Shut up Newt...

Don't display your ignorance...

Yep, the Newt should have said he would not participate in a debate with Obama DICTATED by the press.

Very convenient for Gingrich to blame the media for not wanting to debate the President. Obama was gracious enough to accept a debate with Gingrich - Obama doesn't have to do this. I'd be interested to see them go head-to-head at a debate and see if Gingrich can back up his words while facing the President instead of making comments behind his back. Funny how Gingrich has no problem with the media when it benefits him. Can you say "chicken"?

If you want to see how really stupid Gingrich is, go to this link: www.debates.org

Apparently he did not know that he has absolutely no say-so. He can opt out if he is a coward, and if his poll numbers fall too low won't be asked, but beyond that he has absolutely no say in the matter. Neither does Pres. Obama.

Let's see, Newt has previously been on record as wanting to challenge Obama to something like .... 15 debates of 4 hours each. Please explain to me how that constitutes "chicken". He simply wants to eliminate Obama cheerleaders such as Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz.

@jim,

The "cheerleaders" you mention would have no say-so either. The dates, subjects, questions, formats and sites are all selected by the Comission on Presidential Debates. It doesn't show anything except Gingrich's ignorance of the very system he has entered. He was trying to set up a situation where he would make offers to debate Obama and Obama would defer (as he must) to the CPD. Then the wing-nuts would spin it as he was a coward who wouldn't debate Gingrich/Obama. This was originally a Romney strategy to skip the debates and try to pin it on Obama, but Gingrich screwed it up with his complete ignorance of how the debates are conducted.

The truth is that Gingrich will not be asked to participate because he will not be the nominee. And Romney will get nailed. You have to remember that despite the wing-nuts denying that it could ever have been, that Obama was a very high-powered lecturer in a lily-white conservative law school for twelve years and a student in law school for 4 more. That is 16 years of virtually daily exposure to the Socratic method.

Gingrich was, on the other hand, denied tenure-track in a podunk community college in south Georgia because he was, as his denial stated, "not intellectually prepared."

@Chris #2.6,

I find it highly amusing you would wear the elephant symbol of the Crimson Tide as part of your moniker .... most alumni from that institution do not support the liberal agenda of increased taxation, out-of-control spending and vast government growth as has been evidenced by the Obama administration.

There are no "wing-nuts" any more than there are "dummy-craps" but thanks for showing us your prejudicial mindset. Mr. Gingrich has been, I believe, previously on record as stating he would like to debate Obama something like 15 times for a four-hour presentation each. Now, you can spin that all day long, but that certainly indicates a willingness, if not a desire to debate Obama.

As far as your statement that Gingrich will not be the nominee and Romney will get nailed ..... I had no idea I was conversing with "Carnak the Magnificent" or God ..... or whatever else you think you are. There will be many primaries before the Republican candidate is decided upon. Predictions from the left are amusing but have no relevance for now.

Jim, when Newt Gingrich made that challenge he knew it had a snow balls chance in hell of taking place. It's a stupid idea and in today's society, there would be few people who would sit through one four hour debate let alone 15 or 16 or whatever the number Newt tossed out. Newt suggested that because HE KNEW IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN. It's easy for Newt to sound like confident and brave when the odds were in his favor he'd never have to participate.

@Chris -749391: You are correct about his not being "intellectually prepared". Just because you can blow smoke up everyone's backside and think exceptionally and narcissistically highly of yourself, just means that you are a flim flam man, or a psychopath, or insane. And because you con others into believing in you the same way you do, just means that they are either sheeple or also insane themselves.

jim - Gingrich is happy to debate Obama as long as no one tosses him any difficult questions or makes him answer for his lies and deceit. His willingness to debate Obama is a ruse - he wants to dictate when, where, the questions and who the audience is. That's not a debate - that's a GOP fundraiser. Newt knows he couldn't hold a candle to Obama and is now quickly backtracking.

Jim 145-

Dude, I'm not sure if understand how politics works in America. If your an underdog like Newt, you say the most outlandish things you and your advisers can think to say, not that it means anything. The outlandisher the better, and this bring you press time, and as everyone knows, there is no such thing as bad press in politics, unless maybe if your named after an aquatic lizard!!

After tomorrow, when it becomes clear to everyone, including Speaker Moonbeam, that Romneycare is going to be carrying the Repugnican flag, the threats, insults, and intimidation should die down. Then when crazy old grandpa throws in the flag, it will be time to rally behind the Mormon corporation figurehead.

Dude,

Perhaps Mr. Gingrich doesn't want "politics as usual" in America. Perhaps that is why he is ready, willing and able to debate Obama on the issues. Obama cannot hide behind the high platitudes of "hope and change" this time .... he must stand on his ideological record of GROWING GOVERNMENT whether through legislation, appointment of unaccountable czars or with the bribes, kickbacks and closed-door meetings needed to cram through Obamacare .... yet another government entitlement program our country cannot afford.

We know Obama wants to focus on outlandish things .... his record as President is dismal.

Starder...you cant use moonbeam......its a copyrighted name and has been for years. Gov. Brown will have NO part of it.

jim,

Jody was giving Newton the benefit of the doubt of having some basic knowledge of the election process.She was in fact being generous.

But seeing he had only ran from a congressioal district in Georgia, nothing more, we only have Newton's action to observe.

Therefore he does not know what he is talking about.1. He did not know what the filing deadline was in the Virginia, the state he lives in. so he is not on the ballot, only Romney and Paul are. 2. His talk about wanting all these debates with President Obama... His words and actions show that he does not know about the Commission that is already in place and have set up the presidental debates to which both political parties have agreed upon.

jim,

So what if Virginia has a different set of rules for getting on the ballot. Newton did not get on the ballot because he failed to qualify.

