. The republicans are not offering solutions just attacks.

"Wealth inequality

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%. However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.

Income inequality

According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%. In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927."

This is the problem. There's a tipping point with every single thing in life and our brand of capitalism is as broken as our treasury. Newt is part of that disease that eats away at any chance of the American dream for youth today. Unless they're inside already, it's nearly impossible to join the club.

Please, everyone makes mistakes. I would think it has made him more human and more tolerable to moderates, screw the religious right, they lost every bill they tried to pass recently. Personhood, WTF is that insanity even the reddest of the red necks didn't fall for that fundamentalist BS. Hopefully Newt can keep the religious right at bay and pass some job related bills instead of the 250 some anti abortion crap that was passed the last two years.

You know all of are problem are due to overpopulation, so if your looking to blame a group just pick any religion that doesn't know when to stop screwing. Let me see, the population in china is going to peak in 2026 and decline from there. Damn those stupid communist and their one baby policy...Doh. Funny that's 4 year from when the Ganges is going to dry up, displacing 500 million Muslims. Hey mickey china will take em.

FatBobMob, I don't care about his infidelities, he isn't offering solutions and he has a history of being professionally and personally unethical. He changes his mind more often than he changes his clothing and has caved to that extremist religious right faction.

And by the way, the republicans in congress have stated the government doesn't create jobs and have allowed very little of the jobs related bills to pass. They don't like Gingrich anymore than they like Obama, do you really think they will just accept his way?

Mike Clark's comment was priceless. "He certainly stimulates a lot of discussion."

Jeffery Dahmer stimulated a lot of conversation, too. Would you have wanted him to run for President?

Newt has always stimulated conversation...most of us, however, were taught by our mommies that there is a difference between good attention and bad attention.

I can't believe you folks, haven't you seen the unemployment numbers go down since the GOP took office. A good marketing firm would sure help them out! Get that message across to the voters. I bet they hire someone now that I have told them what to do. You all reckon that I have the power that the Koch or Norquist have:)?

All this talk about Gingrich carrying the conservative base is a waste. A candidate, whether Republican or Democrat, isn't going to gain the White House by simply carrying their conservative or liberal base. They have to appeal to independents and "undecideds." That's how Bam got elected: he was able to pull a snow-job on enough independents with his "change" mantra to carry him to office. I'm prett confident that he won't be able to do that again...unless the "conservative" base of the Republican party allows it by pushing a Gingrich or a Bachman or a Perry over Romney. None of them will defeat Bam, as they will be eaten alive by the liberal media and be painted in a bad light in the eyes of independents. Romney, IMO, is the only Republican candidate who will appeal to independents (maybe Paul as well...maybe...but he'll never get the nomination).

My Crystal Ball says that the Democrats gain 100+ House Seats
but Gingrich wins the White House if Gingrich wins the nomination. People will begin
to realize we will have true government again.

Hey, Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL!

Was Cruella Deville a peroxide blonde fellatrix?

More seriously, when push comes to shove would the Republicans really go for someone who thought ethics was something other folks wiped off their shoes? Leopards do not change their spots and to have a philandering crook as POTUS would be a disaster for International credibility as well as the ordinary US citizen.

Sandtrich, the pipeline would go through Canada not the US the jobs would be for installing and refining as well as use lessening the dependency on Arab oil a perceived hiring of 15,000 workers.

Sandtrich - A pieline through the US will support construction jobs for nearly a decade, provide revenue from the oil sales and secure a long term energy source for the US. If China helps with the pipeline it grows thorugh Cananda to ports at Vancouver. CIna then secures a long term energy source and zero US jobs and revenue from sales.

wlee, you note, "the pipeline would go through Canada and not the US. . ." So where is the pipeline going to go once it reaches the border?

If you want to talk ethics, it looks like all the candidates, including Obama, have skeletons in their closets. If you want to talk economy, Newt and Mitt can beat Obama like a drum with little things called facts - hell, Perry has a stellar record of job and economic growth in comparison to Obama.

It does appear that 2012 will be a year of change. If 2010 is any indication, liberals will be very disappointed. If liberals are right about blaming everything on the minority party, well, good luck with that. Honestly, if the minority party can kick your butt, why would anyone want you to be in charge of anything?

#1.13 111shelter111,

I agree, where is the GOP leadership here? Why aren't they stopping the infighting? It's like no one is in charge of the party or atleast it's like they don't want a Republican to win. Obama's campaign team has got to be loving this..... Do you suppose their idea is get all the crap out in the open, answer for it, and by doing this they take away fodder for Obama?

The hottest argument in Republican circles these days isn’t about immigration, taxes or even health care policy

Because modern GOP politicians don't care to resolve ANY of those issues. They are perfectly willing to watch the US go down the toilet as long as their rich benefactors profit.

Bruce, I'm assuming you are referring to being sent to China, as Bes says Ports in Vancouver and then shipped over.

It will be 1996 (or 2008) all over again if the Rethugs send Newt to the sacrificial altar. Bob Dole was the "experienced one" that was gonna teach that draft dodging punk Bill Clinton a lesson during the debates, but Slick Willy made him look like the old, out of touch, fart that he really was. It will be the same here. Face it. Newt is an ugly ogre that will hardly get any votes from anyone under 60.

Commonsense - did you miss the Dem debates in '07? I believe their 'hot topics' were personal qualifications and bringing a good speech ... and how's that $1B presidential war chest going?

Answer me this republicans. If youall can't pick a nominee from the group of people you have now, how in he11 are you going to vote for the you nominated to president?? Some of you want Newt, some want Perry, some want Romney. If none of your nominee meet all your requirements, how can any of you decide which one deserves to be president??? Romney will beat Newt, Perry will beat Bachmann, Newt will beat Paul. First if was Bachmann, then it was Perry, then it was Cain, Romney has always been around, now it is Newt. Apparently NONE of them have what it takes to beat Obama, because if they did YOUALL would have pick one by now, I would hope so.

Tony,

If Newt becomes the nominee the debates which he would lose will probably be relatively insignificant. Daily exposure to Gingrich will make most Americans nauseous he lives in a reality of his own creation and it's a rather unpleasant one. If Newt is a palatable candidate to the right what in Gods name would you find distasteful. Fined 300k for ethics violations and forced to resign as Speaker and into eventual retirement. Serial adulterer, he was boinking current wife while she was a House staffer 1/2 his age. Remember the Congressional check kiting scandal? That was Newt. Newt at his wifes hospital bed? Newt as lobbyist? Newt shiiling for Rupert Murdoch and accepting donations before passing a foreign media exemption? Newt as a lobbyist for Fannie Mae? Climate Change ad with Nancy Pelosi? Advocating for a natonal Healthcare mandate? Shutting Down the Federal Government. None of these account for the idiocies he will spew between now and next summer. If I took more than five minutes I could probably give you about twenty more. Newt will provide a 24 hr negative news cycle everywhere but FOX. Newt is an egotistical slime ball willing to do anything and say anything for money and/or power and is proud of it.

jkh

Anyone who thinks that Newt has a chance of willing the Presidency has forgotten about the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Now it is a given that he would not get any democrat votes, just as Obama will not get any Republican votes, so it is the Independent Vote that is up for grabs. Women from all political sides have a deep dislike for Newt. He will lose a lot of Republican women's votes and will lose ALL of the independent women's vote, so all he will have left with a hope of winning is half the independent men's vote, so even if he succeeds, he loses. Do the math.

Unless someone else comes along, Romney is the only chance, and even the Republicans don't like him very much, it will be a hold your nose and pull the lever vote. The Independent Vote will go to Obama and that will swing the election.

What iffffffffffffffff, they could talk Colin Powell into throwing his hat into the ring. He was screwed by the Bush Administration when they conned him with the fake WMD "proof" but is still respected by Republicans, Democrats and Independents ! Wow ! Imagine having a candidate who people respect, who has proven that he always puts country ahead of self, who is educated and intelligent and who is a true American ! Nah, forget it, could never happen. Nice to dream though !

Hey Newt, What happen to the code of honor with your insider deals, you "Crook"

Bullish describes the entire Party of No for the last 30 years.

