PDA

View Full Version : Polls: Gingrich Grows on GOP Voters



Rockntractor
11-12-2011, 10:39 PM
By Mary Lu Carnevale

Two polls out Friday show former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s campaign gaining traction. And both polls show there’s plenty of room for the race to change dramatically: 17% of respondents are undecided.
A McClatchy-Marist poll of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents finds that Mitt Romney’s poll numbers remain steady – he generally garners the support of about a quarter of the Republican and Republican-leaning voters. That puts him in the lead, with Mr. Gingrich in second and former front-runner Herman Cain close behind.

By the numbers: Mr. Romney, 23%; Mr. Gingrich, 19%; Mr. Cain, 17%;Texas Rep. Ron Paul 10%; Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 8%, and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, 5%. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum got 1% apiece.

“Romney is still where he’s been. It’s fair to say this is a battle for the anybody-but-Romney candidate,” said Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College. “Gingrich has now begun his 15 days of fame. Whether he is able to maintain that, as others have fallen, is the question. He may be the only one standing when this is all said and done.”

The poll shows that many voters aren’t strongly attached to their choice. Mr. Gingrich has the most-committed supporters at 43%. For both Messrs. Romney and Cain, the level drops to about 30%.

“They’re no more firmly committed to the overall field than they were in September,” Mr. Miringoff said. “We should have seen people feeling a greater sense of conviction. It’s not moving.”

The poll, conducted Thursday after the GOP presidential debate at Oakland University in Michigan, had a margin of error of 5.5 percentage points.

A CBS News poll shows Mr. Romney’s support slipping to 15%, putting him even with Mr. Gingrich and behind Mr. Cain, at 18%.The poll of likely Republican primary voters shows 61% dismissed the sexual harassment allegations against Mr. Cain, while 30% say they would be less likely to back him.

But Mr. Cain faces a gender gap: nearly four in 10 women said the allegations make them less likely to vote for him, and his support among women fell to 15% from 28% a month ago.

The poll was conducted Nov. 6-10, and the error margin for likely Republican primary voters is five percentage points
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/11/11/polls-gingrich-grows-on-gop-voters/

EazyMack
11-13-2011, 12:45 AM
Works for me. I still support Cain, but I like Gingrich too.

In fact, my top 3 favorite candidates would be:

#1. Hermain Cain
#2. Newt Gingrich
#3. Uhhh... ummm... who was that third one again? :D

AmPat
11-13-2011, 11:43 AM
Works for me. I still support Cain, but I like Gingrich too.

In fact, my top 3 favorite candidates would be:

#1. Hermain Cain
#2. Newt Gingrich
#3. Uhhh... ummm... who was that third one again? :DBachman

As for Newt, I like him much better after he admitted he made a huge mistake posing with the Wicked Witch of the West.
He told Hannity that after that he couldn't explain why and that it was a huge mistake. I could support any combo of Cain/Newt/Michelle.

Rockntractor
11-13-2011, 01:01 PM
Bachman

As for Newt, I like him much better after he admitted he made a huge mistake posing with the Wicked Witch of the West.
He told Hannity that after that he couldn't explain why and that it was a huge mistake. I could support any combo of Cain/Newt/Michelle.

Agreed, admitting he was wrong went a long way with me, would he be electable? could he get the Independent vote?

Starbuck
11-13-2011, 01:51 PM
Agreed, admitting he was wrong went a long way with me, would he be electable? could he get the Independent vote?

Newt carries a lot of baggage left over from his day as Speaker of The House, and that million dollar line of credit at Tiffany's.
He is still the only Speaker to be disciplined for ethics violations. In 1997, The House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, and I am real sure that The Dems have their portfolio ready to present to the moderates.

He has defended himself well against "extravagance" charges, and maybe his answer will be good enough:

"We're private citizens," Gingrich said in an interview with Bob Schieffer on CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday. "I work very hard. We have a reasonably good income. I currently owe nothing except I owe one mortgage on a house that's a rental property in Wisconsin. Everything else is totally paid for. My home is paid for, my cars are paid for, we don't have a separate house. We don't do elaborate things."