Newton's concern about the media bias is laughable. He is the supreme media whore. It is his only stage he can play on. Even his bookstore book signings need the media.

This might be a" weak little article"but it sure sucked you into the thread....;0)

Reporters will be banned from MoonBaseNewtOne too.

Sadly, since I enjoy his hand grenade about to go off in every one's face routine, he's going to get his uppity butt slapped down. The establishment is here to put him in his place.

Romney will need moderators at the debates when they happen, just so he'll know what to say. Without his handler's hand in is back, his lips don't even move, and crazy things come out of that wooden head.

I doubt very much that this is about Gingrich not knowing the system and how it works. This is about posturing and making himself look like a big man but trying to come off as some macho, swaggering blow hard. At this point, I think he's aware that he has zero chance of being the nominee, and is just trying to maintain a public image as the @!$%#-who-could.

@jim,

Since you have absolutely nothing factual to say, you resort to the "idiot's game" and start name-calling. Big deal. It only shows a lack of critical thinking skills.

And you're wrong about UA alumni. The University of Alabama, like most colleges and universities is solidly jusr left of center. Tuscaloosa County in which it is located, is solidly Democratic. The City of Tuscaloosa is solidly Democratic. The precinct in which the university is located is solidly Democratic. Strangely enough, the majority of college graduates, UA included, are left of center. You have to remember that a couple of months ago, Clarence Thomas was booed at a courthouse opening when he quoted Scalia that "There can't be too much corporate free speech. And money is speech."

And taxes have gone down under Obama, or do you lack a job and have missed that? The size of government has shrunk since Obama came to office, or don't you get out much? And your accusations of unaccountable czars, bribes, kickbacks, and secret meetings are just paranoid ravings with no basis in fact.

And last, but certainly not least, Gingrich has made several offers to debate, but all have been carefully crafted and worded so that they will never happen. The venues for presidential debates are strictly controlled by the Commission for Presidential Debates. They set the time, place, format and agenda. Either Gingrich is too stupid to know this or he thinks people like you are so stupid that you will believe it.

Either way, you just went on ignore. I do not tolerate fools well. Bye bye

@CathyM,

The quote was from the letter from West Georgia College turning down his application for tenure-track (whereby he would eventually be considered for tenure.) His bunch has always spun it that he was denied tenure. In fact he was denied the opportunity to even try for tenure. When tenure committees say that you are not intellectually prepared, they generally mean that you lack the mental mindset to endure the low-paying grind for the twenty or so years it would take to be considered for tenure. It's kinda like W and his Harvard MBA --- all he ever says is that he was accepted into the MBA program since he neither took classes, did his case study, or is listed as a graduate. (And an alumnus means only that you attended, not that you graduated.

And BTW. Virginia does not have strange election laws. To be on the primary ballot, you must have 10,000 signatures, but those must include 400 signatures from each of the congressional districts. That's all. The Virginia GOP sets the rules and they are very lax. But they didn't even try to certify Gingrich's 10,050 signatures because there were no signatures from several of the districts, so it was a waste of time. The Virginia Democratic Party even offered to vouch for Gingrich as a friend of the court to try to get he and Perry both on the ballot, but the Virginia GOP estimated that at the most Gincrich would have only an estimated 8500 valid signatures so it was a waste of time. Both Gingrich and Perry failed for the simple reason that they had no "boots on the ground" in mostly rural Virginia. Ron Paul was certified to be on the ballot even though he is technically not even a Republican.

jim-1455434

Jody, As soon as you said "..... he knew...", you lost all credibility with your post. You expect us to believe a liberal poster such as yourself knows the innermost thoughts of a Republican candidate ?????

Really Jim? Let me guess you're a Newt supporter? Jody may be a "liberal" but she is worth listening to, as is Phine and a lot of others, you are what is tearing our country apart, I'm one of the idiotic righties that people like AP love to try and tear apart, dude, there's dumb asses on both sides, you want to have a stake in this game? stop with the name calling.

Good for Newt. We are sick of yellow journalism, ( If any of you dumb liberals know what that is?) and liberal journalists themselves. Be prepared, we are taking back America!!

STOP with the name calling! DO y;all realize how stupid you make the rest of us look? You know those of us that have actual brains?

jim-1455434

Virginia has a different set of rules from most other ststes.

.......So this makes Newt a one trick pony? He can't handle more than one set of rules. If he can't handle one state, then how the hell is he going to run the whole country?

I don't think Rick Perry got on the ballot there either. Therefore, your weak attempt at "causality" fails.

....Is there supposed to be some kind of quid-pro-quo here? Did you think before you posted this? Are you saying the Newt wasn't the only dummy? At least Perry overcame his stupidity and realized the futility of his pursuit of the Holy Grail and dropped out.

The whole content of this weak little article is quite simple .... Mr. Gingrich is concerned about media bias in the debate questioning process.

....."Concerned", or frightened? How is this guy going to lead if he can't even handle the media in a debate, do you think China, North Korea, Iran or Russia are going to be easy on the World's Stage?

....And please don't show ignorance by calling me a liberal. I do not support the DEM party, there is much in their agenda I don't like. I voted GOP for years (Reagan twice, GHW Bush, Dole, and GW Bush, but only the first time, after one year I saw what a mistake President Cheney and his string puppet George were so I supported McCain in the 2004 GOP primary, but unfortunately enough other Republicans didn't agree with me), but today's new, improved GOP/TP has lost me, they have become dedicated to the wealthy and corporations to the extent they have abandoned any attempt to aid the Middle Class and Main Street, the average, everyday working Jane and Joe in this country (just look at their so called "tax reform" proposals). So you and your friends can go play Right Field, and the other guys can go play Left Field. Me, I'm going to stay in Center Field and see who makes the most errors. Anyone want to join me in Center Field, I know John Fogerty would.

