January 17, 2012
— DrewM I think Team Newt will take it and move on.
“I I had to vote in South Carolina in order to keep this think going I’d vote for Newt.”
Video of full statement here.
Endorsements in general are overrated but Newt gets Palin and Mitt gets McCain...Advantage Newt.
As a Newt supporter I'm pretty happy about this. Yes, as some of you may know I'm not exactly the biggest Palin fan in the world, no it's true, but this is very good news for Newt*. After a week of his lame Bain attacks people were wondering again just how conservative Newt was. I think that's a pretty strange question, especially if you think Mitt is even remotely better but it was out there. Palin's stamp of approval helps put that to rest.
Romney is still the favorite going into Saturday's vote but after last night's debate, tonight's Palin news and another debate on Thursday...this might not be over yet.
*When it comes to these kinds of things I take the Churchillian view, "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons". So...Go Palin!
Posted by: DrewM at
06:15 PM
| Comments (163)
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.
Update: Secret Service spokesman says White House locked down; authorities investigating smoke bomb tossed over fence - @Reuters
Posted by: ambrosia at January 17, 2012 06:23 PM (oZfic)
Drew, I enjoy Newt in debates.
I'm concerned (yeah concerned) about the wife thing.
I like what He did on reform during Clinton. and the contract with america, (although that wasn't successful)
Can He win?
Posted by: willow at January 17, 2012 06:27 PM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at January 17, 2012 06:29 PM (ImSXR)
I guess that Beck gig isn't really working out for her and she's trying to find a way to stay relevant.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 17, 2012 06:29 PM (tWU8Q)
Posted by: willow at January 17, 2012 06:30 PM (h+qn8)
Posted by: willow at January 17, 2012 06:32 PM (h+qn8)
They're both dogshit retards who either like leftist policy or just think it's more popular and, therefore, the way to go.
Posted by: really ... at January 17, 2012 06:32 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at January 17, 2012 06:33 PM (ImSXR)
A protracted primary campaign didn't seem to hurt the president last time out. There is no reason to believe that a longer process on the R side will do anything other than sharper the skills of the eventual nominee.
Everything about these guys is going to come out anyway. Might as well do it now and get it over with.
Posted by: trumpetdaddy at January 17, 2012 06:34 PM (dcoFe)
I just can't too excited about an egotistical DC big government global warming guy who dumps all his wives when they get too old and sick.
Posted by: stace at January 17, 2012 06:34 PM (lYlx9)
Posted by: willow at January 17, 2012 06:35 PM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at January 17, 2012 06:36 PM (ImSXR)
Posted by: The Committee to Elect Jeb Bush in 2016, K. Rove, Chairman at January 17, 2012 06:37 PM (kkQ6Q)
Posted by: willow at January 17, 2012 06:37 PM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Paul at January 17, 2012 06:37 PM (DsHk0)
Posted by: The Committee to Elect Jeb Bush in 2016, K. Rove, Chairman at January 17, 2012 06:38 PM (kkQ6Q)
maybe i'm giving up to soon, but He doesn't seem to be catching on, and has lost favor.
Posted by: willow at January 17, 2012 06:39 PM (h+qn8)
In other news though, Time's 'Person of the Year' chucked smoke bombs at the WH this evening. Classy bunch.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 17, 2012 06:40 PM (tWU8Q)
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at January 17, 2012 06:44 PM (UR5vq)
Posted by: John P. Squibob at January 17, 2012 06:44 PM (F6C50)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 17, 2012 06:45 PM (i330i)
Posted by: Hitch Lots at January 17, 2012 06:45 PM (jx1/v)
Posted by: Mr. Happy at January 17, 2012 06:47 PM (jiwQf)
Posted by: davidt at January 17, 2012 06:53 PM (/6j/A)
Yeah Sarah,
Let's keep this fratricide going for awhile longer...The longer this ridiculous Primary goes on, the more damage is done to the Republican brand and the chances of the eventual nominee...You should be hoping that another distant finish puts the also rans out of this thing so we can turn a blowtorch on Hussein. Keep talking Sarah and counting those millions. How's the latest reality show proposal turning out?
Posted by: Don't hate the playa hate the game at January 17, 2012 06:54 PM (1GlXg)
Wow.. If I ever run for Prez, I sure do hope I can garner an endorsement like that from St. Sarah!