I'm a democrat and I am afraid of Newt. Please don't nominate Newt, I'm so scared. Newt might win the presidency and I would be so scared of Newt running.

OK, can't say that with a straight face. LMAO

So these Republican Tea Party wannabees want to give their vote of confidence for a man of whom racked up 80+ ethics violations while he was Speaker of the House? What does that tell you about the New G.O.P.?

There is only one way to vote for President this time. We are bankrupt and only one of them is going to do anything about it. RON PAUL 2012! God please help the United States if this man is not elected.

RON PAUL 2012!

These "candidates" must be desperate cause Blingrich gonna bring this whole ship down!!!!

I want to see Gingrich deal with Obama in a debate. 4 years of presidency, like it him or not, hones those skills and makes you more calculated in your words and knowledge of the subjects from the inside, I wouldn't be surprised if Newt blew up on stage.....there was no way I was voting for Bush in '04, but I have to concede he did much better in those debates than the '00 debates v. Gore (BTW I voted Bush in '00 as a card carrying Republican, 3 years of his presidency pushed me independent, probably forever).

Obama will blow Gingrich's talking points up. I'm not really excited about my choices this election. As Obama has a good plan and ideas, but completely lacks the cold, calculated, shady WILL that is required to get what you want done as a president. Obama needs to play dirty, as that is the only way to get things done in that town unfortunately.....he needs to politically and personally destroy his opponents, on his side and the other. If he had Bush's will (or Bush's organization's will) we'd be well on our way out of much of our economic problems, because Republicans would fear him more than Grover, the man most responsible for our congressional stalemate.

Newt is just a loser of a candidate and Romney is milk toast, neither will beat Obama if Europe doesn't collapse.....Where are the Reagan and George HW Bush republicans anymore? I think both of their views would be classified as Blue Dog Democrat views now a day, both raised taxes, Reagan 3 times, because they tried to stop a deficit in a time of recession......Republicans how you've lost your way, first the "silent majority" now the tea party.

If Newt wins the nomination then the moronic wing of the republican party has to shut up from now until Newt loses to Obama about the "Sanctity of Marriage" BS.

Republicans invoke the name of Reagan with adulation, skipping over the two Bush's as if they never existed. Should Newt win the nomination and fire up the base with his bombastic inconsistencies to outshout Obama enough to win the election ...

... the next decade will still see the Republicans idolizing Reagan while ignoring his subsuquent GOP presidents.

This nomination is going to be a battle between the Republican base and the Tea Party, I say let the Tea Party get their own Party, run their own candidates and if their point of view is so popular they will win?

The Republican establishment has already said that there is no way they will allow Gindrich to be the nomonee. They alowed the Tea Baggers to hyjack their party and now want out! The Party is not bound by cacuses or for that matter pirmarys - the word is already out that Newt will drop out for unknown reasons.

The republican party has made the same mistake that the democrats did. In 2008, when the democrats took control of the house, they did not do what they promised during their campaigns. In 2010, the republicans promised pretty much the same thing, and didn't deliver. The number one concern of the American people is jobs. The democrats instead of working to create jobs, concentrated on a health care bill. The republicans instead of working to create jobs, concentrated on overturning the health care bill. Neither party seems to have the slightest clue what the American people want from their elected officials, either that or they just don't care.

Never Stop Asking Questions [Post #1.69]

You wrote "Bullish," but did you really mean BULL**IT?

Multiple marriages along with multiple affairs is a problem for all voters, not just Teapublicans -- ask Rudy Giulani. Especially if the candidate is not a true social conservative, even any suspicion that the candidate is not. Both Newt and Romney have flip-flopped on abortion, for example.

Bachmann (or Santorum) would really be the best choice for Evangelical social conservatives, but this brings us to the electability issue. Though Bachmann is a serious candidate in terms of really running a campaign in comparison to Newt and others who have been on a book tour, Bachmann is not qualified to be POTUS just as Sarah Palin was rejected in 2008.

Newt excites the Teapublican base with bomb-throwing like Palin did, and though Newt says crazy things like Bachmann too (a moon colony or China blinding us with lasers, what's the diff?), at least he is viewed as having a better resume. Well, he has a resume but no references, as pundits are saying.

Face it, conservatives have a hard time learning lessons from history. Let them forget about Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell and by all means nominate a wing-nut.

tweet-2832581 -- I agree with your post except the BIG difference is Dems work FOR something that is needed, and Teapublicanswork against it. And Pelosi passed over 300 bills in her first term, not just health care. The timing, or order in which things should be done is the only complaint against the Dems. The GOP/TP is about destroying the president, having done absolutely nothing of value with their majority, and even destroying the country in the process.

newton leroy gingrich would be the dems dream candidate.and the GOP even said he would bring down the party. so i say yes please nominate him. as for the house. check the generic congressional ballot. the dems are gaining a bigger percentage every month. the over reach and the lies have caught up to the. 1st it was jobs.........no jobs bills. then reapeal and REPLACE healthcare. what happened to the REPLACE part? even frank luntz can't wordsmith his way out of this. it's 2012 and just like in trumans time...........2 years and out for 40 years.

Sharky

The generic congressional has shifted to Democrats

Only if you ignore the LV & RV designations. LV Stands as Likely voters. This are the ones pretty certain to vote in that context, voters when from +1 Democrat to +3 republican.

On the RV - registered voters, Democrats went from +4 to +6.

What that means is that those who could vote increased slightly while those who are actually inclined to vote are favoring republicans more.

Which is the main reason behind all these voter suppression efforts by the Tea Parties. The lower the turnout, the less representative the results are. With a low turnout, the Republicans win. When a higher percentage of the population votes, the nation's center-left leanings show through. So putting two and two together, their solution is to make it harder for people to vote. Constitutionally illegal, but strategically sound.

The democrats instead of working to create jobs, concentrated on a health care bill. The republicans instead of working to create jobs, concentrated on overturning the health care bill.

Don't forget, the government does not create jobs, the private sector does. What the government should be doing is providing the proper environment for job creation. This is where the difference lies. The repubs want all restrictions lifted and hope that the trickle down theory works. We know it doesn't as it's been proven time and again. What I would like to see is our government grow some hair on their you know whats and stop these ridiculous trade imbalances that corporations are getting filthy rich from. I would make it a law that 75% of all products sold here in the US by a US corporation must be manufactured here in the US. In China, the law is, if you want to sell it here, make it here. We need to use that same theory. You would be amazed at how fast the economy would grow and then you realistically could look at ending social programs such as welfare.

Da Noid

I think there is real bad blood between Newt & Joe. I have heard him go off on Newt quite a bit. He is also so pro Romney he can't see straight.

Da Noid,

If Scarborough is to believed, Newt is not the leader he portrays himself to be. Balanced budget? Welfare reform? Newt takes credit but according to Scarborough there was a Republican Revolution within the Republican Revolution and Newt...what's the term..."LED FROM BEHIND".

In your above comment, you can substitute Romney for Newt and everything you said is equally applicable to Mitt Romney. Romney, like most other politicians, would do / say anything to get elected. Remember King George Bush I, who could not operate a cash register in a supermarket. Romney is exactly the same. Born with a silver spoon in his mouth and he speaks only the language of super-uber-rich and powerful and doesn't represent folks like you and I, in any shape or form.

It is really laughable to read Dems throwing stones at the Repubs supporting the super rich. The old saying "open wide and insert" is alive and well. The richest Americans are Democrats, in fact, of the 1% everyone is occupying about, 65% of the 1% are Democrats. There are more rich Democrats in the Congress than there are Republicans. lmao.

Of the top 8 richest congressmen, the first 5 are Republicans followed by Pelosi then 2 more Republicans. Who has the corner on the top 1%?

Eight of the richest 15 are Democrat. Makes the libs poop themselves.

Dan, your facts are wrong. The top 3 are repubs, followed by 4 dems and to fill out the top 10 the last are repubs. The repubs in the top 10 do corner the top in congress, but as a nation, the dems have got us all beat. I am an Independent, and there are not many us who can claim the 1%. Keep in mind also, the Congress has two houses, House of Representatives and the Senate.