@Chris #2.21,

I struck a nerve in you and an onslaught of distortions flowed from your keyboard.

First, I believe you are conveniently distorting the political climate of the University of Alabama as a weak attempt to back up your liberal spin. The University of Alabama is right of center and their voting history has proved it consistently over the years.

Second, show me where I did any name-calling of you or any other specific poster here on the vine. You jump to that vague accusation after you make a reference to "idiot's game" because you are hypocritical and cannot handle opinions other than your own.

Third, I suggest you read this monstrosity called "Obamacare" to see a significant number of tax increases built-in. Now, taxpayers get to pay medicare taxes on certain gains which have absolutely nothing to do with health care. We also have a tax on tanning booths. The amount you could put into a medical reimbursement plan has been reduced and that can raise your taxes. The deduction for medical expenses on Schedule A has been increased from 7.5% to 10% making it even harder to get a medical deduction ..... even in a year when you could have a significant health event. Then of course, there are the "fines" for non-compliance with de fuerher in purchasing the MANDATED health insurance..... although Obama now wants to call these "taxes" so he can squeeze it by the Supreme Court.

All of those little taxes are "factual" ...... so I guess that pretty much debunks your opening line on which you base your rant that ensued.

Fourth, I never said the voting laws of Virginia were strange. At #2.17, I said they were "different" so you are merely attempting to distort my post.

@1SGFitzsWife4ID,

The terminology of referring to someone as "conservative" or "liberal" is quite common in ordinary discourse of politics. Therefore, your faux outrage and distorting this as "name-calling" is totally ridiculous. If you can show where I have referred to any poster here in a direct, name-calling fashion ..... then please give me the post number. Your statement that I am tearing this country apart is ludicrous. Have you taken your meds today ?

By the way, I am not a "Newt supporter" nor am I a "Mitt supporter" at this time, although either one could do a better job than Obama of leading our country back to some of fiscal sanity. Obama is a salesman, our country needs someone who understands accounting and economics.

Hoo Boy jim is really squirming. lol

Nice try Sally ..... no intelligent comment about the article, huh ?

Correction to #2.27, the AGI "FLOOR" for medical deductions has been raised making it harder to get a medical deduction.

Too bad none of you libbies caught that ! LOL !!

Well considering George S and his selective hearing disorder at the one debate when Newt mentioned something I can see his point. Just ignore the debater if you don't like the subject they bring up. That is the way the media is handling the debates.

The media isn't running for President.

Gingrich repeatedly tries to evade responsibility for his own prior actions and statements, and works very hard to distract attention away from being called to account for himself. It's likely a reflection of his innate arrogance, presuming that the American people don't have the right to have him answer for every bit of his own demonstrated poor judgment. Indeed, it is excessive and therefore unseemly, but that's only because Gingrich's failings are so voluminous and so deep. A rational man would have either been prepared for and graciously accepted such continual and intense raking, hoping for forgiveness to stem from fortitude and forthrightness, or avoided its all by not running for public office.

Romney, on the other hand, doesn't shrink from responsibility for the bad that he's done, but rather generally takes pride in the offenses, rationalizing them in his own mind. I can respect that a bit more.

I don't believe Gingrich will get the nomination. But, he's totally right. The media are biased towards Obama. I remember one of the three debates in 2008 was moderated by a black female who allowed Obama to speak over the top of McCain, when it wasn't his (Obama's) turn.

This isn't a game show or a sporting contest. It's a serious election. We can decide for ourselves who stands for what, without the laugh lines, and the rancor; which is all these debates ever produce.

Right-leaning voters are prone to see unfair bias even when there isn't any. Claiming that there is unfair bias in the debates in the President's favor is no more valid than saying there is no such bias.

I think, more likely, the issue is that the President's campaigning strengths include debate skills, and that makes it seem to his detractors that there simply must be some unfair bias going on. They manage to see things that would lead them to believe that, while they manage to ignore things that would indicate that that's not the case.

Well Backhouse: Just as I was getting ready to put you on my list of people to gloat to in Nov. you have come up with the most intelligent post since you started. Guess I'll delay it awhile.

From an interesting Washington Post article on the Lincoln Douglas debates:

"These lengthy rhetorical bouts tested the endurance of the audiences and the candidates. Rather than inspiring memorable words, they proved for the most part an embarrassment. The encounters were brutally sarcastic, featuring highly personal attacks rather than elevated discourse......"

Hmmm....that's really what you want, Newt?

".....And while they were the first major political forums transcribed by stenographers, the debates were not even accurately published. The texts we know today were massaged by partisan editors eager to make their candidate sound less garbled. Newspapers of the era were openly connected to major parties — imagine Fox or MSNBC editing debate tapes before broadcast."

Oh, say it wasn't so!

“To understand Lincoln-Douglas, we must remember a time when politics focused the frenzy that is today captured by the Super Bowl and “American Idol.” With little to entertain them outside church and county fairs, Americans flocked by the thousands to political events. Spectators stood for hours, toted banners, hocked wares, fired cannons, downed hard drink and raucously interrupted speakers with hurrahs and harassment — there was no Brian Williams-like proscription against audience response."

All right! Firing cannons and downing hard drink - now we're getting somewhere!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lincoln-douglas-debates-werent-as-great-as-gingrich-thinks/2012/01/25/gIQABwX1VQ_story.html

jo Anne,

Thanks for giving us the real history of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

i learned something new today. That why I love FR.

JoAnne--"firing cannons and downing hard drink"---sounds like the Dew Drop Inn to me!!

I think we need to have a Florida election party tomorrow.

