hey Whirl and Marshall the new flavor of the month Newt Gingrich has been exposed: http://news.yahoo.com/gingrich-says-...155709459.html
I have two major problems with Newt not having to do with policy. First, he is a hypocrite. According to his ex-wife he has two standards, one for the masses and one for himself. That's how he could lambast Clinton at the same time he was cheating on his wife. The second is that he was instrumental in creating the acrimony that exists in Washington today. His plan was for the GOP to gain power by using language to demonize his opponents. His arrogance knows no bounds but he is about half as smart as he thinks he is. Ends do not justify the means, Newt.
How can this man make appox 1.5 million dollars and not remember or even know how much it was? I think maybe he has too much money to be in the position of President! I think this man is just another crook that has managed to survive in government!
If you thought Cain's issues are bad (which they are), just wait to see what comes out now the Newt is moving up in the polls. This guy is as dirty as you get, both personally and politically.
- wellendowed1911
- 11-16-2011, 03:15 PM
- Marshall
- 11-16-2011, 03:23 PM
IS NEWT ELECTABLE? HELL, YES!
By Dick Morris
11.16.2011
Published on TheHill.com on November 15, 2011
As the debates accumulate, it becomes more and more evident that Newt Gingrich’s intellect, experience, articulateness and depth of knowledge elevate him to the top of the GOP field. Anyone should be happy to pay admission to watch him duel with President Obama in debate! He’s not as charismatic as Herman Cain or as smooth as Mitt Romney, but boy, does he have a brain!
Ever since the campaign started, Newt has always gotten in his own way. Now he has graciously stepped aside and let his creativity and intellect shine through.
Earlier in the debates, he bit the questioners’ heads off in a pique of surly crankiness. No longer. Now he just answers the questions as they come, often hitting them out of the ballpark. His perspective and insights are penetrating and his condescension has vanished (or at least is sublimated).
Unfortunately, he does owe some of his current surge to the unsubstantiated and vague charges against Cain. While Republicans generally dismiss these charges, they worry that they will hurt him in November should he win the nomination. Herman will recover. His positive solutions for our economy will lift him back into the top tier of contention. Michele Bachmann might also come back, lifted by a tide of opposition to any tax increases embedded in the deficit-reduction supercommittee’s recommendations.
But any recovery by Cain or Bachmann will not bump Newt from the top tier. The likely result of the debate process is to bequeath to Iowa three or four contending candidates and leave it to them to sort out.
If Newt is the candidate, will his personal baggage drag him down? It will hurt, no doubt about that. His marriages will be dissected by the media, and his family will be deluged with questions and well-laid traps.
His ratings will decline as the inevitable baptism of fire begins. As with Cain, he will experience a few bad weeks. But, as with Cain, his positive strengths will carry him through the fire and he will come out the other end.
But once Newt survives the process, he will be inoculated against the charges. He will have immunity against the issue.
And here is the core of Obama’s problem. All of the Republican candidates will be so thoroughly vetted — and purified — by the brutal process they are going through that they will be immune to his charges against them in the fall.
John Kerry never went through that process. His quick knockout of Howard Dean and the tepid challenge mounted by John Edwards did nothing to vet his claims of hero status in Vietnam.
Obama, on the other hand, survived the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers charges in the primary. When the general election came, they were old hat and had no electoral punch. Similarly, Bill Clinton got the nomination only after he had survived Gennifer Flowers and the accusations of draft-dodging. In November, those charges were spent bullets.
That’s the good news for Republicans. The nominating process has been so combative and the media scrutiny so searing that the candidates have been pre-screened. The FBI screening process is nowhere near as intense as the negative-research capacities of the media and political opponents.
If nominated, Romney will have survived the accusations of flip-flopping, Cain will have overcome the sexual harassment charges and Newt’s marital history will be yesterday’s news. And then we can get on with the business of winning the election.
And win it we will. Obama cannot survive his 60 percent disapproval rating on his handling of the economy (the highest ever recorded by CBS during his administration). Under his leadership, Gallup reports an almost 10-point edge for the Republican Party on handling the economy. Against a generic opponent, Obama draws only 43 percent of the vote. With the personal negatives on the Republican candidates aired and used up during the primaries, there will be nothing for Obama to hide behind.