"If you want this piece of shit primary season to drag on and on, vote for Newt!" Yee haaa!
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 17, 2012 06:55 PM (UTq/I)
Posted by: Hitch Lots at January 17, 2012 06:58 PM (jx1/v)
This headline is misleading. Actually Sarah Palin didn't endorse Newt. If she had, she would have said it. Newt has been commenting he may drop out if he doesn't win South Carolina. What Sarah was doing is saying she is wanting everyone to stay in to keep the vetting and debating going.
She even made subteties towards Rick Perry with "getting good at debates" "getting a chance to get their messages out more" and "to get America working again" which is Rick Perry's platform line.
The way Sarah harped on Death Panels, it's pretty hard to believe she would endorse Newt whose Center for Heath Transformation was advocating, promoting and lobbying the White House and Congress for National Health records Database and Comparative Effective Research (Death Panels) WHILE the Teaparty was out fighting it.
So please read (without the ... to cut out parts of what she said) her whole statement.
Posted by: Tricianc at January 17, 2012 06:58 PM (gqG91)
I could (puke) make the case for Romney with fence-sitters I know. I cannot do it with Newt. People won't even have that conversation.
Being in a swing state, I can't afford to dick around w/my vote. And if I want to bring people over to our side, how do I effectively make the case for him?? (And the answer can't just be 'because it's not Obama' -- it has to be more than that).
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 17, 2012 06:58 PM (tWU8Q)
thank you
Posted by: Rick Perry at January 17, 2012 06:59 PM (7eNLb)
thank you.
Posted by: Rick Perry at January 17, 2012 07:01 PM (7eNLb)
Posted by: EBL at January 17, 2012 07:01 PM (UwxZ1)
Posted by: Sarah's Endorsement Of Newt at January 17, 2012 07:03 PM (jiwQf)
Posted by: eman at January 17, 2012 07:04 PM (dWuuB)
I'm concerned (yeah concerned) about the wife thing.
I like what He did on reform during Clinton. and the contract with america, (although that wasn't successful)
Can He win?
I think so. The problem is, what kind of president would he make? Newt is a statist. He thinks government should do big, far-reaching things, with President Newt at the helm. Remember, he supports global-warming legislation, and he says that Paul Ryan's budget is "social engineering" in that it tries to limit the size and influence of government.
Newt's recent attacks on capitalism are ominous, because the only thing that can save us now is to make the U.S. the most business-friendly country in the world. Newt is a great debater and a genius, so there's a place for him in a Republican administration.
But he also loves to hog the spotlight, so his administration will likely be filled with people chosen less for their ability than their loyalty to Newt and their willingness to fade somewhat into the background.
Newt is a capitalist in the sense that Michael Moore is. They make money selling themselves and their words. But both want government to have a gigantic role in our lives. Both believe in the ability of government to make everything better.
Newt actually doesn't say government can't do certain things; he says Obama is running the government the wrong way. That means he thinks government can be huge and far reaching, just as long as a really smart guy like himself is running it.
That doesn't bode well for our future.
Posted by: Llarry at January 17, 2012 07:06 PM (Rnfm0)
Posted by: MI Double Tizzle at January 17, 2012 07:07 PM (ozpOn)
No one fears her now.
No one needs her now.
She is a fading roar.
Posted by: eman at January 17, 2012 11:04 PM (dWuuB)"
We ever only feared her for the lunacy that her followers endorsed
Im a fighter
Posted by: Hitch Lots at January 17, 2012 07:08 PM (jx1/v)
Posted by: ambrosia at January 17, 2012 07:09 PM (oZfic)
The better Newt does in this race, the better it is for me. He's a quitter. I'm a quitter. If he does good despite his unfortunate past, the more it clears the way for meeee.
No one will notice that Newt cheating on two wives is diametrically opposite from the wholesome family values that I have claimed to be in favor of. My supporters belong to me and will support whomever I tell them to support.
Posted by: Sarah, lookin out for Sarah at January 17, 2012 07:12 PM (xgj/f)
?
This makes no sense. He's done without SC. He has absolutely no traction in FL. If she were going to endorse him she would have done so for the SC primary next week. There's no VP slot for her in your scenario when he bows out before FL.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 17, 2012 07:12 PM (tWU8Q)
Posted by: Ken Royall at January 17, 2012 07:13 PM (9zzk+)
Posted by: MI Double Tizzle at January 17, 2012 07:13 PM (ozpOn)
Oh, Drew, this is most definitely over. Thank God. South Carolina is mercifully becoming a formality.