Go @Joanne,

But I would have rather read that they "hawked" their wares, rather than "hocked" them. Ewwwwww. LOL

I just finished reading "Infamous Scribblers" (what Geo. Washington called the press.) It was even worse in the early days of the country. Reading the things that people like Jefferson said about people like Washington sounds a great deal like today's rhetoric.

And it was even worse when the Know-Nothings were around. They hated all taxes, hated their government, wanted the Federal government dismantled, and instead of hating Muslims hated Catholics and instead of objecting to Mexicans coming into the country, they hated the Irish. And many of them actually called themselves the "Second Tea Party." But when asked if they were members, they were supposed to say, "I know nothing."

Chris, What the hell's your point ?

Chris -

Good catch! Or maybe it was like one big pawn shop? :)

And what do you mean about "when the Know-Nothings were around"? Seems to me they never left.....

"Infamous Scribblers" sounds like a good read - thanks for the info!

JoAnne, thanks for posting the facts about the Lincoln/Douglas debates. They were entertaining for those who had the stamina but we do not read about any other similar debates so they did not set the standard for debating.

Jim, Chris's point is pretty obvious and read the part about "Know Nothings" and replace with "Tea Party" or "Libertarian".

Chris's point is to try desperately to disparage. For liberals to try and pretend they know what the Tea Party is about is truly laughable. There is nothing to back up the concept of "hating government", but there is the concept of government HAVING A BUDGET and living within that budget.

Furthermore, comparing society "now" to society "then" is comparing apples to oranges. $15.1 trillion and rising !

Well Sir!!!!! After all the post I've seen on here....... I wished he'd/ Mr. President would debate newt! Newt would rip him to shreds!.... I guess that wish wont come true. Like any of the lies he's spoon feeding people. The only thing I see that may get torn to shreds is the road, Were newts burning it up trying to get away from a totally embarassing shellacking from the Commander And Chief..... What a piece of work.....

"The encounters were brutally sarcastic, featuring highly personal attacks rather than elevated discourse......"

This would be exactly what Newt would like. To be able to attack and insult his opponent freely for hours, he would be right in his sarcastic element. Would it be helpful for the public to understand the real issues? No

@Mugwump,

I seriously doubt that Gingrich could do much more that launch a few zingers supplied by Michelle Bachman's debate prep team. You have to remember that Obama went to law school and was an instructor in Constitutional Law at a lily-white conservative law school for twelve years. That amount of exposure to the Socratic method day in and day out almost certainly left its mark. (For any who don't know what the Socratic Method is or why it is relevalt, just google it.)

It is also why Gingrich was very unpopular as an academic. As a very junior instructor he was very blatant that he thought he was the smartest guy in the room. And one place where thet NEVER flies is in academia. Besides that he was caught in flagrante delecto with at least two coeds --- a no-no of the first order, especially when you're already married (to someone 9 years older than he) and had two small children at home. If you can't maintain collaborators and keep your hands off the student bodies, you can play in academia.

PS I'm not usually a grammar and spelling critic, but I just couldn't resist that one. It just brought such a funny image to mind.

Chris,

Welcome to FR. I am enjoying your fine posts.

Have a splendid evening.

@NorthstarDFL,

Thank you. You made my day.

Thanks for the reply Chris74, Oh I have no doubt about the outcome, I'm just saying I think Mr Gangreench would like to THINK that's how it could be, considering his current statement about not attending debates that aren't set up the way he wants, coupled with his behavior in SC. I personally found his statement in regard to Andrew Jackson having the right idea to "kill our enemies" particularly distasteful, as the "enemies being referred to were native AMERICANS.

Best line so far, from Paul Krugman- "he's a stupid man's idea of what a smart man sounds like"

You know who you are.

Found an old article for you:

"The GOP Policies Have Crippled Our Economy"

http://www.thenation.com/blog/108027/reagan-budget-director-gop-policies-have-crippled-our-economy

Job1,

And after his last performance, he would run out of gas about 10 minutes into any debate.

But ole "big boy" Newton is a legend in his own mind. Rules do not apply to him....

Give Newt a break. He had a bad night... as if any one of you is stellar every day on your job, or with your family.

Newt can dictate the debate if he wants to. He can cancel out on it if he were to decide that the cards were stacked against him. That would speak volumes to those who hate liberal intervention and control over these events. I can imagine Chris (shivers up his legs) Matthews giving one, Newt declining and the entire right standing to their feet in applause. Not such a bad thing...

And people with any common sense would see Newt as the coward he is for not wanting to debate the President. Anyway, most likely it will be Romney against the President.

Exactly. Who does that old fraud think he is, anyhow? I wonder who Newt would like to have moderate - his handler/wife perhaps?

I suppose there wouldn't be ANYONE neutral, would there? What the heck, the moderator has to be an extremist, right? (or make that left?)

Job1, are you saying that anyone on the right... has no common sense?

Brainb,

Yes, even Newton can have a bad night. I just don't think he wants to try another.

So he gives us his fantasy of debating Obama.

Two small facts: 1. He needs to be the GOP nominee. 2. The presidential debates are already set by an independent commission with input from the two political parties as to where and when. This is the way it has been done since Kennedy- Nixon.

Newt knows he would never be elected. he just wants all the book deals he can get from participating in the process.

But what happened to the 7 debates he wanted to have with President Obama?

Job1, are you saying that anyone on the right... has no common sense?

I Said, "And people with any common sense would see Newt as the coward he is for not wanting to debate the President."

It is not an issue of not wanting to debate Obama, he has already said he would like to have something like 15 four-hour debates with Obama.

Newt just wants to make sure the moderator is not an Obama leg-humper. When Hillary debated Obama some years back, she got all the hard questions while Obama was given "popcorn" questions.

