PDA

View Full Version : The Case for Gingrich



Rockntractor
12-02-2011, 11:52 PM
By Bruce Walker

There are many problems that conservatives should have with a President Gingrich. His personal life has been speckled with adultery. He has flip-flopped on global warming. His firm has profited, though modestly, from the housing debacle (although there is no hint of wrongdoing on Gingrich's part.) Gingrich sounds very wonky for a conservative who wants to lead a revolution; conservatism is not, in essence, detailed. Basic principles, nearly all of which devolve choice to the individual or the state government, are clear, few, and brief.

Nevertheless, there is a compelling case for Gingrich as the Republican nominee. He is both glib and brilliant. In this respect Gingrich resembles much more the parliamentary pugilist Winston Churchill, who also had very heavy baggage, than Ronald Reagan, who gave "The Speech" ten thousand times. Like Churchill, who mastered much more than just politics, Gingrich is an historian, a fiction writer, and a dozen other things.

He will not be stumped by the media. In fact, Gingrich will have the knowledge to actually embarrass the automatons who read teleprompter questions. More pointedly, Gingrich has the best chance of any Republican to display Obama before America in a "deer in the headlights" moment. Our current president is a profoundly ignorant man whose ignorance is masked by equally ignorant and wholly programmed media.

Yet what Obama doesn't know can hurt us, and a single slip in the debates could cost him -- and perhaps his party -- five percentage points in the general election. That could not only seal the presidential election, but also swing dozens of House and Senate races and turn a presidential victory into a presidential landslide. People are scared now, and a man who obviously grasps the present crisis can be a valuable electoral asset.

Gingrich also understands Congress. He was House minority whip and then speaker of the House, the most important office in Congress. Gingrich would understand how to move legislation through Congress, and so a conservative agenda supported by him would have a much greater likelihood of actually becoming law than it would with some more ardent, but less experienced, conservatives.

An analogy might be made between LBJ and Gingrich. President Johnson was not nearly as liberal as most Democrat nominees in the last fifty years, yet he transformed America (for the worse, but still dramatically) with his "Great Society" agenda. Johnson, who had been Senate majority leader before he was vice president, knew just how Congress worked. Since Johnson, America has moved progressively to the left, because Johnson was able to get enacted what seemed like a modestly leftist agenda.

Moreover, Gingrich as a novice speaker learned the hard way what works and what doesn't in high-profile national legislative debates. It is easy to underestimate what he accomplished with a modest House majority and a Senate in which Republicans could not even end debate on a bill, much less, in either house, override a presidential veto.

His personal scandals of the past would actually come as a strength in the general election. Gingrich as speaker was smeared and attacked so relentlessly that all the "bad news" has been heard long before. Rather like with Clinton, who had even more scandals, no one much cares about an older man whose life has been scrutinized and used by his enemies.

Gingrich's age -- he would be 69 in November 2012 -- could actually reassure conservatives and Gingrich's countrymen if he picked an appealing and strongly conservative running mate, like Michele Bachmann, and if he also stated that he would serve a single term as president.

This sort of promise, along with the selection of a vigorous and articulate conservative vice president, could reassure conservative voters that voting for Gingrich would also mean voting, in four years, for, perhaps, a President Bachmann or President Santorum or President Jindal. Such a conservative could win the 2016 nomination without a divisive fight and insure that for eight or even twelve years, no leftist legislation is enacted, no leftists are appointed to the Supreme Court, and a conservative agenda is pressed steadily at other levels, like federal regulatory agencies.

The hunt for a perfect candidate, while a vastly unpopular radical ruins America, is imprudent and unnecessary. The first goal, the indispensable goal, is to vote Obama out of office. Gingrich, like it or not, is a perfect candidate for that purpose.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/the_case_for_gingrich.html#ixzz1fRM6OYpN

rjas77
12-03-2011, 01:01 AM
I'd vote for Gingrich just to watch the LIBS squirm for the next four years ;)

Rockntractor
12-03-2011, 01:03 AM
I'd vote for Gingrich just to watch the LIBS squirm for the next four years ;)

I didn't like it at first but I'm getting used to the idea.

linda22003
12-03-2011, 09:04 AM
I'll still vote - at least for other offices - but I may have to leave the top office on the ballot blank.

Starbuck
12-03-2011, 01:06 PM
My hand will quiver, my lower lip may even tremble, but I will vote for the Republican nominee.

PS...Hopefully, Herman Cain will appear shortly with Ginger White, who will be in handcuffs being charged with felonious bullshit associated with the totally fabricated story of her and Herman. Hopefully. That way I won't have to vote for Newt.
I'm going to go sit in front of the TV and wait for it..........;)

Rockntractor
12-03-2011, 01:18 PM
I'll still vote - at least for other offices - but I may have to leave the top office on the ballot blank.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m255/HarryBogard/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg

linda22003
12-03-2011, 03:17 PM
It's not that funny. I'd rather have a candidate I can support.

Molon Labe
12-03-2011, 03:30 PM
There are many problems conservatives should have with Gingrich

he should have just stopped there.

I lol when he compared Gingrich to Churchill.