By Dick Morris
11.16.2011
Published on TheHill.com on November 15, 2011
As the debates accumulate, it becomes more and more evident that Newt Gingrich’s intellect, experience, articulateness and depth of knowledge elevate him to the top of the GOP field. Anyone should be happy to pay admission to watch him duel with President Obama in debate! He’s not as charismatic as Herman Cain or as smooth as Mitt Romney, but boy, does he have a brain!
Ever since the campaign started, Newt has always gotten in his own way. Now he has graciously stepped aside and let his creativity and intellect shine through.
Earlier in the debates, he bit the questioners’ heads off in a pique of surly crankiness. No longer. Now he just answers the questions as they come, often hitting them out of the ballpark. His perspective and insights are penetrating and his condescension has vanished (or at least is sublimated).
Unfortunately, he does owe some of his current surge to the unsubstantiated and vague charges against Cain. While Republicans generally dismiss these charges, they worry that they will hurt him in November should he win the nomination. Herman will recover. His positive solutions for our economy will lift him back into the top tier of contention. Michele Bachmann might also come back, lifted by a tide of opposition to any tax increases embedded in the deficit-reduction supercommittee’s recommendations.
But any recovery by Cain or Bachmann will not bump Newt from the top tier. The likely result of the debate process is to bequeath to Iowa three or four contending candidates and leave it to them to sort out.
If Newt is the candidate, will his personal baggage drag him down? It will hurt, no doubt about that. His marriages will be dissected by the media, and his family will be deluged with questions and well-laid traps.
His ratings will decline as the inevitable baptism of fire begins. As with Cain, he will experience a few bad weeks. But, as with Cain, his positive strengths will carry him through the fire and he will come out the other end.
But once Newt survives the process, he will be inoculated against the charges. He will have immunity against the issue.
And here is the core of Obama’s problem. All of the Republican candidates will be so thoroughly vetted — and purified — by the brutal process they are going through that they will be immune to his charges against them in the fall.
John Kerry never went through that process. His quick knockout of Howard Dean and the tepid challenge mounted by John Edwards did nothing to vet his claims of hero status in Vietnam.
Obama, on the other hand, survived the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers charges in the primary. When the general election came, they were old hat and had no electoral punch. Similarly, Bill Clinton got the nomination only after he had survived Gennifer Flowers and the accusations of draft-dodging. In November, those charges were spent bullets.
That’s the good news for Republicans. The nominating process has been so combative and the media scrutiny so searing that the candidates have been pre-screened. The FBI screening process is nowhere near as intense as the negative-research capacities of the media and political opponents.
If nominated, Romney will have survived the accusations of flip-flopping, Cain will have overcome the sexual harassment charges and Newt’s marital history will be yesterday’s news. And then we can get on with the business of winning the election.
And win it we will. Obama cannot survive his 60 percent disapproval rating on his handling of the economy (the highest ever recorded by CBS during his administration). Under his leadership, Gallup reports an almost 10-point edge for the Republican Party on handling the economy. Against a generic opponent, Obama draws only 43 percent of the vote. With the personal negatives on the Republican candidates aired and used up during the primaries, there will be nothing for Obama to hide behind.
- wellendowed1911
- 11-16-2011, 03:36 PM
Marshall look at the site you quoted that from LMFAO-
Marshall here's the problem- you have a very weak GOP field- flat out- there's not really one candidate that anyone can say right now will handily beat Obama. The economy is bad and yet you have what six GOP contenders who are losing in hypothetical match ups against Obama- some polls Romney is tied with him or has a point or 2 over Obama but the fact that the GOp is running on the economy and polls are showing that they still are having trouble convincing Americans to vote for them.
So here's my conclusion:
Either Americans don't put all the blame on Obama and he has a big chance to get re-elected
or
The Republican field is just weak as hell
Marshall Newt has no chance of winning- trust me: Well that's just great. Newt had to quit being a holier than thou moralist when it was discovered he was having an affair while he was impeaching a president for having an affair. And now it turns our he was in bed with Freddie during the time he's been claiming that Freddie caused the financial crisis. Great guy.
Marshall here's the problem- you have a very weak GOP field- flat out- there's not really one candidate that anyone can say right now will handily beat Obama. The economy is bad and yet you have what six GOP contenders who are losing in hypothetical match ups against Obama- some polls Romney is tied with him or has a point or 2 over Obama but the fact that the GOp is running on the economy and polls are showing that they still are having trouble convincing Americans to vote for them.