Joe who?

Oh, I looked him up... you must be one the ten people who actually watch that crap?

ABO 2012

Excuse me Dan - I had an old list, just googled and found one from 1 Oct 11 -

1. Michael McCaul (R) 294 mil

2. Darrel Issa (R) 193 mil

3. John Kerry (D) 81 mil

4. Jay Rockefeller (D) 81.63 mil

5. Mark Warner (D) 65.91 mil

6. Jared Polis (D) 65 mil

7. Frank Lautengerg (D) 55 mil

8. Richard Blumberg (D) 52.93 mil

9. Dianne Feinstein (D) 45.39 mil

10. Vern Buchman (R) 44.21 mil

Now, who is in the 1 %?

The wealthiest member of Congress was Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "Issa's minimum estimated net worth in 2010 was $195 million, while his maximum estimated net worth was more than $700 million," the center said in its analysis. The midpoint estimate in that range is $448 million.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/21/facebook-posts/facebook-post-says-congress-has-disproportionate-s/

And a spreadsheet listing all members of Congress

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArZJzmIoVZE0dGRBNkRlaDhUX3liMjNpbGYwU0NXT0E#gid=0

It is really laughable to read Dems throwing stones at the Repubs supporting the super rich. The old saying "open wide and insert" is alive and well. The richest Americans are Democrats, in fact, of the 1% everyone is occupying about, 65% of the 1% are Democrats. There are more rich Democrats in the Congress than there are Republicans. lmao.

JimO-2263992, Your logic is so laughable, I don't know where to begin. If a guy in the public arena (politics or otherwise) and if he or she was uber-rich, you mean to say they should advocate positions that would be favorable to the rich? What kind of nonsense is this? There are some people with common sense in the uber-rich also and they believe in sharing the pie with so-called have-nots. They happen to be democrats; that's all. Go, get some life man..

Tea,

I don't see ole John Kerry calling for tax reforms to help out the country. I believe he was the one that was trying to hide his yacht so he wouldn't have to pay higher taxes. That is someone that is trying to share the "pie", as long as it is not his money.

I love the way only rich republicans are bad guys, not those on the democratic side. When they talk about "Kool aid", the radicals on both sides drink way too much.

"judge not, lest ye be judged"

By the way--have a Merry Christmas & Happy New Year.

Regardless of who has made it into the 1%, last week's WSJ reported on their own poll that indicates that nearly 65% of those polled with a net worth of at least $10 million agreed with the Democrats that their taxes should be increased - modestly. Yet the House will have none of it.

The General Election will be very interesting, especially for those Republicans who are challenging incumbent Democrats and actually believe that Newt Gingrich at the top of the Republican ticket will be of benefit to them. I wonder how old these Republican challengers are? If they are under 35 today , they were barely out of their teens when Newt was run out of the House. I'm sure the DNC will remind them and everyone else of Newt's checkered past!

Tea - I simply stated that something was very laughable - you throw stones at repubs because they support the well to-do - I see no dems throwing stones at the dems who are super rich. There are very few of those well to do who walk around giving money away, dems or repubs. I see your writing, show some proof that the dems are giving it up, and not in legislation giving away our tax payers money, then that is mine and your money, which I have none to spare. I am lower middle. I disagree with many issues the repubs bolster as I do with the dems. Neither party in the Congress gives a hoot about you or I.

I would have to guess that Noot may help in the South, downballot, where he'll say all the right things to appeal to the Bubbas. Beyond that, he's most likely poison for the GOP.

Tea, the rich Dems could have been sending in more then they owed anytime they wanted to being honest doesn't only apply to the rich now does it?

According to the list I was viewing.

http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html

The top twenty are split 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans. Now what I think would really be interesting is to look at the voting record of the top 10 Democrats and see how self serving they are. We already know that the republicans are greedy self serving turds. But they don't try to hide that fact. The Democrats on the other hand... It might be worth a look.

So, given that the Dems have more 1%er's and are asking that the rich should be taxed, who would know better? The rich say they should be taxed. The republicons say they shouldn't. I'd say the republicons are working for a very special interest. Not even the 1%ers support the republicons.

IMHO - Good point. What I find interesting is that the right have been screaming (very loudly) about the debt. And it has been proven that it is impossible to pay down the debt at all without raising taxes. But yet the right refuses to raise taxes. You cannot cut enough to pay down any debt.

I support that the wealthy need to pay their share, even if you took all of the wealth from the mega rich, it would not dent the debt. As ol' tea said to me, get some life (whatever that means) get real, taxing is only part of cutting the debt.

get real, taxing is only part of cutting the debt.

A part that the right is not willing to accept. I think cuts are being made, and have been made. Why is it that the right ignores that fact? And at the same time refuses to accept that taxing is part of cutting the debt. Realizing that is "get some life, get real".

65% of the top 1% are Democrat huh? That is no surprise, a stereotypical Republican is either a greedy, wealthy, self centered, pompus, arrogant individual associated with OLD money OR they are ignorant, bible toting, racist haters. If you don't fall into one of those categories, you are usually someone who is a wealthy wanna bee and there is no way that political affiliation is going to help you out there. Most of the wealthy people are too intelligent to be Republican. It doesn't surprise me a one bit. How can anyone of any reasonable level of intelligence consider alligning themselves with a party that has no issues with placing candidates in the public eye that opendly admit that they do not believe in evolution, think the world is only 5000 years old, and refuse to admit that scientifically provable FACT is not true? The debate earlier in the year when you had all of the prominent figures front and center being asked if they believe in evolution was a classic. I can't see how any educated person can allow themselves to be drawn into this obvious charade.

You're wasting a wish ;-) Since the establishment Republicans are against Newt, that's proof for the TP that he's the right person? to challenge Obama.

Yup nominate a man who not only thinks it's ok for the federal government to dictate morality to its citizens but who also seems to accept whatever they dictate like a good Catholic follows the pope. He's got values but he don't know how or why. They call him the seeker and he cannot be trusted.

Talk about trusted,Reverend Wright,Bill Ayers Bush policies still in place, non reaction to oil spill, no support for Iranian dissidents,please Mr. Ahmadinejad return our spy drone, it's not my fault just look around it's theirs, sorry Canada send your 15,000 jobs and oil to China. Yeah now there's a man you can trust

Now I know why our newest grandaughter says blah blah blah. That is what comes to mind when what you are hearing (or reading) makes no coherent sense.

Who are you referring too?

I think he's referring to you wlee

The man who looks remarkably like my avatar thanks these candidates for their vote of confidence!!! Oink to the Party of Hypocrites!

OMG I loved that episode! That was hilarious!

Okay Dangerfield, interesting piece. Now how about this, a Democrats thought about working with the Obama White House?

Democratic Representative Dennis Cardoza of California wrote an interesting piece in the congressional newspaper, The Hill – www.thehill.com, about working with President Obama. It does offer insight as to the inner workings of this administration:

“After observing President Obama for the past three years, it has become obvious to me that the president might prefer to be a university professor rather than do the job he holds today. While he might not realize that he feels this way, the evidence is very clear to those who work with or watch him closely.

Let me be clear – I’m not trying to disparage professors, but anyone who wonders why the president is not crushing the weak GOP field only needs to examine how President Obama has behaved more like Professor Obama:

In the president’s first year in office, his administration suffered from what I call ‘idea disease.’ Every week, and sometimes almost every day, the administration rolled out a new program for the country. There was no obvious prioritization and, after the rollout, very little effort to actually pass the latest idea/imperative/plan/edict. Instead, the new programs just kept coming, with the new proposals constantly stepping on the previous day’s message.

This rampant ‘idea disease’ squandered the tremendous goodwill generated by the Obama campaign’s message of ‘hope’ tainting the president’s personal appeal. As Democrats in Congress, we often felt like we were drinking water out of a fire hose, trying to simultaneously deal with past failures of the Bush administration and the avalanche of new initiatives from Obama. This lack of focus also mad it easy for congressional Republicans to stall and foil many of President Obama’s best initiatives – which they did with relish.