THE RESISTANCE
12-05-2011, 12:28 PM
Tell them Molon,

Some thought I posted elsewhere,

http://forum.goupstate.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8415

Starbuck
12-05-2011, 12:48 PM
I think Herman Cain's plan 'B' may be, "Go with Gingrich. Now." That's based on a few things of my own and comments from people I consider knowledgeable.

That would mean something to me. I liked a lot of things about Cain and if he goes with Gingrich this early in the game, then that would solidify my tenuous support.

If Cain supports Gingrich, that probably means they have had discussions about this economy and Cain thinks he can get the economy repaired through a Gingrich Presidency.

marv
12-05-2011, 01:59 PM
Bill Jacobson at Legal Insurrection (http://legalinsurrection.com/) has a good take on Gingrich...

I posted yesterday the spot on article by Byron York, The insider-outsider divide over Newt Gingrich, which delves into the great divide between Washington Republican political players (politicians and media) who have their noses out of joint over Newt because he was mean to them in the 1990s, and the general Republican electorate which remembers the glory days of the takeover of the House, the Contract with America, balanced budgest, and welfare reform.

There is a disbelief how a Tea Party-motivated electorate could support an “insider” like Newt, particularly an insider who did not make many friends in the Republican party and media.

I think the question answers itself. Newt is not seen as beholden to anyone, and that is what makes his insider status non-toxic, and a plus. He’s the insider who is on the outs with the insiders.

DumbAss Tanker
12-05-2011, 02:24 PM
Gingrich? Well, could be worse - could be Romney.

Newt is a guy who believes he's smarter than he actually is. The same is true of Romney, but the chalkline for the 'Actual' is a lot lower in his case.

Despite the various personal stupidities with which Gingrich has managed to encrust himself over the years, there still seems to be some core of Conservative thought working away in there. In Romney's case, though, he has been nothing but a political chameleon for so long that nobody has any idea what his true color might be.

Molon Labe
12-05-2011, 02:27 PM
Attacked Paul Ryan's budget calling it "right wing social engineering." and "extreme" when it was exactly what conservatives wanted.

For TARP....... before he was against it.

For an individual mandate that served as the model for "ObamaCare."

Worked with Nancy Pelosi to promote "global warming" agenda


Yeah....real good case for Gingrich. Real good conservative stances there.

Adam Wood
12-05-2011, 02:32 PM
The decision will probably already be made for me by the time I get to cast a primary ballot, so it probably won't matter in my case who I would support or not support.

I have said since these debates started that I would gladly take any of the candidates over Obama. I'm not much of a fan of Ron Paul, for example (says great things, then all the sudden he just veers off and goes to downtown Crazy Town), but I would gladly take him over Obama. Even milquetoast Huntsman would be a vast improvement.

Molon Labe
12-05-2011, 03:26 PM
Gingrich has the best chance of any Republican to display Obama before America in a "deer in the headlights

My concern is they will do exactly what they did to McCain when they show how Gingrich basically worked with Democrats throughout the years.

When all that money from George Soros comes rolling around in Obama's cofers it's going to get ugly.

Tecate
12-06-2011, 01:14 AM
No matter who wins, it looks like we get another new world order stooge.

There isn't a dime's worth of difference between any of these people.

patriot45
12-06-2011, 01:25 AM
My hand will quiver, my lower lip may even tremble, but I will vote for the Republican nominee.

PS...Hopefully, Herman Cain will appear shortly with Ginger White, who will be in handcuffs being charged with felonious bullshit associated with the totally fabricated story of her and Herman. Hopefully. That way I won't have to vote for Newt.
I'm going to go sit in front of the TV and wait for it..........;)

I have to agree, I will vote for whoever we put up!

But anyone who thinks Newt is a conservitave God needs to read ,Breach of Trust by Tom Colburn, I wish he would run!

linda22003
12-06-2011, 10:42 AM
I have to agree, I will vote for whoever we put up!

But anyone who thinks Newt is a conservitave God needs to read ,Breach of Trust by Tom Colburn, I wish he would run!

Coburn certainly had nothing good to say about Newt on Fox News Sunday.

Tipsycatlover
12-06-2011, 11:19 AM
There is NOTHING that anyone could say about Newt or Mitt that would possibly convince me that obama is better.

Molon Labe
12-06-2011, 11:29 AM
There is NOTHING that anyone could say about Newt or Mitt that would possibly convince me that obama is better.

Is that the question? who's better? How about if someone were to suggest that they are all about the same. When you break it down it sure looks that way



cept for the R or D by their name.

Tipsycatlover
12-06-2011, 11:40 AM
Is that the question? who's better? How about if someone were to suggest that they are all about the same. When you break it down it sure looks that way



cept for the R or D by their name.

Not EVEN CLOSE. I'd go so far as to say there isn't even another democrat that would be as single mindedly focused on destruction as obama is.

Rockntractor
12-06-2011, 12:12 PM
Coburn certainly had nothing good to say about Newt on Fox News Sunday.

I don't recall you liking Coburn.

Odysseus
12-06-2011, 12:14 PM
It's not that funny. I'd rather have a candidate I can support.
We all would, but given a choice of evils, I will pick the lesser of the two, and Obama is so toxic that anyone who considers him worthy of reelection needs to be force-fed a civics lesson.