So here's my conclusion:
Either Americans don't put all the blame on Obama and he has a big chance to get re-elected
or
The Republican field is just weak as hell
Marshall Newt has no chance of winning- trust me: Well that's just great. Newt had to quit being a holier than thou moralist when it was discovered he was having an affair while he was impeaching a president for having an affair. And now it turns our he was in bed with Freddie during the time he's been claiming that Freddie caused the financial crisis. Great guy.
- I B Hankering
- 11-16-2011, 03:40 PM
- wellendowed1911
- 11-16-2011, 03:51 PM
Citation? When was Clinton impeached for having an affair? Originally Posted by I B Hankeringimpeaching was referring to the process Newt was leading the charge to have Clinton impeached: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K026a4fhP-Y
- Marshall
- 11-16-2011, 03:52 PM
Elections give GOP a solid hold on South
Switch of key states could trouble Obama
Login to Vote
The South, once solidly Democratic, is more solidly Republican than ever after the 2011 elections.
As the last state legislative races were called this week from the Nov. 8 votes in Virginia and Mississippi, the party of Abraham Lincoln now controls both chambers of every state legislature in the 11 former states
of the Confederacy, with the sole exception of Arkansas. And Arkansas Republicans need to flip only a handful of seats in 2012 to make the trend unanimous.
None of this comes as welcome news for President Obama’s re-election campaign. In 2008, Mr. Obama was propelled to the White House in large part with breakthrough victories in such states as Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, but all three states now have Republican-led legislatures, with the GOP’s biggest gains in the 2010 elections.
The shift means that in swing states such as Florida, the GOP 2012 nominee will have a home-field advantage given the local balance of power.
The 2010 midterm vote was “a record-breaking year for Republicans in the state legislatures. There were a couple of benchmarks set that made it a banner year, and what the last election showed is that it hasn’t died down,” said Adam Temple, a spokesman for the Republican State Leadership Committee. “It doesn’t paint a pretty picture for Democrats in 2012.”
With the formal call on one key race late Monday, Republicans gained control of the Mississippi House of Representatives for the first time since Reconstruction, picking up eight seats in the Nov. 8 balloting. The party increased its majority to 64-58 when one House Democrat switched parties a few days after the election.
In Virginia, Republicans gained two seats in the state Senate, giving them a 20-20 split with Democrats. With the Republican lieutenant governor casting the tiebreaker, the result is that the GOP has effective control of the state Senate to go with its dominance of the state House of Delegates.
Even though the 2011 outcome represents a milestone of sorts for the GOP, the news isn’t grabbing national headlines. That’s probably because the Southern realignment from Democrat to Republican has been a long time in coming, said Karl Kurtz, a political analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
“I think it’s the most significant thing to come out of the 2011 election, but I don’t view it as earthshaking. It’s what’s been going on in the South for a dozen years now,” said Mr. Kurtz. “The South has always been conservative. It used to be conservative Democrats would get elected, but now they’re no longer Democrats, they’re Republicans.”
The analyst cautioned against drawing broad conclusions about the 2012 presidential race from the 2011 results.
“I don’t think either the 2010 or 2011 elections predict anything about presidential politics,” said Mr. Kurtz. “They show Democrats will have a difficult time in the South, and they’ve had that for the last two years, but that doesn’t mean Obama can’t win in Virginia or North Carolina or Arkansas.”
Democrats downplayed the significance of the GOP legislative victories, saying that the Republican results fell short of expectations. In Virginia, for example, Republicans hoped to pick up at least three state Senate seats in order to gain outright control of the chamber, but had to settle for a tie.
“In Virginia, Republicans said they would sweep the state legislature and instead got a 20-20 split in the Senate. That’s less than they expected to get,” said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Melanie Roussell. “And it came down to an 86-vote margin in one Senate race.”
Robert S. McElvaine, history professor at Millsaps College in Jackson, Miss., said the Republican takeover of the Mississippi House was simply the culmination of a long-building trend.
“Going Republican for the first time since Reconstruction is sort of meaningless, since back then the Republicans were the progressives and supportive of African-Americans,” said Mr. McElvaine. “The Republican domination in this state has reached a point where the Democrats didn’t even field a candidate for lieutenant governor this year.”