Newt actually wants the debate hall packed with a loud mouth bunch of carnival barkers, as we saw in the SC debates.

That's right Northstar... they both have input into the debate scenerio. And yes, of course Newt has to win... not outside of the realm of possibilities at this point, even though MSN and the mainstream media are all shilling for Mittney. The way this political season is going, anything's possible... at this point I don't even discount Ron Paul. Who knows what evil lurks in the minds of men... Only the Shadow knows...

Job1 do you actually talk to your right minded friends like that? Or do you not have any friends that are conservatives? Im surrounded by people who voted for Mr. Obama, Detroit is full of them. Of course most of them can not tell me any political reasons why just monetary reasons.

I do have friends who vote Republican and three of them have said they can't vote for any of the Republican choices this go around. They feel that the Republican Party has been hijacked by the radical right.

In case anyone is interested, here is a link to the 2012 Presidential Debate Schedule. Would somebody send a copy to Newt. It looks like they decided it all without telling him. There will be three Presidential debates and one Vice Presidential Debate, starting Oct 3rd thru Oct 22nd. The CPD is still trying to set up a 4th debate on international issues, but has not yet announced when or where it will be. Both the GOP and Democratic Party have long agreed to, and abided by, an agreement that the CPD will be completely in charge and that both parties will encourage their candidates to participate and that there will be no formal debates outside of the structure the CDP provides.

So the question is, Is Newt so stupid that he doesn't know about the CPD? Or does Newt think that the people he is posturing for are so stupid that they don't know that the debate schedule was long set before he hit South Carolina? Or maybe both?

http://www.debates.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=35&cntnt01origid=27&cntnt01detailtemplate=newspage&cntnt01returnid=80

Job 1 some of us would like to see issues brought up that the media wants to ignore. We've gone from the seven words you couldn't say on TV in the sixties to the 15 phrases a federal judge won't let you use in a graduation speech in Texas. Both restrictions on free speech are wrong.

(misread - please ignore)

well heck job1 I'm having to vote republican this go round because most of America is ignorant and have kept us in a democrat vs republican view or vice versa, how do you think we feel?

Ruken - values of any kind are beyond Newt!

Newton knows that as Erick Erickson at RedState noted, "The fix is in" for Romney from the MSM, not that he could have expected support from his "whipping boy" under any circumstances. That isn't his audience and the MSM isn't the best way to reach them.

Conservative talk radio, blogs, websites, etc. are Newton's and Newton's alone, now that the forces of the Establishment have come out en mass for Romney.

They view the Establishment candidates since Reagan to all be 'losers", and see Romney as the worst of the lot. The more sugar the MSM sprinkles on the Romney candidacy, the less those who seek a "true" conservative can swallow Mitt Romney...

dangerfield, I have a question to pose here. Is it rebellion against the GOP establishment at play here or just a real dislike for their candidate Mitt Romney?

It's more than odd, phine! It's outright hypocricy.....Newt wants to use the media, only if it's to his advantage.

Remember Sharon Angle..she told the media that she only wanted to talk about 'what she wanted to talk about'!...only the good stuff, nothing else. Of course, there was no good stuff!

Newt really thinks that he is in control of everything, can dictate!

Phine-

The answer is YES...;-)

dangerfield,

Well, now we shall see if come general election time, they can "rally the troops" to support the presidential candidate, or put more emphasis on the House and Senate.

chilled,

Newt had his problems with his own caucus when he was speaker. As a historian you would think he would have learned from his mistakes................

other than the fact Newt has no real "message" Phine, he really doesn't need the media, I know y'all aren't in love with Dr. Paul but if you look at the difference between now and when Dr. Paul ran last time you can see a huge difference just getting a mention makes.

believe me Newt is biting off way more than he can chew or is it he's counting his chickens before they hatch? He's not going to have to worry about the media one way or another, considering the race really is between Romney and Dr. Paul (they're the only two actually on all the ballots)

oh wow at my spelling and punctuation sorry y'all hands are having a bad day today, going to see the neurosurgeon next week hopefully I'll be better soon.

have to agree with dangerfield the answer is YES for both questions, I plan to do both though the house and senate need to be replaced period, but unfortunately we live in a country of "well your guy is worse than ours" so we'll keep voting ours in and hope you replace yours.

phine,

Newton is a historian in his own mind. His PHD was about education in the Belgian Congo in Africa. He taught for awhile at a small private college in Georgia. He was in the Geography dept. And he was denied tenure.

Newt is no historian, hysterian better describes his abilities.

"As a historian you would think he would have learned from his mistakes................"

I agree phine, but in his versions of history Newt doesn't make mistakes. Newt rewrites history everytime he opens his mouth.

I wonder if he could deal with current times, instead of long, long, ago......

How many days does the Santorum for President campaign have left?

My guess is 3...

dangerfield,

Good guess. How much money does he have left, if any? And which candidate would be willing to pay off his debt for an endorsement?

Well Phine, I know of one campaign with lots of money...;-)

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

“I do not believe Wall Street can give enough money to run enough negative ads to hide from the truth,” he declared. “The truth is we’ve been served badly, the American people, by the establishment in this country in both parties — let’s be clear about it — in both parties. And it’s time somebody stood up for hard-working, taxpaying Americans and said ‘enough!’ And if that makes the old order uncomfortable, my answer is, good!”

By this point he was practically yelling. And the audience of about 4,000 people, most of them retirees standing under a blistering sun in the middle of a vast parking lot, was applauding enthusiastically.

Mr. Gingrich mentioned Herman Cain‘s endorsement of him Saturday and another big cheer rose up. He said Mr. Cain’s support was “further proof that this is a grass-roots movement against the establishment.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/ernergized-gingrich-goes-after-wall-street-and-washington/

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

Yeah! Up the Establishment! Stick it to "The Man"!!!