Rockntractor
11-13-2011, 03:10 PM
Newt carries a lot of baggage left over from his day as Speaker of The House, and that million dollar line of credit at Tiffany's.
He is still the only Speaker to be disciplined for ethics violations. In 1997, The House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, and I am real sure that The Dems have their portfolio ready to present to the moderates.

He has defended himself well against "extravagance" charges, and maybe his answer will be good enough:

I think he could win with conservatives but I doubt the swing vote would come over.

Elspeth
11-13-2011, 04:41 PM
I think he could win with conservatives but I doubt the swing vote would come over.

Perry, Cain, Santorum, and Bachmann won't bring the swing vote. No one can stand Romney, not even the centrists. Paul won't get past the primaries even though he has a great deal of crossover appeal: who doesn't want the Fed audited? :)

So it's either Newt or Huntsman.

Newt has baggage, Huntsman is an unknown. In the end, though, it's been almost two decades since the '94 GOP Congress got started, and Americans have a notoriously short memory. The question is, though, does Newt really want to be President or is this just a book tour for him?

Odysseus
11-13-2011, 10:55 PM
Newt carries a lot of baggage left over from his day as Speaker of The House, and that million dollar line of credit at Tiffany's.
He is still the only Speaker to be disciplined for ethics violations. In 1997, The House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, and I am real sure that The Dems have their portfolio ready to present to the moderates.

He has defended himself well against "extravagance" charges, and maybe his answer will be good enough:

Gingrich was the victim of a Democratic smear. David Bonior, the house Democratic whip, filed 84 ethics charges against Gingrich, of which 83 were dismissed. The 87th was so complicated that it was referred by the committee to an outside counsel for a ruling. From Wikipedia:


During his term as Speaker, eighty-four ethics charges were filed against him; eighty-three of them were dropped.[61] The remaining charge concerned a 20-hour college course called "Renewing American Civilization" that Gingrich had taught through a tax-deductible foundation, Kennesaw State College Foundation. Allegations of tax improprieties led to two counts "of failure to seek legal advice" and one count of "providing the committee with information which he knew or should have known was inaccurate" concerning the use of a tax exempt college course for political purposes. To avoid a full hearing, Gingrich and the House Ethics Subcommittee negotiated a sanctions agreement. Democrats accused Gingrich of violating the agreement, but it was forwarded to the House for approval.[62][63] On January 21, 1997, the House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, including a $300,000 "cost assessment" to recoup money spent on the investigation.[64][65]

The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated.[66] In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the courses.[67]

In other words, the IRS eventually cleared Gingrich, but not before the gutless house Republicans had agreed to have him sanctioned. It was utter BS, but the damage to his reputation was done. The real problem with Gingrich is that he tends to side with the establishment of the party now. He came out in favor of Dede Scozafova, who was the ultimate leftist RINO, in an off-year congressional race in NY, for example, and tends to turn off voters.

patriot45
11-13-2011, 11:07 PM
Perry, Cain, Santorum, and Bachmann won't bring the swing vote. No one can stand Romney, not even the centrists. Paul won't get past the primaries even though he has a great deal of crossover appeal: who doesn't want the Fed audited? :)

So it's either Newt or Huntsman.

Newt has baggage, Huntsman is an unknown. In the end, though, it's been almost two decades since the '94 GOP Congress got started, and Americans have a notoriously short memory. The question is, though, does Newt really want to be President or is this just a book tour for him?

Thank God for your input! You would like to see Huntsman get the nod? Why do libs always try to pick our candidates for us!?

