E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSCOUNCIL BLUFFS, IA -- With the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses just three weeks away, Republican activists in the state were viewing Saturday night's debate with renewed interest. And at least some of them remain undecided after watching the candidates spar in their home state.
Myra Nixon, who supported Herman Cain until he dropped out earlier this month, was one of a group of a dozen or so Republican activists who gathered at a debate watch party at a home in McClelland, Iowa Saturday night to see what was billed as the most important debate so far of the GOP presidential primary season.
David Friedman / msnbc.com
Iowa Republican Myra Nixon
“I’m probably leaning more toward Michele Bachmann than I had before, just simply because she’s been the most consistent in her views,” Nixon said afterwards. “She’s been fighting the fight since I became aware and have heard of her. ... I’m still undecided but she’s edging closer to being my front runner.”
As for former House speaker Newt Gingrich, she said, “I still like him – I don’t know what it’s going to take to get over that little bump of ‘still not quite sure if I can I trust him or not.’ He’s such a knowledgeable, smart man; the way he articulates; his in-your-face (style); I guess that’s probably why I’m still undecided.”
Nixon and some of her fellow conservatives in the Western Iowa 9/12 Project had the chance to talk to Gingrich back in September when he visited Council Bluffs and when he wasn’t topping the polls in Iowa as he now is. Gingrich’s weeks out of the news media spotlight, after some pundits had written him off, appears to have provided him some benefit.
“We had him for five hours to ourselves at the Bent Tree Golf Course,” Nixon said of Gingrich. “He came in and previewed a movie, City Upon a Hill.” Her 9/12 group had a wine-and-cheese meet-and-greet event before the movie. “He was very accommodating. I was really surprised we got him for that long. ... That kind of started the (process of) looking at him differently.”
“He talked about his fall from grace and how it humbled him. ... He did not come off to me anyway as arrogant,” she said.
Nixon is still angry about what forced Cain’s departure from the race: “It just breaks my heart what happened to him. I don’t believe for a second that any of those accusations are true. There is no proof. ... it destroyed a man and his reputation and hurt his family and hurt his supporters. It’s really disgusting, actually.”
Nixon said, “I do not want to see Mitt Romney be the nominee, I think he is Obama-lite. I think if he became the nominee, Obama could beat him.”
David Friedman / msnbc.com
Michael Patomson applauds a point made during the Republican debate Saturday night.
Another undecided local Republican Doug Krasne, who supported Romney four years ago, and who puts the national debt and federal deficits as his highest priority, said after the Saturday night debate, “the truth of the matter is the one I thought spoke most directly to it was Ron Paul tonight. Ron said in no uncertain terms we really have to get back to spending within our means. Other candidates said it in some ways but his was the most direct and unambiguous.”
But he added he’s not sure Paul is candidate he can support.
He still is searching for details from the GOP contenders. “Mitt Romney talked about creating 11.5 million new jobs in four years, but how’s he going to do that?”
He added, “I understand cutting taxes but … just like there’s a limit to how low we can make interest rates, there’s a limit to how much we can cut taxes. The government spends money and needs revenues; they have to come from somewhere. If we have limited revenues, what are the most important issues to spend on? That’s what I want to hear each of the candidates address, both on the Republican side and the Democratic side.”
Charlie Johnson says Saturday night's Iowa debate swayed him from Mitt Romney back to undecided.
“I’ll be very honest with you,” said Charlie Johnson, a Council Bluffs Republican. “When I came in here tonight, I was probably going to vote for Mitt Romney because I like his business background, but after the debate tonight I can honestly say I’m back on the shelf again. I saw some other candidates that I’m going to take another look at. One of them was Newt and another was Ron Paul. I thought Ron Paul did very well tonight…. When he talks about financial issues I think he’s brilliant.”
He added, “Newt has this vast knowledge of a lot of issues. I like that and he’s not afraid to say what he thinks, whether you agree with him or you don’t agree with him….”
But there were some in the gathering who won’t support Gingrich. “He is pretty much the opposite of everything I believe in,” said Mark Hansen, a Ron Paul supporter. “He is the definition of what is wrong with Washington right now, throwing out his personal principles to make a dollar.”
There’s a split in the local Republican ranks between the newer Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann contingents and the GOP establishment, represented in this case by local state Rep. Mary Ann Hanusa, whose district includes the eastern half of the city of Council Bluffs, and who supports Romney.
Talking with some of the Paul and Bachmann supporters in the post-debate fray, Hanusa alluded to the lack of conservative support for John McCain in 2008 general election, a lack of enthusiasm that helped Obama win Iowa and other swing states. “I know a lot of people were upset with John McCain. If you had John McCain in there right now you wouldn’t have Obamacare.”
And that’s a problem Republicans might face next November as well: how to keep conservatives motivated to support the GOP nominee, even if he or she isn’t a conservative favorite.
Leave a Comment:
Newt the "historian."
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/05/newt-gingrich/
Nice article -thanks!
