We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Sunday, December 11. 2011
This is pretty good from Newt, and Stephanopoulis reveals himself to be a candy-ass:
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Why is the GOP still having left wing activists moderate their debates?
Absolutely. To achieve some balance, I think Rush and Mark Levin should moderate the Democrat debates (at the rate the Won is going, it might happen).
Nice to see Newt school George Snuffleupagus.
I also think it is very disrespectful for Diane Sawyer to get drunk before moderating the debate.
Refreshing to hear this, which is fundamentally correct.
Dilemma is just because someone talks "good," doesn't mean he knows how to work "good." That is for me, one of Newt's fundamental problems, beginning with his disastrous shut down of gov't when he was a representative or his destructive pursuit of an adulterous president just when Newt was pursuing his own adulteries or his courting of Freddie Mac for personal gain ( and, if I recall correctly, his immature snit when he couldn't sit in a special part of the presidential plane)
I don't condone Newt's philandering - during the Clinton administration or any time - but to equate what he did to what Clinton did is more than a stretch. Did Newt lie to a grand jury? Did he try to get others to officers of the court for him? Did he risk and eventually put the government through an impeachment partially to try to fix a lawsuit with Paula Jones? They were both philanderers but only one broke the law because of it and it wasn't Newt.
Your point about any difference between the way Newt talks and how he would govern is well taken.
I'm not clear on exactly what he did for Freddie Mac. If he anything to do with lending money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back, that would put him in a similar camp to Barnie Frank, but if what he did was not related to the disastrous policies they followed, then you are painting him and all the other honest employees and contractors that worked there with the same brush as Barnie Frank deserves. I'm not sure what your problem about his personal gain is...
Who is more immature - Clinton for refusing to have him sit with him or Newt for complaining about it?
The reality is...since the GOP is about to miss the boat...if it isn't Newt...my good neighbours (so' o' the 49th)... are...well...
For the record, I have been a big fan of Newty in the past, but I admit to some trepidations about his running for president. Also for the record, I do not subscribe to the line of thought that Obummer is likely to win again. To the contrary, I think he is likely to be beaten by almost any of the Pubbie field. The issue is what kind of president are we going to end up with after Jan. 2012.
I remember feeling pretty much the same way in 1980. Reagan seemed way out there. Carter was a disaster. Anderson seemed to stand for the middle ground and at the time, I wished we had better choices (to be honest, I don't remember who I voted for). I feel somewhat the same now.
Of course, the problem with Newty isn't his positions as much as his way latching on to the latest fad sometimes (e.g. Global Warming) and he's not as conservative as I'd like. I think it is possible that he could be a great president but it is also possible he could be much less than great. I think it's unlikely that he'll be worse than Obummer.
Our form of government - in fact all democratic forms of government - doesn't insure you get to vote for the best guy but for the better guy.
He's way way got my vote. That speech alone made my criterion.
Whoever takes the GOP vs. Obama has to have the guts to bring up Obama's unvetted past, his czars that move our rights into "executive order" and his consistent rewriting of history so the every previous president celebrates this "lack of any credibility" candidate. Who is he today? Teddy? FDR? Truman? JFK? LBJ? Reagan? Whoa, if Bush??????
I don't care how much anyone wants to pussyfoot around Obama's multiple miss-(whoops!-I did-it-again)-steps, this man cannot lead. PERIOD. Ignore whatever. I will vote for ANY candidate that the GOP runs against this fool. Carve it out as you may; any of the remaining candidates will excel far beyond the wizard brain of the who "Won" in 2008.
I think that this video really hits it out of the park - Ron Paul responses at the same debate .... just listen to these if you want clarity and focus .. and consistency.
Ron Paul Hits It Out of the Park
Newt is a very polished speaker and an astute 'politician' - my problem with him is that he is too much a politician and will say one thing and do the other - the example of him taking money from Freddie Mac .... $1.6 Million - and Newt (and Fox News) said it was for 'advice'. In the mean time he is talking about the housing bubble like it is all .. those guys fault .. Newt was making money and the folks he was 'advi$ing were making money on this too.
Newt Gingrich Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae Hypocrite
Newt's response I think is very Clintonesque Gingrich: I Never Lobbied for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac While Holding Public Office
Don't get me wrong - I would pick Newt over Romney and Obama - I just think that Ron Paul would be a better leader for our country. If you liked the patriot Act ..then you'll like Newt.
If the media and people would just listen to him. The big power brokers in this country are afraid that he might rock their boat - that is why he gets such bad press and media coverage. Just listen to him - he is very consistent in his views.
I like Ron Paul for his domestic/economic policies, but his foreign policies scare me. He says we are to blame for the Islamists being mad at us because we put bases in Saudi Arabia. My first question is what would Paul have done about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? As Iraq massed troops on the Saudi border? That is the reason for our bases in Saudi Arabia in the first place. Second, does he actually believe that those Islamist nut cases who are hell bent on a global Caliphate care what we do (other than convert to Islam/Sharia)?
this is the same thing that the CIA reports and special 911 congressional reports said .... Ron Paul is just quoting what the 'experts' said.
And who are these "experts".
Islamist dreams of a global Caliphate are not new and they are well documented. These experts would still have to decide what to do about Iraq vis a vis Kuwait. I suppose allowing Saddam to take over Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be acceptable so that we didn't piss off some jihadist loons.
Ron Paul is a drooling idiot. Better leader? Just who the hell in elected government is going to follow Ron Paul? No one, that's who. You might as well elect Jesse Ventura. Hell, he's almost as batshit crazy as Ron Paul is.
George Steponallofus is the smart version of John Edwards.
Newt is a mensch. Time for some straight talk, folks. The crazies in the Arab world are going to cause untold grief. Best we let them know that if it spills over on us they're not going to like what happens.