Who do you want for your dream Dem/Lib candidate besides the 0!?

patriot45
11-13-2011, 11:12 PM
Gingrich was the victim of a Democratic smear. David Bonior, the house Democratic whip, filed 84 ethics charges against Gingrich, of which 83 were dismissed. The 87th was so complicated that it was referred by the committee to an outside counsel for a ruling. From Wikipedia:


During his term as Speaker, eighty-four ethics charges were filed against him; eighty-three of them were dropped.[61] The remaining charge concerned a 20-hour college course called "Renewing American Civilization" that Gingrich had taught through a tax-deductible foundation, Kennesaw State College Foundation. Allegations of tax improprieties led to two counts "of failure to seek legal advice" and one count of "providing the committee with information which he knew or should have known was inaccurate" concerning the use of a tax exempt college course for political purposes. To avoid a full hearing, Gingrich and the House Ethics Subcommittee negotiated a sanctions agreement. Democrats accused Gingrich of violating the agreement, but it was forwarded to the House for approval.[62][63] On January 21, 1997, the House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, including a $300,000 "cost assessment" to recoup money spent on the investigation.[64][65]

The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated.[66] In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the courses.[67]

In other words, the IRS eventually cleared Gingrich, but not before the gutless house Republicans had agreed to have him sanctioned. It was utter BS, but the damage to his reputation was done. The real problem with Gingrich is that he tends to side with the establishment of the party now. He came out in favor of Dede Scozafova, who was the ultimate leftist RINO, in an off-year congressional race in NY, for example, and tends to turn off voters.

Newt has some good points. But as I have said before you should read a book by Tom Coburn called "Breach of Trust" All you need to know about Newt is in there.

Elspeth
11-13-2011, 11:45 PM
Thank God for your input! You would like to see Huntsman get the nod? Why do libs always try to pick our candidates for us!?

Who do you want for your dream Dem/Lib candidate besides the 0!?

I'm not picking anyone. I'm just telling you how it looks. For all I know, Bachmann runs off with it all.:eek:

And, yes, Huntsman is the least problematic, but only because he hasn't run his mouth. There are probably skeletons there too.

patriot45
11-13-2011, 11:50 PM
I'm not picking anyone. I'm just telling you how it looks. For all I know, Bachmann runs off with it all.:eek:

And, yes, Huntsman is the least problematic, but only because he hasn't run his mouth. There are probably skeletons there too.

At least tell us your dream lib candidate besides the 0! I'm not worried who you think I will pick.

Elspeth
11-13-2011, 11:57 PM
At least tell us your dream lib candidate besides the 0! I'm not worried who you think I will pick.

Obama has NEVER been my candidate. EVER. And he never will be. I voted for McCain (no fan of Palin but McCain was decent.) I could easily vote for Huntsman. I can't trust Romney to sign a repeal of Obama care (or anything else), not sure if Newt is just trying to sell a book, and Bachmann, Perry and Cain are ruining their own candidacies: closeted gay husbands, regular brain farts, and bullying tactics do not make for successful candidates. You know who I really like who can't get out of California is Tom McClintock. This is a guy I really trust to be exactly who he says he is. Maybe that's why he never hit the big time.

http://www.tommcclintock.com/blog

patriot45
11-14-2011, 12:01 AM
Obama has NEVER been my candidate. EVER. And he never will be. I voted for McCain (no fan of Palin but McCain was decent.) I could easily vote for Huntsman. I can't trust Romney to sign a repeal of Obama care (or anything else), not sure if Newt is just trying to sell a book, and Bachmann, Perry and Cain are ruining their own candidacies: closeted gay husbands, regular brain farts, and bullying tactics do not make for successful candidates. You know who I really like who can't get out of California is Tom McClintock. This is a guy I really trust to be exactly who he says he is. Maybe that's why he never hit the big time.

http://www.tommcclintock.com/blog

I love denial! Never voted for the 0, I voted for McCain but don't like Palin!!! I love it But Huntsman is your guy!! C'mon fess up. Which is your lib candidate! Probably Kucinich !

Elspeth
11-14-2011, 12:18 AM
I love denial! Never voted for the 0, I voted for McCain but don't like Palin!!! I love it But Huntsman is your guy!! C'mon fess up. Which is your lib candidate! Probably Kucinich !

I voted for McCain. I can vote for Huntsman. I won't vote for Obama under any circumstances.

