The big loser in SC -- Nikki Haley -- With an approval rating at 35/43 she backed Mitt
Romney against the desire of her Tea Party supporters and Sarah Palin.

Spanky--I wouldn't look to the Republicans for "sound fiscal policy." Remember the Bush tax cuts, two unfunded wars, an unfunded prescription drug benefit? Please don't try to give Gingrich credit for Clinton's balanced budgets. Gingrich was gone for most of the balanced budget years.

Thanks to our FR hosts for giving us some interesting thoughts to comment on while we get ready for some hockey (my Penguins take on the Caps at noon) and then some football---GO GIANTS!!

I understand that there are some angry Republican voters out there. I hope they take a long look at who will really fight for their best interests---believe me it isn't Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney.

Hell, Dennis. She's ALWAYS been a big loser for SC! She won by the narrowest margin ever seen in modern SC politics by pandering shamelessy to the tea party. Bad move on her part. She sold out the Port of Chas by getting her handpicked DHEC board members to approve a dreging permit of the Savannah River for the Port of Savannah with the spoilage being dumped on environmently sensitive SC land. She bought the wrath of NLRB and the boeing unions down on SC by running her mouth very publicly about union busting, costing the taxpayers millions in legal challenges. She is in over her head and we are paying for it here in lovely SC. It's a beautiful place, with a lot of baggage............

Spanky,

May 2011 -- The Obama administration outlined three options Friday to change the way home loans are financed, calling for the slow death of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/obama-fannie-mae-freddie-mac_n_821824.html

@Spanky,

"At the same time Moody's downgraded Illinois's credit rating, Standard & Poor's left its rating for the state unchanged, though it warned of a negative outlook, according to the AP. The same week, Fitch Ratings also left Illinois's rating unchanged and said the state's outlook has stabilized." (Jan 22, 2012, Huff Post, Chicago)

"...and now you know the rest of the story."

Time to find another drum to beat, don't you think?

The big loser in SC -- Nikki Haley -- With an approval rating at 35/43 she
backed Mitt Romney against the desire of her Tea Party supporters and Sarah Palin.

Nikki Haley is just looking for herself. Despite how much people dislike her in SC, she is rooting to be the first Woman President. Her ambition is BIG...and she was looking to get the financial $$$upport of Mitt Romney in due time. The joke is on her.

Spanky,

Like every President he/they “call for” things where it is up to Congress to act.

Gingrich has no particular policy postions, and very little consistency about any stand he may profess today.

Still he is a formidable public speaker, and although his "debating" skills have nothing to do with substance, his one discounts his ability to please a crowd with off-topic, question-dodging pandering at great risk.

His defeat of family valuing Rick Santorum among evangelical Christians is proof of that risk.

Spanky - you ommitted one word... epic

Conservatives are happy-they finally got a white christian conservative they can vote for. And, he's a liar and a greedy bastard who thinks children should clean toilets, so that's even better.

I'm loving it. The GOP is like a pack of Piranha's attacking each other. Now we move on to Florida for the next feeding frenzy. Who's the next winner? How about Paul, he's smarter then all the rest combined.

Is the word funner? Because this race is getting funner all the time. LOL.

Obama in 2012.

Anabananna and therealchris - so you are hung up on racism... Don't you realize this is the year 2012 and most of us have put racism on the back burner because it really doesn't matter what the color of a person's skin is? It seems you two have really exposed your racism for all to see. I hope you are ashamed of yourselves.

Ana,

Mica is my rep. We have been trying for years to get rid of him. His so-called town meetings are a joke - they are done by phone, you have to be a registered as GOP, and the questions are pre-screened. (Needless to say I have never had the opportunity to participate). Oh, and he was a buddy of Abramhoff (sp?)

Hey Spanky, just read some thredas from yesterday. Man, you sure had Anon twisting in the wind.

I love the Monster truck Jams. Big trucks, monster engines, lot's of noise, just a great spectacle.

Another record turnout for a GOP Primary.

I guess that low turnout and dis-interested GOP voter stuff that Feisty had been predicting isn't coming to pass.

But then again, from her posts here it is obvious that she is oblivious to anything outside of the FR Mindset.

Finally, this blog really set the left up yesterday to show their true colors.

According to many here South Carolinians are just abunch of Redneck, Hillbilly, ignorant, racist rubes who don't have a clue.

How very Liberal of all you with those opinions.

@Spanky,

Illinois is not my state. I'm not interested in assessing Quinn, or CT and their governor. Each state has it's own problems, and it is for each state's elected officials to come up with a solution. (We can't have the Federal Government having total control over states now, can we?)

My point to you, is that (as reported) only Moody's downgraded Illinois credit rating. It is not a good thing, but it isn't the whole story.

I know you just like to spar with Fiesty, but as to that, she can hold her own. I'd put good money on it that she could bring maximum smoke on Gingrich in a debate.

Or you an worry about your interests and leave us conservatives to worry about ours.

How about those of you on both sides of the aisle who are only concerned with your own narrow interests stay away from the polls, and let those of us who care more about our country than any GD political party take care of things?

Oh Numb - surely you see that the failures in Illinois and Conn, and of course Cali. are not about those individual states but rather the state of progressive ideas about fiscal policy.

They all raised taxes, which they said would be the fix. It was not, now they all are screwed.

What else is there Numb? Cause see Brown is about to slash government spending.

Because, and I need you to say it with me - Being Broke Sucks.

Man, you sure had Anon twisting in the wind.

WCA,

Only in your small world... lol

Cutting & running doesn't constitute 'twisting'...

I will give you credit - your pretzle logic never disappoints!

Thanks!

"So Rep Mica from Florida just said President Obama is good at singing and dancing but not leading on Alex Witt. Why do Republicans still use racially charged comments to refer to President Obama?"

To the moonbats in here ANY...and I mean this..ANY criticism of their hero Obama is racist. Beyond absurd. The "race card" covers everything. All conservatives are racists, per these moonbats.

Every comment is subject to some hidden code only they know about. What a crock of crap.

(was my comment 'racist'?)

Meanwhile express racially charged insults like "white trash", "billybob", "Southern Bubbba" and such are thrown out endlessly by the moonbats. An MSNBC idiot host put the GOP field with a background of the Confederate flag!

Newt, like you spanky, is just a bully. And what newt needs is waht ALL bullies need - someone who stands up to them and puts them in their place, hard if necessary. When newt finally meets someone who won't take his crap, like all bullies, he will fold up an dcrawl away, whining and crying.

Newt played to the crowd and won. He had a few cheerleaders, who riled up the "followers" and it worked. For people who claim to have "God on their side", they have turned a blind eye to the Ten Commandments. Newt is an adulterer, thief and a liar

Frankly, it really does not matter, which of these elitists win the tiara, for Mr Con-genitally, they are an embarrassment, to the United States of America. Well, except to France! The South Carolina Republicans who fell for Newts pandering, showed their lack of "Christianity" and intelligence. Mitt? Newt? Ron? Rick? They all have so many flaws. Yes, we all do but, the obvious hatred, bigotry and a sense of "entitlement", are not pluses, for any of them.

I am truly tired of the political circus and I cannot wait until November, to get all this nonsense behind us. The entire country will be inundated with political ads, that will make us yearn for the days of radio.

When Americans demand, an over-haul of the electoral system and tell the Supreme Court, where they put their "opinion" or bias, regarding Super PACs; then and only then, can our country become the civilized nation ,we pretend to be.

In 2008 I voted FOR a president, for the first time, since President Clinton. At sixty-six, that is far too few qualified candidates. Are country is divided but not by the average American. It is the those behind the scenes, who manipulate the media and the media itself, who create thie pseudo-personalities. If Americans are not careful, we made end up with some one worse than Bush/Cheney. I shudder at the thought.

The people of the United States needs to demand better for our future generations or thwey will not have a future. I happily pay taxes, for increasing our quality of education, a decent standard of living and indentives for our young, to want to do better than their parents.

I believe, in "a fair days work for a fair days pay.' But, when we send unskilled and uneducated people out into the working world, they lack what it takes. When the majority of people in our country achieves a good education, it increases the quality of life for Americans. We owe to ourselves, to insist our children can decern between right and wrong, think for themselves and be responsible.

Mitt and Newt are exceptions to the rules. They have no concept, of needing food or shelter. They have never been hungry or know the fear and despair of poverty. As I said, until we as an entire nation, demand ALL of our children have a quality education and responsible parents and highly trained teachers, we will all become followers, like those in South Carolina, who would elect a Newt or a Mitt. sadly, their coming north soon. Our only salvation is, it will be spring and maybe, warm enough to be outside.

I cannot wait until the November elections are over.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

Gingrich said he articulates what Americans think and in a way he's right.

The Grinch definitely channels the dark side of American culture (or just human nature generally): Greed, racism, hypocrisy, bullying, selfishness, it's all there and it's probably a powerful attraction to a segment of the public.

Santorum is the other one that does this most overtly but he is limited by his very specific appeal to evangelicals.

Gingrich is more secular and gets both a certain part of the religious voters as well as the secular.

If Stephen Colbert was on the ticket in South Carolina he would of got 75% of the votes..these clowns are wasting their time.

Hey Bob??? do u remember when people complained about "bush"...we were accused of hating the country.....lol

So Newt wins in South Carolina. Big deal! This guy doesn't stand a chance and is only hurting his party's slim chance of winning the election. We had a name for guys like him. It was c--k block, or something like that. Anyway, if he was truly Republican, he would stfu and stand down. Not gonna happen because he loves himself way too much.

It doesn't matter who runs.... the loser will be the American public. There is not one candidate who will step up to help them. NONE of them cares about Americans having decent jobs, earning LIVABLE wages or being able to afford to own their own home. All any of them care about is doing what's best for American corporations and making sure that the top 1-2% stay at the top.

If the government would have bailed out all the people who lost their jobs, by creating new jobs.... instead of giving funds to corporations, who used the funds to give their CEO's MILLIONS of dollars in bonuses; those people would be paying taxes back to the government and would be able to purchase goods and services, creating more jobs in the private sector.

They will continue the joke of homeland security, which is actually an over-priced pacifier for the American public. They do not check every passenger, they do not check every foreign born passenger, which in truth would be the ONLY way to guarantee safety, they stick to groping elderly and children. How many elderly or toddler terrorists were among they the ones who hijacked planes September 11th?

Our country is in trouble because our government is a mess; until the American people stand up and say NO MORE, things will only get worse. For now all we are getting are EMPTY PROMISES!

Bad news for the GOP. I am the withe southern male that is supposed to be the target audience of Newt.

The dumbed down, race baiting is so obvious, many of us are turned off by it. I hate political correctness. I hate South Carolina falling for this crap even more. It is a regressive short cut to a pointless win. Politically dumb for the general election. Even worse for our national moral character.

There is a new south. Where guys like me have a black friends, neighbors and doctors. We cringe when guys like Newt fall back into old ways that we'd rather forget. Sure he will get some of the kool aid drinkers. The rest of us just shake our heads and quiet try to tell our kin that we are being used.

Used by a fellow southerner who is a known undisciplined, opportunistic fraud. Newt dropped his Georgia accent when it was convenient. Now he trots it back out to rally the remainder of the Klan. Worst of all : Newt is not a racist. More despicable? he will use ANYTHING to win.

Newt is fatal for the GOP, bad for the South, bad for the USA.

Yeah John.... now those that bash Obama are being accused of being racist. It doesn't matter if we disagree with an Obama policy... it's all racism... I guess it takes a racist to know a racist.

John,

It was a lot worse than that! We were told from 2001 to 2008 that to disagree with the president was akin to terrorism. We were told that if we didn't sing the praises of the president, we may as well go join al Queda. We were told that criticizing the president was anti-american, treasonous. We were told that to protest the iraq war was the same as flying planes into buildings in NY.

Republicans may not like being remided of their own words, in fact, they ignore all of these reminders. But we intelligent Americans remember.

So according to their own words, right wing wackos 1. disagree with the president 2. protest the government at their little tea-bagger rallies 3. were against the Iraq war as soon as Obama took over, after supporting it under Bush, then criticizing it's end after demanding it's end, so thus, they are Anti-American terrorist members of al Queda, again, according to their own words.

SouthernMays - if you think we conservatives can't recognize a southern liberal, you have to be walking around with blinders on. We recognize you and discount you just like we do the northern liberals. Liberal disease can affect anyone, north or south.

Great point Cville,

There is a quiet struggle down here in Dixie. There is a growing group of us who realize that the GOP panders by using old bait. They beat the drum that combines religion, residual hate against the Yankees and lingering racism.

When elected, these clowns, never attack Roe VS Wade, admit that racism needs to be fought at all costs, and become more Yankee than Lincoln ever was.

There is a new Southerner. Many of hold on to our southern pride, while rejecting racism. We have sustained the biggest losses in the Bush engineered depression, and are intelligent enough to see the recovery under Obama. We NEVER vote against our own interests. We are southern progressives, growing in numbers every day. We see through Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Romney and Newt.

Beautiful Irony BRIAN:

Frisky enough to discount fellow Americans and reduce them to infirmity eh? How patriotic and freedom loving! Most of all: incredibly stupid.

As y'all discount and spin, A black, progressive man was elected. Now you are facing Teapublican senate seats in trouble, TP governors being recalled and Obama's numbers improving daily. Hitch your wagon to Newt boy, y'all can hold hands and whistle Dixie as you plunge the GOP off the cliff.

Obama's numbers improving daily...

Do tell! What other bulls**t are you going to make up today??

southernmays - only incredibly stupid when viewed through the prism of liberal shades. Your ideology smacks of emotionalism and you build up houses made from cards based upon your beliefs. As you said earlier, there is a progressive black man in the white house. Might I remind you that this person hadn't a lick of experience and after 3 years he still proves he's inexperienced. He claimed to be a Constitutional scholor... but what does he mainly do to the Constitution? He tries to shred it. He tries to usurp it and he would definitely go against it if he could get away with it. His own words tell us that if it weren't for the Constitution he would do more. This same progressive admitted his criminal activity using drugs... Whatta guy to hold on a pedistal.

Obama's numbers are stagnant. They aren't improving daily. Not when he started out at over 70%

I just took a step back and realized again... is Newt Gingrich *really* running for the highest office in the land, and having success? People talk about heads exploding and, yes, this does seem like a bad dream.

Seriously, let the last few decades of Newt wash over you again for the first time. Is everyone going to forget the 90s? Hasn't he burned most of his bridges? It ain't pretty--him or his ideas.