Democrats pointed to the defeat of the so-called “personhood” pro-life amendment in Mississippi as an example of Southern voters rejecting Republican issues. Initiative 26, which would have defined life as beginning at conception, lost by a margin of 58 percent to 42 percent, despite leading in the polls just a few weeks earlier.
“This is one of the most conservatives states in the nation, and the vote wasn’t even close. It was a thorough repudiation of Republican policies,” Ms. Roussell said.
Mississippi Republican Party Executive Director Tim Saler countered that the personhood initiative had bipartisan support. The measure was endorsed by many Democratic candidates, including gubernatorial hopeful Johnny DuPree, who lost to Republican Phil Bryant.
“Most of the Democratic candidates said they would support [the personhood amendment]. They needed to say they were for it to make people think they were more conservative than they were,” said Mr. Saler. “It’s a little bit of revisionist history for Democrats to say they were against personhood.”
He said the election’s legacy may be the end of the distinction drawn by Mississippi voters between Southern Democrats and national Democrats, one that successful Democratic candidates in states such as Kentucky and Arkansas have tried to highlight in recent votes.
“There was some sense among voters that, ‘Our Democrats are different.’ The phrase you’d hear was ‘Mississippi Democrats,’” said Mr. Saler. “I think what happened is that voters finally decided that, well, there isn’t a difference.”
Switch of key states could trouble Obama
Login to Vote
The South, once solidly Democratic, is more solidly Republican than ever after the 2011 elections.
As the last state legislative races were called this week from the Nov. 8 votes in Virginia and Mississippi, the party of Abraham Lincoln now controls both chambers of every state legislature in the 11 former states
of the Confederacy, with the sole exception of Arkansas. And Arkansas Republicans need to flip only a handful of seats in 2012 to make the trend unanimous.
None of this comes as welcome news for President Obama’s re-election campaign. In 2008, Mr. Obama was propelled to the White House in large part with breakthrough victories in such states as Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, but all three states now have Republican-led legislatures, with the GOP’s biggest gains in the 2010 elections.
The shift means that in swing states such as Florida, the GOP 2012 nominee will have a home-field advantage given the local balance of power.
The 2010 midterm vote was “a record-breaking year for Republicans in the state legislatures. There were a couple of benchmarks set that made it a banner year, and what the last election showed is that it hasn’t died down,” said Adam Temple, a spokesman for the Republican State Leadership Committee. “It doesn’t paint a pretty picture for Democrats in 2012.”
With the formal call on one key race late Monday, Republicans gained control of the Mississippi House of Representatives for the first time since Reconstruction, picking up eight seats in the Nov. 8 balloting. The party increased its majority to 64-58 when one House Democrat switched parties a few days after the election.
In Virginia, Republicans gained two seats in the state Senate, giving them a 20-20 split with Democrats. With the Republican lieutenant governor casting the tiebreaker, the result is that the GOP has effective control of the state Senate to go with its dominance of the state House of Delegates.
Even though the 2011 outcome represents a milestone of sorts for the GOP, the news isn’t grabbing national headlines. That’s probably because the Southern realignment from Democrat to Republican has been a long time in coming, said Karl Kurtz, a political analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
“I think it’s the most significant thing to come out of the 2011 election, but I don’t view it as earthshaking. It’s what’s been going on in the South for a dozen years now,” said Mr. Kurtz. “The South has always been conservative. It used to be conservative Democrats would get elected, but now they’re no longer Democrats, they’re Republicans.”
The analyst cautioned against drawing broad conclusions about the 2012 presidential race from the 2011 results.
“I don’t think either the 2010 or 2011 elections predict anything about presidential politics,” said Mr. Kurtz. “They show Democrats will have a difficult time in the South, and they’ve had that for the last two years, but that doesn’t mean Obama can’t win in Virginia or North Carolina or Arkansas.”
Democrats downplayed the significance of the GOP legislative victories, saying that the Republican results fell short of expectations. In Virginia, for example, Republicans hoped to pick up at least three state Senate seats in order to gain outright control of the chamber, but had to settle for a tie.
“In Virginia, Republicans said they would sweep the state legislature and instead got a 20-20 split in the Senate. That’s less than they expected to get,” said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Melanie Roussell. “And it came down to an 86-vote margin in one Senate race.”