Nice article. It clearly shows that being Republican means being ignorant, gullible, misinformed and proud of it. It is astounding that the second major party in the country has no better candidates than these flakes and snake oil salesmen to put forward for President. Not one of them has the intelligence, character and integrity to be a leader of a third world country, much less of the United States.
Very good article. This places Gingrich in the league of Joseph Goebbels in terms of spreading right wing dogma as though it was truth...and in an illegal manner at that!!
Isn't this the very same material that Rick Santorum admittedly stated influenced him to become a conservative?...and it was all based on the feeble vision of Gingrich with his lack of moral and ethical integrity?
It appears that many of our fellow citizens have been duped. The question is;"What shall we do about it?". Perhaps Gingrich's presidential run does have a higher purpose, i.e. to expose the outright lies and misinformation that has been promulgated by the conservatives for the last twenty years.
No wonder some Republican activist's are still shopping for a different candidate. If I had to choose between a corporate raider [Romney] and a con artist [the Newtster] I’d still be shopping too. Keep hoping suckers; this is what’s left of what used to be the Republican Party now that a handful of right wing extremist’s have destroyed it.….. Pathetic isn’t it.
Newt = salamander
He blasted Democrats for taking money from mortgage giant Freddie Mac — while he was paid $25,000 a month by the same company. Freddie Mac paid 1.6 Million to Newt just before the housing market crisis. One of the greatest scandals of our time quotes the “National Review”
$37 million for Newt from Major Health Care Co.’s that support Individual Mandated Obama Health Care. Yet the Newt says he is against Obama’s Health Care Plan.
He castigated then-President Clinton for his affair with a White House intern while he himself was having an extra marital affair with a Congressional staffer. Let’s see 3 wives / 2 affairs - that we know about)- while leading an attempt to impeach President Clinton. What a hypocrite!
He lacks compassion for the less fortunate among us. He’s proposed cutting off aid to single mothers and sending their children to orphanages. Last month, he called child labor laws “truly stupid” and said poor children should earn money cleaning bathrooms; the Occupy WS protesters should get a bath and a job even though they can’t find jobs thanks to Bush and the GOP.
Everything that Newt railed against while he was in the house when out - he went the other way once he was paid to go the other way his lack of ethics is no secret. His colleagues in the House of Representatives voted 395-28 to fine him $300,000 for ethics violations and for lying to them — the first time in history the House disciplined its own Speaker for ethical wrongdoing.
Talk about serial hypocrisy It would be an understatement to say that Newt Gingrich is a demagogue and the ultimate Washington insider. But then is it any wonder the Conservatives like him but then again what do you expect from a Conservative.
they're all so wonderful it's hard to know who to choose. it reminds me of all the wonderful characters of Pro wrestling - Gorilla Monsoon, Haystacks Calhoun, sometimes the women would come on and fight. I was too young to really understand that but enjoyed it, nonetheless. And the midgets! I loved watching them! And I love the debates. All the candidates are so wonderful. I had to miss one of them I had an appointment with Dr. Welby - he's a good Doctor but very hard to get an appointment with. He's not like that mean Dr. Bones. That fellow doesn't even deserve to be a Doctor at all!
Great artile Charlie. Thanks for the link.
Yes, a great article. It is filled with questionable statements (Bachmann, really?), but the two below are most notable:
Lady, Herman Cain admitted he gave money to Ginger White, and that his wife Gloria never had any knowledge of Ms. White. How friggin' delusional can you be? Though Cain said he would not be silent or go away, he finally STFU and went away, because Cain clearly knew he had been busted (on several levels).
Rep. Mary Ann Hanusa, now YOU should know better. Dems worked to pass the Affordable Care Act during the nine months they had a filibuster-proof super majority, which they lost when Scott "Centerfold" Brown was elected, and yet it was still passed. What makes you think they would not still have done that even if McCain had been elected? Aside from the fact thatPresident Obama did not campaign on a mandate--that's what congress passed, so stop calling it "Obamacare," you also neglect to acknowledge McCain's VP pick of Sarah Palin and how disastrous that would have been.
Crikey, can't we get any intellectual honest from conservatives?!
I'm sorry to say this but the candidates for the republicans only reflect the retards that believe them.
That said, the pictures of the viewers of the debate were NOT from the 1%.They were older Americans who wouldn't change their opinion if you gave them every valid reason why they should.The biggest problem is you can't debate with a moron who knows (in their misinformed minds)their right regardless of age or social standing.That is why religion is popular. Monkey hear and monkey believes.
By the way,the democrats are far from perfect.They just seem more compassionate during a critical time of need and don't hate everyone who is different from themselves.