To the republickers babbling away in this thread: Your party has been openly and avowedly the party of racism since the mid 60's. For almost fifty years now, Republickers have made clear appeals to the racist vote, then lied about it. Yet you talk and post as if no one in the world is able to notice this. In the case of black people, who notice and complain about it, you and your lap dogs of the rich claim the blacks have all been "brainwashed" by the Democrats. Yet up to the moment, right now, the only question your party raises is: will the most blatantly race baiting of the oligarchic candidates sweep the south?

And one more comment on your current leading candidate: If y'all were the "real americans" you claim to be, you would not have two seconds regard for this incessantly lying, bloated bag of pus who is the hero of the S. Carolina confederacy.

Obama wants to shred the constitution? You should listen to what Gingrich has recently said, which most definately shred the constituiton, regarding federal judges. He in essence said that they need to do his will, or they will be removed. That is not the way our justice system works, that is what a dictatorship does! And Newt doing what is good for the average citizen? Please, Romney is corporate america and Newt is their lobbyist, he doesn't give a crap about anyone but himself. I can't believe people don't look at his record, past and present.

"If y'all were the "real americans" you claim to be, you would not have two seconds regard for this incessantly lying, bloated bag of pus who is the hero of the S. Carolina confederacy."

WStevens,

Spot on description on Newt and his fans!

brian # 1.47

If your discourse actually represented the argument against Obama, then Obama's re-election would be assured. First off, what did Obama do that had not been done by previous Presidents to "shred", or "usurp", or "go against" the constitution?

You destroy your own argument by saying he'd do more, if it weren't for the Constitution. Now is he shredding it, or is he being restrained by following it?

Obama has many problems, not the least of which is his support of the 1% by not prosecuting a single Wall Street money manipulator. Either Roosevelt (TR or FDR) would have had a few of them tarred and feathered by now. He projects no forceful desire to demand that Congress follow the will of the people in restoring tax rates that existed in the 1950's when this country was without peer in the world. He continues to cave in to conservative demands that corporate rights trump personal freedom.

What action by Obama has the US Supreme Court determined is unconstitutional? The United States has accepted the Supreme Court's authority to pronounce the constitutionality of any given law, and there is nothing the Constitution that allows for private citizens to determine such matters on their own. Our Constitution insures that we are a nation in which laws determine justice, not individual proclamations.

Stick to real issues if you wish to defeat Obama, not emotional outbursts that can be discredited. Only Gingrich knows instinctively in front of which crowd he can successfully use such pandering.

Newt Gingrich (as should Obama and most of his administration) should be arrested, held for prosecution as Oath breakers and domestic enemies of the USA. Neither one should be running. What part of our US Constitution do you not understand?

Is it that The Constitution only grants the government certain, specified powers, and no others? Is it that those who are occupying positions within our federal government may not exercise any powers not granted by the US Constitution for ANY reason? That the Bill of Rights sets limits on the federal government, making it clear it the fed gov has no power to infringe on rights we already naturally possess, or to limit traditionally held privileges, such as trial by jury?

The first eight amendments making up the Bill of Rights specify rights and privileges the US federal government may not in any way abridge. It puts into writing within the US Constitution the protections of life, liberty, and property; natural rights each of us already possess, and also enshrines specific privileges in the judicial system that are already accepted in Anglo-American law. The Ninth Amendment makes the limiting nature of the Constitution clearer; "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The framers wanted to make sure everyone understood that the Constitution only grants the feds prescribed, specific, enumerated powers. The federal government may NOT exercise any powers not granted by the US Constitution.

Who possesses all other powers? The states and the people. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" 10th Amendment

In other words; you don't worship as your conscience dictates because the Bill of Rights says you can. Nor do you speak your mind because of a grant from the government. You also don't defend your life, family and property because the framers saw fit to write the Second Amendment. You do those things because "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

For those of you who did not realize that those in our government can be domestic enemies: "Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution. They are also those who support those in action, or by inaction; vote, voice, money, etc who are going against or trying to weaken the US Constitution and the Peoples written guarantee of those Rights".

Also for those of you who did not know that them not keeping the Oath is an impeachable and prosecutable offense: The wording of the Presidential Oath was already established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10. The requirement for all other Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4. They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.

That those who are required to take the Oath to get into office/positions are required to keep that Oath to legally/Constitutionally remain in that office/position. That means this applies to EVERYONE in the three branches of our government. The POTUS Oath is to ".. preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution"; everyone else is required to "... support and defend the US Constitution ..." before anything else.

So you see, they ARE REQUIRED to keep the Oath, be it law enforcement, a rep in one of the 3 branches of our government, the military, etc. Why would they Oath require them to preserve, protect, support, and defend the US Constitution if they were not meant to do so?

The three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take an Oath to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

Actually, the Constitution and US statute do guarantee unencumbered access to fast transportation. Not convinced? Here is the law:

"A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." 49 US Code-Section 40103 (2).

Neither the government or private company can lawfully require you to submit to an illegal act, such as being groped, as a condition to a lawful contract. They do it anyway, which is a violation of constitutional rights.

Yes, turnout in the SC primary was strong, but the real question is WHY? Turnout was weak in Iowa and New Hampshire, so it isn't because Republicans are fired up and ready to go in November.

No, GOP voters gave every indication of being willing to stay home and sit on their hands...until it appeared that the despised Willard Romney would walk to an early end to the primary season.

At that point Conservatives went into a panic, desperate to coalesce around one Cultural Conservative to carry the banner...and settled on a serial philanderer in his third "traditional marriage" who was drummed out of Congress for his legendary ethics problems. A hypocrite of immense proportions whose history shows him pushing policies and positions at odds with his own life in nearly every way.

Ultimately this will lead to one of two results: either the GOP will nominate Mitt the Human Windmill, an individual who has taken opposite positions on virtually every issue, or they'll nominate perhaps the only man with the potential to rival the GOP-obstructed Congress in terms of disapproval from the larger American public. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-28/politics/30449294_1_newt-gingrich-marianne-ginther-house-ethics-committee

Either way, this is going to be fun.

AnaBanana - WOW! Not only are you a racist, you are a bigot too! I'm surprised you admitted it... most people wouldn't admit something like that on these boards. I can't use the word hypocrite with you... you lash out at black people and southern people all in the same breath... I'm very impressed.

Judy the O, You did it again. Phew! Love ya.

Anabanana - thankyou for pointing out: "you haven't paid retributions to African Americans who gave you 250 years of free labor."

LOL, when FACTS don't fit cult tactics, "discount" and minimize others, like the Brian and Spider, and make up new "facts".

Facts: unemployment is dropping, job numbers are rising, national GOP approval dropping, national approval of TP and their disciples plummeting, GM once again leading auto maker in the world, Obama approval numbers rising, Obama electability numbers rising.

In response to the predictable, played out "show me the links". Read a newspaper, watch something other than Fox noise. Rather than "discount" opposing views, I trust you can read. Sadly I also suspect you'll deny reality rather than protect the GOP pup tent, even as it burns down in front of you. I believe that opposing viewpoints are valid and important. Too bad you'd prefer to score for short lived effect, instead of vigorous, respectful debate.

God, I couldn't stand to look at him and Callista for four years!

ryoushi12:

Newt, like you spanky, is just a bully. And what newt needs is waht ALL bullies need - someone who stands up to them and puts them in their place, hard if necessary. When newt finally meets someone who won't take his crap, like all bullies, he will fold up an dcrawl away, whining and crying.

Ouch...even the newbies got Spanker's number...fret not ryoushi12 you did the right thing by calling him out on his perpetual bull@!$%#. He will stalk you for a while, but just go about your business here as if he doesn't exist. Much like the idiot who constantly sticks his fingers in the fan blades, he'll eventually get the hint.

Spanky is First Read's puppy...when he acts like that he either has to take a crap, is hungry or thirsty, or just needs a time out.

He does prefer picking on the women, though...easier target I guess...weak men frequently make women their targets.

Oh, and when confronted with facts or called out on his lies, he will bring up tax codes, Solyndra, F&F, as well as the other "conservative" talking points in order to deflect the conversation, but he will eventually bolt from the conversation, so save that for future reference.

SouthernMays - respectful debate? When has a liberal offered respectful debate? You don't visit this board very often do you? About 70% of what comes out of the keyboards of liberals is nothing but hate speech. Unless you post as another user, this is the first time I've seen your name here. First Read is a bastion of liberals. There are a handful of conservatives that post here. We are greatly outnumbered, but not out thought. If there'a a new liberal slam on a conservative, you can be assured it will be either originated or repeated here. We conservatives take our stand against great odds. We post a comment and it's immediately jumped on by more than one liberal poster... unless they have us on ignore... because most of the ones that use ignore can't fathom the belief in freedom of speech... they'd much rather not see something that opposes their viewpoint.

I haven't watched Fox news in ages. Even still, they are the highest rated news source against all liberal sources combined. I wonder why that is... maybe because the normal person doesn't trust liberal media. Many of them have made their slant way too obvious. Better fact check me on who has the highest ratings... I wouldn't want to be accused of making up new "facts."

Facts: Businesses are not hiring. Better wait until January's figures come out to see if unemployment doesn't go up a notch or two. Better pay attention to more than one poll to see what the GOP is doing. The TP has been mostly silent so I wouldn't trust any polling on them. GM still owes the taxpayers $50 billion... so they are using our money to output their vehicles. Obama's approval numbers are stagnant. He is NOT rising in the polls. Obama may be your god, but there are a lot of people out here that despise him.

You can make up facts just like the rest of them can. It doesn't help your challenge.

Collapsing a post because you don't agree with the comment (Feisty Redhead) is petty and unsportsman(woman)like conduct. It's also against the rules of this forum.

I think collapsing and ignoring is ridiculous, FYI, moderators can handle removing the inflammatory/ads. I wish it would be done away with.

Brian, I read all of your, eh, stuff. And I'm not a liberal jumping on your posts. I just think you and many others here selectively ignore the most rational points that you don't want to address, making it a one-sided shouting match. What's the difference between that and using the ignore button?

South Carolina- Land of the hardheaded idiot.

[Give it a rest ya whiny bitch!]

God, I love you... ;)

BrianB

Fox news in ages. Even still, they are the highest rated news source against all liberal sources combined...

Sure hope your not one of those teabaggers always crying about the "liberal" media than

God, I love you... ;)

*blushes*

I ♥ it when you talk 'dirty' to me! ;o)

The GOP CLOWN CIRCUS continues LMAO!

You heard it here first. In Post #1.20 BrianB admitted that the Republicans haven't rid themselves of racism; they've simply put it on the back burner. Apparently they're biding their time for when it will come in handy again.

most of us have put racism on the back burner

Thank you for that honest admission, BrianB. It was courageous of you.

Oh, man, Jack! Straight to the point! Good catch!

Please Please Please God , Give us a Newtie candidate in the general! Baggage and all ,Napoleon complex and thin skinned, I likes em angry, and mittens doesn't quite cut it. President Obama will destroy this little man in a debate, He should take him up on his challenge ...

Greentimer-

You foam at the mouth for many paragraphs about the Constitution, but then quote Federal Law?

Maybe you should learn the difference between the two. If we had nothing but the Constitution, we could not function in the world of 2012.

And maybe you should explain the oaths of office as they relate to the Grover Norquist pledge, and what we should do to those who took such an oath which itself portends to trump the Constitution they are sworn to uphold and protect.

I was going to reply, but then found out I might have 'liberal disease'!

What a crock. The legacy of the fair and unbiased Faux 'news' is going to be a lot of people that are, seriously, damaged goods. There is no way to reason with them. Their done.

Brian, you are one of them. I really don't think there is any longer a way to reach you.

I can always tell who is a conservative in these boards because there comments are always collapsed... Its rather funney realy. No matter how non-inflamatory that comment is. While most of the liberal posts are rude and inflamatory...Hmmmm, I sense an extreme case of stuborness and a massive case of bias.

If this gets collapesed you will have only proved my point.

Disgusted-in WV # 1.73,

I'm gonna assume your comments were directed to Knine at # 1.54, rather than my post # 1.53. If that be true, I heartily agree with you. If it not be true, then I'm just plain flummoxed.

Trent, how ironic that you are posting to an already collapsed posting # 1 by Feisty, who may be called many things, but conservative is probably not one of them. And if you don't get collapsed, by posting to an already collapsed liberal rant, what then does that possibly prove?

That maybe there are two ( or three or more) views to every issue, and not just your view?

Peace. There are better days a-comming.

Fox....the highest rated news source. LMAO! Says who, Fox?

The fact is, Fox viewers are the most ignorant in the nation, are the least educated about current issues and FACTS, and Fox can't broadcast in Canada because they have a law against LYING in the media!

Any news source that disagrees with Fox is just part of the liberal media conspiracy, right?

Oh and "trent-2358408" - the first post that was collapsed was from a liberal, so go figure I guess?

BrianB - I have always read these posts with an open mind and don't consider myself extremely affiliated as a liberal, although I do consider myself to be someone with RATIONALE and INTELLIGENCE. I have read posts from conservatives where they actually raise a valid point, but they are few and far between. I have read nasty posts from liberals, too. There is a lot of that from both sides. That being said, I have also seen that clearly, most of the rational arguments, and actual substantive debate, comes from the liberal side. As far as name-calling and mud-slinging, I mostly see that from conservatives, oddly enough (after all, those are the "good christians, right?). I see conservatives raise points, and liberals respond with valid arguments. However, I also note that when a liberal raises any points or argument, the conservative response is mostly "you don't know what you're talking about" without any substantive response, or they fall back on recycled propaganda. Repeating a news blurb is meaningless, and has no actual substance.

republicanism is a disease which will be cured in our lifetime.

I have seen a huge amount of people who use to vote or consider republicans now just shake their heads in disgust at to what republicans are.

A party divided...the GOP/TP. Each candidate won one, and lost twice.

Yeah, totally unlike say the democratic primary in '08 where Obama won every contest.

Right Ron?

Gosh, it's almost like this is your first rodeo.

Shoot- you all we supporting Edwards in large numbers back then.

Yes, Spanky you can since the pro Newt Super Pac is almost entirely funded by one billionaire. That is what makes this different. Newt went down in flames in Iowa from the pro-Romney Super Pac and then had a terrbile showing in New Hampshire. The only way he has been able to stay in the race this long is because of his Daddy Warbucks gave him a campaign saving infusion. Without that help, he would have been at book signings and booking new speaking engagements and "historian" gigs.