If you knew my history, you would know I was a PUMA in the last election and got thrown off of DU for it. It was clear that Obama's campaign was crooked from the word go. I am more of a centrist than anything else (hated by both parties, I'll admit) and had a lot of respect for McCain's war record. (Lots of military service in my extended family). That's why I was able to vote for him. As for Palin, I liked her at first, and I defended her when the left used every misogynist insult in the book against her. But then she left the governorship after 2 years with that rambling speech. Then she went to television. It just didn't seem like she really cared about governing. Or being taken seriously.

There are lots of good Republicans out there but none of them seem to have made the primary fight except Huntsman. Romney simply has NO convictions and I won't vote for that. Newt I could vote for if he were serious. The others? Come on. They are the Dennis Kucinich of the right. And no, I wouldn't vote Kucinich for president. He pretty much took himself out of that anyway by talking about Shirley MacLaine and UFOs if you remember.

Mostly, I just want an adult in the White House. Chris Christie would have been ok. Christine Todd Whitman, OK. Condi Rice I could see. Giuliani, check.

Yeah, I'm a centrist. So sue me if I'd like to see Obama defeated by someone who could really win.

AmPat
11-14-2011, 11:27 AM
Obama has NEVER been my candidate. EVER. And he never will be. I voted for McCain (no fan of Palin but McCain was decent.) I could easily vote for Huntsman. I can't trust Romney to sign a repeal of Obama care (or anything else), not sure if Newt is just trying to sell a book, and Bachmann, Perry and Cain are ruining their own candidacies: closeted gay husbands, regular brain farts, and bullying tactics do not make for successful candidates. You know who I really like who can't get out of California is Tom McClintock. This is a guy I really trust to be exactly who he says he is. Maybe that's why he never hit the big time.

http://www.tommcclintock.com/blog

No true Conservative could be for McCain and not like Palin. Huntsman is a good man but is not the man to either win or if he did, to reverse the damage of liberal programs. Romney light if you ask me. Both Mormons are cut from the same cloth and are not dedicated to taking on establishment RINOS to attack the liberals head on.

I don't know where you get the "closeted gay husband" but they have many children and foster children. As for his sexual orientation, I thought that would be a plus for liberals?:rolleyes:
Perry has shot himself in the foot so he's probably finished.

Kay
11-14-2011, 11:41 AM
Perry has shot himself in the foot so he's probably finished.
The sad thing about Perry is that he would make a pretty good president if he were elected. But he's not got what it takes in this TV show star power video age that we live in. If you can't perform well on live tv it is like a reality show and you get booted regardless of your other qualifications.

AmPat
11-14-2011, 11:44 AM
The sad thing about Perry is that he would make a pretty good president if he were elected. But he's not got what it takes in this TV show star power video age that we live in. If you can't perform well on live tv it is like a reality show and you get booted regardless of your other qualifications.

I agree. He should have hired some handlers to prep him for prime time. TV is why we are saddled with the Ultimate Incompetent-In-Chief.:mad:

fettpett
11-14-2011, 12:08 PM
I voted for McCain. I can vote for Huntsman. I won't vote for Obama under any circumstances.

If you knew my history, you would know I was a PUMA in the last election and got thrown off of DU for it. It was clear that Obama's campaign was crooked from the word go. I am more of a centrist than anything else (hated by both parties, I'll admit) and had a lot of respect for McCain's war record. (Lots of military service in my extended family). That's why I was able to vote for him. As for Palin, I liked her at first, and I defended her when the left used every misogynist insult in the book against her. But then she left the governorship after 2 years with that rambling speech. Then she went to television. It just didn't seem like she really cared about governing. Or being taken seriously.

There are lots of good Republicans out there but none of them seem to have made the primary fight except Huntsman. Romney simply has NO convictions and I won't vote for that. Newt I could vote for if he were serious. The others? Come on. They are the Dennis Kucinich of the right. And no, I wouldn't vote Kucinich for president. He pretty much took himself out of that anyway by talking about Shirley MacLaine and UFOs if you remember.