Hey Big Mac, I'm a republican and I don't hate everyone who is different from me. And just fyi...the democrats only pretend to be compassionate. Have you ever seen these bleeding heart liberals houses? Have you seen JOe Biden's house lately....all million feet of it? HOw bout Nancy Pelosi's mansion? First of all, how do you think they're getting so rich? Second, however they're getting so rich, do you think they're giving it away to poor people? Quit lying to yourself. The bottom line is America became great because we had the lowest taxes, the lowest regulations, and sound money. Thanks to big government politicians (both democrats and republicans) who want socialism so they can collect more power, we're heading for a cliff. The US is spending 8 billion dollars A WEEK just to cover the INTEREST on our national debt. Obama has added 4 TRILLION just in his 3 years, and has NO SUGGESTIONS of how to cut spending. RON PAUL is our only hope. He wants sound money by controlling or ending the fed, bring home our troops from over 130 countries (WHy do US taxpayers have to pay for Germany and Japan's protection?), eliminate huge bureacracies like the dept of education (the states can do this themselves), and give individual freedom and responsibility to Americans. There's a reason Ron Paul's supporters are so fervent...we know how good things could be....and also know how bad things are going to get.
Yes, let's go back to the gold standard.... unfortuantely though for Dr. R.P. - there isn't enough gold in existence.
But hey, that might be a boost to our space program - we could start mining asteroids or something.
Anyone who would have supported the Hermanator should probably just quietly go home now, and not seek to advertise that fact, eh?
Btw - Ron Paul is a piss ant.
Not a great article charlie.
Just another liberal partisan crazy attempting to write about something he knows nothing about (what Gingrich actually did for F&F). In the end that knowledge was non-existent so he resorted to informing us of what we already know.
Just another liberal attack piece which means nothing.
Gotta' agree with you Doug- The article left out some very pertinent information. There is a HUGE difference between what Newt did for Freddie Mac and what Barney Frank did for Freddie & Fannie! While Newt's company was handing out advise (advise that was ignored by the two housing giants), Barney was putting in place regulations that made him and his cronies lots of cash! AND caused the housing bubble to burst! That bubble could have been deflated without hurting the industry- but no- Barney and friends decided to cash in on the problem and make US the taxpayers pay for it!
While I don't like some of the things Newt has done in the past- today he is a different person, and deserves another look. Barney on the other hand is slime- and an unrepentant slime at that!
Newt will take Obama to the woodshed!
The IRS ruled that Gingrich did nothing wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/gingrich020499.htm
Note the headline states the foundation did nothing wrong, but in the body of the article it is stated Gingrich did nothing wrong.
Lloyd,
I'm with you. Gingrich wasn't on my radar either. His intellectual grasp of things is genuine, not a concoction of paid advisors. He clearly has the ability to debate Obama and win handily.
But his past of sticking his foot in his mouth badly and debacles with affairs made me believe he's not the one. - Until I started sifting through the charges and looking up the actual facts.
What the partisans on this site want you and me to believe is that Newt rang up 85 Ethics violations that what he signed off on was only because he had violated ethics laws in how he was teaching the college course and violating Tax law in how he was paid. But what actually occured was he had been "less than truthful" about the nature of the course and how he was being paid is actually what he signed and paid a fine for.
That would be fine if, they hadn't turned him into the IRS. The IRS studied the course tapes he was distributing through a tax free organization for three years. Their determination was that his lectures were educational, politically neutral, and did not promote any candidate. The IRS further ruled that the way the tapes were distributed did not violate the charitable organization's IRS rules, and Newt had appropriately handled any proceeds he recieved.
Again, one link to the rest of the story which gives more details.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/gingrich020499.htm
And yes, the same people will collapse my post - because they don't want to see the truth.
What a circus. I mean is this the best they've got? $10,000 bet offering? Gingrich the walking special interest bank? Even if the fat man is brought into the scene the state of the Repub's is in such disarray except with their only goal together to remove Obama. They offer nothing but a side show for the country.
How any republican could vote for even one of these loony tunes is beyond me. Being arepublican today is being blind faith to your party and not to honesty and waht is good for america and Amerivans.
You're clearly joking..... right?
clwyd very well put.
ssmithlg sounds like he/she would rather have lies and hate. Only to call yourself a good American.
Yea, and i suppose Ron Paul is in that category? He is the only one with a true and bold plan economically and a sensible and constitutional foreign policy that doesnt involve policing the world and taking orders from UN and having hundreds of bases set up like we are some imperialistic empire. Its a joke. The billions we can save by not doing that nonsense anymore is enormous.
Here, compare the two, and youll see trying to refute him is pointless:
h ttp ://ronpaulvsnewtgingrich. soulstorm. net:8081/
h ttp ://www .newtexposed. com/
Ron Paul is unelectable. In the age of television Abe Lincoln would also be unelectable.
Every president since Eisenhower has been the man that shows the most teeth when he smiles.
And that fellow Americans is how we end up where we are today. We get the government we deserve.
Mitt's hair vs the Obama smile.
SonofButch
you are wrong Ron Paul is very electable and his campaign is growing everyday.If you would go to ronpaul2012.com and read his issues you will find that he makes much more sense than any of the other candidates.If you really want to get this country back on track he is the one.If you want more of the status quo then vote for Newt romney.