Robert S. McElvaine, history professor at Millsaps College in Jackson, Miss., said the Republican takeover of the Mississippi House was simply the culmination of a long-building trend.
“Going Republican for the first time since Reconstruction is sort of meaningless, since back then the Republicans were the progressives and supportive of African-Americans,” said Mr. McElvaine. “The Republican domination in this state has reached a point where the Democrats didn’t even field a candidate for lieutenant governor this year.”
Democrats pointed to the defeat of the so-called “personhood” pro-life amendment in Mississippi as an example of Southern voters rejecting Republican issues. Initiative 26, which would have defined life as beginning at conception, lost by a margin of 58 percent to 42 percent, despite leading in the polls just a few weeks earlier.
“This is one of the most conservatives states in the nation, and the vote wasn’t even close. It was a thorough repudiation of Republican policies,” Ms. Roussell said.
Mississippi Republican Party Executive Director Tim Saler countered that the personhood initiative had bipartisan support. The measure was endorsed by many Democratic candidates, including gubernatorial hopeful Johnny DuPree, who lost to Republican Phil Bryant.
“Most of the Democratic candidates said they would support [the personhood amendment]. They needed to say they were for it to make people think they were more conservative than they were,” said Mr. Saler. “It’s a little bit of revisionist history for Democrats to say they were against personhood.”
He said the election’s legacy may be the end of the distinction drawn by Mississippi voters between Southern Democrats and national Democrats, one that successful Democratic candidates in states such as Kentucky and Arkansas have tried to highlight in recent votes.
“There was some sense among voters that, ‘Our Democrats are different.’ The phrase you’d hear was ‘Mississippi Democrats,’” said Mr. Saler. “I think what happened is that voters finally decided that, well, there isn’t a difference.”
- Whirlaway
- 11-16-2011, 03:56 PM
Clinton was impeached for lying........
- Whirlaway
- 11-16-2011, 03:58 PM
The south is gonna rise again......Obama loses North Carolina, Florida, Virginia. Republicans pick off Ohio and maybe Pennsylvannia. Say good night Irene...
The Tea Party is more organized, monied, and energized than in the 2010 cycle. Look at the historic Republican wins since the 2010 election - Weiner's seat; Virginia, Mississippi. All strong democratically held bastions that Republicans blew out !
Republicans control the Mississipi statehouse for the first time since Reconstruction - that is historic !
The Tea Party is more organized, monied, and energized than in the 2010 cycle. Look at the historic Republican wins since the 2010 election - Weiner's seat; Virginia, Mississippi. All strong democratically held bastions that Republicans blew out !
Republicans control the Mississipi statehouse for the first time since Reconstruction - that is historic !
- wellendowed1911
- 11-16-2011, 04:02 PM
- I B Hankering
- 11-16-2011, 04:19 PM
impeaching was referring to the process Newt was leading the charge to have Clinton impeached: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K026a4fhP-Y Originally Posted by wellendowed1911Clinton WAS NEVER impeached for having an affair or sexual tryst.
- CuteOldGuy
- 11-16-2011, 05:01 PM
It's really a non-issue. According to Newt, he was warning them what would happen if they continued to run their operation the way they were. Newt is the smartest one in the field, but I don't trust him. Unfortunately, WE is right. The Republican field is very weak. A generic Republican beats Obama in every poll, but a specific Republican loses every time. The people want a change, so I hope that between Obama and whoever the Republicans put up, the inability of the major parties to govern will become more obvious, and people will look seriously at a third party. We can't continue on with Republicans and Democrats in control.
- budman33
- 11-16-2011, 10:26 PM
Unfortunately COG a third party will never win. we're stuck with crooks on both sides of the aisle that run our country into the ground with the exception that there is a different president every now and then that they get to blame everything on.
- CuteOldGuy
- 11-16-2011, 10:51 PM
We are only stuck with them because we have been raised with a two-party system. We can break away from that, but it will take perfect storm of circumstances. If the choice is between hemlock and arsenic, I'll look for another alternative.
- Whirlaway
- 11-17-2011, 10:01 AM
Based on her most recent column, it looks like Ann Coulter agrees with Wellendowed (at least on Newt not being electable)...............