Early in his administration, President/Professor Obama repeatedly referred to ‘teaching moments.’ He would admonish staff, members of Congress and the public, in speeches and in private about what they could learn from him. Rather than the ideological or corrupt ‘I’m above the law’ attitudes of some past administrations, President Obama projected an arrogant ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’ demeanor that alienated many potential allies.

Furthermore, the president concentrated power within the White House, leaving Cabinet members with no other option but to dutifully carry out policies which they had limited input in crafting and might very well disagree. From my experience, this was especially true in the environmental, resources, housing and employment areas. Not by coincidence, these areas have also been responsible for much of the president’s harshest critiques.

One former administration official told me directly that the people in the White House ‘never talk to real people.’ Another former Obama staffer confided to me that it was clear to him that the president didn’t mind giving speeches (lectures), but really avoided personal contact with members of Congress and folks outside the Beltway. ‘He doesn’t seem to derive energy from spending time with regular people the way Clinton did. He rallies to give speeches for the big crowds, but avoids individual contact.

This ‘arms-length’ attitude extends to top decision-makers in the president’s administration. A senior housing official recently told me that, despite the fact that he was responsible for crafting policies to stem the foreclosure crisis, he had personally never met with a homeowner who had been foreclosed on.

The president’s disinterest in input from those outside his inner circle is costing him many wasted opportunities. Recently, a senator told me Obama went to his/her state, but issued an invitation for the senator to attend the event only the day before. ‘I represent a must-win state and lead the president in approval rating by nearly 20 points. He as totally off-message for what my people wanted to hear. Doesn’t the White House get it? I don’t need him, he needs me.’

Many on the Democratic side wish Hillary Clinton, Gov. Brown, Gov. O’Malley (Md) or Gov Cuomo were running instead, but the president still has time to learn a thing or two from these skilled politicians. I’ll still take Obama over the ‘goat rodeo clowns’ the Republican field offers, but I fear the overall student body – American voters will give him a failing grade next November if he doesn’t improve his performance.”

Now, does this piece indicate that things are not so rosy when working with this administration, even for members of his own party?

Well, it indicates that you should probably just post the link. It also indicates that the Obama administration is far from universally admired, even within his own party, just like Newton is far form universally admired by those HE WORKED WITH AND WHO ACTUALLY KNOW HIM. Did you have a point?

Bottom line from the piece you posted...

"I’ll still take Obama over the ‘goat rodeo clowns’ the Republican field offers."

You DID read the thing before you C&P'd right?

Yeah, dangerfield winemaker did have a point. There is always someone willing to disparage another. When it comes from a more than one term politicians it really doesn't mean squat. It was established and pretty much agreed too long ago that Newt's fault was trying to do too much too soon. Gee, that sure sounds better than doing nothing for the people but working overtime to pay back union and rich supporters and pushing the socialist agenday while the country goes to heck in a handbasket. Sounds better than continued worry about everyone and everyplace on earth EXCEPT the USA and the people suffering here. Oh, telling us not to drink soda or eat too much salt or we can't use our cell phones in a car even hands free does not qualify for any form of real concern.

danderfield

Are we supposed to be surprised you are just another "volunteer" poster for Obama. The more you guys howl about Newt, the more he looks like the one that scares you the most.

Shaking my head-

You should try using that head for something more demanding, like reading...

Try reading all of my posts, or even all of the posts on this one thread, and your head will either fall off or explode. You are a right-wing wacko, no different or worse than a left wing wacko, and they're all the same to me.

So remember what the dormouse said....if you're old enough to remember (or if you've ever read Charles Lutwidge Dodgson...:)

dangerfield

Bottom line from the piece you posted...

"I’ll still take Obama over the ‘goat rodeo clowns’ the Republican field offers."

Oh Rodney, I posted what was written by a Dem. who also has issues with the president. And it just goes to show how those dysfunctional progressives in D.C. do think about their friends across the aisle. But after this election, thankfully the writer of the piece will be gone - lost his district due to redistricting - as probably will a number of other Progressives/Democrats that continue to spend our way into fiscal poverty.

As for my Christmas wish - Obama will be defeated in the New Year!

I have to admit, the emotional side of me really wishes that President Obama had taken the battle to the enemy more too. But the thinking side of me understands that a moderate, thoughtful, and intelligent President is what we voted for. I, for one, never expected that Republicans would be so willing to hold a gun to the head of America and make demands just to hold on to power. My guess is that Obama didn't expect it either.

Just another partisan from "Team Red"...There is dissension in the ranks of both major parties all the time, but blind partisans point to one and turn a blind eye to the other. Or, do you think that a story from a disgruntled Dem cancels out Tom Coburn Rick Santorum etc? Newton is not liked or respected by the MAJORITY of those he worked with. It isn't a partisan contention, it is the CONSENSUS of his contemporaries.

Again, do you have a point beyond I'm a partisan and here's something bad I found about the other side?

I really find it interesting the the liberal nuts posting on MSNBC seem to be more interested in the GOP debates and the republicans. They know that they won't vote for any republican candidate for president, so it goes to show that when you can't say anything good about your choice you try bashing the opposition. Saw a poll this morning that 52% of those polled don't believe Obama should get a 2d term, wonder why First Read never mentions these polls.

Also you left wing nuts rooting for Newt to get the republican nomination should be careful of what you wish for, I remember when republicans were cheering for Obama because they figured he would be easier to beat than Hillary.

sfcret (post #5.11)

When you see several freshly laid dog turds lying on the sidewalk you are allowed to look, especially if you don't want to step in any of it. Mind you, Newt's a pretty big turd and should be hard to miss.

dangerfield

I’ll still take Obama over the ‘goat rodeo clowns’ the Republican field offers.

Ok, I agreed with you right up until this.

I'm sick and tired of people knocking goat rodeos, and being a goat rodeo clown is an admirable profession in many Arab and South East Asian nations!

It's fine if you don't like the Republican contenders, but how dare you soil the ancient tradition that brought civilization to Western cultures and almost single-handedly ended the Dark Ages!!!

Well well, there are so many considerations being brought forward by so many about old Newt. I think the one I am most concerned with is that he may very well single handedly end what is left of the enlightenment.

You can add this one too. Crazy. This one concerned me at the time, remember this strange and extreme perspective he had? I just cannot feel safe around this aggressive attitude in a POTUS, ever. Makes me question this person's judgement. ??? check out Newt's World War Three suggestion here:

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2006/07/16/6314/newt-world-war/

status quo: The existing state of affairs, esp. regarding social or political issues.

The existing status quo is a mess. A nut like Newt isn't the answer, but an adult like Huntsman or Obama is the better path.

Can't stand the Republican contenders, but Obama challenging the status quo?

Wake me up when he starts trying to break apart GE, AT&T, Verizon, Pfizer, Exxon, Comcast, Monsanto, Tyson, etc etc etc and actually starts indicting those responsible for warrantless wiretaps, extreme rendition, and water-boarding

Hitler was smart, articulate and willing to challenge the status quo. People loved him. He provided jobs (building a war machine) and everybody was happy and fat. They even agreed with him when he went to war (against Jews, Homosexuals, Roma, and Catholics, who were sent to the gas chambers) and the neighboring countries. Being smart and reading a teleprompter does not make a good leader or governor.

Amy, tell that to all the unemployed people, and all the ones losing their 401's, how long have you been at the Braille Institute.

Amy, Plese sit down for this. Obama IS at the top of the ticket. He's the incumbent. Those vying for the top of the ticket are in the Republican party. They are the challengers. And, one of them, will take the oath of office a year from next month. Do you understand, now?

Naw stanboy, the progressive rah-rahs can't seem to grasp that this is the Republican season. Wait until their candidate starts to talk about how he has handled the economy, jobs, etc. during his three plus years of his administration.

Amy, I agree but ignorance has taken over this country.People do not read any more.They listen to the likes of Rush Limgaugh, Beck and take Fox"s News as the bible.

The Tea party doesn't realise that they will be worse off if the republicans get in and set us back 50 years to "Leave it to Beaver"' I bet the KKK comes back, a war will start in the MIddle East,more freedoms will be taken away and so on.