Vote for Ron Paul, vote to disband medicare, FEMA, social security, the army, the navy, etc. etc. etc.
Smaller government isn't necessarily good government. But if government is small enough, it's anarchy.
"Michele Bachman is the only one consistent in her views"? How about Ron Paul? I don't agree with everything he says, but he is the best candidate to beat Obama. Why? because the reason Obama won in a landslide is because the people in the middle - independents - voted for him and swung it. Very few independents will vote for any of these candidates....but we'd probably go for Ron Paul. He's the only crazy person on this panel (and they're all clearly backward and/or nuts) who comes close to credibility and sense.
"Michele Bachman is the only one consistent in her views"
She may be consistent -- but she's constently crazy.
What great choice, a mad woman or father time......I DON"T THINK SO !
I have no party affiliations, nor do I care for the party system.
All of our elections from here forward should be chosen because they who we elect, need to manage this great country of ours, and do it within the constitution.
If we truly ARE comitted to fixing our issues, Congressman Paul has truly had it right al along, and continues his constitutional message after all these years.
My Obama vote is yours if you run Congressman Paul!
Mary Johnson - Ron Paul's doctrine is based on Ayn Rand's Objectivism ergo every man for himself - now I don't know about you but if one of our brave soldiers were in a spot I'd rather have his buddy watching his back than Ron Paul
The only time "every man should be for himself" is if you're on a one man boat and it is sinking
I love the old cliches "No Man is an Island"
By the way Ron Paul's brother Jerry is a minister and he voted for Obama, says his brother has no compassion
Consistent views, if they're wrong are no asset.
Why do people think Gingrich is a good debater and an intellectual any way? I've never heard a single middle term issue from his lips. Dude's a sophist. @ Ramses. Yup, Ron Paul is the only one of the bunch that actually attempts to explain why his positions are correct rather than just saying they are.
"Why do people think Gingrich is a good debater and an intellectual any way?"
Gingrich is NOT a good debater. He's good at pontificating and running his mouth. But he's only good at this when he up against the third and fourth stringers. When's he up against the first team, he gets chewed up and spit out. Bill Clinton made him look like a fool. Ever Newt himself said Clinton intimidated him. If he ever has to debate President Obama ( and I doubt he will) News will won't know what hit him.
Newt is a masterdebater!
Exactly, Charlie. People are so easily manipulated by Newt with this whole 'hes a great debater' bs. He is nothing but a panderer, a liar, and the biggest and most toxic hypocrite that ever set foot in congress. This guy has changed his stance on things so much and these morons just dont there homework enough to see what he is really about. Here, allow me to help you see the real truth and youll be mortified by it. You people have no clue how dangerous this man is, he is pretty much Josef Stalin when it comes down to it, at least when it comes to his voting record, and the these futuristic ideas that would tank our country into oblivion. The guy is all about himself and his ego and has done nothing but rip off the people to line his own pockets. F'n guy is making 2mil from Freddie Mac when were in a recession, and lobbying...what a joke. The ex Freddie employees also said he was there to 'sway conservative in the house to keep Freddie alive'..so no, it was LOBBYING, not consulting like he claims. He is so full of crap. What is wrong with the amercian people? Are you going to let Bill O'Retard keep telling you who to vote and keep letting FIXED NEWS decide everything for you? Or are you going to wake the hell up and realize that Ron Paul is the only statesman and true patriot who can get us back on the right track, with the record to prove it? THe media ignores him all they can because they fear him like no other. He will end all the corrupt garbage going in with the evil and vile banks and how they run Wall St and the media and congress themselves. They know their game would be over so they do all they can to make him look bad. I see people all over the world imploring us to elect him, and like the fools we are, we keep buying into the bs or choose to remain ignorant. Wake up already, damnit!!
Here, compare the two, and youll see trying to refute him is pointless:
h ttp: //ronpaulvsnewtgingrich. soulstorm. net:8081/
h ttp: //www .newtexposed. com/
(take the spaces out when pasting in browser, site wont allow links)
You are forgetting something THEY ARE ALL LIARS BOTH SIDES!
Blair, nice try to change the subject and protect your favorite liar. LOL
I remember every presidential election since 1952. This Republican filed is nothing more than a freak show. It is the biggest collection of clowns, religious fanatics, morons, con artist and crazies any party has ever come up with. These people are an embarrassment to the nation. This is NOT the party of Ronald Reagan or Dwight Eisenhower. Today's Republican Party is the party of fear, ignorance and insanity.
And today's Democrat party is NOT the party of JFK or Harry Truman. It has become a party of America hating Socialist/ Marxists bent on destroying our nation through runaway-spending, over-regulation and punitive-taxation. Independents voted for Barak in 2008 to show they weren't racist, those same independents will vote against him in 2012 to show they're not stupid.
ssmithlg.... I would suggest you see a shrink before you buy a gun.
ssmithlg If you are one of todays republican/tea bag party members you spew hate. Read your own posts. I mean how can you live with so much hate?