Mostly, I just want an adult in the White House. Chris Christie would have been ok. Christine Todd Whitman, OK. Condi Rice I could see. Giuliani, check.

Yeah, I'm a centrist. So sue me if I'd like to see Obama defeated by someone who could really win.

You realize that Cain is the only one of of the current crop that has military experience? He was in the Navy then worked for the DOD. Him and Newt are the only "Adults in the room" atm as well. You're little rants about how Cain has to prove false the allegations against him from a very small period of his life, is kinda messed up.

everyone of those that you mentioned are moderates, not conservatives, with the possible exception of Rice. This is what is meant by libs/moderates picking our candidates.

Odysseus
11-14-2011, 01:07 PM
I really need to go back to my CAX materials and run a decision matrix on the candidates. The problem is that together, we could probably cobble a good candidate out of their best qualities, but each one also has serious drawbacks.

Romney--

Pros: Smooth campaigner/debator, knows his policies and can defend them. Excellent management skills.
Cons: No core values. Can and will say anything to get elected. As likely to try to "fix" Obamacare as to repeal it. Same with every other government program. Too slick for his own good.
Cain--

Pros: Solid conservative values and commitments, with great private sector experience and management skills. Utterly fearless in taking on Democrats.
Cons: Lack of esperience in the public sector means that he will have a hard time keeping the bureaucracy from running roughshod over him. Also, gaffe-prone, a consequence of lack of experience in political campaigns. Desperately needs a campaign manager who can keep him out of trouble.

Perry--

Pros: Good record on jobs and economic development in Texas. Understands the tax and spending issues that have created the financial crisis. Can work well with a legislature to enact conservative legislation.
Cons: Terrible debater and ineffective on immigration policy.
Gingrich--

Pros: Policy wonk. Can out-debate and out-think just about anyone when it comes to fixing the things that are wrong with our government. Knows the workings of congress better than any other candidate and would be extremely effective at moving legislation.
Cons: Policy wonk. Sometimes, people just want the soundbyte. Also, tremendous baggage and negative coverage will dog his campaign. His support for RINOS in prior election will also haunt him.
Bachmann--

Pros: Smart, attractive, with extremely solid conservative stances on fiscal and social issues. Huge heart (how many foster children did she raise?). Raising that many foster kids demands at least some organizational skills.
Cons: Lacks executive experience and gaffe-prone.
Huntsman--

Pros: Extensive foreign policy experience and was an effective governor.
Cons: Romney has already sewn up the establishment/RINO/smarmy upper-crust noblesse oblige vote.
Paul--

Pros: Fiscal policy. Nobody is better at identifying and calling out government failures. Understands the Constitutional authority of the federal government on a gut level, and is absolutely committed to cutting federal spending and overreach.
Cons: Worst foreign policy positions of any candidate and does not recognize that American interests demand the capacity to project power globally. Would gut the DOD, even as the global threat level is rising. Paul would preside over a robust economic recovery until it collapsed under the pressure of overseas chaos that would result from an American withdrawal from the world.
Santorum--

Pros: Knowledgeable and capable public servant who can effectively articulate conservative positions on fiscal and social issues.
Cons: No executive experience. Also unable to carry his own state after a senate term, which means that his ability to carry it in a national election is doubtful. Also, see what comes up when you Google his name, thanks to gay activists who have no sense of shame.


Did I forget anyone?

noonwitch
11-14-2011, 01:58 PM
Gingrich was the victim of a Democratic smear. David Bonior, the house Democratic whip, filed 84 ethics charges against Gingrich, of which 83 were dismissed. The 87th was so complicated that it was referred by the committee to an outside counsel for a ruling. From Wikipedia:


During his term as Speaker, eighty-four ethics charges were filed against him; eighty-three of them were dropped.[61] The remaining charge concerned a 20-hour college course called "Renewing American Civilization" that Gingrich had taught through a tax-deductible foundation, Kennesaw State College Foundation. Allegations of tax improprieties led to two counts "of failure to seek legal advice" and one count of "providing the committee with information which he knew or should have known was inaccurate" concerning the use of a tax exempt college course for political purposes. To avoid a full hearing, Gingrich and the House Ethics Subcommittee negotiated a sanctions agreement. Democrats accused Gingrich of violating the agreement, but it was forwarded to the House for approval.[62][63] On January 21, 1997, the House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, including a $300,000 "cost assessment" to recoup money spent on the investigation.[64][65]

The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated.[66] In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the courses.[67]

In other words, the IRS eventually cleared Gingrich, but not before the gutless house Republicans had agreed to have him sanctioned. It was utter BS, but the damage to his reputation was done. The real problem with Gingrich is that he tends to side with the establishment of the party now. He came out in favor of Dede Scozafova, who was the ultimate leftist RINO, in an off-year congressional race in NY, for example, and tends to turn off voters.



John Engler and the Michigan republicans got even with Bonior via gerrymandering, and re-districted him out of office. I used to be in Bonior's district, now my part of Warren is in Sander Levin's district.

Molon Labe
11-14-2011, 10:26 PM
Newt carries a lot of baggage left over from his day as Speaker of The House, and that million dollar line of credit at Tiffany's.
He is still the only Speaker to be disciplined for ethics violations. In 1997, The House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, and I am real sure that The Dems have their portfolio ready to present to the moderates.

He has defended himself well against "extravagance" charges, and maybe his answer will be good enough:

don't worry...it's all going to come out.

Starbuck
11-14-2011, 11:24 PM
don't worry...it's all going to come out.

You're right; it's going to come out. The Dems are (cleverly) holding fire for now. They may not have to fire off those rounds if Newt is not The One.

And - at least for now - Cain is fading. A few more slip ups and he may fall by the wayside. That will leave us with Romney.

Dang. I have had better days............:(

Kay
11-14-2011, 11:28 PM
The Drudge Report says latest polls have Newt on top.
He's ahead of Romney now.

http://drudgereport.com/

AmPat
11-15-2011, 09:15 AM
The DIMS will attack any Conservative/GOPer who rises to the top. The politics of destruction is all they have. If they had more, they would still opt for the low road. It's who they are.

Tipsycatlover
11-15-2011, 10:24 AM
Democrats know that obama cannot run on his record. Allo they have is to portray all the republicans as even more unfit than obama is.

Bailey
11-15-2011, 10:42 AM
If somehow Newt could dump the baggage he has I think he'd win in a heartbeat. I would love to see him tare up the magic negro in a debate. It would be akin to seeing someone club a baby seal.

Starbuck
11-15-2011, 10:59 AM
If somehow Newt could dump the baggage he has I think he'd win in a heartbeat. I would love to see him tare up the magic negro in a debate. It would be akin to seeing someone club a baby seal.
Except that clubbing a baby seal is a cruel and heartbreaking act.

I like to think of it as sort of a Home Run Derby.

Whatever. Newt would clean his clock.:)

And maybe he'd do it even with the baggage. Newt manages to live fairly small - at least in his view. They only have one house, and it's paid for. They do have a mortgage on rental property.
So I think he'd pass the test for conservative living. But, still, there's that Tiffany thing.:(

Molon Labe
11-15-2011, 11:06 AM
You're right; it's going to come out. The Dems are (cleverly) holding fire for now. They may not have to fire off those rounds if Newt is not The One.

And - at least for now - Cain is fading. A few more slip ups and he may fall by the wayside. That will leave us with Romney.

Dang. I have had better days............:(


It'll be the Dems.....but it will also be the MSM. Gingrich has a ton of baggage. I was going to start another of my "here's your new frontrunner" threads.....but Gingrich fad may only last a week or so.
He definetlly is getting the media love right now though.

