Dave_In_Norfolk Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 That interview with Fox news was a disaster. Amazing that Fox news was able to fluster him with the flip flop charge, but if they can, this guy is toast. Then Newt declares he will be the nominee today. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/gingrich-tells-abc-news-im-going-to-be-the-nominee/ And the polling seems to back old Newt up! TAPPER: “How do you respond to Republicans who say if you don’t draw distinctions with Mitt Romney and others who are attacking you, if you don’t point out their perceived vulnerabilities, Barack Obama and the Democrats sure aren’t going to share that same reluctance and you are doing Obama a favor by staying positive?” GINGRICH: “They are not going to be the nominee. I don’t have to go around and point out the inconsistencies of people who are not going to be the nominee. They are not going to be the nominee.” TAPPER: “You are going to be the nominee?” GINGRICH: “I’m going to be the nominee. It’s very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I’m going to be the nominee. And by the way I don’t object if people want to attack me, that’s their right. All I’m suggesting that it’s not going to be very effective and that people are going to get sick of it very fast. And the guys who attacked each other in the debates up to now, every single one of them have lost ground by attacking. So they should do what they and their consultants want to do. I will focus on being substantive and I will focus on Barack Obama.”
UConn James Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) Where do you see a fluster? In your dreams, perhaps. I'll grant 'annoyed' that the interviewer was trying to bait him into criticizing the NH Union-Leader. Annoyed that he's explained this crap how many times? In the last go-'round and again now? The interviewer said that Romney saw the Mass. health care law as a model for the nation is flat-out wrong. Romney never said that; Romney never said anything but the opposite... that the Mass. law worked for Mass. and would not work elsewhere or for the entire nation that has such disparate conditions among states WRT % uninsured (Mass. had 4% that was much more easily added to the fold than other states that are near 30% uninsured), their demographic and geographic particulars (Mass. has the highest per capita income in the country and is a small state with evenly spread health care access available; other states don't come close to those incomes and their resources are clustered). These and other differences are why Romney said from the outset of the Mass. law that it cannot be replicated elsewhere and that, in line with good ol' GOP states' rights, each state should do (or not do) what is right for each state. The reporter stepped in stevestojan with that assertion, and I really think it was just a hit piece. It was designed to misinform viewers and put the idea in their minds about something that never happened. I mean, FOX doesn't have to say "X was wrong. Mitt Romney never stated in 2007-8 that..." All they have to do is their little mantra, similar to their story headlines like "Obama Secretly Muslim?" or somesuch. It's a crap "news" organization and if they don't like someone, they will do their best to torpedo them with quarter-truths (or less) and get people to think the subject is something s/he is not or said something they didn't. And apparently, someone failed to inform Newt that a series of nominees have enjoyed their time in the sun / gotten their 15 minutes of fame. Doesn't mean it will last. Seems like many are intent on dating every other candidate before they marry the guy who's pretty much been the pigeon-hole pick for '12 since '08. Edited December 2, 2011 by UConn James
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted December 2, 2011 Author Posted December 2, 2011 Where do you see a fluster? In your dreams, perhaps. I'll grant 'annoyed' that the interviewer was trying to bait him into criticizing the NH Union-Leader. Annoyed that he's explained this crap how many times? In the last go-'round and again now? The interviewer said that Romney saw the Mass. health care law as a model for the nation is flat-out wrong. Romney never said that; Romney never said anything but the opposite... that the Mass. law worked for Mass. and would not work elsewhere or for the entire nation that has such disparate conditions among states WRT % uninsured (Mass. had 4% that was much more easily added to the fold than other states that are near 30% uninsured), their demographic and geographic particulars (Mass. has the highest per capita income in the country and is a small state with evenly spread health care access available; other states don't come close to those incomes and their resources are clustered). These and other differences are why Romney said from the outset of the Mass. law that it cannot be replicated elsewhere and that, in line with good ol' GOP states' rights, each state should do (or not do) what is right for each state. The reporter stepped in stevestojan with that assertion, and I really think it was just a hit piece. It was designed to misinform viewers and put the states rights? Ha ha, the individual mandate is still a mandate. How about h is flip flop on abortion?
IDBillzFan Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) How about h is flip flop on abortion? And what about his flip-flop on Gitmo? Wait. Wrong guy. What about his flip-flop on eliminating the Bush tax cuts? Wait. Wrong guy. What about his flip-flop on ending rendition of terrorists? Wait. Wrong guy. Oh, here's one. What about his flip-flop on ending military tribunals. Damn. Wrong guy again. Newsflash, Dave: the moment Obama accuses ANY opponent of flip-flopping, he's toast. But hey, Dave, keep doing that troll thing that you do so well. Edited December 2, 2011 by LABillzFan
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted December 2, 2011 Author Posted December 2, 2011 And what about his flip-flop on Gitmo? Wait. Wrong guy. What about his flip-flop on eliminating the Bush tax cuts? Wait. Wrong guy. What about his flip-flop on ending rendition of terrorists? Obama has to win the GOP nomination? Stop being an idiot!