I have to agree, I will vote for whoever we put up!

But anyone who thinks Newt is a conservitave God needs to read ,Breach of Trust by Tom Colburn, I wish he would run!

I'm not a fan of Newt, but everything in the article is true. Gingrich brings many positive factors to the office, as well as many negatives, but I cannot imagine anyone currently in the debates who would be worse than another four years of Obama.

Molon Labe
12-06-2011, 12:44 PM
I'm not a fan of Newt, but everything in the article is true. Gingrich brings many positive factors to the office, as well as many negatives, but I cannot imagine anyone currently in the debates who would be worse than another four years of Obama.

This is flawed logic. Each president since HW Bush has been increasing worse than the last. With what Gingrich is saying and his past stances, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that he will continue the policies of the current idiot and then make things worse. Then conservatives will do what they did for 8 years under Bush and go to sleep because we own the White house......

and when the structure comes crashing down, then the media and Democrats can blame conservatism for the failure. No way! You all keep on voting for an establishment RINO like Romney or the Grinch.. No thanks.

Who needs enemies when you got this:

Loved Obama's individual mandate; "All of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care."
Endorsed Clinton's individual mandates in 1993 when they were pushing Health Care
Was MORE supportive of individual health-care mandates than Mitt Romney
Wants to sign as many as 200 executive orders as POTUS.
Got paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from reforming it
He supported Federal taxdollars being spent on abortions.
Voted to raise the debt ceiling every single time it came to a vote.



"Wilson's speeches still work. I'm frankly a realpolitik Wilsonian."



"Professor Gingrich hopefully will never be called upon to teach a course in the proper role of our federal government. His rare votes against bloated big government usually have been prompted by the partisan wrangling of the moment, not by any great respect for, or understanding of, the Constitution." --James Toft of “Tax Reform Immediately


"The U.S. government operates endowments for the humanities and the arts…Perhaps, it is time we consider a new endowment for conservation and the environment." -- Newt Gingrich, A Contract with the Earth

"We agree that there is plenty of evidence that global climate change is occurring…While humanity is certainly causing its fair share of the change, scientists are still not able to precisely pinpoint the extent of the change, or the margin of error in their estimates." -- Newt Gingrich, A Contract with the Earth

frigin' idiot...He IS the problem as much as Obama

Am I listening to a conservative or Al Gore? :(

Odysseus
12-06-2011, 01:14 PM
This is flawed logic. Each president since HW Bush has been increasing worse than the last. With what Gingrich is saying and his past stances, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that he will continue the policies of the current idiot and then make things worse. Then conservatives will do what they did for 8 years under Bush and go to sleep because we own the White house......

and when the structure comes crashing down, then the media and Democrats can blame conservatism for the failure. No way! You all keep on voting for an establishment RINO like Romney or the Grinch.. No thanks.

Who needs enemies when you got this:

Loved Obama's individual mandate; "All of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care."
Endorsed Clinton's individual mandates in 1993 when they were pushing Health Care
Was MORE supportive of individual health-care mandates than Mitt Romney
Wants to sign as many as 200 executive orders as POTUS.
Got paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from reforming it
He supported Federal taxdollars being spent on abortions.
Voted to raise the debt ceiling every single time it came to a vote.

frigin' idiot...He IS the problem as much as Obama

Am I listening to a conservative or Al Gore? :(

I agree with you. But, as much as I would prefer someone else, if it comes down to it, I will vote against Obama.

linda22003
12-06-2011, 01:26 PM
I don't recall you liking Coburn.

I praised him during the budget mess, the plan he presented. It's the social conservatism I'm not that big on.

Rockntractor
12-06-2011, 01:35 PM
I praised him during the budget mess, the plan he presented. It's the social conservatism I'm not that big on.

He is excellent on economic matters. I don't think in the financial condition we are in that any of our candidates will have any time for social issues.

Molon Labe
12-06-2011, 01:36 PM
I agree with you. But, as much as I would prefer someone else, if it comes down to it, I will vote against Obama.

The Tea party tried to send a message for the last 4 years.....Republican's aren't listening.
The problem the Republican party doesn't seem to get is that principled conservatives are tired of accepting the same old tired "vote against the other guy".

If the nominee isn't someone like a Paul, Bachman, Cain or Johnson type that resembles both grassroots and anti establishment Tea party ties.....then I'll probably be watching the Circus from home again.

I've voted for the Republican in 6 of 7 POTUS elections. I don't mind making it 6 of 8. I'm tired of what guys like Goldwater, Reagan, and Russell Kirk and Robert Taft created being trashed.

If they choose to nominate another McCain, then people like me will go elsewhere and there are more than you think that feel the same way.

Rockntractor
12-06-2011, 01:45 PM
If they choose to nominate another McCain, then people like me will go elsewhere and there are more than you think that feel the same way.

If people go elsewhere it will be over, socialism will firmly take hold and our current system will be done.

Molon Labe
12-06-2011, 02:06 PM
If people go elsewhere it will be over, socialism will firmly take hold and our current system will be done.

You're assuming it hasn't already??? :confused:

Did you listen to how Glen Beck laid out Gingrich's stances on the issues this morning?