Welcome to 1968...

Dangerfield,

i think Santorum will hang around thru the MN and Colorado caucuses.

He is the only one left to appeal to the extreme right wing Christian family value voters.

Colorado has a lot of those around Colorado Springs and we have enough in certain areas in our state.

In the eyes of the right wing, Santorum is not a bad guy, but he doesn't carry the clout to win the nomination. He is a conservative, but doesn't have enough support. If he drops out and endorses Newt, that will give Newt a boost.. If he endorses Romney, what does it matter? Romney has the upper hand already with the MSM.

I agree Brianb, they like him, They like his story, his values, but have never seen him as having the "stuff' to win a National campaign.

Ultimately, I think that Santorum is an Establishment guy, and that his endorsement will go to Romney, but his supporters will go to Newton...

dangerfield,

Santorum supporters are true believers. They will follow who ever he supports or stay home.

As you said: "they like his story, his vlaues"... So they would go for Newton because they like his story, his values?

What's wrong with this picture?;

ORLANDO, Fla. — Looks can be deceiving in Florida's feisty Republican presidential primary.

Mitt Romney has been drawing small crowds all week. The insurgent Newt Gingrich has hosted big, boisterous rallies. Yet the former Massachusetts governor has pulled far ahead of the former House Speaker in statewide polls.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/01/29/137263/in-florida-big-crowds-for-gingrich.html#storylink=cpy

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

So the guy with the big enthusiastic crowds is the one who is dropping like a rock?

Is the MSM about to be "shocked" yet again?

Why did Rick Perry endorse Newton? Why did Herman Cain endorse Newton? Why has Sarah Palin endorsed Newton?

Why did I say that despite my belief that Santorum will endorse Romney, his supporters will vote for Newton?...

Dangerfield,

Waiting for you to answer my question...

Just more questions????

I need to ask a real Santorum supporter. Anyone out there who will admit be being a Santorum supporter?

If you are, would you give your support to Newton even if Santorum endorses Romney down the line?

I did answer your question. Sometimes you have to be able to make a connection inside your own mind to get an answer.

There are those who fall on the "Establishment" or GOP side of the argument and there are those who fall into the insurgent, or anti-Romney, true conservative group. The libertarian/Paulists are their own separate wing and not germane to the discussion. None of the candidates in the running now are attempting to supplant the establishment mantle from Romney, nor are their supporters backers of the status quo.

So, while Rick Santorum is more likely to support Mitt Romney when he drops out of the race, being essentially a member of the republican establishment, his supporters are not as likely to be supporting the Bob Dole, NRO establishment wing personified by Mitt Romney. Hence, though Rick Santorum is likely to support Romney, by that logic, the MAJORITY of Santorum supporters are likely to support anyone but the establishment.

That's why Rick Perry Tea Party darling?) endorsed Newton on the very day that allegations of his asking for an open marriage surfaced. It's why Sarah Palin (Tea Party icon?) endorsed Newt. It's Why Herman Cain (Tea Party favorite?) endorsed Newton, as they are all leaders or representatives of the insurgent wing of the party.. It is the reason why I stated that I believe that Santorum's support will mainly fall to Newton.

I thought it was pretty obvious....

I have only one thing to say to Santorum: "You'll take away my condoms when you pry my cold dead hands off my ....." Oh never mind.

Dangerfield,

Thank you for taking the time for your detailed analysis.

My observation is that Santorum is a candidate for the" true" Christian famliy values voters. As a strict Roman Catholic he has always had the support of the one issue voters: pro-life,and the new issue :marriage between a man and woman only.

Those folks I do not see following Newt with his personal baggage and his conversion to the new religion of his third wife.

They will either make their peace with Romney or they will stay home.

@Chris #6.22,

Since you are veering, yet again, away from the topic, I must ask:

"Why would you need condoms if one is to pry your cold dead hands off your....Oh, never mind ?" TMI !

The topic is Newt's reluctance to have biased news repoerters moderating a debate.

Everyone is biased. The issue isn't whether people have bias, but rather whether they are professional enough to moderate without bias. The moderators of the debates this year have been fair, even the Fox News anchors (though I wonder if they can remain fair in a debate between Republicans and Democrats).

What is really going on here is that Gingrich wants to give himself what he thinks is a legit excuse to complain about having to defend his statements, defend his record, and defend his attacks on the President. He's looking to set-up his rationalizations for his inevitable poor showing against a better candidate. It's juvenile, and really quite pitiful for a man of his years.

Just like the Nov, 2010 elections belonged to the Democrats, right ????

Voter's remorse over the 2010 elections is the main reason why 2012 belongs to the Democrats.

There is absolutely NO REMORSE greater than what was felt by independents in 2009 and 2010 as when Obama showed what he truly was about. Liberal voters didn't cause the big change, it was mainstream U.S.A. that woke up from the vagueness of "hope and change".

Again, we have another liberal claiming the future when he has failed to study the past !

Jim: You seem to be stuck on the "hope and change" tagline, but I'd challenge you to cite specifics of what you don't like about Obama. Also, specifics on how your life has changed negatively since he has been in office. I don't like everything the man has done, but I find both parties of Congress to be the bigger issue.

Jack,

It would be easier and much,much shorter to say what I DO like about him and what I agree with. I think he has a very charming personality. I think his decisive action in sending aid to Haiti after the earthquake there was appropriate.