IF NOT ROMNEY, WHO? IF NOT NOW, WHEN?
November 16, 2011
So now, apparently, we have to go through the cycle of the media pushing Newt Gingrich. This is going to be fantastic.
In addition to having an affair in the middle of Clinton's impeachment; apologizing to Jesse Jackson on behalf of J.C. Watts -- one of two black Republicans then in Congress –- for having criticized "poverty pimps," and then inviting Jackson to a State of the Union address; cutting a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi; supporting George Soros' candidate Dede Scozzafava in a congressional special election; appearing in public with the Rev. Al Sharpton to promote nonspecific education reform; and calling Paul Ryan's plan to save Social Security "right-wing social engineering," we found out this week that Gingrich was a recipient of Freddie Mac political money.
(Even I will admit, however, that Newt was great when he was chairman of GOPAC back in the '90s with Gay Gaines at the helm.)
Although Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- the institutions most responsible for the nation's current financial crisis -- were almost entirely Democratic cash cows, they managed to dirty up enough Republicans to make it seem like bipartisan corruption.
Democrats sucked hundreds of millions of dollars out of these institutions: Franklin Raines, $90 million; Jamie Gorelick, $26.4 million; Jim Johnson, $20 million.
By contrast, Republicans came cheap. For the amazingly good price of only $300,000 apiece, Fannie and Freddie bought the good will of former Reps. Vin Weber, R-Minn., Susan Molinari, R-N.Y., and Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.* Former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., was even cheaper at $240,000.
[*Correction: After Gingrich admitted last week to receiving $300,000 from Freddie, we found out this week that it was actually closer to $1.6 million.]
So now conservatives shy away from denouncing these crooked organizations for fear of running into Vin Weber at a cocktail party.
Sorry, guys -- on the plus side, you're millionaires, but on the downside, you've earned the contempt of your fellow man.
The mainstream media keep pushing alternatives to Mitt Romney not only because they are terrified of running against him, but also because they want to keep Republicans fighting, allowing Democrats to get a four-month jump on us.
Meanwhile, everyone knows the nominee is going to be Romney.
That's not so bad if you think the most important issues in this election are defeating Obama and repealing Obamacare.
There may be better ways to stop Obamacare than Romney, but, unfortunately, they're not available right now. (And, by the way, where were you conservative purists when Republicans were nominating Waterboarding-Is-Torture-Jerry-Falwell-Is-an-Agent-of-Intolerance-My-Good-Friend-Teddy-Kennedy-Amnesty-for-Illegals John McCain-Feingold for president?)
Among Romney's positives is the fact that he has a demonstrated ability to trick liberals into voting for him. He was elected governor of Massachusetts -- one of the most liberal states in the union -- by appealing to Democrats, independents and suburban women.
He came close to stopping the greatest calamity to befall this nation since Pearl Harbor by nearly beating Teddy Kennedy in a Senate race. (That is when he said a lot of the things about which he's since "changed his mind.") If he had won, we'd be carving his image on Mount Rushmore.
He is not part of the Washington establishment, so he won't be caught taking money from Freddie Mac or cutting commercials with Nancy Pelosi.
Also, Romney will be the first Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan who can talk. Liberals are going to have to dust off their playbook from 30 years ago to figure out how to run against a Republican who isn't a tongue-tied marble-mouth.
As we've known for years, his negatives are: Romneycare and Mormonism.
We look forward with cheery anticipation to an explosion of news stories on some of the stranger aspects of Mormonism. The articles have already been written, but they're not scheduled for release until the day Romney wraps up the nomination.
Inasmuch as the Democrats' only argument for the big-eared beanpole who's nearly wrecked the country is that you must be a racist if you oppose Obama, one assumes a lot of attention will be lavished on the Mormon Church's historical position on blacks. Church founder Joseph Smith said blacks had the curse of Cain on them and banned blacks from the priesthood, a directive that was not revoked until 1978.
There's no evidence that this was a policy fiercely pushed by Mitt Romney. To the contrary, when his father, George Romney, was governor of Michigan, he was the most pro-civil rights elected official in the entire country, far ahead of any Democrat.
No one is worried Romney will double-cross us on repealing Obamacare. We worry that Romneycare will make it harder for him to get elected.