It is not right that one person can have such influence. And the bigges elephant in the room with Citiens United is that, sadly, Super Pacs are supposed to be "neutral" which is such a joke that noone is enforcing this. Thank god for Colbert and Stewart in exposing this corruption.

As usual, truth comes from the comedians.

I agree he hasn't a clue yet speaks ! I have him blocked !

Let's see. Mitt "wins" Iowa = he's a shoe-in for the nomination. Then Mitt wins NH = still a shoe-in. Then Santorum actually wins Iowa = he's a shoe-in. Now Newt wins SC = he's the nominee. Maybe all the fortune-tellers should get a few more primaries under their belts before calling this one. And either way, there isn't one of them who'd be any better than what we have right now, and at least two of them would be much, much worse.

@Brianb,

"Obama has 3 major corporations covering his back and thousands and thousands of union workers. All of them being forced to vote Obama..."

Unions endorse candidates, but members vote how they want to. No union representatives are in the voting booths with the members. I worked in a union shop during the 2004 election. The union, at the national level, endorsed Senator Kerry, but plenty of the members were for Bush.

The only reason results were so lopsided is because there is no way South Carolinians are going to vote for a mormon. no way ever. Clearly, even a serial adulterer is better in their eyes.

the results really are as simple as that.

ps lived there for 15 years, know what I'm talking about...

@ Joe who wrote:

Why should Newt-or any other Conservative-worry about 'angry blacks' and Democ Rats?

I think that by the way that you are asking that question, you are giving yourself the answer.

Tyler has suspended me for lesser name calling than that. I hope he does not see yours.

Typical Republican: Calling names at any opportunity when you run out of valid arguments.

comfort,

BrianB never lets facts get in the way of his storytelling

brianb Union workers have minds of there own. They can vote for who they want. The most union workers take pride in there work. Just like anybody else. When I was younger I worked as a union carpenter. I took pride in my work because I knew that people would see it & comment about it. I never had a problem finding work. My work ethic is why contractors wanted me to work for them. The union taught me that through the apprenticeship program I was in. Unions will be back stronger than ever. People will realize the company or corporation will keep taking & taking. Workers need some sort of representation or they will get less & less. Proof is the difference between what the folks at the top make & what the folks at the bottom make. I agree the guy at the top should make more but not like it is now.

They don't have anything else to give them hope Smitty, so I believe they will continue in the alternative reality and mindlessly continue intoning the lame, untrue TEA-RNC talking points. Their means of survival I guess. I'm not going to ask one them any more (already have several time without answer) but maybe you can tell me: What on earth does:

So I guess Obama doesn't have a super pac behind him, does he? Hell, Obama has 3 major corporations covering his back and thousands and thousands of union workers

have to do with the discussion, and how does it relate to the topic of the S.C. Republican primary results?

I fail to see the attempted connection - OH! I guess because there isn't any! Its just some GOP-TEA party supporters attempting to force an opportunity to demonstrate their (evidently racist/biggoted) unfounded displeasure with the President of the United States. Appears they are trying to reflect the Tea/Republican failure to select a viable candidate to the Democratic President.

Tiresome! We have listened to that repetitive garbage far too long imo.

What have we learned? Well -- several things. The so majority of so called "Christian values voters" in South Carolina are a bunch of hypocrites. The Republicans in South Carolina don't much care if President Obama wins the general election in November. And --- we've learned Newt is even more of a scum-bag that most people even suspected.

The problem with the right wing lemmings, especially the ones blogging here, is they are downright in denial due to hate. To continue to support for their god-awful candidates who (deep inside) they know is not out for their best interest is beyond pathetic.

So Spanky, you are in for a rude awakening, if (God forbid) we end up with one of these slime ball hypocrites!

Reading material below: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/20/opinion/martin-gop-family-values/index.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/christian-right-war-james-dobson-callista-gingrich-karen-santorum-2012-1

@Brianb #'s, post #2.17

I wasn't pissed off at your drivel. My response to you in no way repeated any "liberal mantra." It was a civilly written comment, as well. As I have told you before, I am not a liberal. I am not allied with any political party, and I consider myself to be a moderate. I lean left of center generally, but I have certain convictions that would be considered conservative.

Methinks you excuse too much in your response to Smitty. I agree you are sometimes absurd. I don't give you credit for your comment about union members being bait--rather, I think you over-reached, and are now back-pedalling. You strive to appear "cerebral" and don't like being caught in a moment of loss of control--"emotion" even. Just my opinion of course.

Nice avatar, by the way. Very Phallic.

I adore Christians. So simple-minded and so tunnel-visioned. They'll reject Romney, by all accounts a centrist and faithful family man, to embrace a serial adulterer, hypocrite, and near-pathological liar, a man so ethically adrift that his own party leveled 84 ethics violations against him and drummed him out of the House Speakership. But Christians will take him because he says he's a Christian, I guess.

It's just the Tea Party folks shufflin' and jivin' and blowin' smoke. Because they really have nothing to contribute.

Well, this wound up a long way below where i thought it would.

I don't know what you learned, if anything. Southern republicans will nearly always vote as they are told, especially if told by powers who appeal positively to their particular religious and racial prejudices. Small government, fiscal conservatism are at best anccillary to the former. Florida is somewhat different. Among republicans, ballot stuffing and voter fraud is much more common, usually committed by those in charge of conducting the elections. Most southerns who have been raised as Christians, both republican and democrat, will not vote for a "Mormon" to become their President. Republicans will though, accept Newt, the forgiven Christian, simply because He is one of them, and comes from among them. Santorum is liked, but many view him view him as a well meaning, but somewhat deranged yankee, unworthy of their superiority. Ron Paul, as always is thought to be some sort of mascot rather than a serious contender and will be so treated. Doesn't take a real brainy analyst to see the republican mess. Newt is a very abrasive fellow at his most humble presentments. No opposing candidate, offering from within the present republican flock, can do more to stir the emotions and resolve of active and latant democrats, and there are many in the south, than Gingrich will. The stupidity of the republicans is assuring the election of President Obama, with an unforgiving resolve of many more people each day.

Hmm... so all his ethics violations his cheating on his wife etc did not matter to these people. The only thing that mattered was that he shared their religion.

I have seen the result of such toxic voting first hand in my home country of India. When reason takes backseat to religious nutjobbery.

When the worth of a candidate is determined not by his character or his capabilities but by his caste/race and religion.

Look at India today. It is a cesspool of partisan and corrupt politics. Where errant politicians are elected year after year by an electorate that is dis-satisfied with them but keeps voting for them because they are of the same religion or caste or they can see themselves having beer with them. (WTF).

However, to be fair, 70% of Indians are uneducated.

What is America's excuse ?

Way cool. If obama is reading this blog he has to be laughing his azz off. Just think of how he wipes the tears from his eye knowing his goal of a $billion war chest is still on track without even counting superpaks...

What silly girls FR libs are; whining about the peanuts the right raises while ignoring all those $35,000 + plate dinners to raise money for obama. Evidently the poor and middle glass have far more money to spend for these dinners, or perhaps obama just likes pulling the wool over their eyes by smoozing up to the wealthy and toying with the electorate majority with his misdirections...

BTW Numb, I didn't realize you thought in phallic symbols. Why don't you ask me what my picture signifies instead of making a perceived demeaning comment about my avitar. If you think it's phallic, then it's something that's prevelent in your line of thinking, not mine. You haven't a clue as to the significance of that photo to me, do you?

No one should really be surprised that Newt wins in South Carolina. If there is any place in the country where the thought that evangelicals won't vote for a Mormon becomes reality, it's in South Carolina, and the polling numbers above reveal that. If there is any state in the country where a combination of big but empty and meaningless words, thinly veiled race baiting and hate speech against the media will garner votes, it's in South Carolina. Newt winning there shows that.

But the question remains. Is there any other state where Newt is found even remotely appealing? I guess there's Arizona, but Newt's stance on immigration won't play there. The Florida panhandle is like S.C., but offset by other parts of the state, and all those seniors who remember what Newt really is. I think the Georgia pork barrel maybe just peaked.

I don't think this is very complicated.

Most voters know that the President needs to be an SOB. Newt certainly qualifies.

When people get the chance to listen to Newt, unless they are hyper-partisan / grudge carrying / already made up their mind, he is intelligent and charming. This is why he is winning now, and will continue to gain momentum past FL.

The middle is the only sector in play come election time. Those folks care less about infidelity than they do good ideas. Newt wins the argument of ideas, Obama fails miserably. Come election time, unless Obama has sent voters a 5-figure check, I think Obama loses in a landslide with the middle choosing good ideas over an empty suit.

What we learned was that the Republicans haven't got a prayer in November if they can't find a real candidate.

I love watching the Republicans make total fools of themselves. We won't vote for a Mormon so we'll vote for the "reformed" adulterer. Newt is reformed while he is on stage. He probably already has someone on the side to replace wifey #3. Let's see, he paid $300,000 in fines for ethics violations because he has no ethics. Mitt, on the other hand, loves sending jobs overseas and will continue to do so at a high cost to American workers - and won't give a damn as he does it. Santorum doesn't have a clue. Nice little slate they have going. And, Americans are supposed to respect this group of jokes, why? Is it any wonder the GOP is now viewed as the biggest threat to this country and the most disliked party???

Mr Amazing - nope. The best answer is to vote all the obstructionists running in Congress and I think that's going to happen. Most of us are beyond tired of their game of ruining the country to say the one-upped the President.

Mr india, what you are observing is the declining of a unified morality front in America. It started long before newt held any public office. One might even trace it to our courts giving more rights to those who violate our laws than protecting the rights of those who were violated by their actions.

Look at predecessors of newt. FDR and kennedy hid their affairs, but over time were forgiven when they were brought to light. Even clinton got a pass with monica and who knows who else? Now you wonder why newts past in the nineties should mean more? To much time has passed and too many media events have deadened our morals with excuses. If events don't happen within the hear and now outrage doesn't take place, unless used within the context of politics.

Trying to say that newts victory was one of religion is only partially right. Like any effective politician newt delivered a message that apparently resonated with the south carolina voters.

I can only wonder at the length of time it will take India to move beyond its caste system, I wish them the strength and perseverance to do so.

@Brianb #'s,

I don't try to think for you, and I don't think I'm smarter than you. I don't try to figure out your intentions--I only note what you state on these threads. Struck "gold" did you? Your goal was to get people to respond so you could verbally joust with them? Well good for you--"mission accomplished."

We have dualed before: First Time, I called you on the fact that you didn't know who and what you were talking about; Second Time, we chased each other around until you called a truce (you even said we had some things in common); Third Time, we shall see.....

BTW--which Brianb are you? The one who told another poster awhile ago he didn't know anything about what was going on "here in Alabama?" Or are you the one registered NPA in Florida? Are you the "cerebral" one, or the "emotional"one? Or am I confusing you with someone else?

Oh, the "phallic" comment--just a little absurdity. Struck "gold," I did......

@floyd,

I am very surprised at the GOP raction to the Keystone XL pipeline fiasco.

1) First the GOP got Keystone and the EPA to agree to consider other routes through Nebraska back in November. Then the GOP called for Obama to decide using the old route and gave him two weeks to do so. In any situation like this the conservative thing to do is to vote "No" rather than be stampeded.

2) There is a huge issue with taking millions of acres through eminent domain and confiscatory easements. I would think that the conservaives would seek to prevent the government from taking land from people who don't want to sell it or granting easements without compensation. This would be the most massive use of eminent domain in the history of the country.

3) It is the people in states that the pipeline does not cross who are for it. The citizens of the states it runs through are virtually all against it.

4) The pipeline would belong to a Canadian company. We were supposed to take land from American farmers by force if necessary and then give it to a foreign company. This is a use to which eminent domain should never be put to use.

5) The reason that the Canadians want to send the sand,clay,oil tar slurry down a pipe is because it is so highly acidic and abrasive that it is causing environmental problems in Canada already. But sending heated highly acidic and highly abrasive down a pipe across the US is okay? This is an environmental problem that Texas does not need.

6) The oil and refinery products that resulted would be targeted for China. They would not have gone into the gas tanks of American or Canadian citizens, yet those same American and Canadian taxpayers would have footed the bill for any spill. So we wouldn't get the oil or gas, just the toxic sand and sludge.

7) The pipeline was engineered (as is much made to be bought by Americans these days) to the absolute minimum in order to maximize profits. This is not something on which to try to get by with the minimum. But on the other hands why would the Canadians worry about it. Not their problem.

8) And lastly, the Keystone company was promising "as many as 120,000" full time jobs. The GOP jumped on that despite the fact that only about 1200 long term and 4500-6500 short term jobs would result, most of them for Canadian citizens and not Americans. When did the GOP start trying to decrease unemployment in Canada? Americans would be the ones holding the SLOW signs during the construction.

The biggest problem for me is that a foreign profit-making coorporation would be able to successfully lobby the American Congress to take land from Americans and give it to them. And that foreign corporation gave every indication that it would act politically, but not necessarily responsibly. I am against many current uses of eminent domain but this one is waaaaay off the scale. No American should consider it a good thing. This isn't just taking the land for the actual pipeline, but for pumping stations, easements on either side and 40-foot wide access to the full length of the pipeline by easements that Keystone can require the individual states to make.

How do conservatives Republicans justify such a radical left-wing socialist/Marxist takeover of private land that only benefits a single foreign company?

@BrianB-###### I'll take a gander. The avatar is a chimney, reminding you of your failed attempt at bettering your lot in life by becoming a chimney sweep. But your egotistical persona took too much of your time and prevented you from ever learning the skill involved, as well as rubbed customers and employers alike the wrong way. Heck, even the local Chimney sweepers union would not have you, thus causing you to take on a new profession, professional Troll.

Mr.India, you ask what is America's excuse? Look how the S.C. Republican voters voted, do you really think 30 percent of them are educated?

BrianB - They may not like it, but someone has to present viable alternatives to their limited universe. FR may be a bastion of liberal/progressive ideology, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try teaching them to expand their thoughts to progress forward.

Mr India #2.28: America has no excuse. I do contend that mindset is much more prevalent in the poorer southern states, and all poorer states, than those still holding a larger remnant of able middle class caste. Regards.

eric--very funny

american: you do realize you used the word "progress" in a positive way? You keep that up and you're going to have your knee jerk wing nut credentials removed, forthwith. (good job though on confirming them with the whole superior "teach" thing and assumptions about anyone reading...that may balance things out.)