For everything else, there is Mastercard ..... I mean literally. I saw a film clip of Obama lambasting our former President and his $9.1 trillion dollar debt level ! Now, it is at over $15.1 trillion and growing and our hypocritical President wants MORE !!!!! Then there is Obamacare which will do nothing to lower the costs of healthcare, but will, effectively, greatly expand government control over what is now 1/6 of our economy. Basically, Obamacare will now make me help pay for the health insurance of others when I am already paying for my wife and 3 children. Don't forget, for "those who cannot afford" health insurance, our federal government will SUBSIDIZE..... in other words pay for it for them. Helllllllooooooo welfare phase III.

I say give Newt a non media moderator. Marianne Gingrich....

Belfast: Ha! You forgot to place Obama in a soundproof box on the other side of the stage so that he can't actually hear the questions. Thats the only way Newt will agree to the debates.

Wife-in-waiting #4 or some neon spandex-clad hooker because he just had to get a load off his mind?

I have to laugh.. You have Murdoch admitting he slanted news to favor Bush. You have beck, Limbaugh and Coulter, you have Faux news, Wallstreet Journal.

there is plenty of far rigt extremist news factions, but they all have one thing in common.. They're crazy, coo-coo, and outright spin doctors distortionists, and liars

The televised round table discussion with all the Republican leadership on the topic of the Affordable Health Care Act was priceless and I will always remember it. The atmosphere was so thick with hostility it could be cut with a knife and President Obama answered every single question and countered every statement with verifiable fact after fact. He never lost his cool and he never backed down. I think he is more than ready to debate anyone from the Republican party with any moderator that might be chosen.

Aaahhh, the venom from the left is of such high quality today !

Newt simply wants fairness from the moderators which is understandable considering recent questions.

jim-1455434 - recent questions were child's play considering what he would have to face if the GOP nominee. And, many of those questions came from right leaning moderators. But, have it your way - poor little Newt is being bullied by all those nasty moderators. Boo Hoo!

Again "No fair! No fair! Waa! Waa!"

Can't take the heat, don't play with the fire.

Do you think there will be "Fairness" when dealing with China? Or Iran? Or Iraq? Or any Dumbfuqistan?

Will Russia play fair? North Korea?

No, they won't, and if Newt pulls a crybaby act with them what will become of us, comrad?

Once again, I am looking for value to your statement and see none.

I wonder if you use the same rhetoric when Obama plays class warfare in saying his usual stuff about "not paying their fair share of taxes". Is that Obama saying "Waah ! Waah ! I want more taxes so I can have more money to spend !! Waaah ! Waah !!" ???????????????

jim-1455434 - and once again, there is no value to any of your statements.

I think that John King's question to Newt was a perfectly reasonable question in that arena and Newt's blustering, bullying response was a great deflection that unfortunately worked for him quite well. John King backed off when he should have pushed. Newt was very willing to subject the whole country to the "blue dress" fiasco (which I will never forget my children asking about when it was on the MSM nightly news) but when lobbed a similar question, not only did he lie but he threw a huge hissy fit. Newt is not now, and in my opinion never will be, ready for prime time.

Jim, you're certainly on-target about that. FOX talking heads are propaganda sheep for Murdock and company and would never qualify as a "journalist". But, I'm sure Bag-o-Wind Gingrich would agree to debate if FOX was the sponsor. What an a**hole!

Please tell us daryl, of the Fox reporters, who is a GOP candidate ?

Jim,

Santorum was on Fox payroll.

Santorum was on Fox payroll.

So was Gingrich!

Alex,

Is Rick Santorum a reporter ? Also, is Rick Santorum still on their payroll ?? Let's see if you have the guts to answer honestly.

Let's see if you have the guts to answer honestly.

Practice what you preach for a change little Jimmy.

Somehow I doubt it, when a bully gets smacked back, they usually run away with their tale between their legs...

How about Newt Gingrich?

Is Newt Gingrich on the Fox payroll ? Would they have an active candidate on the payroll who has "DECLARED" ???

Feisty, Are you running back with your "TALE" (LOL !) between your legs ?????????????

Is Newt Gingrich on the Fox payroll ?

Another swing and a miss from you little Jimmy!

Strrrrrike Three and YOU'RE OUT! ;o)))

Feisty, I see you dodged the question. We could make you an honorary member of the Dodgers for that one. It would be better than being a Cubs fan OR a White Sox fan.

Energy crisis solved! Newtie farts!

Newt is a fart. His bumper sticker should read, "FLATUS for POTUS" - what a disgusting excuse for humanity.

Question: What's the difference between a joke and Newt?

Answer: One is a shaft of wit, whereas the latter is a waft of @!$%#.

It looks like middle school let out early today .... I'm still looking for an adult comment.

They want to institute their brand of "freedom". i.e. - we dictate what you can do, think, eat and how you have sex, plus anything else we want to control about your life.

Newt Gingrich is a crack head.

There, I said it.

Had to be done.

Next.

Let's see .... Obama has previously admitted to smoking pot and I believe, to doing cocaine also.

You can, of course, PROVE your statement ????????????

Dear jim:

Newt "Moon Colony" Gingrich proves my point hourly.

Because you are clearly a very literal person, let me help you out with something.

"Crack head" can also be used as a euphamism for someone who is batsh!t crazy as well as one who is suffering from a drug addiction. Hope that helps.

P.S. Also, let me commend you on your "faux outrage" response . . . very Gingrich-esque. :o)

Like I said, previously ..... I am still looking for an adult comment.

The only thing you have proven is your ability to attack a conservative candidate because you do not agree with conservative governing principles. That's not surprising here on this liberal "chat room".

You know nothing about me personally, so your comments directed towards me are without any value. I have no outrage today, so, once again, you are wrong. All you are trying to do is win the award for the nastiest, anti-Gingrich comment of the day.

Be blessed jim, be blessed.

Why so tightly wound? :o)

Peace.

Aaaahhhhh, the "crawdad move" ..... in REVERSE but still trying to look cool !