But, again, Romney is the articulate Republican. He's already explained how mandating health insurance in one particular wealthy, liberal Northeastern state is different from inflicting it on the entire country. Our Constitution establishes a federalist system that allows experimentation with different ideas in the individual states.
As governor, Romney didn't have the ability to change federal laws requiring hospital emergency rooms to treat every illegal alien, drug dealer and vagrant who walked in the door, then sending the bill to taxpayers. (Although David Axelrod, Michelle Obama, Eric Whitaker and Valerie Jarrett did figure out a way to throw poor blacks out of the University of Chicago Medical Center..)
The Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, supported Romneycare at the time. The biggest warning sign should have been that Gingrich supported it, too.
Most important, Romney has said -- forcefully and repeatedly -- that his first day in office he will issue a 50-state waiver from Obamacare and will then seek a formal repeal.
Romney is not going to get to the White House and announce, "The first thing I'm going to do is implement that fantastic national health care plan signed by my pal, Barack!"
Unlike all other major legislation in the nation's history, Obamacare was narrowly passed along partisan lines by an aberrationally large one-party majority in Congress. (Thanks, McCain supporters!) Not one single Republican in Congress voted for it, not even John McCain.
Obamacare is going to be repealed -- provided only that a Republican wins the next presidential election.
If a Republican does not win, however, it will never be repealed. Recall that, in order to boast about the amazing revenue savings under Obamacare, Democrats had to configure the bill so that the taxes to pay for it start right away, but the goodies don't kick in until 2014.
Once people are thrown off their insurance plans and are forced to depend on the government for "free" health care, Obamacare is here to stay. (And Newt Gingrich will be calling plans to tinker with it "right-wing social engineering.")
Instead of sitting on our thumbs, wishing Ronald Reagan were around, or chasing the latest mechanical rabbit flashed by the media, conservatives ought to start rallying around Romney as the only Republican who has a shot at beating Obama. We'll attack him when he's president.
It's fun to be a purist, but let's put that on hold until Obama and his abominable health care plan are gone, please.
IF NOT ROMNEY, WHO? IF NOT NOW, WHEN?
November 16, 2011
So now, apparently, we have to go through the cycle of the media pushing Newt Gingrich. This is going to be fantastic.
In addition to having an affair in the middle of Clinton's impeachment; apologizing to Jesse Jackson on behalf of J.C. Watts -- one of two black Republicans then in Congress –- for having criticized "poverty pimps," and then inviting Jackson to a State of the Union address; cutting a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi; supporting George Soros' candidate Dede Scozzafava in a congressional special election; appearing in public with the Rev. Al Sharpton to promote nonspecific education reform; and calling Paul Ryan's plan to save Social Security "right-wing social engineering," we found out this week that Gingrich was a recipient of Freddie Mac political money.
(Even I will admit, however, that Newt was great when he was chairman of GOPAC back in the '90s with Gay Gaines at the helm.)
Although Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- the institutions most responsible for the nation's current financial crisis -- were almost entirely Democratic cash cows, they managed to dirty up enough Republicans to make it seem like bipartisan corruption.
Democrats sucked hundreds of millions of dollars out of these institutions: Franklin Raines, $90 million; Jamie Gorelick, $26.4 million; Jim Johnson, $20 million.
By contrast, Republicans came cheap. For the amazingly good price of only $300,000 apiece, Fannie and Freddie bought the good will of former Reps. Vin Weber, R-Minn., Susan Molinari, R-N.Y., and Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.* Former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., was even cheaper at $240,000.
[*Correction: After Gingrich admitted last week to receiving $300,000 from Freddie, we found out this week that it was actually closer to $1.6 million.]
So now conservatives shy away from denouncing these crooked organizations for fear of running into Vin Weber at a cocktail party.
Sorry, guys -- on the plus side, you're millionaires, but on the downside, you've earned the contempt of your fellow man.
The mainstream media keep pushing alternatives to Mitt Romney not only because they are terrified of running against him, but also because they want to keep Republicans fighting, allowing Democrats to get a four-month jump on us.
Meanwhile, everyone knows the nominee is going to be Romney.
That's not so bad if you think the most important issues in this election are defeating Obama and repealing Obamacare.