And today's Democrat party is NOT the party of JFK or Harry Truman.
That's true. Today's Democratic party is very similar to the Republican party of the 50s and 60s. It is much more conservative than the party of JFK or Harry Truman. And this garbage about Socialist/ Marxists is simply propaganda form Limbaugh the junkie and the rest of the right wing noise machine. If you knew anything about recent american history you would have figured that out.
Charlie-1915998
I couldn't have said it better. I only wish the die hard Republicans out there would see what we see, but I'm afraid they have been brain washed for to long.
Charlie - You don't know the half of it could you imagine their Cabinet if one of these yo yo's were actually elected?
For one Newt has already said he would appoint John Bolton as Secretary of State - the idiot Bush picked in a recess appointment as Ambassador to the United Nations
What do you think the Democratic Party is? They are all one and the same. Wake up america!
Charlie, your #6 post was a proper rant...and though one-sided...so very true
Charlie #########
Unfortunately it seems HISTORY is not an important subject anymore in this me me now now world we live in.
It is a conspiracy somewhat similar to the Japanese not teaching children about WWII, and falls in line with the "creationist" theory of history.....that the way God meant it to be.
The career politicians and the Military Industrial Complex will be so happy when all of us baby boomers die off.....we learned history back in those days, and government, and yellow journalism, McCarthyism all those isms and how we got to where were were. The old saying really holds true those who dismiss history are doomed to repeat it.
Blair, you too are a liar. But I don't hold it agains you. LOL
All in all the teabaggers have done a lot for the GOP party, huh? haha
It's good to have choices, just not sure why so many believe that Newt or Bachmann can win in a general election. Ron Paul has been consistent over the years, but his views on shutting down government agencies is too extreme, it won't sell to the majority.
You can't win the general election without independents and moderates. It has to be Romney or Huntsman or it's Obama in 2012. Do the math. Republicans are about 35% of the electorate, the other 65% isn't going to buy whatever Newt, Paul or Bachmann is selling.
this moderate will NEVER vote for Romney..nor any of these. possibly Ron Paul. I'd love to see him get into against Obama so I could get a real feel for whether or not the GOP even has an option to offer.
My favorite was Michelle Bachmann trying to get herself a nice soundbite that might catch the attention of the media by taking Cain's 999 plan and turning it into win win win. Didn't work.
you are joking aren't you?!!!!
What is it with you Republicans? All the time you are screaming about how the GOP is the "family, moral" party, yet you now have as the current leader for the nomination a man who treats women like chattel. Newt stands among you and talks about how he has been saved and what a major role his current wife played in his redemption. Remember, this is the woman that was sleeping with a married man (Newt.) Not sure that is a couple I want representing me in front of the nation and the world.
And your "god" of the Democrat party, Bill Clinton didn't treat women like women like chattel? Which couple represented you during the Clinton presidency.... Bill & Hillary, Bill & Monica, Bill & Jennifer, Bill & Susan, Bill & Paula, etc, etc, etc?
Meanwhile, if the Republicans would nominate a moderate, people like me would cross party lines to vote for him. I am not a Republican but I like Romney and would vote for him if he were running but NO ONE else in the Republican field looks remotely interesting to me.
If you remember Reagan beat Carter by drawing votes from non-Republicans....I guess Republicans these days either forgot about that or just don't want a candidate that is moderate. How sad. Oh well!
Unregistered User, people voted for Reagan in 1980 because of the misery of the failed Carter presidency. In 2012, the Republican will beat Barak for the same reason. Independents voted for Barak in 2008 to show they weren't racist, those same independents will vote against him in 2012 to show they're not stupid.
The focus on shocking private lifestyle revelations is only relevant if the candidate is preaching on moral issues, and then proves to be a hypocrite.
Bill Clinton wasn't a preacher, and Newt hasn't been much of one either, so neither's sex life is relevant unless your a Pentecostal.
But their wives [also not a relevant campaign issue] are world's apart on the morality scale...
Kinda funny you would say this, since women have claimed that Obama is creating a hostile work environment, in the white house.
K.C. Albak The whole point is both Bill & Newt lied. If they lied to there wife's, who should be there best friends, you know they would lie to the American people. The difference is Bill worked it out with his. Newt's story is well a whole lot different.
And your "god" of the Democrat party, Bill Clinton didn't treat women like women like chattel?
Typical teatard response --- two wrongs make a right. Bill Clinton lying to his wife and the nation is NOT a justification for Newt lying to his many wives and being a complete hypocrite.
ssmithlg - bone up on your history as far as Reagan goes - what about sending Casey head of the CIA to Iran to tell them to hold the hostages until after the election - surprise- they were released the day Reagan was sworn in, while your at it look up the Iran-Contra debacle
*Plus - speak for youself not the millions of people who voted for this President
"people voted for Reagan in 1980 because of the misery of the failed Carter presidency."