With all due respect say goodbye to the Great Attacker of Capitalism, Newt Gingrich. Hey, at least there is an upside for the Master of Civilizing Forces, the Leader (possibly) of Civilizing Forces. - Now he can start planning his next wedding.
Do you think he'll invite Callista?
Posted by: Dave at January 17, 2012 07:13 PM (9bp09)
Posted by: izoneguy at January 17, 2012 07:14 PM (2/KD2)
I used to have heart but the highway took it
We might as well all scream it
Oh lord it gets hard out here
Posted by: Hitch Lots at January 17, 2012 07:14 PM (jx1/v)
Todd is pissed because of the secret love affair between Palin & Perry......
Oh jeez. You guys are off your rocker (unless that was sarcasm that I'm not getting).
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 17, 2012 07:16 PM (tWU8Q)
Posted by: Helpful Pundit at January 17, 2012 07:16 PM (jiwQf)
So fellow conservatives, it's time to move on to the bigger task -- a conservative Congress. Mitt's a decent turnaround guy, but he's also shown a propensity to go with the flow within some decent parameters. If he's given a conservative Congress, he's likely to sign most any conservative legislation turning back the damage that the Obamacrats have caused. If he's got a RINO or Dem Congress -- he's likely to work with them too.
Mitt as the GOP candidate isn't the battle to end the war -- it's a distracting skirmish to the larger battles of putting as many conservatives into Congress as possible. IMHO, it's a win for any combination of fiscal, constitutional, and social conservatives to take a seat in the upcoming Congress. Winning the war for Congress is the real goal. Lock and load -- stay focused, and move on...
Posted by: drfredc at January 17, 2012 07:20 PM (mcKEe)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 17, 2012 07:22 PM (8DjUF)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at January 17, 2012 07:22 PM (eFnXz)
Posted by: Jon Huntsman at January 17, 2012 07:25 PM (yQwq5)
Posted by: njinfl at January 17, 2012 07:33 PM (SKSDk)
Perry is toast, and I'll never support Santorum or RuPaul in the primary.
Posted by: GnuBreed at January 17, 2012 07:36 PM (BhuDE)
I don't like it, but I don't want to get better, either, at least not if it means settling for Romney.
Newt's flawed, but it's not like we don't know all the faults and problems - including being too damned smart for his own good (hello, when the pin has been pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend) - but well, he's still there, still saying things that resonate.
So, aye, I'm a Newt.
Damnit.
Posted by: Dianna at January 17, 2012 07:40 PM (mKMj1)
Posted by: Hitch Lots at January 17, 2012 07:40 PM (jx1/v)
who would be so dumb to try to intimidate the potus.
Posted by: willow
don't tell me, let me guess!
....The Occupests!
Posted by: Dianna at January 17, 2012 07:41 PM (mKMj1)
Posted by: Davy Crocket at January 17, 2012 07:41 PM (HtOsP)
Posted by: Errol at January 17, 2012 07:44 PM (vewos)
Posted by: eman at January 17, 2012 07:45 PM (dWuuB)
Posted by: dblwmy at January 17, 2012 07:50 PM (HtOsP)
Dirk pisses off vegans.
Posted by: You betcha at January 17, 2012 07:54 PM (0It32)
Posted by: meh at January 17, 2012 07:56 PM (xgj/f)
Sarah Palin did not endorse Newt. She said she would vote for him if she lived in South Carolina ONLY to keep the process going and not give Romney the nomination by default.
She also said that she thought ALL the candidates were getting much better... more polished and more concise in the messages. In other words, becoming better candidates to pound Obama into the mud.
Sarah Palin continues to show that she understands how the political game is played and that she is as good as anyone at it.
She is putting a block on a Romney by Default candidacy.
You figure out why.
Posted by: PhilipJames at January 17, 2012 08:02 PM (G9AXq)
This, frankly, is sad.
Posted by: Dianna at January 17, 2012 08:03 PM (mKMj1)
Posted by: Hitch Lots
Oh, hell, no! Never in a hundred, never in a thousand, never in a million years!