How did this country sink so low? It's practically neighbor against neighbor now. Could it be The Koch brothers, Heritage Foundation.Rush,Rupert Murcock,and when Reagan, Bush and Clinton got rid of 66% of manufacturing in this country?

Lastly, we are going to have I truly believe a another Woodstock, pr0test and buidings burning in this country. I have to give the congress credt Mitch Mc Connell stated job 1 was to vote no and defeat O'Barma's agenda.

Wait untill all the vets come home to no jobs and the military except for the De pt of the Navy is1/2 black.The Army TO is now becoming 1/2 Afro American now,as the Nat'l GD leaves active duty,yep the militray same color of the POTUS and we still are a racist country.

Rodney, wait until O'Barma is gone. You''ll really will be cry'n in your beer. (or Merlot)

Dangerfield..Agreed on the tax cuts.

Disagree on Gitmo since the chicken-hawks were to scared to utilize a Super Max Prison in Ill.

Disagree on legislative gridlock..Who used the filibuster? Could it SATAN??????

Half agree on the policies of the previous admin..

Disagree on the nation divided...Team RED wanted this President gone from the moment he took office.

I will hold my nose when I vote for this Pres in 2012. Much too Timid..His re-election may change that.

please oh god please let it be Grinch! President Newt ha ha ha ha ha what a joke.

I'm a life long republican and would slit my wrist before I would vote for the Grinch!

Obama will win in a landslide!

TorpedoYou,

You do have to kick the @!$%# out of the Repuck to win. Tell them they have been disgraceful, take their food and money away BAM! you win.

But yes a second term would kick the @!$%# out of the GOP.

51 percent of the people in the US think Obama is doing a poor job in the white house. He has the lowest approval ratings at this point in his presidency of any preisdent since Jimmy Carter. As his approval ratings and polls continue to slide I am afraid it will not take much to topple Obama.

ending the Bush Iraq 9 year war...

Beginning the end of the Afghanistan war

Bringing the country back from the brink of a near depression...

Getting Osama...and Hussein

Correcting the hard right imbalance on the Supreme Court...

(guess you just didn't hear congress passed a LAW requiring Guantanamo to stay open)

Doing everything possible to play nice with the kindergarden party of No...

Saving the American auto industry

Standing up to the American Taliban ...

Yup...a good start and worth every bit of the second term.

...and don't forget all of Obama's work to get veterans more benefits that they richly deserve, and to get consumer protection against the banks, and to rid the world of the man Reagan called the worst dictator in the world--Ghadafi, and to add border guards by the thousands to patrol the Mexican border, and to file suit against states who play dirty with Constitutional law. That's just a few off the top of my head. Obama is the most effective president, considering he has the circus full of GOP clowns trying to block every move he has made.

TorpedoYou

I really don't mind if you want to torpedo yourself but voting for this clown will be torpedoing the whole country including me and I would suggest you hold your nose or maybe your breath for a few hours before making that wrong move.

AP, Hussein was taken out by Bush. End of Iraq war was set by Bush, whom ever is President nominates someone from the same political background, speaking of no check out the Democratic Senate who wont even allow a vote on bills sent by the house continues rendition,continues Military Tribunals still in Afghanistan, escalated drone attacks pissed off our allies, failed to support Iranian dissidents, still have wire taps, wasted time on a healthcare bill that's going to be over turned by the Supreme Court instead of focusing on creating jobs down graded by S&P, yeah he's doing a great job...gag gag gag

AP. Just a little correction; Iraq war was set to end before Maobama was elected.

Sent this country to the brink of depression.

Seals got Osama, soldiers got Hussein, under Bush.

The court is still conservative.

Critical of Republicans at every opportunity.

The auto industry was bailed out with money we did,nt, and don't have. The marketplace would have worked better.

Who is the American Taliban? Al Sharpton?

Other than those glaring discrepancies, good post.

@Torpedo,

Disagree on the nation divided...Team RED wanted this President gone from the moment he took office

As I recall this Pres hit the ground running with comments such as "The republicans can come along but will have to ride in the back" and "elections have consequences and I won" and constant rhetoric about cleaning up their mess.

While both sides bicker like children, I have to believe the haughty and arrogant nature of BHO and his giant inflatable ego in the beginning as well as the immediate march to implement policy that was unpopular is what drove the commitment to making him a one termer such a publicly declared statement.

I would call this one to a tie or leaning towrad truth before I would just dimiss it based on your assessment.

ABO 2012

51 percent of the people in the US think Obama is doing a poor job in the white house. He has the lowest approval ratings at this point in his presidency of any preisdent since Jimmy Carter.

Oh, I so love seeing this over and over again. It is a lie!

George W. Bush, just before being elected to a 2nd term, was at 43%. When he left for good after his second term, he was at 22%.

Gee Bob,

All you want to do is rant. Given the opportunity and courtesy of asking you to expand on your views, you run away yet here you are with another desultory one liner. Is that the sum total of your political thought?

I will look for your reply either here on the thread where i was kind enough to politely ask you your opinion. Failing one, I will be forced to conclude that it is.

Bobsey or about as much of a failure as the little girls running for the GOP nomination. No insult intendede to little girls.

All you want to do is rant. Given the opportunity and courtesy of asking you to expand on your views, you run away yet here you are with another desultory one liner. Is that the sum total of your political thought?

There's a lot of that going around. The GOP is running the "ABO" platform. They know they don't want President Obama's re-election but challenge them to take a stand for someone as their own nominee and you get a lot of crickets.

History teaches us a lesson or two about such campaigns...like 2004, for instance.

For the first time, a majority of Americans say BO should be voted out of the White House next year.

Fifty-two percent of those surveyed said the president should not get a second term in office — 43 percent said he should be reelected, according to The Associated Press-GfK poll.

We shall see what we shall see but it appears the natives are restless.

Actually, that poll right now shows 50-50...you might also take a look at the polls on how dissatisfied independents are with the entire Republican field of candidates. We'll see is right. Can't beat him with nothing and Republicans have nothing.

AP, nothing is still higher then Mr. Negative, the buck stops everywhere but here, he needs to get more economic advice from Corzine

AP - it says the ODDS of BO getting re-elected are basically 50/50 but that 52 percent of those surveyed said the president should not get a second term in office and 43 percent said he should be re-elected.

Odds are for bettors not politicians and their constituents. My guess is that the House payroll tax extension bill is 50/50 to pass the Senate as is assuming Harry let's them vote on it. Speaking of which there is the real do nothing guy. No budget for 3 years, no house bills allowed to be voted on. If Nancy was looking for a do nothing guy she had no further to look than Harry Reid.

Bob's REAL NAME (Bob-1887910) must be Robert Sole, or perhaps just R. Sole. But I guess that everyone on this FR string has already figured that out, just as they've figured out that sixteen years later Newt is still a turd.

"NotforAmericansfirst"

you keep misstating your name-so I've corrected it for you.

liberty applies to ALL Americans- Marxist redistribution of wealth serves Stalinist Democrats to keep in power by stealing from others to buy votes.

Allowing people to keep more of their own money never needs to be paid for which is an oxymoron.

However in the case of the SS payroll tax break you are talking about a defined benefit that the tax payer is supposedly paying into. So if the Dems really want to reduce the payroll tax they should just be honest and tell people they are also reducing their SS benefits down the road when they apply for them. That would be the honest approach so there is no chance that Democrats will actually do it.

If any voter loves America they would certainly never vote to keep these two incompetents in office.

That is unless you are a parasite who lives off the efforts of others as you keep advocating for.

Larry, if I'm not mistaken you are the guy that doesn't have help insurance, doesn't think he needs it, fixes himself (broken bones), and the moment something happens which requires some type of surgery that you can't do, will "live off the efforts of others" because society in a pinch would help you out.

Assuming you are in a car crash, injuried, and require medical attention, and surgery later. According to you, you'd let yourself die, but society wouldn't allow especially if you couldn't specifically refuse help because you are unconsecious. You wake up fixed, on our dime, and claim you didn't want to be helped...the ultimate freeloader....