There may be better ways to stop Obamacare than Romney, but, unfortunately, they're not available right now. (And, by the way, where were you conservative purists when Republicans were nominating Waterboarding-Is-Torture-Jerry-Falwell-Is-an-Agent-of-Intolerance-My-Good-Friend-Teddy-Kennedy-Amnesty-for-Illegals John McCain-Feingold for president?)
Among Romney's positives is the fact that he has a demonstrated ability to trick liberals into voting for him. He was elected governor of Massachusetts -- one of the most liberal states in the union -- by appealing to Democrats, independents and suburban women.
He came close to stopping the greatest calamity to befall this nation since Pearl Harbor by nearly beating Teddy Kennedy in a Senate race. (That is when he said a lot of the things about which he's since "changed his mind.") If he had won, we'd be carving his image on Mount Rushmore.
He is not part of the Washington establishment, so he won't be caught taking money from Freddie Mac or cutting commercials with Nancy Pelosi.
Also, Romney will be the first Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan who can talk. Liberals are going to have to dust off their playbook from 30 years ago to figure out how to run against a Republican who isn't a tongue-tied marble-mouth.
As we've known for years, his negatives are: Romneycare and Mormonism.
We look forward with cheery anticipation to an explosion of news stories on some of the stranger aspects of Mormonism. The articles have already been written, but they're not scheduled for release until the day Romney wraps up the nomination.
Inasmuch as the Democrats' only argument for the big-eared beanpole who's nearly wrecked the country is that you must be a racist if you oppose Obama, one assumes a lot of attention will be lavished on the Mormon Church's historical position on blacks. Church founder Joseph Smith said blacks had the curse of Cain on them and banned blacks from the priesthood, a directive that was not revoked until 1978.
There's no evidence that this was a policy fiercely pushed by Mitt Romney. To the contrary, when his father, George Romney, was governor of Michigan, he was the most pro-civil rights elected official in the entire country, far ahead of any Democrat.
No one is worried Romney will double-cross us on repealing Obamacare. We worry that Romneycare will make it harder for him to get elected.
But, again, Romney is the articulate Republican. He's already explained how mandating health insurance in one particular wealthy, liberal Northeastern state is different from inflicting it on the entire country. Our Constitution establishes a federalist system that allows experimentation with different ideas in the individual states.
As governor, Romney didn't have the ability to change federal laws requiring hospital emergency rooms to treat every illegal alien, drug dealer and vagrant who walked in the door, then sending the bill to taxpayers. (Although David Axelrod, Michelle Obama, Eric Whitaker and Valerie Jarrett did figure out a way to throw poor blacks out of the University of Chicago Medical Center..)
The Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, supported Romneycare at the time. The biggest warning sign should have been that Gingrich supported it, too.
Most important, Romney has said -- forcefully and repeatedly -- that his first day in office he will issue a 50-state waiver from Obamacare and will then seek a formal repeal.
Romney is not going to get to the White House and announce, "The first thing I'm going to do is implement that fantastic national health care plan signed by my pal, Barack!"
Unlike all other major legislation in the nation's history, Obamacare was narrowly passed along partisan lines by an aberrationally large one-party majority in Congress. (Thanks, McCain supporters!) Not one single Republican in Congress voted for it, not even John McCain.
Obamacare is going to be repealed -- provided only that a Republican wins the next presidential election.
If a Republican does not win, however, it will never be repealed. Recall that, in order to boast about the amazing revenue savings under Obamacare, Democrats had to configure the bill so that the taxes to pay for it start right away, but the goodies don't kick in until 2014.
Once people are thrown off their insurance plans and are forced to depend on the government for "free" health care, Obamacare is here to stay. (And Newt Gingrich will be calling plans to tinker with it "right-wing social engineering.")
Instead of sitting on our thumbs, wishing Ronald Reagan were around, or chasing the latest mechanical rabbit flashed by the media, conservatives ought to start rallying around Romney as the only Republican who has a shot at beating Obama. We'll attack him when he's president.
It's fun to be a purist, but let's put that on hold until Obama and his abominable health care plan are gone, please.
- WTF
- 11-17-2011, 10:09 AM
Although Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- the institutions most responsible for the nation's current financial crisis -- were almost entirely Democratic cash cows, they managed to dirty up enough Republicans to make it seem like bipartisan corruption.This shows Coulter total lack of understanding of the mess. Freddie and Fannie were part of the problem but not the major problem.
. Originally Posted by Whirlaway