Reagan had a plan in 1980. This gang of Republicans wants to enact more of the same economics that caused this depression in the first place. Voting for republicans to fix this economy is like smoking to cure lung cancer.
Here is some history for everyone!!! 2012 Marks the end of the GOP party and all of their bull@!$%#!!!!!
Let's quit bringing Bill Clinton in to the debate every time someone mentions Newt or Cains moral fiber in respect to women, marriage, compassion etc. Bill Clinton is not a candidate for the Repub Nomination for President.
Bill Clinton is a scumbag, I suspect he and his wife are together for publicity purposes only and haven't spoke to each other for years......that is career politics for you. I have no respect for him and little for her.....but they are not in the race to become President and have no relevance to the subject at hand. You can go back in history and find 100000s of examples of politicians of low moral character so what, that does not justify the acts of those currently running for the Repub Nomination.
What does make a difference is credibility....if you have no problem lying and cheating on your wife you are certainly not going to have any problem lying and cheating on the electorate.Newt has a proven record of lying and cheating on the electorate, as does Bachman, Perry, and Romney, not sure about the others.
If the Repubs would put someone up who is not either a lying cheating scumbag using the bible as their bullet proof vest or worse a right wing fundamentalist using the bible as the basis for their policy platforms, someone other than the "fooled" might consider voting Republican (I have voted for the Conservatives in almost every election I have participated in in Aust and generally agree with them over the Labour Party....mind you we are required to vote in Aust). The Republicans I know would rather not vote at all than vote for any of the clowns that are currently participating in this circus, some of them have even said they will vote for Obama just to give the Repubs a further slap in the face in the hopes that it knocks some sense in to their little Norquist driven anti-American ideals heads.
Get with it Repubs put some one up who has one iota of credibility(oh yes Ron Paul is at least honest unfortunately he is using a typewriter in a keyboard world), at least with Obama there is a level of credibility.
Talk to the Minnesota PEOPLE about Michelle Bachman (not the politicians) - NEVER in a million years would I vote for her. Where is anyone that I would want to vote in for office? Obviously not Obama and equally obviously none of the Republicans. Hopefully an independent WITH INTEGRITY AND INTELLIGENCE will emerge.
Independent with integrity, like The Donald? another divorced cheater who has had his company bailed out by the taxpayers. Something about his (fathers) construction company being too big to fail in NYC and casinos in Atlantic City. Icky icky!
Gingrich is the guy wether you like his style or not. He's more qualified than anyone to hold the office of President. On the other hand we currently have a president who fooled everyone with his likable style and had no qualifications to be president other than his unique ability to appear otherwise. He's stumbled and bumbeled his way through 3 years and its unfortunate he has another year to go before we can get rid of him but at least we can look forward to that end.
He's stumbled and bumbeled... tell that to Bin Laden... to GM.. Stop drinking the Fox kool-ade and actually read/research what has been accomplished by the current administration
Newt , most qualified ?????
I would say yes to that if you ment The best lier , cheater and all out thief . The man is a low life . If he gets elected we are all really screwed !!!
bob
Gingrich isn't qualified to be dog catcher.. The guy has no moral compass what so ever...None, Nada..
The moment both his former wives got sick he cheated on them. Yea, he said he asked for forgiveness, but even if I thought he ment it (which I don't), it would preclude him from the highest office. Role Model, hardly...
And in his business life he's a scum ball. The only speaker in history to be brought up on ethics violiations....and he worked at Fannie as a "historian", and he didn't lobby....does he take us for fools?
Plus Don - he married his first wife while she was 17 years older than him to become a perpetual student to avoid the draft
All of the Republican Party are Chicken Hawks - from Mitch McConnell down - only exception McCain who graduated bottom of his class yet got in because his grandfather was an Admiral
Your comments spot on! It escapes me that so many people are convinced that the Republican Party and it's candidates are on a moral and ethical crusade. These candidates only want to get the country up and running again aand Newt is strong enough and tough enough to do it and has the necessary experience to make it happen.
The religious right has made a pact with the devil. Shows you what a bunch of devout christians can do.
I don't see a choice here, except perhaps to write in John McCain. Did Obama hire these idoits, fools and con-men to run against him? THE ALMIGHTY PLEASE HELP US!
-New GringriCK
Is a liar and manipulator; he is a VERY intelligent man of low moral fiber and has proved over and over again that his real goal during this campaign is personal finances, and selling books. Does anyone here remember Newt's OTHER associations with books? He was bought up on ethics violations because of a book last time.
President Obama has not been perfect, hell I voted for him and seriously wish he had not listened to his party and pushed for the Affordable Health Care act when he did, it was clearly bad timing. However everything else that has happened during his term he as admirably dealt with. He was given a country in shambles and an economy on the brink of collapse. He was successful in preventing the economy from collapsing ... whether you agree with his methods or not the economy did NOT completely implode and he was clearly successful (our economy did not collapse) despite Republics making every REAL attempt to destroy this country while placing the blame elsewhere.