"NotforAmericansfirst"

Why don't you take some water out of the deep end of the pool and dump it into the shallow end and see what happens.

Every one looses in socialism.

Larry: right start, wrong conclusion. Liberty belongs to all Americans, even people who disagree with you politically...even the ones who don't hate the President of the United States. A whole lot of people don't want their taxes going for the enormous tax breaks still paid out for the energy sector or the financial sector while those who call themselves "fiscal conservatives" whine and moan about the cost of everything that is NOT corporate welfare. That's not "patriotism", and the health care bill, the one that makes us the last industrialized nation to finally pass some kind of pathetic minimal health care (not even one with a single payer mind you), to replace the Republican "let em eat cake" care is not "marxist". That kind of absurd silliness masquerading as politccal argument is why Republicans have isolated themselves into what they are now, the party of far right, middle-aged men 50 to 64 years old, with the lowest education levels of any voting block. Yeah. You keep telling yourself you are America's future.

[liberty applies to ALL Americans]

Uhm, Larry...you might want to check with Sheriff Joe Arpaio on that whole "liberty applies to ALL Americans" bullcrap...seems Sheriff Bigot doesn't know what that means.

Maybe you can enlighten him...

Mickey- Sheriff Joe has no accusations against him of denying liberty to Americans other than criminals who have surrendered their liberties which is true throughout our nation.

Wow the Obama crew must be getting desparate. They seem to be putting more "volunteer" posters on every day. Unfortunately for them, no matter how many erroneous claims they try to get people to believe. The intelligent citizens know he has done nothing but work against the good of our country and work to destroy our constitution. The sooner he is gone the better. Too bad there isn't a flu shot for stupidity.

Americans First. For the love of humanity, ABO.

AP

How do you conclude that I make a wrong conclusion when I state specifically that liberty belongs to ALL Americans?

You do seem to have some very erroneous ideas though

NO ONE pays taxes to give a tax break to a business. A Tax break (ie a tax credit is a statutory reduction in profits for a benefit that Govt believes furthers the ability to remain in business). Furthermore, businesses don't pay taxes, their customers pay the tax. And I'm personally against the 16^th amendment on both personal and business taxes.

There is NO Constitutional authority for the Federal Govt to be involved at any level with healthcare, much less dictating who must have it, and the totalitarian tyranny of ordering doctors to give free preventative care exams. Would you like the Federal govt to order you to perform some of your work for free?

Finally far more conservatives are well educated (I have multiple degrees history and theology), or are minorities like my Latina/Black wife and my 3 mixed race Stepsons.

The Illinois African American Libertarian Alliance (IAALA) is home to hundreds of Chicago African American conservatives and has decided to endorse Newt Gingrich for the upcoming 2012 election. “Newt Gingrich represents the values of many conservatives—White, Latino, or Black. He is honest about who he is and is the perfect person to turn a falling country around,” says IAALA President David Lemar.

The IAALA has joined forces with African Americans from other cities and states all around the nation in order to support Newt Gingrich. While an overwhelmingly large number support Newt Gingrich, some call him the “least objectionable.”

http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-chicago/chicago-conservative-african-americans-to-support-newt-gingrich

African American Libertarianism

http://chelm.freeyellow.com/black_index.html

Young Black Conservatives

http://tinyurl.com/ykjzqck

National Black Republican Assc

http://www.nbra.info/

http://www.thenewblackwoman.com/

Young Black Conservatives

http://www.facebook.com/groups/2359422780/?ref=ts

Black Tea Party

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Black-Tea-Party/162935357076298?sk=wall

Don, Where can I get some help insurance?

[Sheriff Joe has no accusations against him of denying liberty to Americans other than criminals...]

Well, you might want to do some research on that issue...because that's EXACTLY why the bigot is in hot water in the first place. Seems he and his men have been d"enying the liberty" of AMERICAN CITIZENS that they perceive as being illegal.

Shaking my head:

[Wow the Obama crew must be getting desparate.]

Funny, I don't recall pulling your string...but since you so freely insist on expressing your opinion, please tell us just how your president "has done nothing but work against the good of our country and work to destroy our constitution".

Surely you must have an opinion on this, right?

American First, I wonder how Gingrich passed a Welfare Bill and balanced the budget without compromising with Clinton try the truth once in a while you feel better about yourself. AP, you say the right are the uneducated yet you call them the 1% pretty smart dumb people aren't they. Since the smart people or the educated are Liberal perhaps you can explain why so many are unemployed and collecting food stamps.

Don, Society does allow it if you do as I do and carry a living will card with me that states that "no life extending care shall be tended to me in the event I'm unable to communicate that statement on my own". I believe in leaving my life in the hands of God, not others.

Unlike you, I am not desperate to remain in this world and be a liability to others. I look forward to joining my King after leaving this world.

Wlee

The next time you rant about how educated the right wing is, you may want to try to use some proper sentence structure so that we can actually understand what you're trying to get across. Your comment basically defeats the purpose of the point you were trying to make. I also didn't realize that being liberal is a prerequisite to being unemployed and/or collecting food stamps. I'm sure there are no documented cases of conservatives receiving welfare.

I Very Smart now. Obama only gives foodstamp to His libbie support. Not good. Some Else might be Presdent! now.

"He is a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, "Watch this!"

Watch this, indeed.

I just cannot feel safe around this aggressive attitude in a POTUS, ever. Makes me question this person's judgement. ??? check out Newt's World War Three suggestion here:

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2006/07/16/6314/newt-world-war/

Dear John-Be Afraid, Very Afraid, We are Awake and watching and Waiting, there will be no Second Term for the Most Highly Qualified Community Organizer in the World, The Great Apologizer, NoBlama !!!!

By the Border

With our country's actions in the global community during Bush's 2 terms, a little bit of diplomacy may not be the worst idea. Let's face it, the leaders of our country have made terrible mistakes (see:Iraq), and having someone in office who is empathetic and can acknowledge our shortcomings IS what we need. As for your tired talking point about the "Most Highly Qualified Community Organizer in the World," you seem to forget that Obama held office in IL state Senate and the US Senate before he was elected. I guess it's difficult for right wingers to grasp that some people actually have to work in order to get by (approximately 99% of us), Obama included. We all have to start somewhere. Demonizing him for previous work as a community organizer makes about as much sense as demonizing him for being an intellectual. Then again, if you want an idiot to be in charge, you can always hope for Perry or Bachmann to win the primary.

How about Calista, now there's class act. She knew Newt was married when he started the affair with her...what does that say about her. Yes, maybe she can ask GOD for forgiveness but there's no way I vote someone with those moral failings into office. Both are a shame...

Far as I'm concerned both her and Newt can write books....but to sit in the white house to uphold American Values...not a chance.

So then you would have never voted for Mr Clinton?

I didn't vote for him the first time and I wouldn't have voted for him the third time if he could have run...

Jolly

The Clinton marriage survived his infidelity like good Christians are supposed to with prayer and forgiveness, and today they are STILL MARRIED to each other, and the two most admired political figures in the country.

Thanks for bringing that up!

The idea that a prolific liar and phony to the bone womanizer is "most admired", is a sad statement about how this country has declined. Compare what "slick Willy" did in the oval office to Reagan. Reagan had so much respect for that office, he would not take off his suit jacket or loosen his tie, while in there. Day and night. Plus, according to Obama, this is no longer a Christian nation.

Indigo, if you were honest you would admit that values are void of both parties.

The idea that a prolific liar and phony to the bone womanizer is "....

...Leading the Republican field...is a bonanza for comedy writers everywhere!

Now we know why you get no respect.

Indigo - two words, John Edwards.

Because casting a skeptical eye at Team Red and Team Blue and their calcified and tired rhetoric gets no respect?

"My wife likes to talk on the phone during sex. Last night she called me from Chicago..."