"It wasn't a stretch, it was a planned comment. I achieved the exact goal I was pushing for... returned comments about that exact line. I knew several people would jump on it because they would fall prey to the "he's so stupid"~BrianB

BrianB,

I think most people describe this as troll and is something that most people think of as a poor type of behavior. You seem fond of baiting and embrace your ignorance while trying to state "I said something stupid to get a response" when your statements have been questioned and proven to be wrong. Very nice cover story, I can see that you are an epitome of alow information voter.

Good luck Brian I think you may be busy getting the hook out of your mouth that Comnfort just set. I think he was using a phallic shaped bait.

brian, you are so right.

Why should anyone believe that cheating on one's spouse while debating the infidelity of someone else is not just a normal activity? Certainly not to be demonized. And just because someone happens to be the only House Speaker fined $300,000 (not much for Romney) and then fired is no reason to rebuke him. And especially now that that same someone has been granted redemption for an atoned soul, he may now castigate others for doing those same nefarious acts, it would be simply preposterous to ask if there are others who never strayed in the first place?

I mean, why would we even consider someone like Rick Santorum who actually practices family values, when we have a talker like Newt who can turn any question that he cannot answer honestly into a tirade against the deplorable media for asking such asinine questions? Playing fast and loose with the truth takes a lot more active brain cells than simply answering a question honestly.

People who complain about cheaters (on wives and fellow legislators) just don't have enough to complain about.

marklepew--too funny!

@Brianb #'s,

With all this jousting, I'm missing some good football. Hope you aren't choking....

"It is despicable that Newt is still running with all his family values in the septic tank. This lowlife is so dirty he draws flies.

Newt is the King of Spin, and the red meat he is throwing appeals only to the core far-right base.

The rest of the nation sees right through his attempts to rationalize his affairs while attacking Clinton, and claiming so-called redemption. Newt is clearly a hypocrite even with the "lesser of two evils" fallacious argument, and repentance my arse! He converted to Catholicism to marry his mistress, and has not been caught fooling around since because he is now too old and fat and closely monitored by his controlling wife.

The rest of the nation sees right through his attempts to rationalize negative ads, and for every attack such as demanding tax returns from Romney, Romney will attack Newt about Fannie/Freddie, ethics violations that got him booted as Speaker, etc. Newt's name recognition or accomplishments are a double-edge sword in that these goes hand-in-hand with low approval for all the damage and hate he perpetrates.

Newt is the Father of Hate Speak (how many times must he use the word "elite?") and the Father of Divisiveness -- the last thing we need now (along with a 1%er corporate raider Romney) in the White House. Both will say anything to be POTUS, but Newt only cares about Newt more than any other candidate to run for POTUS in my lifetime. Newt will not hesitate to resort to the lowest, sleaziest, most ruthless tactics ever witnessed.

The rest of the nation sees right through his spin about food stamps versus paychecks. Everyone else knows Republican policies caused the recession that in turn has caused greater need for food stamps, and that this happened before President Obama was elected. Anyone with half a brain can do a little research and learn that job creation did not begin to improve until President Obama was elected, and therefore it is a bald faced LIE to say the president is responsible for job loss.

And OMG how many times must we endure the biggest LIE of all about fairness and opportunity for all being spun as evil European "socialism?" Even Santorum knows this is a crock of crap at the national level per his speech -- Oratory of which is NOT Newt's strength BTW.

But ultimately, as already pointed out above, bigotry among conservatives knows no bounds. Romney cannot do well in the south because of his religion alone. They all deserve each other.

Chris - a few points about the XL pipeline...

It looks like texas has the refineries that are capable of refining the tar sands. Which involves less cost with minimal environmental impact? A pipeline going to an existing refinery center with existing avenues of distribution or the creation of a local refinery and distribution network that has to still meet environmental standards. Think of it, a new refinery built in canada or the northern US will create new possibilities of environmental issues going forward.

Eminent domain and loss of land use by the land owners? Kind of depends on whether the pipeline is above or below ground doesn't it? Do you really think that the land owners won't be adequately compensated?

Routes and environmental concerns... the pipeline has been studied and planned for more than 3 years. How many alternate routes have been analyzed by our EPA?

Use of the refined products. You do realize that the US is a net exporter of refined oil products, right? Even obama understands the value of having the US export more than we import.

You seem to suggest that the pipeline will be built at the taxpayers expense. Last I heard the private sector was providing the majority of funding once approved.

It will be years before we see solar, wind and geothermal come on board to effectively limit the need for gas, oil and coal.

BTW, it appears that you think that we lack the engineering/labor experience and technology to build a pipeline that will minimize environmental risk. Yes risk will never be zero, but when has risk ever been.

“South Carolinians are just a bunch of Redneck, Hillbilly, ignorant, racist rubes who don't have a clue.”

WCA: That’s your quote above and no one elses.

If the conservative voters of South Carolina have a problem, It’s poor judgment. Why would anyone in their right mind vote for Newt Gingrich? This guy is just an load mouth with legs that couldn’t govern his way out of a paper bag.

BrianB,

It wasn't a witch hunt as you have described unless you consider an overwhelming bi-partisan vote of 395 to 28 to reprimand a conspriracy. Please keep in mind the party who lead the committee that investigated and brought the charges. I'll supply a little education for you:

House ethics committee members took pride in yesterday's bipartisan resolution
of the case. "We have proved to the American people that no matter how rough the
process is, we can police ourselves, we do know right from wrong," said Rep.
Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), who headed the investigative subcommittee that charged
Gingrich

Brianb -- We get it, you have too much time on your hands and apparently ignorance IS bliss, and ad hominem attacks against me or others impresses no one.

As for the rest, what does the pipeline have to do with this article? There has already been lengthy discussion on the topic, which appears to have been missed. Try to keep up -- It's an idea that will only further line the pockets of Big Oil, and will benefit no one else except China!

AP - I fully understand the differences between what a progressive political agenda is and what it means to progress forward in a positive way, I view them quite differently. Just as I understand that liberal politics outside of the US is different than what exists in the US. Progressive politics is just not the same as America progressing forward. You are right though, I did choose to to use that word to illustrate its juxtaposition with progressive politics and its most common definition.

BrianB never fails to deliver as expected, ignorance yes.......substance............not so much

So big al, just what were the odds in vegas concerning the SC outcome? Floridas?

If the Republicans don't put RON PAUL on the ballot, Obama will win and the nation will loose.

True - if newt is the father of diviseness, how is it that clinton and the republican congress were able to still move forward? Interesting on how POTUS obama likes to promote diviseness by singling out the wealthy and corporations by not giving enough or for the right not supporting his policies. Got quite the chuckle when the senate wouldn't even support his jobs bill. Yep, obama sure does strive for unity ala my way or the highway...lol!

JEM - Paul may not be on the 2012 ballot but I hope that some of the policies he promotes do become part of the republican platform.

brian,

Was Newt the only Speaker get fined $300,000? Was Newt removed by his peers as Speaker?

Was Newt cheating on his wife while debating if Bill Clinton's infidelities constituted "high crimes" against the nation?

Has Rick Santorum done anything that comes close to Newt's cheating ways?

There may or may not be some extenuating circumstances about Newt's actions. You and Newt may or may not be spinning how Newt just happens to always be the victim of bad breaks. Newt's record for answering questions in public forums leads me to accept the later - he's a crybaby who does not like to have his record brought up, but he likes to take credit for anything done for which he can claim some remote connection (like the prosperous economies of the 80's and the 90's) . That's just what his debate responses leave me with.

Rick Santorum provides no indication that he has ever had to retrack, rephrase or deny anything that he has ever said he believes. His honesty does not require qualifications. What he says is what he delivers - nothing more and nothing less.

However, since you've challenged the public record on Newt's ethics violations, I will see what I can learn about them. In the meantime, I no reason to accept any of Newt's non-answers.

Peace.

Good point ..american. Whether one likes Newt or not, he accomplished a lot in the nineties as speaker of the house. Unlike the lame speaker the democrats selected.

House ethics committee members took pride in yesterday's bipartisan resolution
of the case. "We have proved to the American people that no matter how rough the
process is, we can police ourselves, we do know right from wrong," said Rep.
Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), who headed the investigative subcommittee that charged
Gingrich

Markelpew, if this doesn't smack of politics, nothing does. When you consider that ALL charges were dropped other than the one Newt conceeded to, it was nothing more than a witch hunt.

I realize that liberals are foaming at the mouth about the perceived damage this will do to Newt... they think this is the "gotcha" they need. When you consider the background behind these events, Newt will come out smelling like a rose. There was tons and tons of background that caused this... but since I am all for educating and instructing, I'll give you a homework assignment. Dig it up for yourself. I've already done the homework on it and I charge a heavy price to let you copy mine.

The ethics charges will not effect Newt's run for the White House, not when it is made obvious what the exact charges entailed, what caused them and why they were brought out in the first place.

Santorum would be a good candidate if he would be able to articulate the failure that Obama is. Romney just plain sucks as a candidate.

Numb, I am all those Brianb's. I stay in Montgomery, and have a home in Florida where my family is. I work on the road. I am cerebral and none of my posts are emotional, other than humor. Glad you are watching football. The season is over for me, I don't care who wins or loses now.

To Charlie, Mac Forrester, GreenTimer etc. -- While a state like SC is poorer and less educated compared to other states, and which flies the Confederate flag -- all indicators for bigotry whether religion, race, or what have you, the real reason they voted for Newt is because they think Newt will beat up the president.

Newt is good at thinking on his feet in debate (though he uses fallacious arguments, hyperbole, and lies that are transparent to many), loves combative situations and actually thrives on conflict, and can do so without a teleprompter. Well he has no excuse if he couldn't considering the immense years of practice he's had in doing so. Romney on the other hand doesn't do as well without memorized talking points, and can come off as snippy and un-presidential in terms of temperament (though Newt's snark can go too far as well) when put on the spot.

But assuming Newt could overcome his VERY unfavorable rating (face it, people don't like him and rightfully so -- he is only for himself and is so at all cost -- he has made enemies not friends), ultimately he will not prevail in a debate with President Obama. And most of all Newt sucks at speeches -- This last one after winning SC was pitiful, making President Obama's "professorial" moments look exciting!

If the GOP/TP ran Newt as their candidate, the reality of it would result in a big election loss. All voters have to do is imagine Newt in the White House with the power of POTUS and leader of the free world, and Calista Deville at his side as First Lady (haunting). If you look up "abuse of power" or "divider not unit-er" or "sleazy" etc. in the Dictionary there should be a photo of Newt.

In regard to any of these GOP/TP wannabes, imagine the 3:00 AM call, as Commander in Chief, representing the US abroad, etc., and it is soon apparent none would be better than President Obama. And in fact, if the question of morality and faith are important, none would be better than President Obama either.

Regardless, conservatives will get out the vote and toe the Party line because that's what these simpleton Haters do.

american -- The rest of the nation isn't falling for the class warfare crock of crap either. Income inequality has been growing for over 30 years thanks to Republican voodoo economics. As for Hate Speak, wedge issues, etc. Newt was the founder -- look it up.

• Looks like Sanitarium will win Florida. Let the flakes fall and the snow pile high

The flakes fall in Florida next... Hahaa Ski Miami!

Newt's Tiffany account is putting lipstick on his hog, the plastic lady is sucking the account dry.

Markelpew, if this doesn't smack of politics, nothing does. When you consider that ALL charges were dropped other than the one Newt conceeded to, it was nothing more than a witch hunt.

Ooooh Brian...

It was a witch on a witch hunt for Clinton. So confused Brian. You are really just completly in denial and like your party you will blame it on someone else every time. Sad what you have become. Partisan hacks with no real vision or ethics. I know you are but what am I!!! Pathetic. Collapse me if you want freaks, you will be collapsing the truth like you always do. Cheers Fiesty!

Dasvet

Good point ..american. Whether one likes Newt or not, he accomplished a lot in the nineties as speaker of the house. Unlike the lame speaker the democrats selected.

For everything you would give Newt credit for, his destruction out weighs it. As for Pelosi, yes let's make some comparisons. In her first term, she passed over 300 bills, many of which were of great significance. Here's a homework assignment -- What has the Teapublican House done in comparison since they took over in 2010? We are all waiting to hear...

Throw the Do Nothing obstructionist Teapublicans out -- Obama/Biden 2012!

"The good people of Pennsylvania kicked this worm Santorum out because of his very poor Performance." Don't make another mistake with this phoney. This is not the person we need as President of the United States.

Jon-1321288 -- ...and all those seniors who remember what Newt really is...

Good point Jon. Let's see, we know Newt back-peddled and has given his support for Paul Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare -- an excellent ad to run in Florida. Hmm, didn't Newt also raise his hand in the early debate in which all the candidates raised their hands to reject a 10 to 1 cut in spending to revenue proposal?

These two things alone should be enough to eliminate any of these GOP/TP wannabes.

Dasvet,

Like Tip O'Neill, Speaker under Reagan that worked with Reagan to accomplish what was done in the 80's.

Even with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, the 111 Congress had better approval ratings than the Boehner run group.

Okay let's cover this one more time.

Gingrich was reprimanded for not being timely in providing answers - the reprimand forced him to resign

All 84 charges were dismissed because of a lack of evidence. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/101198.htm and for the Record Pelosi threatening to release the 84 ethics charges IS a violation of House Ethics.

He agreed to reimburse the committee for it's cost of investigating him - that is right out of the committee report found here. http://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/House%20Report%20105-1_1.pdf

several years after Newt made his book deal - Hillary did so to - Newt Attacked - Hillary not even looked at.

About the College Course and and "income tax evasion" In 2000 the IRS closed it's investigation on Newt clearing him of any wrong doing. The IRS called the course educational, A-Pollitical, and did not promote a particular Candidate for office. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/gingrich020499.htm

If this has really come down to SC voting for sleezy Gingrinch for no other reason then Romney's religion; watch Utah goes to nulify that vote by voting for him simply because he is a fellow mormon. That said, how many delegates will come from SC vs UT would be what would matter there...

Of all the things to base a vote on... Oh well, the right to vote as one's conscience does or doesn't dictate, doesn't require being sensible as a pre-req to casting that vote. Perhaps it's time though to fire up the FL voter base, if they should have a thought about re-living the Gingrich years....

BrianB,

Why would we believe anything you say? In the post above you claim to knowingly post false information to see what king of responses you can get.

marklepew,

Brianb is a known liar and a pot stirrer and not to be taken seriously.