IDBillzFan Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Obama has to win the GOP nomination? Stop being an idiot! Dave, if you're going to spend so much time being a troll, please at least put up SOMETHING of a fight, mmmkay?
Chef Jim Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Hey Dave. Any idea who was leading in the polls December four years ago? That's right, Rudy Guiliani. Who was second? Oh that's right, Fred Thompson. The eventual nominee was in third. Jon Huntsman.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted December 2, 2011 Author Posted December 2, 2011 Hey Dave. Any idea who was leading in the polls December four years ago? That's right, Rudy Guiliani. Who was second? Oh that's right, Fred Thompson. The eventual nominee was in third. Jon Huntsman. So it's Romneys time to fade away, ya? Thanks for making the very point this thread is all about. You didn't mean to, but you did
Chef Jim Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) So it's Romneys time to fade away, ya? Thanks for making the very point this thread is all about. You didn't mean to, but you did Romney's time to fade away? Who is leading on the polls!? That's right the guy you want to win the nomination. That's who is likely to fade. Edited December 2, 2011 by Chef Jim
B-Large Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Hey Dave. Any idea who was leading in the polls December four years ago? That's right, Rudy Guiliani. Who was second? Oh that's right, Fred Thompson. The eventual nominee was in third. Jon Huntsman. Huntsman would be my horse.... He just seems different than the other cadidates.... can't put my finger on it, but his interviews seems better prepared and he appears to not get into rhetoric battles as much.
Oxrock Posted December 3, 2011 Posted December 3, 2011 Huntsman would be my horse.... He just seems different than the other cadidates.... can't put my finger on it, but his interviews seems better prepared and he appears to not get into rhetoric battles as much. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h94iTnGQ0oI
OCinBuffalo Posted December 7, 2011 Posted December 7, 2011 youtube.com/watch?v=h94iTnGQ0oI I listened to that once, because I got an email from a client who thinks its hysterical. I will never listen to it again. Musical ability and training is both a blessing and a curse.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted December 7, 2011 Author Posted December 7, 2011 I think I was wrong, No way will Gingrich will stay on top to win the nomination
OCinBuffalo Posted December 7, 2011 Posted December 7, 2011 I think I was wrong, No way will Gingrich will stay on top to win the nomination Well, that's a start. Care to name anything else you were wrong about? How about The Surge in Iraq working? How about the distinct possibility that you are wrong about the above? How about the concept of putting your faith in Nancy Pelosi's ability to accomplish anything politically in the long-term? How wrong are you to think that Pelosi can take on Gingrich, and win, at anything? If I had what she supposedly has, do you think I would be dumb enough to blab about it BEFORE Gingrich was nominated? No, I'd wait until there was no going back, until after he was nominated, and then turn it loose... ...that is, unless I was scared pantsuitless of him actually winning the nomination, because I know he'd own me every day as President. Either she has nothing, or she is afraid of the Newt, or she's a moran that blew a perfectly good attack. Pick one, as those are the only logical conclusions available.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted December 7, 2011 Author Posted December 7, 2011 Well, that's a start. Care to name anything else you were wrong about? How about The Surge in Iraq working? How about the distinct possibility that you are wrong about the above? How about the concept of putting your faith in Nancy Pelosi's ability to accomplish anything politically in the long-term? How wrong are you to think that Pelosi can take on Gingrich, and win, at anything? If I had what she supposedly has, do you think I would be dumb enough to blab about it BEFORE Gingrich was nominated? No, I'd wait until there was no going back, until after he was nominated, and then turn it loose... ...that is, unless I was scared pantsuitless of him actually winning the nomination, because I know he'd own me every day as President. Either she has nothing, or she is afraid of the Newt, or she's a moran that blew a perfectly good attack. Pick one, as those are the only logical conclusions available.
OCinBuffalo Posted December 7, 2011 Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) "No reply. There's no reply at all. No reply at all". Sing it with me! Edited December 7, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted December 11, 2011 Author Posted December 11, 2011 "you lost to Teddy Kennedy, that's why you are not a career politician!" Biff!
GG Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 "you lost to Teddy Kennedy, that's why you are not a career politician!" Biff! Losing an election to a Kennedy in New England, let alone to Teddy in Mass is a slap down?
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 Losing an election to a Kennedy in New England, let alone to Teddy in Mass is a slap down? I think what Newt meant was that Rommey wanted to be a career politician, but failed in his attempt. God I'm responding to a DIN thread
/dev/null Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 I think what Newt meant was that Rommey wanted to be a career politician, but failed in his attempt. God I'm responding to a DIN thread And you responded to a thread started by the other Dave
Recommended Posts