NO MATTER !!
The REAL question now is are you for really for this country? Or are you still so childishly upset that there is a black man in office that you are going to support a KNOWN CROOK AND CRIMINAL. Someone who would gladly sell his own wife for a buck, and has! It is better to cooperate with President Obama and see this country get back to health, than put that crook in the White house. The one thing New GringriCK has NEVER shown his entire career is restraint. Put that guy in the White House and it will be BLACK with corruption and greed.
The Republican Power Elite are playing their supporters for a bunch of fools, and judging from the poll numbers an awful lot of them are merrily following along, right off the cliff ....... WHY are they SO willing to self destruct their party AND this country??? What is wrong with the Republican Party?
CAN ANYONE HONESTLY SUPPORT THIS PARTY AND MOST OF ALL NEWT GRINGRIck, THE POSTER BOY FOR CORRUPTION AND GREED ON CAPITOL HILL?
Obama / Biden 2012
So is Obama the media just covers for him and kisses his ass.
Ahhh Blair, your true colors. Take it elsewhere.
There was a comment about how fast Reagan got the hostages out after he got sworn in (the same day).
But please research the mini-scandal that came out a while later--that James D. Baker in the fall of 1980 made a trip to Iran and promised jet fighter parts IF THE AYATOLLAH WOULD JUST KEEP THE HOSTAGES UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION. The Ayatollah kept them until the hour that Carter left office, because "Carter was the Great Devil."
It's impossible for me to take someone seriously when they say things like, "I supported Herman Cain, but now I guess I'll go with Bachmann. I mean I like Newt, but can I trust him." To me, those are the babblings of someone who is mentally impaired.
My thoughts exactly !
What it REALLY funny (well NOT REALLY) is that you MUST acknowledge that there are MILLIONS of people in this country having EXACTLY the same thought processes ...
Cain
Bachmann
GringricK
If I were a republican I would either not vote or abandon my party and become a Democrat. The Republican's are not stoopid though, please notice that all the BEST Republican candidates are intentionally holding back ie Bush, Daniels, El Gordo :) They are all waiting for 2016 because they already have acknowledged President Obama will win again. The republican plan is clearly 4 MORE LONG YEARS OF NOTHING all the while blaming it on the democrats!
DON'T FALL FOR IT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN .......
If the ReD-OH!blicans try to do nothing for four more years after conceding this election, will they have any credibility left? Or will they be conceding the next 12 years?
"From Oct. 15 to Oct. 20, events came to a head in a series of meetings in several hotels in Paris, involving members of the Reagan-Bush campaign and high-level Iranian and Israeli representatives. Accounts of these meetings and the exact number of participants vary considerably among the more than 15 sources who claim direct or indirect knowledge of some aspect of them. There is, however, widespread agreement on three points: William Casey was a key participant: the Iranian representatives agreed that the hostages would not be released prior to the Presidential election on Nov. 4; in return, Israel would serve as a conduit for arms and spare parts to Iran. At least five of the sources who say they were in Paris in connection with these meetings insist that George Bush was present for at least one meeting. Three of the sources say that they saw him there... Immediately after the Paris meetings, things began to happen. On Oct. 21, Iran publicly shifted its position in the negotiations with the Carter Administration, disclaiming any further interest in receiving military equipment.... Between Oct. 21 and Oct. 23, Israel sent a planeload of F-4 fighter aircraft tires to Iran in contravention of the U.S. boycott and without informing Washington. Cyrus Hashemi, using his own contacts began privately organizing military shipments to Iran. On Oct. 22, the hostages were suddenly dispersed to different locations. And a series of delaying tactics in late October by the Iranian Parliament stymied all attempts by the Carter Administration to act on the hostage question until only hours before Election Day... On Jan. 15, Iran did an about-face, offering a series of startling concessions that reignited the talks and resulted in a final agreement in the last few hours of Jimmy Carter's Presidency. The hostages were released on Jan. 21, 1981, minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President. Almost immediately thereafter, according to Israeli and American former officials, arms began to flow to Iran in substantial quantities...
KC: You forgot one interesting fact among several others. The Reagan people themselves made a deal with Iran to NOT release the American prisoners until AFTER Reagan was sworn in as President. They saw a wonderful opportunity that you just laid out for us to make it appear as though Reagan was the hero. Yes, it's true, and, it's embarrassing as well.
barack obama 2012. gonna be another landslide. people arent stupid. the GOP offers nothing but cronies for the corporations. they never fight for anyone or anything else. the tea party took the house and has spent all year trying to ban abortion. the whole debt ceiling debate was a fiasco and now that the super committee failed there will be massive cuts to everything. all because of a one or two percent raise on millionaires. they are the ones who collected most of that debt we built up why not have them pay it back. conservatives need to rethink what they value because the people they have representing them make them look bad. make them look like heartless selfish greedy bastards. sorry about the insults but its true. thats what the non-GOPers in this country think of them. obama may have spent some money but at least he did it trying to save this country from a far worse depression. and guess what? it worked. no matter how much you want to ridicule him, it worked. going on close to two straight years of positive gains in jobs. might not have been massive but it was never negative. the auto industry was saved. he even changed the way we fight terror and got bin laden. so why people hate him is beyond me. he is no socialist. not even close. he just actually cares about more than just his self and his own bank account. then again that probably what most of the right doesnt get. life is about more than just your self. caring about more than yourself is something they will never get. thats what totally believing in capitalism means. social darwinism is inevitable. thats what they are fighting for. the ability to make money by any me not be criticized or regulated. fascism is upon us and their conservative ideaology is driving us right to it.