RD

Stanboy

According to the principles set forth by our founding fathers, this has never been a Christian nation. Thankfully, our country respects its citizens and affords us the right to choose whether or not we wish to observe religion in our own privacy. This was one of the tenants leading to our revolution from England. Read the First Amendment. That's right, the FIRST one. If you want to live in a country where religion is indoctrinated into its people, try moving to Iran. Sounds like a hard-lined theocracy is just what you're looking for.

wlee:
I'll be glad to stand up and say: Both parties have serious moral and ethical issues that should be required to be resolved before either can sponsor a contestant in the next Who Wants to be the POTUS competition.

There, I just said it. I just happen to like to pick at the right a bit more, because the conservative platform is SUPPOSED to represent these tried-and-true "old ways", values and ethics, and they base most of their counter-campaigning on them. Pure hypocracy is action is a thing to behold.

You know Larry, the name calling is getting old and shows a lack of maturity if you know what I mean....You are on a site like this and posting, what percentage do you fall in???

We don't really need a gold standard, but we need a system of currency that isn't contrived in debt. Otherwise this is what you get. On top of that, we can't expect to exploit another nations lower wages to get products for cheap over the long run. We are right now going through a wealth transfer, where the middle class of the US are now taking on lower wage jobs. That's what a free market does, it finds equilibrium. We don't produce or service here, we cut jobs and wages, therefore the demand for those items get cut as the work force, also known as the consumer on the demand side, quit buying as much. It's the race to the bottom.

This is a repost, think about it......

Larry - If we are all so ignorant about history maybe you can explain what happened in 1929 and what it took to get out of it.. And maybe you can name the one country in 1929 that did not slide into the depression, and just how they did that?

Here's the difference larry, and this is a fact, the majority of Educated (College Degree) people in the country voted Democratic in the 2008 election. The majority of white uneducated (which I assume you fall into) voted Republican....

Now, that is a fact....so much for your theories....

don't understand history, economics, or basic Constitutional law.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I am not your target of disdain and insult, you have inspired me to respond;

History is reevaluated by historians every generation.

Economics is a science with multiple theories of cause and effect that is constantly being revised.

While the constitution is a relatively brief document, there are hundreds of thousands of pages of interpretation from scholars on the left, right and everywhere in-between.

Intelligent people on all sides of the political spectrum recognize that no one philosophy of governance within the strictures of a democratically elected legislature is continually dominant and that it is synthesis ultimately that determines the eventual policies that prevail.

So, the next time you come here to condescend, recognize that moral and intellectual certitude of the degree to which you are infected can only be achieved when one's ego outstrips one's intellect...

Larry: Wow...talk about gullible. You really ought to do some reading before posting such utter nonsense if you want to be taken seriously. (although I think its a bit late......)

Really Don.......so then smart people vote Democratic and stupid people vote republican?

Larry,

You evidently haven't reviewed the study that was done that concluded that Conservatism is a mental illness.

...go ahead, check it out...it'll make you so very proud...

It's a fact that Obama got the majority of white educated vote. Barrack Obama in 2008, carried 63% of that population. The one area he didn't carry in the 2008 election was uneducated whites..

Never said smart people, I said educated... Now those are facts...so read into it what you want...

BTW I'm an registered republican, and educated...so there's hope.

"I would venture the hardcore marxist left"

Ya now Larry -- when you toss out world like "Marxist" -- all it proves it that you can repeat the talking points provided by Limbaugh and Fox. It is not a sign of intelligence. You talk about the Constitution all the time and seem to imagine you're some kind of constitutional expert. I suggest you read the very first sentence of the Constitution. It talks about the general welfare, common defense, establish justice and perfect union. The words I, me, mine,are NOT mentioned.

Charles- my viewpoints were developed decades before there was a Rush Limbaugh or a Fox News (BTW I don't watch Fox and seldom hear Rush who merely uses media to repeat the thoughts of others).

I'm more than happy to once again post for liberal education to compensate for the lack of knowledge you and other liberals have about the Constitution and the "General Welfare" clause

The general welfare clause has nothing to do with the general well being of the citizenry. It was carried over from the Articles of Confederation and relates to the general welfare of the Republic-the nation, not the people themselves. It is about the general stability and functionality of the govt itself, as the clause states “The General Welfare of the United States”, not the citizenry. The sentence clearly states that the taxing power is for the purposes of the common defense and general welfare of the United States. There is a reason for conjunctions in a sentence.

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

– James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

http://patriotpost.us/historic/documents/35/

Franklins draft proposal for the Articles of Confederation

The Congress shall also make such general Ordinances as thought necessary to the General Welfare, particular Assemblies cannot be competent to; viz. those that may relate to our general Commerce; or general Currency; to the Establishment of Posts; and the Regulation of our common Forces. The Congress shall also have the Appointment of all General Officers, civil and military, appertaining to the general Confederacy, such as General Treasurer, Secretary, &c.

http://www.usconstitution.net/franklinart.html

Father of the Constitution James Madison stated in Federalist #45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

In Federalist 41 Hamilton argued that the “general welfare” clause could not be used to expand the federal government beyond what was intended.

It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare…But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?…For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity

James Madison letter in 1830 on General Welfare Clause

Dear Sir,--I have received your very friendly favor of the 20th instant, referring to a conversation when I had lately the pleasure of a visit from you, in which you mentioned your belief that the terms "common defence and general welfare," in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States, were still regarded by some as conveying to Congress a substantive and indefinite power, and in which I communicated my views of the introduction and occasion of the terms, as precluding that comment of them; and you express a wish that I would repeat those views in the answer to your letter.

In tracing the history and determining the import of the terms "common defence and general welfare," as found in the text of the Constitution, the following lights are furnished by the printed journal of the Convention which formed it:

The terms appear in the general propositions offered May 29, as a basis for the incipient deliberations, the first of which "Resolved, that the articles of the Confederation ought to be so corrected and enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution, namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare." On the day following, the proposition was exchanged for, "Resolved, that a Union of the States merely Federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the Articles of the Confederation, namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare."

The inference from the use here made of the terms, and from the proceedings on the subsequent propositions, is, that although common defence and general welfare were objects of the Confederation, they were limited objects, which ought to be enlarged by an enlargement of the particular powers to which they were limited, and to be accomplished by a change in the structure of the Union from a form merely Federal to one partly national; and as these general terms are prefixed in the like relation to the several legislative powers in the new charter as they were in the old, they must be understood to be under like limitations in the new as in the old.

But admitting the distinction as alleged, the appropriating power to all objects of "common defence and general welfare" is itself of sufficient magnitude to render the preceding views of the subject applicable to it. Is it credible that such a power would have been unnoticed and unopposed in the Federal Convention? in the State Conventions, which contended for, and proposed restrictive and explanatory amendments? and in the Congress of 1789, which recommended so many of these amendments? A power to impose unlimited taxes for unlimited purposes could never have escaped the sagacity and jealousy which were awakened to the many inferior and minute powers which were criticised and combated in those public bodies.

“The distinction between a pecuniary power only, and a plenary power "to provide for the common defence and general welfare," is frustrated by another reply to which it is liable. For if the clause be not a mere introduction to the enumerated powers, and restricted to them, the power to provide for the common defence and general welfare stands as a distinct substantive power, the first on the list of legislative powers; and not only involving all the powers incident to its execution, but coming within the purview of the clause concluding the list, which expressly declares that Congress may make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers vested in Congress.”

But admitting the distinction as alleged, the appropriating power to all objects of "common defence and general welfare" is itself of sufficient magnitude to render the preceding views of the subject applicable to it. Is it credible that such a power would have been unnoticed and unopposed in the Federal Convention? in the State Conventions, which contended for, and proposed restrictive and explanatory amendments? and in the Congress of 1789, which recommended so many of these amendments? A power to impose unlimited taxes for unlimited purposes could never have escaped the sagacity and jealousy which were awakened to the many inferior and minute powers which were criticised and combated in those public bodies.

http://tinyurl.com/rduzz3

Don-2316123

Larry - If we are all so ignorant about history maybe you can explain what happened in 1929 and what it took to get out of it.. And maybe you can name the one country in 1929 that did not slide into the depression, and just how they did that?

Here's the difference larry, and this is a fact, the majority of Educated (College Degree) people in the country voted Democratic in the 2008 election. The majority of white uneducated (which I assume you fall into) voted Republican....