Read Post #24 again and tell me how any of those stances aren't reflective of socialism "firmly taking hold of our current system" in the mind of one Newt Gingrich.

I can provide links and dozens more examples.....but Glen Beck did alot of the work for me this morning. ;)



Basically what I've got out of this thread is...Yah....i kind of agree with you Molon....but I'm going to vote for him anyways.

Rockntractor
12-06-2011, 02:22 PM
You're assuming it hasn't already??? :confused:



It may be but I'm not ready to roll over and die yet, the hole is closing fast but I can still see daylight.

Odysseus
12-06-2011, 03:01 PM
The Tea party tried to send a message for the last 4 years.....Republican's aren't listening.
The problem the Republican party doesn't seem to get is that principled conservatives are tired of accepting the same old tired "vote against the other guy".

If the nominee isn't someone like a Paul, Bachman, Cain or Johnson type that resembles both grassroots and anti establishment Tea party ties.....then I'll probably be watching the Circus from home again.

I've voted for the Republican in 6 of 7 POTUS elections. I don't mind making it 6 of 8. I'm tired of what guys like Goldwater, Reagan, and Russell Kirk and Robert Taft created being trashed.

If they choose to nominate another McCain, then people like me will go elsewhere and there are more than you think that feel the same way.

Bachmann is now my unabashed first choice, followed by Perry. Paul is too irrational on foreign policy and just doesn't grasp the dangers that we face. If it comes down to Obama vs. Romney or Obama vs. Paul, I'll vote against Obama, and then do everything in my power to ensure that congress is staffed with enough principled conservatives to make the difference, but at this point, we're in serious trouble as a nation. The sheer volume of corruption that we are seeing in our major institutions shows that it is not simply a problem of criminal attitudes among a few, but a cultural norm that needs to be expunged. I honestly don't know if we can do that kind of moral revival, or that any country ever has.

Tecate
12-06-2011, 11:13 PM
Bachmann is now my unabashed first choice, followed by Perry. Paul is too irrational on foreign policy and just doesn't grasp the dangers that we face. If it comes down to Obama vs. Romney or Obama vs. Paul, I'll vote against Obama, and then do everything in my power to ensure that congress is staffed with enough principled conservatives to make the difference, but at this point, we're in serious trouble as a nation. The sheer volume of corruption that we are seeing in our major institutions shows that it is not simply a problem of criminal attitudes among a few, but a cultural norm that needs to be expunged. I honestly don't know if we can do that kind of moral revival, or that any country ever has.
My definition of "irrational foreign policy" is attacking a nation based entirely on lies and deliberately cooked intelligence.

The "talking point" that Paul is weak on foreign policy is just that... A talking point. It seems that those who repeat it are still hanging on to the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war. Attacking nations that haven't attacked us is not a foreign policy that I support.

Janice
12-06-2011, 11:23 PM
Bachmann is now my unabashed first choice, followed by Perry. Paul is too irrational on foreign policy and just doesn't grasp the dangers that we face. If it comes down to Obama vs. Romney or Obama vs. Paul, I'll vote against Obama, and then do everything in my power to ensure that congress is staffed with enough principled conservatives to make the difference, but at this point, we're in serious trouble as a nation. The sheer volume of corruption that we are seeing in our major institutions shows that it is not simply a problem of criminal attitudes among a few, but a cultural norm that needs to be expunged. I honestly don't know if we can do that kind of moral revival, or that any country ever has.

Bachmann has always been my first choice. Its probably a curse though. My first choice never wins (Forbes over Bush, Thompson over McCain .. etc on a lesser scale too.). And I agree the GOP is in bed with the anti America left (democrats now). I pray the tea party makes the diff. We are all thats left, if there is any hope for this nation to be had as a constitutional republic as founded.

Articulate_Ape
12-07-2011, 02:06 AM
Bachmann is now my unabashed first choice, followed by Perry. Paul is too irrational on foreign policy and just doesn't grasp the dangers that we face. If it comes down to Obama vs. Romney or Obama vs. Paul, I'll vote against Obama, and then do everything in my power to ensure that congress is staffed with enough principled conservatives to make the difference, but at this point, we're in serious trouble as a nation. The sheer volume of corruption that we are seeing in our major institutions shows that it is not simply a problem of criminal attitudes among a few, but a cultural norm that needs to be expunged. I honestly don't know if we can do that kind of moral revival, or that any country ever has.

I would respectfully ask what, in your opinion, are the clear and present (or future) dangers that America, as defined by her borders, faces? I am not trying to be factious, Ody. I have been reassessing my own views on this. I would like to hear yours.

Molon Labe
12-07-2011, 11:35 AM
I would respectfully ask what, in your opinion, are the clear and present (or future) dangers that America, as defined by her borders, faces? I am not trying to be factious, Ody. I have been reassessing my own views on this. I would like to hear yours.

I can't speak for Ody...

My understanding is that many of the new guard Conservative thought over the last 20 years has been for more aggressive "Democratizations. They tend to believe the Bush doctrine of promoting Democracy through nation building is the way to go because they fear radical Islam.

I would ask how that is working out for us when every one of these "Democracies" we try to set up ends up choosing Radical Islam? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.......now Pakistan.