Just like Spanky...

What I find comical is all the "Bible Thumpers" of South Carolina who would rather vote for an Adulterer who divorced his wife to marry his mistress; than a "Mormon" who has been married to the same woman for what ... 25 years? Newt Gingrich played South Carolina like a Violin and they bought it hook, line and sinker. What does that say about Newt Gingrich's character? So South Carolina, Question? Because of your action, if Newt Gingrich wins the GOP Nomination and by some miracle the Presidency; will you call his wife "The First Lady" or "The First Mistress"? Big Mistake South Carolina, Big Mistake! Let's hope Florida has more sense and isn't easily gild by Gingrich guff!...

I responded to most of BrianB's Gish Gallop, which is copy/pasted from some chain email (rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#Worst_president_in_US_history.3F). Other statements that Brian has chosen to include are either outright false (Jefferson also owned a copy of the Koran, was he a Muslim?), or imply a false conclusion (Obama was not born in Kenya).

I think Osama-BrianB should be banned from MSNBC comments.

There is a reason the Republican Big Boys are some of the establishment don't want Newt to win, he doesn't play nice all the time and is not a yes man or answer to his backers. He worked with both parties, and besides I want to see pin Pin Obama's ears back :)

With all the skeletons that will come out of Obama's closet this time around I don't think Newt's baggage will matter to ALL the VOTERS that want OBAMA GONE and I don't think he'll be bowing to any foreign Dignitary's !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's interesting to read all the liberal voices on here explaining how conservatives think and why they do what they do. You all don't have any more insight into us than we do in understanding how you can possibly say the things you all do... In fact, we wonder deep in our hearts if you actually BELIEVE the stuff you say or if it's just so deeply ingrained in you that you say it without even thinking....

Do you REALLY believe that raising taxes on those who create private sector jobs will save America?! I remember when the federal government decided years ago to raise a ton of revenue by taxing luxury yachts. After all, they are bought by rich people who won't mind and can certainly afford it. Almost overnight, the entire US yacht industry collapsed as the wealthy bought used, bought overseas, or kept their existing boats. Thousands of jobs were lost and revenues went down, not up. This will be more of the same.

No, I don't remember that. Where are your numbers to prove that the luxury yacht market has collapsed?

BTW, effective tax rates are at the lowest level in 60 years. How much lower do they have to be before the wealthy elites reward us with increased employment?

That's the whole crux of Conservative economics, by the way...lack of DEMAND is the problem, and giving more money to the very rich won't increase demand.

Let me tweak your memory, since it's either uninformed or selective. From an article in the New York Times (aka liberal bible) published Feb 7, 1992 (you can google it if you don't trust me):

The nation's luxury-boat builders, many clinging to their businesses after two years of plunging sales, finally got some good news last week.

President Bush, in his budget proposals, asked Congress to repeal the 10 percent luxury tax on yachts priced at more than $100,000 (and also on private planes that cost more than $250,000). The repeal, which Congress is likely to approve, would be retroactive to Feb. 1.

In the last two years, about 100 builders of luxury boats -- recreational craft costing more than $100,000 -- cut their operations severely and laid off thousands of workers. Some builders filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code.

WHY, why do Republicans INSIST on maintaining the status quo for four more years by bludgeoning each other now?

Why do Republicans not tell Gingrich to stop his divisiveness since Gingrich is NOT electable? He left in disgrace once already. He told his first wife adios when she got a cancer DX and then gave his second wife the heave-ho when she got a multiple sclerosis DX; and if long-time mistress currently wife number three cannot read the tea leaves, that speaks for itself in every way. This one has yet to bag the trophy wife.

America desperately needs LEADERSHIP of a fiscal conservative who can ADD and a STABLE family man with legitimate and longterm faith affiliations, not a convenient conversion story and certainly NOT this level of HUBRIS and prior failure in office.

Republicans, what are you thinking? You see how not-good the present professor is doing in office; why put another professor in? Put a BUSINESSMAN in the Oval Office for goodness sake. We can't afford more hubris, incompetence and fakes.

Or from the Washington Post, Jan 7 2003:

"Starting in 1991, Washington levied a 10 percent tax on cars valued above $30,000, boats above $100,000, jewelry and furs above $10,000 and private planes above $250,000. Democrats like Ted Kennedy and then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell crowed publicly about how the rich would finally be paying their fair share and privately about convincing President George H.W. Bush to renounce his 'no new taxes' pledge," the newspaper said in an editorial.

"But it wasn't long before even those die-hard class warriors noticed they'd badly missed their mark. The taxes took in $97 million less in their first year than had been projected — for the simple reason that people were buying a lot fewer of these goods. Boat building, a key industry in Messrs. Mitchell and Kennedy's home states of Maine and Massachusetts, was particularly hard hit. Yacht retailers reported a 77 percent drop in sales that year, while boat builders estimated layoffs at 25,000. With bipartisan support, all but the car tax was repealed in 1993, and in 1996 Congress voted to phase that out too. January 1 was disappearance day.

The liberal main stream media is attempting and apparently failing to reshape the GOP nomination process. Conservative GOP just won't listen to the MSM.

Newt's SC win didn't reshape the GOP nomination; it's always been an issue of who the conservatives will back. It's just becoming more focused as candidates drop out.

As the votes coalesce around the remaining candidates, similar to two years ago, we'll probably see Romney peaking out behind a more conservative candidate. He just can't convince the GOP he's conservative.

Would all of the apologists for poor set-upon Speaker Gingrich's misinterpreted banishment by his peers as their leader please explain why Senator Santorum's past record needs no such apologies? And would they please provide a single favorable position that Newt proclaims that Rick not only proclaims, but also lives.

Newt is a "born-again" Catholic. Rick has been a faithful Catholic his entire life.

Newt has determined that political expediency requires the announcement of his redemption. Rick has been seeking redemption his entire life.

Newt favored passage of legislation to reduce global warming, before he realized the teaparty didn't "believe" global warming. Rick has never supported such legislation.

Newt proclaims that any discussion of his family life is out of bounds. Rick Santorum exaults his family life.

One cannot safely bet on Newt's consistent position on any issue. One can identify Rick's guarenteed position on nearly any legislation that he sees. Only when his constituents overwhelmingly oppose his position does Rick allow his vote to digress from his position.

Newt's flaming of the media to deflect unwanted questions will not play in a general election. Santorum needs no such hyperbole to lucidly enunciate the convictions he has proclaimed forever.

You make some good points, GreenTimer... However, we have human beings who are casting their ballots for other human beings, so emotion plays as a big a role in this as pure logic does. As a conservative, I like Rick Santorum. I think he has positions on issues I agree with and I think he's extremely sincere in his convictions and beliefs. On paper, he looks to me like a great candidate. However, when I watch them all debate, there is a "fire in the belly" that Newt has that the other candidates don't. I find myself wanting him to be my president and bringing this same fire to the oval office that I see in the debates. I have a hard time visualizing Santorum as president. I don't know why, but evidently I am not alone.

I think maybe Newt said it best when he said, "It's not that I am a great debater. I just do a pretty good job articulating what so many Americans are feeling." Conservatives have been waiting for someone to take on the mainstream media and lamblast them for bringing tabloid fodder into a debate, and for coddling Mr. Obama. Gingrich is both intellectual and emotional at the same time, and many of us think it's high time we elect someone who doesn't have to pretend they aren't pissed off with the way things are in this country today. The democrats and liberals have no problems at all expressing their anger. It's high time we have someone who is cut out of that mold as well.

Bruce, it sounds like you are saying that as long as he has fire in the belly, we will not question his views. He is not a conservative, he is an opportunist. Now if you want someone who can articulate anger, he's the man hands down.

Rick, on the other hand, can readily articulate a course of action in direct opposition to the policies of the current administration. His record shows him to be consistent. He is even-handed in support not only of individual rights and responsibilities, but also of promoting the interests of blue collar workers.

Newt, according to his own Republican collegues, is volitile, unable to maintain a steadfast course of action. Volitility is not a leadership asset in trying to resolve long-term unemployment and government debt. Newt comes off as a spoiled child without direction, throwing tantrums when someone challenges the difference between his words and his record.

This kind of outrageous pouting works well with a minority of voters. Elections are won by majorities.

Peace.

I am old enough to remember Newt as speaker of the house and, in my opinion, he got things done. I don't put all that much stock in what his so-called collegues say, because he obviously doesn't have the backing of the republican "establishment". Maybe they have valid reasons, or maybe they just don't want someone who is not the candidate that they "hand picked" for the task (i.e. Mitt Romney). I do believe that either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum (or even Romney) would be a much better president than Obama has been. However, as we've seen in South Carolina, Newt has the ability to really get people fired up and excited. They had a record turnout in South Carolina and Gingrich surged to an overwhelming (and completely unexpected) win. If Santorum were to be the nominee, I would get completely behind him and I believe he would be a strong president. However, he would still be my second choice.

BTW, it is nice to be able to carry on a debate with someone without yelling, name calling, and belittling..... Peace to you as well.

Bruce-308647 -- I think maybe Newt said it best when he said, "It's not that I am a great debater. I just do a pretty good job articulating what so many Americans are feeling."

Thank you for providing support for the case I made way up in this thread that Newt is the King of Spin. Newt is not a great debater in terms of making a real case for anything, and in fact uses illogical reasoning and just plain lies. In other words, he does a "pretty good job" of manipulating emotions by throwing out red meat to the hungry conservative dogs in their feeding frenzy. Joseph Goebbels would be impressed. Newt isn't on the ballot in Virginia, so this could be a wasted excercise anyway, but the point remains that anyone who hates the president so much they would elect Goebbels is off their rock.

Further to the point of propaganda, operating on emotion rather than fact, and reactionary knee jerk tendencies, the right-wing is plagued with propaganda from FOX to Hate Radio to websites like NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, and most of all chain Emails. And this stems from the anti-intellectualism movement and fundamentalist religious obsessions of conservatives, which leads to conspiracy theory and ignorance. Progressives don't engage in crap like talk radio and chain Emails--they just don't and you might consideration as to why that is.

If you hate science and academia, of course you operate from emotion. If you see everything in a Manichean way (black and white terms), of course you will only see extremes like military action as a solution to everything and not all the other options in between. And what is a better example of indoctrination than religion and the promotion of "leap of faith" that predisposes conservatives to fall for conspiracy theories?

You are correct that you have no clue about the progressive mind. But we most certainly have a clue about conservatives, with the simple word "backward."

As for "job creators," most job creators are not in the richest 1%, rather they are in the richest 5% and below. And many self-employed business people of all incomes are evading taxes, and that is the problem. Furthermore, the left-wing are not against successful people or even those who take advantage of the system.

However, to be blind to the real and growing inequality in our nation, the balanced approach needed to reduce deficits, and what it will take for real job creation is unacceptable. Supply-side voodoo economics has been disproved, and in fact we now know with certainty that we need a bottom-up approach (not "trickle-down). A strong middle class benefits everyone including businesses and the rich, and if for no other reason a middle class must be maintained because it is important to preserving democracy.

Personally, I see people like Romney as unpatriotic, heck even people who shop at Walmart buying all the Chinese goods are unpatriotic. All the conservatives I know spew an ugly vision of every many, woman, and child for his/herself, while going after Pell Grants for their kids, enlisting in the military during hard times, collecting Social Security and even disability -- Yet at the same time they deride the government as just printing more money to do so, but the getting is good for them while the getting is good. The hypocrisy is so prevalent among the right-wing, where does one begin?

So don't preach to us with your simplistic, biased, and sad world view. It is you who have been brainwashed my friend and who is missing the big picture.

So don't preach to us with your simplistic, biased, and sad world view. It is you who have been brainwashed my friend and who is missing the big picture.

I would say exactly the same thing about you, my friend, but can articulate it in far fewer words.

eric...

Democrat politicians seem to always do pretty well at election time getting votes from the less-than-highly-educated set. Do you think that "30 percent of them are educated" too ???

1992, Bruce? 1992? How are things NOW, as wealth accumulates to the very rich at an unprecedented rate, and the spread between the wealthy elites and the rest of us is at an all time high?

Speaking of that rising wealth inequality, THAT is the real issue in the economy. How many people, realistically, are going to be employed building luxury yachts that the very rich can ALWAYS afford as opposed to new cars and durable goods that the middle class can afford less and less? THAT is the real issue, the Conservative drive to capsize the reality that a rising tide lifts all boats.

That's best exemplified by Henry Ford doubling the pay of his workers, greatly expanding the market for the cars he built. Today's brand of capitalism instead seeks to make American workers survive on the same wages as those in India, Malaysia, and China...destroying the engine of American success in the process.

Granted, Ford was a special case because he was so dominant in industry at the time, but the fact of the matter is this -- the wealthy elites don't create much demand for goods. The masses, the 99% is where sufficient demand originates. Take away the ability of the average American to support that economy and it withers and dies. THAT is the supreme and obvious failure to come from 2 decades plus of Conservative dominance in the economic sphere. THAT is the reason the Great Recession resembles the Great Depression in so many ways.

Conservative Supply Side, Trickle Down, Laissez-Faire, Horse and Sparrow economics isn't new, it isn't innovative, and it doesn't work.

Speaking of that rising wealth inequality, THAT is the real issue in the economy.

No it's not. It's an issue ONLY because it's the ONLY issue that Obama and team can grab onto to generate a "buzz" with people like you. This is not a zero sum game. The problem isn't that the rich have too much. The problem is that there aren't enough jobs and economic growth, and that ISN'T because of the rich, but because of the policies of this government that are choking the economy. If you want proof, a stark example is the keystone pipeline. The president could create over 20,000 high paying jobs today (and reduce our dependence on mideast oil) but he panders instead to his base. The result, Canada will build the pipeline west instead and China will benefit. We have 50,000 miles of pipelines all over this country and don't have environmental disasters because of them. All this crap about "needing more time to study" is a smokescreen. What you see our president doing daily to thwart the economy is the "change" you all voted for.

WRONG. Middle class wages have been stagnant since the early days of the Reagan Administration, only made up a little ground during the Clinton Administration, and declined steadily throughout the GW Bush Administration before collapsing during the Bush Recession. The problem isn't that the rich have too much, it's that they no longer feel obligated to even give lip service to supporting the American middle class...the engine that made us the strongest economy the world has ever seen.