Now, that is a fact....so much for your theories....

Nonsense-

There is no evidence to support your statement. Since voter registrations do not provide information about the level of education of the registrant, this conclusion comes from EXIT POLLS which have no ability for validation of the answers given to the poll takers.

Larry, it's a good long post,

The general welfare clause has nothing to do with the general well being of the citizenry.

I don't totally agree with your statement.....

The terms appear in the general propositions offered May 29, as a basis for the incipient deliberations, the first of which "Resolved, that the articles of the Confederation ought to be so corrected and enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution, namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare." On the day following, the proposition was exchanged for, "Resolved, that a Union of the States merely Federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the Articles of the Confederation, namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare."

." On the day following, the proposition was exchanged for, "Resolved, that a Union of the States merely Federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the Articles of the Confederation, namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare."

If the place I put into caption from your post is what leads you to think the "General Welfare Clause" has nothing to do with the general well being of the citizenry I think you may have it wrong. You need to be more specific where you draw you conclusion when you make such a long post..

Tony, I think the fact that Hamilton and Madison both were very specific that the clause has nothing to do with the general well being of the citizenry- as they noted in Federalist 41 and 45 and in Madison's letter.

and to add to the previous the comment of Jefferson

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

• Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause—as elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States—is the correct interpretation.^[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.

Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

This understanding stood until 1936

History has shown that investing in our own country's intrests (R&D, education, infrastructure) will get us out of debt and back among the most successful nations in the world. I hate to say it, but this does require spending. The republicans seem to be running an anti-intellectual platform: abolish the department of education, cut government funding of research and development, and increase spending in defense. This regressive thinking will only sink us further into economic ruin.

As for your talking points, the moment you classify liberals as Marxist you lose all credibility. And here's some news for you...being liberal doesn't mean that by default you want to rely on the government for everything. A majority of my income goes to paying off student loans, rent, electricity, and a car payment. Even in the tightest of times, I haven't needed to request additional support from the government to get by. I would much rather support a government that takes care of those who can't care for themselves instead of just letting the sick die, children go hungry, etc. I am no more a Marxist than you are a Fascist. Let's try to calm down on the name calling, OK?

Newt's the same old arrogant SOB he's always been, the debates show it daily. He's the most negative force on the political scene ever....he invented gridlock...

Funny he calls for a positive campaign once he's the frontrunner...and if nominated will launch the most negative campaign ever again Barrack Obama...

Newt is part of the Karl Rove slime machine.

The focus needs to be on what is Karl Rove doing. You know he is NOT sitting idle.

Rod,

From what I hear, Rove is a Romney man and HATES the Newt rise. His head is almost to the point of explosion.

Scott,

I would vote for Newt assuming there is a chance he has changed, and even if i knew he had not changed , rather than vote for Obama knowing who he is. Newt as a changed man or the same old Newt is a much better choice than BHO.

ABO 2012

Scott, you seriously think that people can't change, I guess we should just execute all those people in prison, just what is a Liberal anyway? Rod, you guys have the nerve to talk about slime, that's all you guys have been doing since you have nothing to stand on you guys are hilarious

Look up the definition of slime in the dictionary, you find Newt and Rove's pictures.

Along with how many Democrats, Clinton, Kennedy John and Ted, Edwards slime knows both sides well.

Its not very easy being on the wrong side of history. Is it?

KEEP putting it out there TPGOP.

KEEP objecting to giving the American people a break BUT keep your Bush Tax Credits at ALL costs, Keep putting these front runners out there and crucifying the yourselves.

KEEP showing us how greedy you are.

KEEP having debates every week showing the decay of your candidates.

KEEP SNL supplied with material.

KEEP supporting candidates with NO integrity and applaud that fact.

KEEP using your arrogance to piss everyone off.

KEEP regurgitating the same old BS and call what we say nonsense.

KEEP up the name calling and show your ass because you are going to get your lunch handed to you come 12.2012!

I really need to quit reading this trash. It causes me to truly understand that our country is going down the tubes. Clearly, our country is divided, Idiots vs Republicans. Idiots who convince idiots to vote for them promising they will take successful citizens money, mostly Republicans, and give it to the less successful. A continuation of a plan that has been going on for years with our socialist programs. You can see where it has taken our country and can only guess what the future holds.

Boy you've got that right Tess. He can finish a sentence and he always sounds so SURE he's right, whether he's going on ridiculously about there being no such thing as the 'working' poor, or whether he's claiming he earned 1.5 million as a "historian", or whether he rewrites history to say Congress and a majority of his OWN party didn't end his political career in Congress....They want to believe SO BADLY is the portly professor (he who isn't Mormon or female!)

Justified Defiance

If you really want to view a plan that has been going on for years that has been crippling our economy, look no further than your own party. The "trickle down" garbage that's been reguritated since Reagan is obviously a failed system. We are at our lowest point economically since the Great Depression and corporate tax rates are at an all time low. The corporations are just sitting on their money and not hiring (middle and lower class struggling = low demand). How can you justify that our economy is drained due to democrats (or idiots as you refer to us) when Obama hasn't raised corporate tax rates (Grover won't allow republicans to raise anyone's taxes unless they're middle or lower class)? Here's a way to destroy a country:start two wars off the books, lower revenues while we're increasing spending on said wars, and oppose any regulations against businesses that will help protect us from further economic collapse. Sounds like the republicans are the ones who got us into this mess. Apparently Fox News comes in loud and clear in your neck of the woods.

Ron Paul needs to run independent..........

RON PAUL 2012!!!!! Down with the entire establishment machine...LEFT OR RIGHT!!!

H8, an independent , Ross Perot, is what got Clinton elected, twice. The only times in US history a president was elected without a majority of the vote.

Stanboy-

Read more than you post...

Fifteen candidates (three of them twice) have become president of the United States with a popular vote less than 50% of the total cast. It should be noted, however, that in elections before 1872, presidential electors were not chosen by popular vote in all states. Adams's election in 1824 was by the House of Representatives, which chose him over Jackson, who had a plurality of both electoral and popular votes, but not a majority in the electoral college.

Read more: Plurality and Majority — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781456.html#ixzz1gjxMyBWX

So many students of history here ready to dazzle us with their "insights"

What have you to say in your defense, history boy? Heck, you were only off by a couple or 13 or so...

H 8 I'll be glad when you finish your G.E.D. I think you're skipping history class though.

The tea party tends to live in their own little internet vacuum of propaganda that has them convinced that most of America agrees with their paranoid delusions regarding Obama. When over fifty percent of America says they absolutely would not vote for Gingrich, the smart conservative would throw their support to a candidate that isn't more hated than Obama. Unfortunately for them it takes someone who is a sheep willing to spew stupid, or a con man to actually cave to it.

Jan,

Be cautious, unless those 50% live in the swing states, it just dont matter. And the latest word I read on swing states has BHO with some very poor numbers there. And he is nowhere near 50% in any of these states. And he is the only known candidate in the race.

If 100% of people in NYC and LA responded that they would not vote for Newt, that would add a lot to the 50% figure nationally. But it would do little good for BHO as he is going to win NY and CA regardless. So national numbers at this point are fools play. It only matters in the swing states.

I personally believe any GOP candidate will win. BHO may be loved in liberal havens, but he is despised in the swing states. While his numbers are good against named individual opposition, he is losing to generic. And when he cannot pull above 42% in a swing state when is is unopposed on the Dem side, it does not look good.

But time will tell. I am surprised that he is moving up at this point. I see no reason why, as he still is not doing anything other than whine. Maybe he is whining better lately. He certainly is not leading.

ABO 2012

I personally hope the Gaseous Old Pharts win in 2012. They can give the GOP supporters just what they have been asking for.

Michael, you bring up an interesting point. What is it that the GOpers think the future will be like? What is it they want or think will be if Newt is the next POTUS? according to this:

He is a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, "Watch this!"

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2006/07/16/6314/newt-world-war/

Civil war? NWO? WW3?

I just don't think those are very good future options for the USA and my grandchildren, do you?