Peace will come when we get real leadership in the White House who decides we do NOT want to follow in the footsteps of Greece.

jim---just what exactly is conservative about newt-----if conservative is attacking the poor for the crime of being poor/ suggesting social security cuts/ and over taxing middle america then newt is your brand of conservative. maybe i'd listen to him if he suggested ending welfare for the rich / ending land bank programs paying millions to rich land owners not to grow any crops. so far newt is showing us his most disgusting agenda which is to take away food assistance from children who can't fight back. newt is a big fat bully!

Granny, that's a crock ... the line about taking away food assistance from children.

As far as conservative, take a serious look at Mr. Gingrich's best accomplishment which was presenting balanced budgets to President Clinton, I believe, 4 years in a row. Our country cannot sustain annual deficits of $1.6 trillion per year like it is doing. Under Obama, there have been absolutely NO BUDGETS passed !

You last sentence about Mr. Gingrich shows a great deal more about you than it does the former Speaker of the House.

Jim,

Gingrich was around for only 2 of those balanced budgets. 4 budgets are only in his version of history. And Gindrich was against tax raise which was a BIG part of the balance.

Aw yes "Greece" the new threat, in earlier times it was the "commies", the "reds" now it's Greece and or "socialism" that is gonna get us. Always a "threat" if you pick the "wrong" side. Look out ! The sky is falling

Jim-1455434 - you want an adult conversation yet you make things up? Wow very adult of you. President Obama never said he had done cocaine. But, of course you knew that but had to lie about it anyway. And, you want adult conversation? Please! Good friend of Newt I'm guessing?

Are you STILL SeekingSanity ..... because, apparently, reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Re-read #23.2 again, and see if I clearly said he did cocaine. "Believe" indicates uncertainty genius.

Your guessing, by the way, is off-target again. I watch politics with humor as all you libbies feel a need to attack whichever Republican candidate is the topic of the day because you are so damn insecure over Obama's failed leadership. If you were so secure, you would not even be commenting about Mr. Gingrich.

jim-1455434 - wow you get hysterical easily don't you? Yes, I read your statement correctly. You threw out the cocaine comment prefaced that you "believed" something which has never been said. Again, spewing lies. My reading comprehension is fine, thank you. You clearly need to try to hit the uneducated who will pass your lies on. I have no problem with Obama's leadership. He is making headway and will make more once he has fewer obstructionists in his way. And, if you were secure - according to your own estimations, you would not be commenting on Obama. See little Jimmie, it works both ways. Gingrich had to resign over ethics violations and pay $300,000 in fines. Can you comprehend that????? And, yes, little Jimmie, it will be brought up at every debate.

You can tell this jim-1455434 is moron, he should go to the moon with NEWT lol:)

jim----apparently you missed his famous speech regarding the food stamp program. he asserts these people receiving food stamps are a part of our financial difficulties. and just to really add salt to the wound their children could be doing work---like janitorial. of all the waste and outright fraud by halliburton his conservatism targets the poor. he is a fat bully!

It obvious that the "Obama Media" prefers to sic Newt on Mit and Mit on Newt let them bloody themselves up and never have a chance to talk about the issues and take many shots at Obama.

Please, was that the CNN debate where theu broght up the very important issue of Terry Schivo? what was that 20 years ago, LOL, real relevant issues we need to bring into the spotlight.

well Newt has created at least one job, how much does it pay to be a Newt Troll Jim?

granny,

You missed the entire point of what Mr. Gingrich was talking about .... he was talking about kids needing to learn how to work, to understand the value of work and how it could be encouraged in the absence of real role models since some came from families where no one worked.

Furthermore, if you want to talk about waste ..... just look at Obama's failed investments of over $535 million wasted on Solyndra and OTHER green companies now gone bellyup. Then there are the unpaid loans to Crysler that are "written-off". How about the GM loans yet to be repaid or the stock ownership the U.S. has in GM which is now worth substantially less than invested ??????

"Reporters from Fox?" More like empty headed cheerleaders.

Funny, but you know what I mean.

For hard core liberals, you folks spend a lot of time listening to Fox.

Don....

Liberals listen to Fox News??? You're joking, right? Maybe I misunderstood. Are you suggesting that liberals spend time listening to Faux News? I hope not... Fox News is a news repository and ultimate mouth piece of conservative America.

Actually, Admetum, Faux hasn't been giving Newt much love either.

And of course liberals listen to Faux news--know thine enemy. Also, they are usually good for a laugh.

I think you are on the right track. Naturally, Faux will have to hire a Bushie to moderate the debate for Newt to go along with it.

How do liberals know so much about Fox if they don't listen ? They apparently don;t listen to the radical liberal media like MSNBC as they never notice any bias on there,

Don, you might be surprised at what liberals listen to. To you I am a lib although more centerist .....anyway I, for one listen to both and make up my mind on both. Most media, these days, is slanted one way or the other. Reuters is pretty much neutral and PBS is somewhat neutral but the rest are slanted. By listening to MSNBC and FOX I get both sides of the story and end up beliving what is just up the middle. Part of the problem is not the news parts of the networks but the "entertainers" and the editorial stand of each. I listen to our local Fox station and the news isn't that much different than the ABC affiliate with each ever so slightly slanted one way or the other but if one listens to the talking heads like Hannity, Limbaugh, or Maddow they are going to get a very slanted view. Those folks are entertainers and not news commentators. They feed the red meat to the hard core extremists on their respective side of any question.

I realize news people are entertainers. They want to sell the news and could care less about educating the public. There are some anchors much more biased than most and Fox has some , MSNBC has some,and you are correct none are completely unbiased.

It just seems here that most folks don't notice the liberal biased ones like Chris Mathews.