Gingrich soars to the top of the Republican field

Why do Cons think that their flavor-of-the-month candidate scares Libs?

Sarah...she scares 'em
Michelle...she scares 'em
Rick P...he scares 'em
Herman...he scares 'em
Newt...he scares 'em
Mitt (your future POTUS nom, btw)...not so much....

The real fear is with the R's: another 4 yrs of Obama. The Repcons "just lash out (at) him in every means possible" (birthergate, "Obamacare", "job killer", "class warfare", "race card", "tax raiser", "empty suit", "ignorant", "priviledged", "partisan hack", "socialist", "ultra liberal", "unAmerican", blah blah blah...) and have been doing so since he was sworn into office.

Not so much "sticks and stones" as much as the Democratically-controlled MSM vetting / outing / informing the public about the questionable ethics, poor decision-making both personal and jobwise, lack of knowledge / preparation to be Pres, and just downright goofiness of the current Republican candidates.
 
Gingrich has moved into a statistical tie with Romney in New Hampshire. As noted in a previous post, Gingrich has also taken a substantial lead in Iowa. Until just a few days ago, New Hampshire was supposed to be a mortal lock for Romney. Apparently not any more.
If Gingrich were to win Iowa and New Hampshire back to back, the race would be effectively over and Gingrich would have a clear path to the nomination.

Of course it is still six weeks until the Iowa caucuses and the media is going to be bringing all guns to bear on Gingrich for that entire time. If Gingrich can weather the storm....

In reply to:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Re Freddie Mac: Gingrich was supporting ----- my best guess was that Gingrich was hired to win some Republican support for Freddie ------ the very sort of program that he routinely excoriates. This sort of hypocrisy is astounding but, sadly, not unknown to Newt. After all, this was the guy who led the Republican Impeachment of Bill Clinton while having an extra-marital affair of his own
 
The stories suggesting that Newt Gingrich served divorce papers to his first wife who was dying of cancer are malicious and flatly untrue. In fact, it was his first wife who instigated the divorce proceedings. And she is in fact alive to this very day.And now these lies have even been rebutted by the left-leaning Washington Post:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Seeing the falsehood of these claims corrected and clarified is very threatening to you lefties, isn't it?

The central leftist talk point about Newt Gingrich is under attack and is now being shown for the malicious lie that it is. So now people will ask, if this is a lie, what other lies have these people been telling? How much of the allegations against Herman Cain are false? What about any new allegations against Newt Gingrich? They might be lies too, right? And it is right that they should ask these questions.

What a bunch of malicious liars the people are who continue to propagate these malicious lies even after these stories have clearly been established as untrue.
 
Funny thing is Newt is right on immigration. His position may not work for the far right, but it will work for moderates and then the 20% or so of the population that swings elections.

Way to early to tell, but he has a chance. Lots can change.

Be interesting to see if the usual suspects will still say Newt served divorce papers on his wife while she was dying in the hospital. Probably will.
 
Some pundits are saying Newt made a mistake by not bowing to the extreme right ring caucus in Iowa on immigration. Why should the rest of America let some extremists dictate who runs for president?

This happened not too long ago and it is currently a disaster.
 
I think Newt is trying to deal with reality. There are some people here illegally that we may actually want to stay and others anyway that would be very destructive to citizens to pull out.

Also, if you don't do something like this you only encourage people to go further underground and willing to do worse to stay in their "home". Meaning you encourage illegality, in another way. I don't think there is any perfect answer. It is going to be messy and fraught with complaints no matter what you do. But I support doing something practical rather than ignoring the issue.
 
Monahorns, that's about right. I'm conservative, and if choosing between talkers, I'd rather have the stronger anti-immigration speaker, but if choosing between actors, I'll take someone who can take us from where we are now to a significantly better place, even if it's a compromise. The "far right" as it's characterized here, probably feels just as I do; it's just that if your talking point is already watered down by compromise, the fear is that it has no chance to create any meaningful action when it goes up against the massive inertia of the issue.

So, if conservatives see Newt as someone who can actually DO things rather than just talk, then they'll accept his more (politically) realistic targets.

I have to admit, I haven't read this whole thread, so maybe I'm repeating what's been said, but the Contract With America time frame gave Newt Gingrich a lot of deep appreciation among conservatives; prior to the tea party, that was the last time fiscal conservatives had cohesion.
 
OK, I retract my statement. Newt divorced his wife who was undergoing treatment for cancer in favor of a younger staffer with whom he was having an affair, but the wife somehow survived both Newt and cancer.
I really don't care about politicians personal lives, and they shouldn't be an issue, but since the right's attack on Clinton put these things in play, I feel bound to mention them. Turnabout is fair play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top