Posted by: Dianna at January 17, 2012 08:06 PM (mKMj1)
Posted by: eman at January 17, 2012 08:06 PM (dWuuB)
Posted by: drfredc at January 17, 2012 11:20 PM (mcKEe)
--
I would agree with this - the RNC has given up on the POTUS race. After Christie dropped out, they knew that all the remaining candidates in the rest of the field were too weak to win against Barky. So, they pushed (are pushing) the most milquetoast candidate available - Romney.
The big push now by the RNC is to win the Senate and wait for 2016. The race for POTUS is over.
However, I do believe that of the candidates left in the field, Newt would have the best chance to beat Barky. Yes, he has a lot of negatives, but he knows and understands politics better than any of the other candidates. Also, I think he would do just about anything to win. But, then you would have President Newt. And, however bad that would be, it would still be better than President 0.
Posted by: Okie Tea Partierer at January 17, 2012 08:07 PM (IEEVF)
Posted by: currently at January 17, 2012 08:07 PM (flA6l)
Posted by: Hitch Lots at January 17, 2012 08:15 PM (jx1/v)
Posted by: Hitch Lots at January 17, 2012 08:19 PM (jx1/v)
Posted by: James at January 17, 2012 08:25 PM (IoTd/)
Joffen... good luck in Pittsburg.. I can think of better places, but... you have your reasons.
I think conservatives need to focus ( Agree with above ) on the House and Senate races to get conservatives elected that will butress the 2010 crowd AND will work with Mitt or whoever gets the GOP nod, OR if heaven forbid Barry gets back in somehow they can throw speed bump after speed bump to tie his hands.
I'm still hoping some give Perry another chance, but it doens't look good, does it? I like Newt a lot but agree with the criticisms above. I could stomach Mitt with a very conservative VP pick and a resolute conservative agenda to follow...
Posted by: Yip in Texas at January 17, 2012 08:26 PM (Mrdk1)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 17, 2012 08:30 PM (V6fqC)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 17, 2012 08:43 PM (JYheX)
Don't know how long it will take collective black culture to realize and act on this themselves, 04 was a nearly watershed level of disillusionment with rich, white, and out of touch democrats. Who show up the month before election to pour salt in old wounds to support democrats ascent and blob-like power grab while promising to throw some spare change their way. You'll recall about the same time there was a sudden full court press among blacks and leftists to paint Bush as racist followed shortly by the appearance of Obamas "skin color" tricked them again.
It probably set them back 2+ decades... but still.. someday blacks will start voting republicans in and their streets will be safer, cops will be trusted by the good folk and only feared by the criminals. Affordable housing and shopping that the democrats blockade out from their neighborhoods will appear. And their schools motivated by parents with their choice of charter schools and the ability to pull them out of schools where their kids are unsafe or not learning.... that will be the day the proverbial American dream happens for black Americans.
In fairness, IME, even among the working middle class blacks from the south and Gary, Indiana their churchs views of God are as much or more of a contributing factor the Peggy Joseph mentality. God as he is taught and everyone "knows" role is discussed as though hes gonna hand out lottery tickets, vigilante the bad kids on the street, paint their house, and teach their children, etc.. ie things even if God was standing their he would tell them to do themselves. Besides the democrats black churches are IMO quite though less cynic then the democrats are quite culpable for the state of black culture.
Posted by: Shiggz Newt Warp 9.9 at January 17, 2012 09:04 PM (RfvTE)
If I could vote for anybody but Romney or Paul in my state's primary, I would. I would probably vote for Newt. But, being in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I can't. We have the following choice: vote Romney, vote Paul, or stay home. I'm staying home, disenfranchised. Party machines in a few other states have achieved implementing this same scenario. I do not believe and will not countenance the argument that if these candidates messed up all these ballot rules then they have only themselves to blame. I was born at night, but not last night; I have been around the block and I have seen a political machine or two myself.
I thank Sarah for attempting to put some brakes on the steamrolling. I can't tell you how sad, how frustrated, and how mad I am that here against Barack Obama during a pivotal campaign in our nation's history, that the Republican Party has disappointed me so.
I doubt I will ever forget this.
Posted by: Cowboy at January 17, 2012 09:09 PM (So+7G)
OT?
McCain opposition research book on Romney publishedIt's pretty ugly.