Arroyo_Doble
12-07-2011, 11:40 AM
I can't speak for Ody...

My understanding is that many of the new guard Conservative thought over the last 20 years has been for more aggressive "Democratizations. They tend to believe the Bush doctrine of promoting Democracy through nation building is the way to go because they fear radical Islam.

I would ask how that is working out for us when every one of these "Democracies" we try to set up ends up choosing Radical Islam? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.......now Pakistan.

That is the danger in democratic institutions; people that disagree with you get to participate as well.

It is interesting that the faux axiom that democracies do not attack each other never gets questioned, though.

Odysseus
12-08-2011, 12:11 AM
I would respectfully ask what, in your opinion, are the clear and present (or future) dangers that America, as defined by her borders, faces? I am not trying to be factious, Ody. I have been reassessing my own views on this. I would like to hear yours.
I don't necessarily think that our dangers are derived from nations on our borders (although Mexico's descent into anarchy is going to have serious national security issues for us). The greater risk is that we are still looking at the world through Cold War paradigms, but the end of the Cold War changed things that we aren't taking into account. The end of the Soviet Union ended the need for NATO, for example, but not the need for US staging bases in Europe. We still need to project power beyond our borders, but many of our allies no longer feel the need to support us, since their interests are no longer jeopardized by the Soviet threat, and the former Soviet allies no longer feel the need to constrain their actions in order to keep their place in the alliance. Saddam would never have invaded Kuwait if the Soviets were still his patrons, as they would have held him back from such a provocative action. The collapse of Yugoslavia into its ethnic enclaves was the result of not having a common threat of the Soviet Union hanging over it (Tito was only nominally a Soviet ally, and used the threat of absorption into the USSR as a club to keep the Croats, Serbs, Bosnians and others united). In the Middle East, the Arab states that were allied with us (the monarchies) and those that were with the Soviets (the Ba'athists and secular dictatorships) are under tremendous pressure from the rising pan-Islamic caliphate. Israel remains an ally, because the civilizational fault line divides the west from the Salafists, but too many of our politicians don't understand that dynamic. In Asia, the traditional hegemony of China is reasserting itself, resulting in the formation of a coalition of Asian states with a common enemy, including communist Vietnam, capitalist secular democracies South Korea and Japan, monarchist Thailand, etc.

I can't speak for Ody...

My understanding is that many of the new guard Conservative thought over the last 20 years has been for more aggressive "Democratizations. They tend to believe the Bush doctrine of promoting Democracy through nation building is the way to go because they fear radical Islam.

I would ask how that is working out for us when every one of these "Democracies" we try to set up ends up choosing Radical Islam? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.......now Pakistan.
The reason that the radical Islamists win most of these votes is that they are usually the only organized element outside of the state, so that when the secular government collapses, they fill the void. In the case of Iraq, the Shiite majority doesn't want to live under a fundamentalist regime (they've seen Iran), but they know that we are leaving and Iran isn't, so they are doing everything that they can to avoid antagonizing the mullahs.

That is the danger in democratic institutions; people that disagree with you get to participate as well.

It is interesting that the faux axiom that democracies do not attack each other never gets questioned, though.
Most of the Muslim states have no democratic institutions. They just have elections. Dictatorial states are, however, more unstable than democracies, and more likely to try to channel unrest into foreign adventures.

AmPat
12-08-2011, 09:43 AM
I'll still vote - at least for other offices - but I may have to leave the top office on the ballot blank.

Don't do that, just X in the block for the Marxist. It amounts to the same thing.:rolleyes:

AmPat
12-08-2011, 09:52 AM
The Tea party tried to send a message for the last 4 years.....Republican's aren't listening.
The problem the Republican party doesn't seem to get is that principled conservatives are tired of accepting the same old tired "vote against the other guy".

If the nominee isn't someone like a Paul, Bachman, Cain or Johnson type that resembles both grassroots and anti establishment Tea party ties.....then I'll probably be watching the Circus from home again.

I've voted for the Republican in 6 of 7 POTUS elections. I don't mind making it 6 of 8. I'm tired of what guys like Goldwater, Reagan, and Russell Kirk and Robert Taft created being trashed.

If they choose to nominate another McCain, then people like me will go elsewhere and there are more than you think that feel the same way.
Commendable but stupid and defeatist. If you and the others like you stand on your principles and fail to vote against the Marxist In Chief, you will win the right to crawl on top of the highest perch and beat your chest like the largest of silver backs. You will have earned the cherished goal of claiming, "I told you so!" You will also be able to claim complicity in assuring another four years of Obama rule and subsequent loss of this country. :mad:Congratulations. Now go beat your self righteous chest.

Arroyo_Doble
12-08-2011, 10:02 AM
Commendable but stupid and defeatist. If you and the others like you stand on your principles and fail to vote against the Marxist In Chief, you will win the right to crawl on top of the highest perch and beat your chest like the largest of silver backs. You will have earned the cherished goal of claiming, "I told you so!" You will also be able to claim complicity in assuring another four years of Obama rule and subsequent loss of this country. :mad:Congratulations. Now go beat your self righteous chest.


[An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...]


"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."

Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the nonstop frenetic news reports on television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like too straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"



~ So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish by Douglas Adams

SaintLouieWoman
12-08-2011, 10:06 AM
Commendable but stupid and defeatist. If you and the others like you stand on your principles and fail to vote against the Marxist In Chief, you will win the right to crawl on top of the highest perch and beat your chest like the largest of silver backs. You will have earned the cherished goal of claiming, "I told you so!" You will also be able to claim complicity in assuring another four years of Obama rule and subsequent loss of this country. :mad:Congratulations. Now go beat your self righteous chest.

Well said. Obama will have no constraints whatsoever if he gets another 4 years. Even if both houses are won by Republicans, he'll use the executive orders to get his way. Our country can't stand another 4 years of this. At least this time he's busy with his vacations and his never ending campaigning, to keep the gravy train of free vacations for both his immediate and extended families going.

I'm angry that the Republicans haven't fielded a stronger group of candidates, but in this age it's a miracle that anyone would run. Look at the destruction done to the candidates and their families.

AmPat
12-08-2011, 10:29 AM
Well said. Obama will have no constraints whatsoever if he gets another 4 years. Even if both houses are won by Republicans, he'll use the executive orders to get his way. Our country can't stand another 4 years of this. At least this time he's busy with his vacations and his never ending campaigning, to keep the gravy train of free vacations for both his immediate and extended families going.

I'm angry that the Republicans haven't fielded a stronger group of candidates, but in this age it's a miracle that anyone would run. Look at the destruction done to the candidates and their families.

Thanks. I actually agree with him. The reality versus the fantasy comes down to:
Deal with your principles during this candidacy phase but vote for the eventual GOP candidate in the general. What people like Lizard boy fails to understand is that DIMS vote DIM and Caucus with DIMS. GOP, however bad, usually caucuses with the GOP. (Exceptions are the idiot from Alaska).
A missed vote for the eventual front running GOPer is a vote for the Marxist party.

Molon Labe
12-08-2011, 11:23 AM
Commendable but stupid and defeatist. If you and the others like you stand on your principles and fail to vote against the Marxist In Chief, you will win the right to crawl on top of the highest perch and beat your chest like the largest of silver backs. You will have earned the cherished goal of claiming, "I told you so!" You will also be able to claim complicity in assuring another four years of Obama rule and subsequent loss of this country. :mad:Congratulations. Now go beat your self righteous chest.


The "if you don't vote for the lesser of two evils we are all gonna die" shat again...:rolleyes:

No, what's stupid and defeatist is SETTLING for the same old crap your served up by the Republican establishment. Stupid is voting for people who TALK one way during primaries but actually DID something different in their career. And now they will have bamboozled voters into thinking they've changed based on how the polls go up and down every other week for each new annointed one. Defeatist is those who give up when the Republican party serves up dyed in the wool liberals like McCain, Romney and then give legitimacy to the system by voting for them and then tell me I should do the same.


“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”- John Quincy Adams

What were you doing during the 8 years that Bush was pushing his Socialism/Marxism through congress and by Executive order?

Let me spell it out for you:

Remember socialized prescriptions the largest socialized medicine increase ever?
How about the $50 billion Federal Department DHS?
Remember NCLB which nearly doubled the $50 Billion budget of DOE ?
Remember the Auto Bailout that he passed by ignoring Congress?
Rember the EESA of 2008 and TARP and "saving the free market by abandoning it"?

WTF?

With conservative legislation and Federal Spending like that who needed Obama? Did you know the original Tea party in 2007 was a direct protest of the policies which were leading to TARP which was a Republican policy?

Your'e much too smart to have that short a memory.

I try not to look at the little D and R next to peoples names much anymore. Why, 4 years ago the Conservative in the North Carolina congressional race against Lindsey Graham was the Democrat.
I'm a "Conservative" not a Republican. I look at policies and match them to the cornerstones of what guys like Goldwater wrote about. Then I look at results.

If you think that electing a Romney or Gingrich means that there is going to be some "radical" Earth shattering Sea change from Obama, then by all means go and do it. But pleas spare me the tripe about those of us being a defeatist because were suprememly confidant that nothing will dramatically change.....and then you get the added bonus of the media blaming "Conservative" policies when it all crashes down.

People need to focus more on their congress critters being tea party types and less on the POTUS.

Molon Labe
12-08-2011, 11:27 AM
Well said. Obama will have no constraints whatsoever if he gets another 4 years. Even if both houses are won by Republicans,
he'll use the executive orders to get his way. Our country can't stand another 4 years of this. At least this time he's busy with his vacations and his never ending campaigning, to keep the gravy train of free vacations for both his immediate and extended families going.

I'm angry that the Republicans haven't fielded a stronger group of candidates, but in this age it's a miracle that anyone would run. Look at the destruction done to the candidates and their families.

You need a Congress that will hold executive power in check and hold Obama accountable. That congress is now Republican controlled. Blame them if they are letting him still get away with it. Remember the Congress was AWOL and gave Bush the keys to this car along time ago and did nothing, so why would Obama stop driving it.

linda22003
12-08-2011, 01:33 PM
Some Republicans are coming out in terms of their disdain for what Gingrich is like to work with.