Odysseus
11-15-2011, 06:13 PM
If the numbers show anything, it's that Romney has a very solid 20-25% of the Republican electorate sewn up. The volatility in everybody else's numbers shows that there is nobody who is really capturing the imagination of the base, but that 75% of Republicans would rather chew broken glass than have Romney as the nominee. Newt is showing some signs of life, but only because he has done well in a few dbates. Cain did the same, while Perry was popular until he debated and demonstrated some deficiencies there, but nobody is really stoked by any of the first tier candidates. We'd love to see someone with Cain's courage, Gingrich's command of the issues and knowledge of the workings of DC, Bachmann's moral compass, Paul's fiscal restraint, Perry's record of job creation and Romney's managerial skills, but unless they all get into the same teleporter and have a not-so-tragic accident, we're going to have to settle for one of them.

fettpett
11-15-2011, 06:37 PM
If the numbers show anything, it's that Romney has a very solid 20-25% of the Republican electorate sewn up. The volatility in everybody else's numbers shows that there is nobody who is really capturing the imagination of the base, but that 75% of Republicans would rather chew broken glass than have Romney as the nominee. Newt is showing some signs of life, but only because he has done well in a few dbates. Cain did the same, while Perry was popular until he debated and demonstrated some deficiencies there, but nobody is really stoked by any of the first tier candidates. We'd love to see someone with Cain's courage, Gingrich's command of the issues and knowledge of the workings of DC, Bachmann's moral compass, Paul's fiscal restraint, Perry's record of job creation and Romney's managerial skills, but unless they all get into the same teleporter and have a not-so-tragic accident, we're going to have to settle for one of them.

http://blog.newsarama.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10087/Barry_Flash_Origin_Recap.jpg

something like that, without the chemicals and superspeed


I want the superspeed :D

Odysseus
11-15-2011, 11:24 PM
http://blog.newsarama.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10087/Barry_Flash_Origin_Recap.jpg

something like that, without the chemicals and superspeed


I want the superspeed :D

According to Mrs. O, superspeed is highly overrated. :D

fettpett
11-16-2011, 09:57 AM
According to Mrs. O, superspeed is highly overrated. :D

only in the bedroom ;):p:D

NJCardFan
11-16-2011, 10:27 AM
I love denial! Never voted for the 0, I voted for McCain but don't like Palin!!! I love it But Huntsman is your guy!! C'mon fess up. Which is your lib candidate! Probably Kucinich !

I'd vote for Kusinich's wife. Yowza.
http://mightyminnow.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/elizabeth-kucinich.jpg

Elspeth
11-18-2011, 01:38 AM
I agree. He should have hired some handlers to prep him for prime time. TV is why we are saddled with the Ultimate Incompetent-In-Chief.:mad:

So why didn't he? I don't understanding voluntarily twisting in the wind.

SaintLouieWoman
11-18-2011, 02:59 AM
The DIMS will attack any Conservative/GOPer who rises to the top. The politics of destruction is all they have. If they had more, they would still opt for the low road. It's who they are.
It's like a sick game. You can just sit back and wait for the dems to pick off any of the Republican candidates that rise like snipers. I'm so sick of it already and we're still not quite a year away.

Odysseus
11-18-2011, 09:05 AM
I'd vote for Kusinich's wife. Yowza.
http://mightyminnow.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/elizabeth-kucinich.jpg

Nah, she's stuck on Gilligan. Once you go garden gnome, you never go back.

AmPat
11-18-2011, 10:49 AM
So why didn't he? I don't understanding voluntarily twisting in the wind.
He fell victim to his own press. He might have believed his past success ensured future success.

It's like a sick game. You can just sit back and wait for the dems to pick off any of the Republican candidates that rise like snipers. I'm so sick of it already and we're still not quite a year away.Romney is not immune. The DIMS know he isn't popular with the Conservatives. What they fail to realize is that although Conservatives are wanting a different Candidate other than Romney, we will settle for anybody in the finals that goes up against their God, O Blah Blah.

The politics of destruction is going to rally the Conservatives behind our eventual candidate. The DIMS cannot run on their dismal record since the nation has seen Marxism and we don't like it. Liberalism has failed (again), and TV cannot hide that. I expect record turn out for the GOP in the general election to throw the Marxist and the rest of his minions out.