Andrew Kaczynski (no, he's not the bomber. I think) is tweeting highlights
Posted by: 29Victor at January 17, 2012 09:32 PM (ES9R7)
Posted by: cvrgrl at January 17, 2012 09:33 PM (jee+I)
*cough* *cough* Reichstag fire *cough* *cough*
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 17, 2012 09:35 PM (hiw7o)
Posted by: Bitch Lots at January 17, 2012 09:37 PM (Usk3+)
Posted by: stuiec at January 17, 2012 09:44 PM (XxqFm)
Posted by: Captain Francesco Schettino at January 17, 2012 09:55 PM (AZGON)
Good thing you're not on ESPN and saying that about a Democrat or you'd be out of a job.
Posted by: Crispian at January 17, 2012 10:03 PM (P9LP6)
Posted by: Hitch Lots (no car) at January 17, 2012 10:09 PM (Usk3+)
"Mitt Romney was talking about the last time he went hunting. He killed three deer and fired two elk."
Dead silence. Nobody got it. I guess the whole Romney-as-corporate raider meme hasn't caught on just yet.
Posted by: the dandy at January 17, 2012 10:12 PM (RuQRo)
Romney and McCain are the buns that surround the shit patty sitting comfortably inside.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at January 17, 2012 10:27 PM (l2fOr)
Newt supported Cap and Trade -- that's more unforgiveable to me than his cheating on his wives.
Newt also sided with the MSM against Palin regarding Tuscon: he said that she "needs to be more careful in what she says", iow, that she was somehow to blame for the massacre.
Posted by: Aslan's Girl at January 17, 2012 10:48 PM (KL49F)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 17, 2012 10:56 PM (hiw7o)
Newt's entire persona relies on debate performances and snorted ritalin.
The conservative base wants blood. After 8 years of being called stupid under Bush's presidency and the idolatry of Obama, their freudian ego demands retribution. They see Newt v. Obama in one-hundred and thirty-seven debates of no less than 5 hours each as the clearest path.
That slimy fucker evaded us in 2008, but we'll pin him down in the debates!!
Unfortunately, the debates are coordinated by an independent commission with both campaigns having to agree to them. This results in the outcome being the lowest common denominator -- witness 2000, when Rove pushed for many and was left with three; where all the minutia are regulated.
The whole idea is flawed. Once a decade, James-fucking-Cameron can barely keep people sitting in a theatre for three hours, and that's by throwing bones right and left, with hot fucking blue aliens and stupid regurgitated love stories that make little girls cry.
But, Newt will keep us glued to the TV for all 3 hours of his Lincoln-Douglass debate. Yes, him speaking for 90 minutes strait will have the same effect on voters as Howard Stern broadcasting orgasms to speaker straddling women with D-cups.
Can you imagine him trying to follow Obama around the country? If only he put so much effort into his first 2 marriages.
Posted by: Uriah Heep at January 17, 2012 11:15 PM (447Af)
Right. Ideology aside. One gets a Senator and war hero of this country, the other get a maligned VP candidate who almost served a full term as Governor.
Only through the horseshit covered prism of unrelenting hack political ideology can you exist.
Posted by: Uriah Heep at January 17, 2012 11:19 PM (447Af)
I'm pretty much an ABOORP (Anybody But Obama Or Ron Paul)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 17, 2012 11:21 PM (hiw7o)
Posted by: Aslan's Girl at January 17, 2012 11:34 PM (KL49F)
Posted by: Tricianc at January 17, 2012 10:58 PM (gqG91)
You make a good point (glad you brought up Newt's support of death panels) BUT Todd's already on the record endorsing Newt; so taken together, I can see why people think this is an endorsement. I still can't imagine how she or Todd could have forgiven him after Tuscon.
Posted by: Aslan's Girl at January 17, 2012 11:38 PM (KL49F)
Of course the Newt fans are in some sort of fantasy world anyway, where his entire filthy history of backstabbing conservatives, wives, his President, anybody who happened to be handy. We tossed the piece of crap out on his butt in 1998, have you forgotten why?
Never mind. The Democrats will remind you, if you nominate this little creep. Every single day.
Posted by: Adjoran at January 18, 2012 12:30 AM (VfmLu)
Posted by: backhoe, Hobbit tea-roar-ist of Doom at January 18, 2012 01:59 AM (QROim)
"I would divide up a company equally between workers and the investors ( state )"
Posted by: NortonPete at January 18, 2012 02:00 AM (8zxoH)
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at January 18, 2012 02:11 AM (7+pP9)
As for Newt Fox just played a clip of him saying "why should you not be able to pay 15% in taxes". How about this Newty, because that would be a HUGE tax increase for most non-rich people. We are talking 15% effective taxes, not a 15% marginal rate. There is a big difference.