"barack obama 2012. gonna be another landslide." You are SO right Pittsburg, a landslide just like the 1980 election. Barak Obama LOOSES in a Landslide in 2012!
It's real simple, DD... there's only one consistent, sincere, knowledgeable, honest person running.
Ron Paul 2012
- Ron Paul
Fiscally he is a great candidate, he makes a lot of sound financial sense. It's just that everything else he talks about is out of the solar system! He is BEYOND radical on many social issues and issues of foreign policy.
We ain't gonna fall for it again ! Do you expect us to vote Ron Paul in based on his sound financial policies and then watch as he outlaws abortion, dismembers collective bargaining, outlaws Roe v Wade, and attempts to make the Civil Rights act null and void? And all while he will be espousing his SOUND FINANCIAL POLICIES ......
He will never be President, although he would make a good financial adviser ......
Im not sure where you get your information, but paul has made it clear on his views. unions and collective bargaining in the private sector he has no problem with, its merely the public sector unions he has issues with. He is a big states rights advocate, he would return the decisions such a abortion to individual states because he thinks its not the federal governments right to dictate such a thing. If a state outlaws abortion, simply do not live there or elect different officials to change those laws. Civil rights act void? Where did he EVER state such a thing? he is all for less government intrusion into our lives, but believes things like the civil rights act which only expands freedoms to citizens is great legislation.
If you knew anything about the man or even took 10 minutes of your time to watch a youtube video you would realize that he hasn't changed his views in over 30 years. IF you enjoy your freedom and freedom from the government then there is no reason that you should not vote for him.
In regards to his foreign policy, its the only policy that makes sense. Take the time to think about it instead of advocating perpetual wars. If you advocate such wars i suggest you send your children to fight instead of mine, and pay for that war by sending the IRS more than what you owe in taxes.
Mr. Getrich, Oh, I mean't Gingrich, hasn't a chance against Obama...Period.
There's only one question to ask... "if you like unemployment and a poor economy".....go ahead and re-elect Obama because that is exactly what is going to happen. Am I better off before Obama became Prez, I darn was. In the last three years, husband had been laid off and at 54 can't find another job and I have to recent college grads that can't find jobs to start their careers or lives...... do you want more of this ???
-Terrie
Be honest, if nothing else. When President Obama took office this country was on the brink of TOTAL failure due to 8 years of EXPERT Republican guidance. Approximately 700k jobs a month were going overseas, AIG collapsed, Goldman Sachs, Fannie and Freddie, the collapse of the EuroZone, the Greek Debt crisis, Iran, Iraq, etc etc etc ... all of these events and MORE have had a direct impact on the United States Economy and other World economies as well. So unless you want to blame the collapse of the Euro on President Obama as well that is not a realistic question to ask, it is a selfish question to ask.
I dare say the ENTIRE WORLD is worse off than it was when President Obama was elected, do you blame him for that as well? He has done a great job given the circumstances. Has it been perfect? NO .....
Or do you feel he is doing SO bad that we should elect a KNOWN CRIMINAL of questionable moral fiber who was and is the very epitome of ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTUING ABSOLUTELY?
Even though I thought Ron Paul won the debate (heck, I thought he won ALL the debates) simply because he's the only one talking any kind of sense, I have to give kudos to Michelle Bachmann for her excellent performance last night.
Her "Newt Romney" attack was nothing less than a work of art. Absolutely brilliant.
The best "helpful to Ron Paul's position" attack served up by a candidate other than Ron Paul himself so far in the campaign. I salute Michelle Bachmann for that.
...I mean, if it was n't for the fact that she is totally beholden to a certain foreign country's apartheid interests...ah, nevermind; I'll stick to the kudos in this post.
RON PAUL is my choice anyone else I will go for Obama! But my vote does not matter for President anyways!!!
wrench - Obviously you subscribe to Ayn Rand's Theory of Objectivism - Ron Paul - Paul Ryan "Two peas in a pod"
As a Republican who would like to see Obama go (or at least those that surround him) I don't see anything here I would vote for. Maybe Ron Paul. Newt has been there too long and owns too much of finincial destruction, moral decay, corruption, greed, malfeanse, self-service, partsianship and on and on and on.
OLd school, establishment must go before we can really get a government for the people.