"“He’s a tremendously inspirational person as far as rallying troops, but as far as governing, he does not have the discipline, he does not have the capacity to control himself and does not stay focused,” Homeland Security Chairman Peter King said of Newt Gingrich on CNN last night, becoming one of the first senior House Republicans to offer an unvarnished view of the former Speaker. If Gingrich were president, the Long Island Republican added, “The country and the Congress would be going through one crisis after another, and these would be self inflicted crises. You know there are enough crises in the world, without inflicting crisis on ourselves. Or again, I keep saying ‘putting himself at the center.’ The reason the Republicans lost the government shutdown debate with President Clinton in 1995, is because Newt gave the impression it was all about being made him being made to get off of the back of Air Force One. I mean, that’s how he puts himself at the center of everything.”

Quoted in the CQ/RollCall Daily Briefing, 12/8/11

AmPat
12-08-2011, 08:09 PM
The "if you don't vote for the lesser of two evils we are all gonna die" shat again...:rolleyes:

No, what's stupid and defeatist is SETTLING for the same old crap your served up by the Republican establishment. Stupid is voting for people who TALK one way during primaries but actually DID something different in their career. And now they will have bamboozled voters into thinking they've changed based on how the polls go up and down every other week for each new annointed one. Defeatist is those who give up when the Republican party serves up dyed in the wool liberals like McCain, Romney and then give legitimacy to the system by voting for them and then tell me I should do the same.



What were you doing during the 8 years that Bush was pushing his Socialism/Marxism through congress and by Executive order?

Let me spell it out for you:

Remember socialized prescriptions the largest socialized medicine increase ever?
How about the $50 billion Federal Department DHS?
Remember NCLB which nearly doubled the $50 Billion budget of DOE ?
Remember the Auto Bailout that he passed by ignoring Congress?
Rember the EESA of 2008 and TARP and "saving the free market by abandoning it"?

WTF?

With conservative legislation and Federal Spending like that who needed Obama? Did you know the original Tea party in 2007 was a direct protest of the policies which were leading to TARP which was a Republican policy?

Your'e much too smart to have that short a memory.

I try not to look at the little D and R next to peoples names much anymore. Why, 4 years ago the Conservative in the North Carolina congressional race against Lindsey Graham was the Democrat.
I'm a "Conservative" not a Republican. I look at policies and match them to the cornerstones of what guys like Goldwater wrote about. Then I look at results.

If you think that electing a Romney or Gingrich means that there is going to be some "radical" Earth shattering Sea change from Obama, then by all means go and do it. But pleas spare me the tripe about those of us being a defeatist because were suprememly confidant that nothing will dramatically change.....and then you get the added bonus of the media blaming "Conservative" policies when it all crashes down.

People need to focus more on their congress critters being tea party types and less on the POTUS.
That "shat" is reality. I don't like what the progressive disease has done to either party. I see the ACTUAL damage done and the rate at which O Blah Blah and his idiot puppets have done it. I also saw GW Bush attempt to make nice with the DIMoTardians and push progressive BS. I don't need you or anybody else to point it out to me. GW Bush is now a private citizen. We will not elect the second place contender for the GOP nomination. Waste your vote and vote for the Marxist if that is the sword you choose to fall on. I will fight hard to get a REAL Conservative nominated. Failing that, I will vote AGAINST the Marxist.

I agree that we need to clean house in the Congress. The Executive branch has much power though and cannot be ignored. If to get the Embarrassment In Chief out is the only victory, it is a big one. I believe the Congress (Senate), balance will shift to the GOP. With the right president, that would be a start to reversing years of progressive disease.

AmPat
12-08-2011, 08:11 PM
You need a Congress that will hold executive power in check and hold Obama accountable. That congress is now Republican controlled. Blame them if they are letting him still get away with it. Remember the Congress was AWOL and gave Bush the keys to this car along time ago and did nothing, so why would Obama stop driving it.

WRONG! That Congress is half controlled by the GOP. The second half is the Senate and it is majority DUmmyRAT. There will be no holding the Marxist accountable,, real accountability, without control of the Senate.

Articulate_Ape
12-10-2011, 04:34 PM
I don't necessarily think that our dangers are derived from nations on our borders (although Mexico's descent into anarchy is going to have serious national security issues for us). The greater risk is that we are still looking at the world through Cold War paradigms, but the end of the Cold War changed things that we aren't taking into account. The end of the Soviet Union ended the need for NATO, for example, but not the need for US staging bases in Europe. We still need to project power beyond our borders, but many of our allies no longer feel the need to support us, since their interests are no longer jeopardized by the Soviet threat, and the former Soviet allies no longer feel the need to constrain their actions in order to keep their place in the alliance. Saddam would never have invaded Kuwait if the Soviets were still his patrons, as they would have held him back from such a provocative action. The collapse of Yugoslavia into its ethnic enclaves was the result of not having a common threat of the Soviet Union hanging over it (Tito was only nominally a Soviet ally, and used the threat of absorption into the USSR as a club to keep the Croats, Serbs, Bosnians and others united). In the Middle East, the Arab states that were allied with us (the monarchies) and those that were with the Soviets (the Ba'athists and secular dictatorships) are under tremendous pressure from the rising pan-Islamic caliphate. Israel remains an ally, because the civilizational fault line divides the west from the Salafists, but too many of our politicians don't understand that dynamic. In Asia, the traditional hegemony of China is reasserting itself, resulting in the formation of a coalition of Asian states with a common enemy, including communist Vietnam, capitalist secular democracies South Korea and Japan, monarchist Thailand, etc.