Posted by: Vic at January 18, 2012 02:11 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at January 18, 2012 02:12 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 18, 2012 02:17 AM (niZvt)
Hence the non-endorsement-endorsement of Gingrich in which the stated objective is merely to "keep this thing going", which is really all she cares about. Anything to squeeze a few extra minutes out of the long-expired 15 allotted to her.
It's the same reason she didn't run for president and never intended to, though she did spend a couple of years hyping the possibility that she might in order to rake in that sweet, sweet SarahPAC money from unwitting dupes who didn't realize they were actually financing her family vacations.
P.T. Barnum and Sarah™ would have gotten along very well.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 18, 2012 02:24 AM (GW8B/)
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 18, 2012 02:27 AM (niZvt)
Rush Limbaugh Sarah Palin™ will never come right out and endorse any candidate, because he she doesn't want to expose the considerable limits of her own influence. He She can't endorse Romney without pissing off his her own fanbase that hates him, and he she can't endorse anyone else because he she won't back a loser, at least not this time.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at January 18, 2012 02:29 AM (7+pP9)
Rush Limbaugh Sarah Palin™ will never come right out and endorse any candidate, because he she doesn't want to expose the considerable limits of her own influence. He She can't endorse Romney without pissing off his her own fanbase that hates him, and he she can't endorse anyone else because he she won't back a loser, at least not this time.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at January 18, 2012 06:29 AM (7+pP9)
Sadly, that's pretty much right-on too.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 18, 2012 02:39 AM (GW8B/)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 18, 2012 02:41 AM (GW8B/)
GINGRICH is the strongest of the GOP to beat Obama. He can control and redirect the narrative of any discussionÂ….as opposed to Romney, who was like a deer-in-the-headlights at the last debate at the first sign of the slightest criticism. He evades and quivers on the little things, like tax returns and speaking fees. Romney is a LOSER candidate.
READ over at AMERICAN THINKER "The 10pm Question"
Posted by: Ed Wallis at January 18, 2012 02:44 AM (tViWi)
We will not know who is strongest until after super Tuesday.
Posted by: Vic at January 18, 2012 02:51 AM (YdQQY)
There will be days of death bed divorce coverage, days book deal coverage, days of resigned as Speaker of the House.
There will be months of positive coverage of the first black (well partly black) president and his record of turning the Bush shambles of an economy around, successfully ending evil wars started by Bush, finding and killing Osama even though Bush couldn't do it, and restoring minority voting rights trampled by the evil Bush regime.
Concentrate on grassroots and Congresssional elections.
Posted by: Hrothgar at January 18, 2012 03:11 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: BornLib at January 18, 2012 03:37 AM (zpNwC)
They know what they can do and can't do. Should they overreach like Obama? Obama is destroying DC institutions and doesn't even know it. He can't do math, he isn't a people person and his ego is boundless.
Posted by: Huggy at January 18, 2012 03:53 AM (FD6YW)
Posted by: ParisParamus at January 18, 2012 04:33 AM (8sYoV)
Posted by: Totally Irrational Political Malcontent at January 18, 2012 05:00 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 18, 2012 06:24 AM (GW8B/)
--
As usual, the criticism of Palin is empty and dimwitted. Not just the above comment, but also all the idiots who still scream that she's a "quitter", "snowbilly", in it "only for the money", etc.
Posted by: Mook at January 18, 2012 05:02 AM (+pY8V)
Posted by: Burke at January 18, 2012 05:38 AM (9N3G1)
GINGRICH: Well, you know Brett, I think there’s a better way to — to think about this. All unemployment compensation should be tied to a job training requirement. If somebody can’t find a job…
(APPLAUSE)
… and they show up, and they say, “You know, I need help,” the help we ought to give them is to get them connected to a business-run training program to acquire the skills to be employable. Now the fact is, 99 weeks is an associate degree.
(APPLAUSE)
It — it tells you — I think it tells you everything. I — I hope my four colleagues would agree here. It tells you everything you need to know about the difference between Barack Obama and the five of us, that we actually think work is good.
Does anyone know if he has fleshed out this idea?