As for the Keystone pipeline, Republicans set that up as an empty talking point, highlighting their own hypocrisy as they pretend to even care about the economy beyond their vulture capitalist buddies. The pipeline company hasn't even determined a route, let alone done an environmental impact study. As a result it would be AGAINST FEDERAL LAW for the government to approve the building of the pipeline.

The route WAS set and construction ready to begin... Read the news....

No, 4 routes have been proposed and the company hasn't settled on one. And the locals in the Sand Hills of Conservative, Republican Nebraska aren't happy about some of them.

Newday,

Well said--right on target about Romney.

He definitely needs those early voters in Florida to lean his way, based on the the outcome in SC.

This is certainly a volatile Republican primary.

Thanks, comfortably numb. Going to be interesting if the Republicans wind up with a brokered convention, and if they bring in someone new.

The line was actually quite impressive in its number as we drove by an early voting station yesterday on our way home from the Farmer's market. Of course, i live in a HIGHLY conservative part of the state (think Tea Party). Most of the yard signs are for Paul, as of this past week (with a few Perry thrown in). I look forward to seeing how my GOP neighbors handle the next week!

Good post, NewDay. I think Americans are not envious of anyone's financial success---good for them. We do want to know that our leaders understand the challenges that every day people face day-to-day and to try to make the system work better for them. Romney has been remarkably tone-deaf in this. His tax plan would actually RAISE the taxes on the lowest earning Americans while cutting the taxes of the 1% even more than their present historic low.

Don't want to seem superficial, but TwoBit Mitt's Cheshire cat grin is offputting. Is nothing serious? I have an image of a smiling smirking Pres. Romney appearing on TV announcing preemptive strikes on North Korea and Iran. Insert chuckle.

Maybe Sarah! LOL

Steeler Fan: The odd part is that I don't think Americans have paid attention to Romney's tax plan. When they do, will it be over for Mitt?

LoyalTexan: that smile is a tad creepy, I agree with you.

Did anyone watch the Newt on Meet the Press? I was kind of curious as to what the wind bag had to say but I couldnt bring myself to listen to him compare himself to Jesus for a whole hour.

Most of the yard signs are for Paul, as of this past week (with a few Perry thrown in).

Wonder how long it will take the Perry supporters to get a grip on reality? Then again, I still see a few poor deluded souls here and there displaying McCain-Palin signs. I guess some people just can't bring themselves to live in the present.

I did watch Gingrich on Meet The Press. He has chosen to go the "Obama is a leftist radical" route. He kept referencing Saul Alinsky. The pseudo- intellectual right wingers eat that stuff up. Never mind that "Leftist" had Larry Sumners and Tim Geithner , Wall Steet insiders, directing his financial policy. Never mind that "Leftist Radical" executed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

Naturally, David Gregory didn't push back. It's not his job to interject reality into the political horse race, apparently. Gregory sooo enjoyed talking football with Gov Christie, I wondered if Gregory never had a Dad to watch games with, growing up.

I hate the press. (Present company excluded.)

Loyal - that's a mormon thing, the plastered smile. Those male teenagers go do their 2 years knocking on doors to spread their religion, and have to learn quick to essentially "fake it". To be methodical with a smile - works good in business - but looks wooden on tv. Or maybe sort of like a Ken doll.

Not just a Mormon thing, that is the plastered smile. That a politician thing, a religious figure thing, a CEO thing, a lawyer thing, as you can see the list goes on an on. I am not a Mormon, but someone in my immediate family is, whether they are faking it or faith whole heartily into it, it still will not have an affect on the country. Forget the smile, and listen to what the person stand for and what you are willing to trust and believe. South Carolina was all about religion. In my eyes for politics that is a bad move, but Hey we live in a country where you can support anyone you want to for any reasons. Good Luck. Goodnight.

Amy, Gregory is a tool, how he got that job I will never know, he throws more softballs to Republicans than Fox does.

"how he got that job I will never know, he throws more softballs to Republicans than Fox does."

I reread that statement and realized I answered the question of the first part of the sentence with the statement of the second part of the sentence. Yes it is rather obvious how he got the job.

Yep: Give that job moderating MTP to Chris Hayes. Smart AND personality.

Give that job moderating MTP to Chris Hayes

*thumbs up*!

Gotcha Gregory has GOT to GO!

"incredible memory" is one thing. Memory for facts is quite another. I can understand the appeal of anyone on the Republican side who appears to be able to tie his shoes AND who is not Romney, but pretending being able to blather endlessly is the same thing as being smart is another whole matter...Gingrich's return to his really nasty side...the race and class baiting, of course wins standing ovations from the far right..but it will not serve well in a general election which isn't eager to see the President of the United States slander minorities as all lazy and all in need of learning skills to aspire to like cleaning toilets ...especially when the lecturer is all about explaining Tiffany accounts and how "helping" is not "lobbying". There's an actual reason main stream Republicans are worried about the disastrous Gingrich getting much further...and it sure isn't because of his ability to throw red meat when he has to.

flbikerchick; I'm not so sure the people that still want McCain/Palin are just living in the past and don't want to live for today. Palin has a boat. Now that to me is worth a vote also, I just don't want to give to her for president, or vice president either. Now if there was a special office she could hold on her own without affecting anything Washington needs to accomplish, then yes she has my vote. She's pretty cute and she has a boat, so how could I not vote for her, I'm a guy.

I think a show like MTP should BITE back, make these "men" who appear on it TELL THE TRUTH.

You know all news networks keep changing their format so that they "appeal to the changing demographics", but all they really need to do, all any generation of people who watch the news really wants to see, IS THE TRUTH. Wouldnt that be a novel idea for a news show? Where they confront the politicians when they lie and expose the truth to the American public. I am sick to death of this "he said, she said" type of news, I already know who said what, it's not the media's job just to repeat talking points, it's their job to pick those talking points to pieces and get at the TRUTH!

Our system isn't broken because politicians lie to us, it's broken because the media lets them get away with it.

Brianb-999431; I'm not sure he can tear Obama apart without tearing up his own kind, the repubes and the teapots. A lot of that tearing apart would bring his own parties doings in the process. Actually Obama ran a pretty clean ship and he would have just as much, if not more on Newt's past. Remember the repubes didn't care for him, just not too long ago themselves.

Gingrinch likes to play historian, but whatever his doctorate is in, he is amazingly wrong a lot of the time.

While people like brainb like to fantasize in their minds about Newtie's ability as a debater, here is what is true.

Once you get Newtie in a situation where he must address facts, what he would do to improve things, his history as Speaker (which was SHAMEFUL) and not where the "code words" of the Southern Strategy can be successful, (with the independents, and moderates who will be turned off), Newtie will go down in flames.

But, it doesn't matter because the Republican Establishment will do anything to avoid Newt as their candidate.

Brianb as you can tell we have mainly just been ignoring your posts as you drift from thread to thread blathering one GOP talking point after another in a weak attempt to sway public opinion, but you are right about one thing, that the Newt is Obama's worst nightmare, the Newt is America's worst nightmare!! Newt does not have a decent bone in his gelatinous, over-fed, under-worked body. He would truly be a nightmare for this nation as well as the entire world, possibly the UNIVERSE. Simply CONSIDERING electing this man to the Nation's highest office could set in motion a chain of events that cause the known universe to implode.

deprogrammer; yes, I agree it would be nice to see them tell the truth. To get them to do that would require a doctor giving them shots of truth serum. Then the people watching this show. I think people passing a physical would be needed for the people allowed to order this show, from their cable carrier. The shocking truth might cause a lot of heart attacts for people, even without heart problems. but hey, it would create some jobs, thats for sure. Yeah, it would be nice to hear the entire truth from these people. Even if it was just once. Then these same people telling the truth and if it was about population control, with deseases and starvation, etc. they could have the same results from just that with the truth.

Brian: you must've been born yesterday if you don't understand Newt's baggage. This isn't a neophite politican. This is the guy who participated and helped lead the very debt policies he now claims are destructive. why do you think Romney will now fight very hard to go after Newt's "consultations" with Freddie Mae and Fanne Mac...the very government institutions that made him rich and that he now villifies as "socialist" because he knows how your kind will respnd to that. There are just so many times most people are going to buy his argument that he's flipped and flopped, about climate change, about preventing birth control, about pork barrel spending, because he's now considering "new" evidence and has found religion. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but he's not going to win the nomination...one major reason is because he doesn't have the money or the organization to bcause so many know the record, very very well and wrote him off long ago (the fact he can now be a spoiler in the race a few more states doesn't change that). I agree Newt would show no mercy, but his red meat argument that you can and should judge a man by the size of his wallet and the color of his skin are only winning strategies to those who don't really know this country.

Gingrich practices Chubby Checker politics -- twist 'n shout! Establishment Republicans ARE Reagan Republicans. Newt Gingrich IS an establishment Republican. As usual, Gingrich is 'redefining' his position to appeal to the uninformed. Gingrich may be a lot of things but is absolutely not a 'new' Republican.

The easiest way to defeat Gingrich - feed him more rope. Eventually he will hang himself ...

Gingrich may have a lot of baggage and at least 50% of us have divorced at least once. I can't really hold that against him. As far as being an Historian, I think he will not have a problem remembering there are only 50 states NOT 57 and being a corpsman not a corpesman. How smart do you really have to be to become POTUS anyway?

"may" have a lot of baggage? Newt has a national negative rating of 62%. That, (in case you think anything below 90 must be good) is the highest of any national politician (yes including that guy you love to hate) and it would make it impossible for him to win a national election...why do you THINK the mainstream R's think Newt getting much further will be a complete disaster for them? His baggage isn't divorce (it's serial cheating ahead of the divorce...one of those times being when he LED the Republican outrage over President Clinton's "affair" and was out front of the "family values" mantra over it). Then there was the little ol' government shut down thing when he was speaker of the house, the ethics charges that the vast majority of his OWN PARTY agreed should force his ouster and it did, and that little ol' thing with the 'non-lobbying' 'advisement' of the very insitutitons he claimed were wrecking the US economy. Just how smart do you have to be to be a bike boy anyway....

Brianb-999431 - and we will! (Ignore You)

How sad that any political party has to admit the best they have going is Mitt, Newt, Ron, and Rick. Does it get any lower than these 4? Okay, sorry about including Ron in the group. He's really not a lowlife like the others - just unelectable.

@Brianb-999431 -- Ah, the purity of youthful naivete. Newt Gingrich has never been a 'social conservative' - he has been a 'personal responsibility' conservative. Gingrich was one of the leaders of the attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton -- Whitewater, Foster suicide, college transcripts, draft records, Lewinsky -- all based on 'personal responsibility' - not morality.

Gingrich defended taxes and regulations on the basis of 'personal responsibility' and 'corporate responsibility'. Gingrich used tax and regulate policy as a means to attract lobbyist - supporting Gingrich was a 'personal responsibility'. Gingrich prepared the way for Tom Delay.

Gingrich was one of the authors of the individual mandate for health insurance - citing 'personal responsibility' - to counter the single payer approach presented by Hillary Clinton.

Gingrich coined the phrase 'corporate welfare'. Any business friendly policy offered by Bill Clinton was labeled as 'corporate welfare'.

Gingrich opposed the Ryan budget because it was 'social engineering'. Gingrich expressed some support for the Affordable Care Act because it is based on 'personal responsibility'. Gingrich never has been a 'social conservative'.

Listen carefully to Gingrich. A lot of what he says is double speak.

LMAO! FR libs provide quite a comedy event. On one hand they imply that the middle class, poor, elderly and disenfranchised can be forgiven for any past transgressions yet republican politicians remain incorrigible and lost. Quite a disconnect there, but hey politics is politics right?

It is so humorous to read the libs posts that refuse to argue their views against anothers differing views. They are so good at strawman arguments.

The decision to release his tax returns is another Romney flip-flop. He can't make a decision and stick with it to save his life.

Hey, newday! Where have you been? I've missed your comments.

people like brainb like to fantasize in their minds about Newtie's ability as a debater

See my #1.70 for BrianB's admission. It's quite interesting.

I'll check it out, Jack! Been dealing with some elder issues, happy to spend the time with this particular person, but kept me off the farm and away from FR. Hope all is well with you!

All is well. Good to hear your voice!

Cassandra, actually Mittens big grinny smile reminds me of corporate PR types. Who will lie straight faced to you, while sounding all positive and up-beat about how good they are at telling untruths. And yes, it can look creepy at times.

brianb....

I just read the link you posted about a judge in Atlanta....THAT is some of the MOST RIDICULOUS CRAP I've read in a long time!! Thanks for "linking" it, Birther's aren't all there!

In response to those who think Newt is such a good debator, I think that Paul Krugman says it best:

Newt Gingrich Is ‘A Stupid Man’s Idea Of What A Smart Person Sounds Like’.

As for his ability to come up with historical tidbits so easily and fast on his feet. That feat is easy when all he is doing is making up lies. A debate between Newt and Obama doesn't need a teleprompter for Obama as the Newster says, Obama has a better recall of real facts than Newt already. The technology that is needed is a real time fact checker across the bottom of the screen so the less intelligent among us can see the lies that Newt is spouting.

Remember in the debate last week when Newt said the unemployment rate under Carter was 10.8%. Under Carter, it never even reached 8%, but two years into the Reagan presidency it did hit 10.8%. Newt got his facts all confused once again. Newt's knowledge will never stand up to even minimal fact checking, but boy can he fool those good ole boys with his big, hateful words.

Ain't that the truth!!!

Celebrating My Wifes Birthday.

Give Miss. Daisy a Birthday {{{hug}}} from Feisty will ya?

"AMERICA LOVES POPCORN"!

And NUTS... lots and lots of NUTS! ;o)

Happy Birthday to your lovely bride, Rick, and many more.

So far the primaries seem to be good for the television/advertising industry, the popcorn industry and the koolaid industry.

"Malibu Mitt..." LOL, Perfect!!!

Rick- why should you be surprise? the title of this article is " what did we learn....?"

what we learned is that for some reason they decided to count the votes in a secret location instead of out in the open where everyone can see the results. the claim is because of threats from anonymous, but they are paper ballots, anonymous are computer hackers and cant touch things in the real world.

theres noooo way more than 15 people voted for newt, even back woods hill billies hate him.

what i learned out of this primary is that the voting is being rigged behind closed doors.....

I have heard that Callista wants to branch out into acting. She has even read for the part of Cruela Deville, the only problem is that she has to keep her eye on Newt so he doesn't slither into any more bedrooms looking for an opportunity to meet Mrs. Gingrich IV

You did notice though, that Romney's tax returns will be published on Tuesday, the same day as the President's State of the Union speech? He is clearly hoping that it gets pushed off the front pages by Obama, never to be brought up again.