I actually agree with that assessment pretty much in its entirety. I guess where I am torn is in what strategy is the soundest in dealing with such a global dynamic. It could be argued, and supported by history for the most part, that the Achilles heel of any great power, whether empirical or not, is economic and systemic collapse from within. In attempting to address threats by "hard" actions abroad, which are always very expensive in life, treasure, and stamina, any nation will find itself weakened economically. Add to that the fact that such a nation will find itself in debt to one or more nations who are not our allies and are even listed among our real or potential enemies (see China) and suddenly any shell of military power finds itself protecting a softened underbelly.

So, the dilemma is one of where resources should be focused and/or balanced to maintain a position of strength both militarily and economically. I think one needs to consider the magnitude and urgency of each and every threat and really ask, "Is it worth it right now, or ever even?". Or, in a nutshell, what's in it for us.

I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but if history has taught us anything, we damned well better be asking it.

Tipsycatlover
12-11-2011, 12:33 PM
Some Republicans are coming out in terms of their disdain for what Gingrich is like to work with.

"“He’s a tremendously inspirational person as far as rallying troops, but as far as governing, he does not have the discipline, he does not have the capacity to control himself and does not stay focused,” Homeland Security Chairman Peter King said of Newt Gingrich on CNN last night, becoming one of the first senior House Republicans to offer an unvarnished view of the former Speaker. If Gingrich were president, the Long Island Republican added, “The country and the Congress would be going through one crisis after another, and these would be self inflicted crises. You know there are enough crises in the world, without inflicting crisis on ourselves. Or again, I keep saying ‘putting himself at the center.’ The reason the Republicans lost the government shutdown debate with President Clinton in 1995, is because Newt gave the impression it was all about being made him being made to get off of the back of Air Force One. I mean, that’s how he puts himself at the center of everything.”

Quoted in the CQ/RollCall Daily Briefing, 12/8/11

You mean these republicans who have been playing footsie with democrats all these years have something disparaging about Newt Gingrich?

I don't see that as a particular drawback.

THE RESISTANCE
12-13-2011, 12:23 PM
If people go elsewhere it will be over, socialism will firmly take hold and our current system will be done.

IT IS ALREADY FIRMLY TAKEN OVER.

It just moves slower when Republicans are ...in....charge. Republicans not conservatives.

You have to look the whole country over starting at local and state levels before even attempting to go to national levels.

Socialism is not just government programs to "help" the down trodden. These are only to buy votes for socialism would never make it without that cost of "doing business".

Socialism is government ownership of business and property period. To make it seem less than that truth these socialist realize that to control business and property through regulation, laws, property ordinances, ect. achieves the same results. Duh!

Not only at the Federal , but in states and counties socialism is taking over on those lines and in many "conservative" states. It is Republicans that run those local and state governments that are pushing socialism as Karl Marx ghosts smiles, even laughing. That is happening accross the country as both Democrats and Republicans bring us closer to a controlled, less free society.

I live in South Carolina a conservative state in the county of Spartanburg . I frankly don't know if I could tell the difference if the Democrats were in charge of governments here locally on Spartanburg County Council or in the states General Assembly.

It is often that "elitist Republicans" are just as bad as "elitist Democrats". Which makes the Republicans worse for they arte suppose to be for Conservative, Founding principles.

THE RESISTANCE
12-13-2011, 12:35 PM
And Molon that cr*p for a" conservative" Graham is from my state. Where the Democratic State Chairman said why would we run someone against Graham(?) that they had the best Democratic candidate in him, Graham.

They gave "0" help to that conservative Democrat that ran against him last time. He got my vote. Cause I Know conservatives when I see them.

The whole lower part of the state is what got Graham elected , the cra* for Republicans , cra* for conservatives, and the Democrats themselves.

Rockntractor
12-13-2011, 12:56 PM
IT IS ALREADY FIRMLY TAKEN OVER.



Too late then, grab your dolly and go home.:confused:

Molon Labe
12-13-2011, 04:05 PM
Gingrich has peaked already.....Until Iowa and NH, he is on the downslide in polling. Steady decline until those dates.... Perry, Paul, Bachman, and Hunter are all surging again. He doesn't have this thing wrapped up by any means.

Then if he loses Iowa and NH he's done. Count on it.

Adam Wood
12-13-2011, 05:56 PM
Gingrich has peaked already.....Until Iowa and NH, he is on the downslide in polling. Steady decline until those dates.... Perry, Paul, Bachman, and Hunter are all surging again. He doesn't have this thing wrapped up by any means.

Then if he loses Iowa and NH he's done. Count on it.Duncan Hunter? Or did you mean Huntsman?

patriot45
12-14-2011, 12:57 AM
I don't support the Grinch....oops I mean the Gingrich!:( He proved in the Contract with America that he was a fraud!

But that said, anyone but the 0!