I guess the reason I ask is that although on the surface I understand the motivation - and I see why it played well to the crowd - I think it is rife with unintended consequences and that it also just ignores the plain fact that sometimes "qualifications" or "training" are not why people are unemployed.
In terms of unintended consequences, there would have to be a bureaucracy to police the job training, both in terms of participation and also in terms of the legitimacy of the program offered. In terms of the latter, for example, I could imagine either businesses or non-profits/groups calling something "job training" that wasn't job training. One could imagine people have to pay to work for a company or, even worse, the SEIU or some outfit making protesting be a form of job training. So that's one concern.
The second is - and I haven't thought this through very well so bear with me - I am not sure what it would mean to have a lot of effort invested in retraining people who are facing what is likely to be a temporary job shortage problem in their fields into some other, likely lower paying, field. It just seems like wasted effort and busy work, when really it may just a matter of riding out business cycles until firms are hiring again or until the housing market rebounds sufficiently for people to be able to relocate. It just seems simplistic to suppose that the unemployed are in most/many cases people with low skills or from dead fields when often they are professionals with specialized skills.
Who is going to do this work (of retraining) and who is going to decide what is valid retraining and who is going to pay for it?
Posted by: Y-not at January 18, 2012 06:13 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Burke at January 18, 2012 09:38 AM (9N3G1)"
Romney has never been a fighter, except against conservatives. In his heart, he is a progressive (not that he hasn't actually said he's progressive... he has).
He has bashed Perry and Reagan a lot more harshly than he ever bashed Obama. He actually said Perry would "kill social security" in his ad and complained about how stupid he is. He said he would never take America in the direction of Reagan/Bush.
It's very peculiar that this guy is viable.
Romney is too weak to handle class warfare attacks. Just look how he shut down when Perry pointed out he had illegals working his lawn for years (knowingly). Romney started crying to Anderson Cooper! Literally crying. A tear on his face.
This guy will not be capable of fighting the left on things like tax cuts for the 'rich'. It ain't gonna happen. Nor will he have a chance on border control. I'm not sure he's strong enough to be a good foreign policy leader, but anything would be better than Obama's bowing so I'll give him a pass.
Newt has baggage, but yes, he would fight the left much better.
I hope the other Not Romneys drop out soon if they can't take off. I am glad they are letting SC have a say and I don't mind if they let Florida have a say, but soon, they need to get behind Newt if it's clear he's the only one who can beat Romney.
I don't love Newt, but I don't need to. If he's the most conservative guy who can win, we better fix the GOP, but for the time being, that's still the way to go.
Posted by: Dustin at January 18, 2012 06:15 AM (8RL8E)
Of course, in Texas we still don't know when our primary will be because of the fucking federal government. If one of the other candidates promises to make DC as inconsequential in my life as possible, I may support him. DC is fucking everything up and holding us back. Some states are fighting back, under the leadership of people like Perry. It's up to the states like TX to save the US. Newt has lived in the DC suburbs for decades, and so has Santorum. I don't trust DC guys ruling over me.
Posted by: stace at January 18, 2012 06:57 AM (lYlx9)
Posted by: vinny at January 18, 2012 07:31 AM (fDVxD)
Despite his baggage, the spectacle of the Newt tearing up Obama publicly would go a long way to reviving the image of Republicans to all but the most Forthingly Rabid Liberals. Besides:
WE WANT PUBLIC REPUDIATION AND REVENGE ON LIBERALS!
Posted by: DRAW A MOHAMMED EVERY DAY at January 18, 2012 07:37 AM (tuCVl)
MEGADITTOS VINNY!
Posted by: DRAW A MOHAMMED EVERY DAY at January 18, 2012 07:40 AM (tuCVl)
If we're to be stuck with Romney, and recognizing that promises are just that and no more, what promises should we push romney for before he gats coronated, oops, nominated? I'd suggest ending the fed, a flat personal income tax rate on all types and amounts of income (coupled with a high personal exemption to make it acceptable to the masses), end corporate income taxes (and the reason for all the special deals and loopholes), a reduction schedule for closing overseas military bases (to be administered by the existing base closure commission) and campaign finance reform denying the right to contribute to all kinds of groups. These are my pet projects or wishes. What are yours?
Posted by: tom beebe st louis at January 18, 2012 11:35 AM (jXsTc)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2584 seconds, 291 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: ambrosia at January 17, 2012 06:16 PM (oZfic)