Exactly. Calista would not be "received" in any decent home in South Carolina. When you consider how harshly Americans judge First Ladies what would they say about Calista? Starting with her taste in men....

and do the fundamentalist/evangelicals realize that Newt's 5 million dollar friend earned his riches in the gambling industry? Oh! the sin of it all. South Carolina is such a beautiful state but who knew that raising sheep was its primary industry ?

marklepew; I can't resist. What kind of acting? Poor Callista will take a beating for her sexual appitite. The conservatives aren't real big on threesomes, well they weren't before now and it even blows me away Newt would try one. Personally, yeah I wouldn't mind hearing about her past sex life. The reason for that is I'm trying to get a better understanding of Newt. A full understanding of this guy would be very interesting. A full understanding Of Callista would also be very interesting but maybe more believable than Newt. Yeah, just the little things that Newt told his ex about Callista makes me think she's a piece of work. Not that its a bad thing or she's a bad person, just the conflict of interest or the contrast between her and Newt from the rest of the Republican parties beliefs. Yeah lets hear some smut on this little firecracker. Who knows she might just end up getting my vote, cause Newt along with the other candidates won't.

john - 537378 - Kind of remind me of Jersey Shore - totally clueless, classless, crass wannabees!

Hopefully.

Since we are going back into the past of thr republicans, why not check into the past of your "esteemed president'? Check out his association with ACORN while he was in Chicago. Very interesting. Ask him how well aquainted he was with Hillary in Chicago. Did you know they were both from Chicago. This is the state which has been called the ' place where they allow dead people to vote. How many of the people he has appointed in different jobs in Washington come from the staff of Clinton. Don't knock the unions if you are a Democrat, that belongs to the Decocrat party. Who gave Jane Fonda a chance to be honored? This woman should have stood in front of a firing squad. Check out herrecord and see how many service people she was a traitor to. Do politicans lie? I sure wouldn't say they always tell the truth , both parties are meant here. Check out why so many loans were made to people for housing when they really should not have been granted a loan. You might really be surprised and then you will have to reassess the party you want to have in office. Do I think a man or woman who cheats on their spouses should or should not be condemend. It is wrong, we all know that, but until all of you can stand up and say Newt should be crucified, make sure you can say that honestly. If you live in a glass house do not throw stones. We have no right to condemn a person on their religion as this is a freedom we are supposed to have, but we should not allow a man who has a form of religion that is such as Obama has, to be president of the

country. Check out the true facts on what his religion stands for. Nor should he have been elected president without being able to prove he was a citizen, anyone can fake a birth certificate. Again he out making promises just as he did before and so they mean nothing. If he is your choice that is your right but remember the after effects will haunt you just as well as the rest of us and into the future after us.

m.correll- A religion such as Obama has - Christian? I'm amazed you would condemn his being Christian but that is your problem - not his. And, the birth certificate stupidity is just that! The after effects of voting that we are all paying for is the far right buying Bush the White House twice.

I'm almost amused that the Christian party is endorsing a three time cheater like Newt but not surprised. The GOP has become a party of lies and deceit and little else. There is no honor or integrity in the party of obstructionists. They only people they support are big oil and big business. There are no morals, no ethics, no integrity associated with what was once an honorable political party. Pity.

So you looking for a pat on the head, or an 'atta boy'?

that 2 out of 3 with one more to go today.

Feeling confident?

How's Eli, feeling better? Jet lag is tough.

Morning Dangerfield ... off topic but watching CNN last night and harkening back to an earlier conversation we had about Judy Woodruff, I could only wonder at how lowly David Gergen seems now that he is no longer doing the Gergen/Shields shtick on PBS.

Some aquarium dolphin picked the Giants and Pats to win today ... perhaps the beast is as prescient as you were.

dangerfield,

I don't believe just the 2010 & 2011 returns will appease Mr. Gingrich. He smells blood in the water, and like a shark will keep on Romney.

Go Giants!

Still can't decide on the AFC champion.

I don't know who is running Romney's campaign but they have better get their acts together. I am a Romney supporter and I have been angered by this whole process. Why were they not forceful in persuading Romney to release his tax returns? Those last 2 debates hurt Romney because Gingrich out-perfomened him in the last 2 debates (especially with those 2 media attack exchanges) and left a lasting impression to voters that he is the alternative and can be electable. And I really believe the tax return question sealed it for Gingrich. I have been screaming for Romney to release them. He finally made the right decision releasing them Tues. but the damage would have been so much less had he released them earlier and this controversy would be closed by now.

Morning Spanky, I see you've already had your first cup of bitch ... you should stay away from that stuff.

Maybe I'm a bit too cynical, but isn't it convenient that Romney and his camp chose this Tuesday, when much of the political media will also be focused on the State of the Union address? Also, you can better believe that the media and others will not be happy with one years worth of returns. After all, he's been running for president since 2007, and you can also believe that Romney's tax attorneys have had the 2010 returns scrubbed for anything remotely controversial. I'd be far more interested in his tax returns when he actually worked for Bain Capital, but there's a better chance of Gingrich apologizing to Clinton for the impeachment hearings than Romney releasing those.

Michael,

It makes one think of how White Houses (and I mean ALL administrations) like to "dump" news on late Friday afternoons, so not much coverage will come. At least in the old days. With the 24/7 news cycle, it doesn't work as well today.

Oh ideo - the easy retort would be to make a personal crack about you, but I'm better than that.

Happy Sunday Ideo. :)

Spanky,

No, your obvious admiration is more than enough (well, that and the fact that I NAILED it! haha) , especially considering your own reticence to to commit to ANYTHING at all despite several opportunities to do so.

Like I said, it was much easier to predict Mitt's collapse than the outcome of a football game, and whatever the result, I am also going to be right about WHICH win from the weekend's contests will be the #1 story here. Want to bet me on that one?

But hey, there's no shame in being afraid to put your money where your mouth is Spanx, not everyone has the "stuff" to put their opinion out there for fear of being wrong. You know, "Those who do vs. those who sit on the sidelines and criticize...

Pats in a ROUT

Giants in a Squeaker

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

We might never get the chance to find out Spanky, not they way things are going . Wow, he's dropping like a ROCK, isn't he? If the polling and trend is correct, it could be a real whuppin'!
(but, while they wouldn't all stay home, most won't be very motivated to vote for either Obama OR Obama-lite)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html
--------------------------------------
As to beating me up over my prediction on Monday, do you REALLY think THAT will be the loss everyone is talking about? Unlike my Giants (or any sports team) That IS a sure thing!
Giants 24-17

• !
#3.9 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:01 PM EST

Oh Spanky- have you dropped 'hoser' from you vocabulary eh?

The door is open a crack today, it will be wide open before long...He let his team get BEHIND the issue and look WEAK. When you're on the defensive, your opponents dictate the terms of battle. Mitt will be forced to release his returns and be seen as capitulating and being weak. All the Romney supporters who were supporting his evasions have to do an about face now, and that face is going to be red as a beet by week's end...

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

ISTV-

I am partial to the "Stock Pickin' Chicken" myself, but let's hope the dolphin is right...

No way you hoser. Does this mean you all are going to invade?

So that'd be a pat on the head then, eh danger?

Ok danger - let's hear your Florida prediction.

No Spanky, we do not consider the rampant fear in your country to be a worthwhile commodity.

Well thank goodness ideo.

I'd work on that comprehension thing there buddy if that's what you think you read...as to my Florida prediction;

I predict that it is wayyyy too soon to make a prediction on the outcome...You know like you were saying before Monster Trucks YESTERDAY?

I will "predict";

Santorum will drop out...and endorse Mitt, but his supporters will ignore him and flock to Newton.

The Florida polls will show a ten point swing tomorrow, towards Newton and away from Mitt.

Romney will set a record for money spent in Florida, by the end of the week, and his SP will spend over 4 MILLION dollars...

dangerfield,

Princess the camel at the Popcorn Zoo in NJ has picked the Giants. Although, being from NJ I do wonder about her impartiality.

As for the primary in Florida, early voting has been strong. Most counties started yesterday, with a few counties that were able to start earlier. Things to consider when looking at this state is the diversity of the population and the fact our Tea Party governor is not well liked. Just a little home information for all. One other piece of information, we also have a lot of absentee voters. And Jeb is not going to endorse anyone until AFTER the Florida primary - if he endorses at all.

I have stated several times that Jeb is sitting by the phone and happy that he won't have a long trip when the call comes for him to ride into Tampa and save the convention, and the party...wasn't he Machiavellian in deriding the "circular firing squad" while imploring Mitt to release his taxes?

Brilliant move IMO

dangerfield,

Couple of little notes on Jeb - His wife is from Columbia, he speaks fluent Spanish, and he really is the smartest of all the Bush family. He was to run for president before W., but it didn't work out that way. In his runs for governor here, he did get some cross over voters.

Dangerfield: Jeb made his decision...he'll wait for 1017...not enough time after his brother's fiasco to have healed...

I'm hoping to never see another Bush in the White House.

I have always suspected Jeb of something crooked, since he promised his brother, Dubya, that he would win Florida in the first election and ,lo and behold, GW won by the skin of his teeth, due to controversy in the Florida voting......

Not sure if anyone remembers this, but I was watching the "eyeball" network when Florida was initially called for Gore. At that moment they were interviewing the Bush family. When told that the state had been called for the Democrats the entire family was immediately flustered, sat up straight in their seats, and looked at each other in confusion. GW Bush responded "that's not what happened."

Within a short period of time a Bush cousin in the combined polling station of the networks had convinced them to reverse the call for Gore.

wah, wah, wah... you don't agree with me so you're stupid...wah, wah, wah

very insightful.

Wow a Muslim, Sharia Law, oh really! I don't ever recall seeing the First Lady in a birka. Ha you are ate up.

Patriot of what, exactly, Iraq? Here you see, we actually ELECT our leaders, and even if they insist on wearing their far right agendas on their sleeves to appease their rabid followers (i.e. GWBush--"he who must not be named"...), they are still elected leaders (even when we personally didn't vote for them.) Social security for instance, may be all "socialist" to the rabid right, but most Americans know bestter and that's exactly why you're going to have so many, many more years to rethink what a "patriot" is.

Let's not forget that Ron Paul's the only one without serious shortcomings, or at least none that Mitt and Newt don't have. I'm not sure about his economic policy, but the rest is spot on. And yet the media chooses to ignore him... again.

ron Paul, without "serious shortcomings"??? LOL...oh spartan, that was really the laugh of the day. (you were joking right? The guy who is considered such a loon even among his colleagues, he has never been able to pass one single piece of legislation in his "career"?

Funny, "Patriot" used to be a good word, but now, this "Patriot" seems to want to see America continue its downward spiral by electing the guy who cheats on his wife while persecuting another guy for doing the same thing. Then he states that his adulterous, lying ways are due to him feeling "Patriotic." What the hell??

Is that kinda like "Pimp" becoming a good word, when "Pimp" used to be a bad word?

The guy who is considered such a loon even among his colleagues, he has never been able to pass one single piece of legislation in his "career"?

As though passing laws is a good measure of quality representation? You would vote for someone who successfully gets hundreds of pro-communist laws past, just because he's "productive"?

They call Ron Paul "Dr No" for a reason, and that reason is that he's a man of principle who cannot be bought. Lobbyist don't bother to see him because they know it's useless to try to get him to do things that he thinks is wrong.

Ron Paul is probably the most honest presidential candidate to run in the last 100 years.

Affinity,

You are correct--but, you mentioned the name that is not be uttered (Bush) when describing the history of our current problems. Now the usual suspects will bite.

You can always tell a conservative--but you can't tell them much.

All that sucked Affinity, but it is all worse now.

Real unemployment at about 17%. $5 Trillion plus in debt in just 3 years.

THe reality is there has been a huge failure of government for a log time. The solution is to try to effect change.

Stated simply Obama is not the solution. He has not brought change, and has decreased hope.

Affinity......Do you know that in the final 3 months of the Bush administration, when we lost 2.3 million jobs, the democrats had a majority control of both houses of congress and wrote every bill that Bush signed. So if you should blame anyone, why are you blaming Bush instead of the people that wrote the bills he signed?

Unemployment did not start a downturn untill AFTER socialist lib democrat congress took over and the last "3 months", (your words) of Bush, it was known hussain oBAMA was elected! It is hell to see the truth huh!

Perhaps a parallel -

Newt and Clinton got the budget balanced. GOP controlled congress, Dem pres.

In 2006 dems took back over. not only do we not have a balanced budget the dems refuse to even create a budget.

Affinity - why does Reid refuse this basic need?

Simple. Governing by continuing resolution allows the money to be spent as wanted with no accountability by the president. Then back to Congress when it is gone. You promise nor tell them nothing; just get the money. Like a college student that you keep putting money in their checking account and they empty it with no accountability! You have done nothing wrong if you did not have a budget to try to follow!:)

thunder #'s,

back again with unintelligible blather. damn good thing you told me you were black, yesterday. I was going to stereotype you as trailer trash....

Do you know that in the final 3 months of the Bush administration, when we lost 2.3 million jobs, the democrats had a majority control of both houses of congress and wrote every bill that Bush signed. So if you should blame anyone, why are you blaming Bush instead of the people that wrote the bills he signed?

Anyone who thinks only one side is responsible for this mess is so delusional even medication won't help.

Numb - there is nothing wrong with people who live in trailers.

Plus living in a trailer provides a lot of incentive.

A lot.

@Spanky,

very true--I gave you a vote for that!

The first place my wife and I rented was a trailer. Some of "my best friends" have lived in trailers....

Affinity

Well said!

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

Reublicans are not the solution they are the problem? RIGHT! We can all see just how well the Democrats have been doing since they took power in congress in 2008 and especially since America made the mistake of electing a Democrat POTUS who took office in 2009!

First we heard the Democrats in Congress blaming Bush for blocking nearly everything they wanted in spite of the fact that they (including Jr. Senator Obama at the time) gave Bush most of what he wanted. Next we get a Democrat in the White House and when things go from bad to worse (with the Democrats still firmly in control of congress) they blame Bush again for their failed policies. Then comes January 2011 and the Republicans regain control of the House with the Democrats still in control of the White House and Senate and now it is the Republicans in the House who are at fault for all of Obama's failed policies? Even you should be beginning to see a pattern of irresponsible behavior coming from the White House and Democrats in the Senate by now!

Lets say for arguement's sake that the Democrats loose control of the Senate and Obama is re-elected for another term as POTUS. Are you naive enough to believe for one minute that he will hesitate for one minute to blame it all on the Republicans? Hell he does that now and they don't even have control of both the House and Senate!

Obama is a lot of things but the fact is his past is a complete mystery. No other POTUS in U.S. history has ever went to such lengths to hide has past. His college records" SEALED! Why he (and his wife both) gave up their license to practice law? SEALED! Try to find one person from high school, or college who will come forth and say they knew Barack (Barry) Obama. They either don't exist or have chosen of their own accord not to come forth. I can give you names and addresses of at least 10 people who knew me in high school under the name I go by now, yet none seem to exist for the man who is our POTUS???? And none of this strikes anyone as even remotely strange? Why are people afraid of offending him? Is it because of the color of his skin?

The POTUS is a role model like it or not! If we allow him to remain unaccountable for HIS actions/policies that don't work out, then we are sending a message to our kids that they can emulate the same irresponsible actions. While this example is admittedly way out in left field it does illustrate the point: A teenager shoots and kills someone with a firearm. Using the Obama defense he blames it on the maker of the gun and ammo because anyone with any sense knows that if there were no guns and or ammo for guns, no one would get shot, right? Now using this line of thinking we should excuse the actions of this person because after all it is our duty to protect him (and others) from his irresponsible actions by punishing the maker of the ammo and gun, right?

Now do we really want to give this clown another 4 years to continue his irresponsible and reckless behavior with regards to America's economic future? I know I don't.

Ernie: let's say the obvious and guess President Obama is heading for a second term against the weakest republican field since Wendell Wilkie. Will the extreme right stop its nonsense of pretending he can't really be an American (having spent time as a child outside the country) or isn't a Christian (having a name they still can't quite pronounce) or is "reckless" after having continued the bailout of some of the oldest and most conservative institutions and financial markets in the country? Can we assume the far right will continue to defy reality and insist we are all overtaxed (despite the lowest effective tax rates in the last 25 years) that the country is headed for the cliff (despite the cliff having been averted despite GW's best efforts at diving over) and weak (despite finally ending one of the two worst and ill conceived wars the US has been involved with)? I'm guessing the whining, angry extremists will keep right on going until their party gets tired of losing national elections on fear, hate and anger and kicks them out into their own "alternative" party.

Nicely said, AP.

AP-- Wendell Wilkie was actually the strongest opponent FDR faced. He was also the most honorable, a word that hardly applies anymore.

Okie: I'd beg to differ with you on "strongest opponent"...Wilkie was a liberal Repubican, back when those two words wouldn't elicit laughter,who had the task in his day of pulling a "Romney"...winning the much more conservative Republican base, and doing it from his record as a life-long opponent of isolationism...that was never, ever going to work and his waffling on the issue in his day pleased no one and was hardly seen as honorable...(FDR won an unbelievable 85% of the popular vote in that election and was big enough to offer and for Wilkie to accept a position after the election in his administration)...

Quite right biker chick. My standard question to the "blame bush" crowd has been "where were the democrats".

Of course I also believe that the consumers also played a big part in our "great reccessiion" just as they will play a big part in our recovery.

I have found it remarkable that with the WH and congress in gridlock these past 2 years that the economy is recovering, albet slowly. Rather implies that a lack of government meddling is a good thing.

AP - extremists on either side of the fence will never give up their delusions on obamas place of birth. Some today still claim a shooter in the grassy knoll or that FDR chose to ignore japanese intentions prior to dec 7, 1941 by doing nothing or that 9/11 didn't happen as explained.

Ernie has valid points on obamas policy actions and methodology.

Myself, I just think that obama failed to deliver on "hope and change" within the context of a recessionary recovery. His continuous campaign rhetoric since the midterm elections is not a good sign that he wants change either. I would expect blame game rhetoric from a member of congress, not a POTUS. Obama could have used about another 12 years in the senate before trying to use on the job training for POTUS.

Ernie, AP; Even you should see a pattern? Come on. Theres no pattern. Can't you remember what happened ten years ago? I guess not, because your too busy trying to put the blame on the dems. Give me a break already. When Dubya was in office and the dems were in congress, 9/11 happened and well so did a WAR, now when theres a war, this country comes together and they support the president, naturally they believe the president, thinking he's telling the truth and they back him a 100% and some even if they don't want too, because its the right thing to do. So you see through this and you say theres a pattern there. Thats beautiful, your gifted. Especially putting a pattern together and coming out and pointing your finger directly on the bad guy. It sounds to me like you would be a great divorce court judge, yep you could find the pattern and distribute the belongs for them as you see best fit because you see the pattern. Unreal.

My thoughts of Romney are the EXACT same thoughts of Gingrich ... liars & cheats, the both of 'em. Only difference is Romney could be going to jail after the Cayman accounts come out ... and they WILL come out. Only 2 reasons to hide money in the Caymans ... tax evading or illegal/dishonest money. Which is it going to be, Mitt? And Gingrich ... if he actually believes in his BIBLE ... he knows he already has a seat reserved in HELL when he dies. The devil's keeping your seat warm for your adulterous butt, Newt!

MAC, C'mon!! Already you have Romney going to jail before the return is even out?? This is so ridiculous! People might not like what is in Mitt Romney's tax return because it will show he has been successful with his investments and got rewarded for them based on the tax laws. I don't believe anything illegal is going to come out but I know he will be villified by the left for his tax rate, his success and whatever else they want to find! This was the reason he did not want to release them. I can't wait until he releases them and this controversy can finally be put to rest!

And Gingrich ... if he actually believes in his BIBLE ... he knows he already has a seat reserved in HELL when he dies. The devil's keeping your seat warm for your adulterous butt, Newt!

You, obviously, don't know anything about the Catholic Religion. Newt converted to THAT religion and if he went to confession, confessed his "sins", God forgave him for them and assured him a place in HEAVEN! That is the Catholic belief!

That, aside, who really gives a rip about what he did 15 (or so) years ago? People change...

I'd rather have someone with BIG ideas than someone with NO ideas in the driver's seat! We already have someone with NO ideas and that isn't working.

I'll temper the above by saying that "Fundamentally Changing America" is NOT an idea that I want to live with!

Obama can see the writing on the wall and he is FINALLY trying to take the wind out of the Republicans sails by starting to champion their views as his own. Too little, too late!

Pappa Dave -- Confession only brings forgiveness if you TRULY repent and change your ways. It doesn't mean a free pass to keep on doing what you're doing.

Okie, Pappa: all irrelevant in a democracy. now if this were Iran, a theocracy, i could see the debate about whether Newt was "forgiven" or not (for what, the cheating, the ethics violations, the government shutdown, the racial attacks?)

2008 all over again. Great job South Carolina- when are you going to learn to stop listening to what candidates say and research what they have done? Newt as the candidate is a gift to the democrats. Yes, he helped get the house back but then Newt was responsible for the most seat losses in 64 years in the very next election. Newt is a divisive person and can not win in the general election. What he can win is a debate but that won't matter as much in the general election because there aren't 16+ debates- there might be 2.

Saying South Carolinians are value voters is like saying President Obama is fiscally responsible. Newt had affairs and lectured on family values at the same time- great morals. Newt, now trying on his second or third religion, says he has found God and been forgiven but expresses no remorse or regret- a few years ago he justified these affairs because he was too patriotic and working too hard for his country and then even tried to play the victim card in the debate with his "everyone has felt pain" which is true but that is usually not something you hear from the person that CAUSED the pain. People change but Newt's past actions show a very nasty pattern of the person he really is.

South Carolina was suckered and listened to Newt debate and "fight the liberal media" and didn't bother to research the candidate. South Carolina has done the democrats proud

Thank God for the Tea Party and second amendments righs...where's the likes of rep Joe Walsh...if that jerk comes to any bar-pizza parlor in this town....he'll get his ass kicked!

MacNfries:

I'm with you! I can't wait, either! Hopefully even the lemmings can see that the Anointed One's handling of the economy and foreign policy aren't working in our best interest!

Can you run for office? There is more truth in your post than I have seen from any of the candidates!

I am a republican, but could not agree with you more.

For all the "Annointed One" and "Messiah" talk from the right wing retards about the president, they sure aren't offering anyone than can be taken seriously as an alternative.

As for the president's handling of foreign policy, all I can say is Osama bin Laden. Obama did what the retard Bush couldn't, he took out bin Laden. Also, as to the economy, polls show the majority of Americans agree that republicans caused the economic mess we're in, and it's going to take a lot more than 3 years to fix it.

MacNfries: Funny thing is that the very "close-minded, right wing whacko extremist gun hugging bible thumping religious nutjobs" that you descry were tolerant enough to consider and accept an acknowledged fallen man who claims to have changed. Weirdly, if your prejudice and condemnation of rightwing TP'ers were on target it would have predicted or perhaps even demanded an entirely different result and either Santorum or Romney would have easily won...over an adulterous, lying, excommunicated ReThuglican. Perhaps you should examine whether or not your distinctions and prejudices are rife with contradictions that are too subtle for you to reconcile?

BDA: you may find nobility in the notion that the "fallen" man who claims to have changed (never apologized to the nation for closing down the government or his ethics violations, or to either wife for those other matters, but ok, he knows your kind will consider all that irrelevant as long as he claims he's "forgiven")...and who is now being accepted by those so desperate to beat the President they hate they're willing to overlook any amount of salacious and destructive behavior with a little ol' 'oops...all better now'...You'll have to use that special version of forgiveness for the rest of us who don't agree with you that the lack of human decency is some kind of a necessary qualification for high office as long as you can later claim to have overcome that lack...(or is that too subtle for you to reconcile?)

AP: Thank you for projecting grand[iose] nobility in such an optimistic and world-affirming judgment of a[ny] man. I am moved that you determined with no apparent supporting facts or even thoughtfulness as to what I am willing to apparently overlook...or to what experience I have in these matters. In fact, my diatribe was also aimed at assailing Mac's assumptions about TeaPartyers and South Carolinians as patent liberal vacuous pap. Nope...not too subtle...appears to be pretty obvious that "MacNAP" have everyone all figured out.

Hey Pappadave stop being so ignorant..Obama was elected..not anointed...I know you find it difficult to accept that ...

C - we know he was elected, obama is the one who thinks he was anointed. Get with the program...

MacNfries. Lincoln didn't allow states to leave the union back in his day when it was their right to do so. He was another tin pot dictator in my view.

Gun hugging? wow. Don't you want to bare arms? You know our forefathers gave us that right in writing to protect us should the government ever turn on it's citizens. You are so bent on bashing Christianity and guns. The twin pillars of European civilization. Israel's people defend them selves don't we have that right to?

You're right, TammyB, how dare Lincoln deprive upstanding Southerners of their God-given property rights!

Thanks for giving us a glimpse into the true hearts of today's Conservative Movement...a group whose true desire is to relitigate the Civil War and issues settled as far back as 1865. Birchers, Birthers, Tenthers (that's you)...history will not look well upon this time when the Republican Party mainstreamed crazy.

By the way, I'm not against bare arms, it just isn't a good idea during an Iowa winter.

Newt is 100% pure evil. No doubt.

I'll bet the youth just love the fact that Gingrich wanted to put to death anyone found with 2 ounces or more of marijuana. He figured that after the first 30 deaths or so that people would give up drugs.

He also claims that when he did marjuana that it was cool, but now it is immoral and a crime worth dying for.

Just as soon as he finishes mining the moon he will be back to kill our children for something he himself has done.

Just like when his own party threw him out of congress. But Newt is trying to convince voters that he was cool when he did it. Laws are made for other people not him. Only a republicans would want a man who is prove to be a corrupt politician, a liar and has done more to destroy traditional marriage than a whole community of gay people.

Go Newt you have come to represent the most disgusting side of the republican party who thinks it is only fair for the poor to starve so he can give the 1% more tax cuts.

For the love of America Obama/Biden 2012

americans first------we must over look newts past---he is our savior and will save the day for all of america by ending food stamps------is this guy crazy? LOOK OUT ALL YOU JANITORS--newt is sending ex-welfare recipients / no child left behind kids for your jobs.

The only reason Rick Santorum is still in it is because Bachmann and Perry were even crazier than he is, and they provided a distraction from Rick's brand of insanity. Now that the smokescreens are gone, he'll be next to drop out.

... and Newt is still in because..... he's so well-spoken? ....... he's so smart? ...... or maybe because he just knows what America needs - a brand new contract ???

In Rick, what you hear is what you get. With Newt, it's whatever will help Newt in his unending search for acclaim.

affinidiot,,,Halted the decline? Even using your bogus numbers, unemployment is still twice as high as with bush, and the price of a gallon of gas is double too! You have a total state of blind ignorance!

Affinity....We are still upset about debt and unemployment. You can't deny the fact that Obama is much better at accumulating debt than Bush. In just 3 years, he has almost passed Bush's 8 years of debt. You can blame the prescription drug benefit, but democrats thought that we didn't spend enough. The crash of the economy was a perfect storm from the last 30 years of mismanagement and the democrats bear just as much blame. The failures of Obama are not that he created the mess, the problem is that he is standing in the way of recovery. As for your last two sentences, they are simply wrong and untrue. That would be like me saying that democrats want us to go bankrupt like Greece and purposely collapse the economy.

Please enlighten us just how is President Obama standing in the way of recovery. During the Debt Ceiling debacle, Obama gave them 98% of what the republicans wanted. The republicans have obstructed and blocked any bill that would get Americans back to work such as the jobs act that President Obama has been trying to get passed.

It seems that the republicans do want us to go bankrupt like Greece and purposely trying to collapse the economy. Why else would the republicans vote to create the deficit with tax cuts during war time? Even now the economist are predicting with just the ending of the bush tax cuts that the deficit would be paid off by 2026.

You of course know what the republicans want to do, they want to make the bush tax cuts permanent and then cut programs for the people and our country to pay for it. All the republicans want to raise taxes on the working poor to pay for more tax cuts for the 1%.

Good for Gingrich and Richey Rich Romney, but not so much for Americans.

America first...remember this Republicans are like terrorists,,they have openly said their first goal is not to fix the economy but to defeat Obama.,.like terrorists they want to spread hate and fear and bigotry and object and stall possible effort to get the economy moving again..what do you expect from a party that worships Gingrich and Limbaugh..