3rdnlng Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Newt is able to communicate the Conservative POV much better than any of the other candidates, he has the ability to make some conservatives proud to be conservatives. Having said that, he is all show, he is disingenous, egomaniacal and tremendously undisciplined who has NO shot at beating Obama. Odds are that as a candidate he would make a few gaffes and the media would kill him. I sure would like to see him debate Obama though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) This is an intersting topic and I have some personal knowledge of it. I worked for the House Agriculture Committee as a low level staff assistant and background researcher when the leadership shifted from Democrat to Republican. Calista was added to be the office manager and scheduler under the leadership of then Chairman Pat Roberts now Senator Pat Roberts (KS). It was known that Calista was Gingrich's??? other woman back then and she had a pearl ring the size of my knuckle on her hand as evidence. She was always nice to everyone, but was written up in Roll Call as being "Handsome in a Capitol Hill Sort of Way" at the time the affair was exposed. She by and large kept to herself, but I don't know how to judge the Gingrich reactions to the press as anything other than politics and knowing the press would likely lead with the question. My only other thought about the whole deal is, was this a set up by Newt and the campaign to get him some attention as he saw his votes slipping away to Santorum. The old adage is even negative publicity can be good. It often hardens your supporters. Still an interesting moment. P.S. I still think Newt is a slimy devil who when dealing with you should always keep your hand on your wallet pocket. Edited January 21, 2012 by North Buffalo1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 ABC Exclusive: Gingrich Lacks Moral Character to Be President, Ex-Wife Says He's personally offended by your posting of this story. As a matter of fact he's disgusted. Lol I guess that gets him off the hook! Ouch. ABC Exclusive: Gingrich Lacks Moral Character to Be President, Ex-Wife Says Ouch. He's personally offended by your posting of this story. As a matter of fact he's disgusted. Lol I guess that gets him off the hook! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 He's personally offended by your posting of this story. As a matter of fact he's disgusted. Lol I guess that gets him off the hook! Newsflash! Newsflash! Troll posts 2 day old news. Fortunatley you don't post alot because what you do post is contrived and always bashing a conservative. You are like a gay guy pretending to be homophobic. Why don't you just come out of the closet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) Newsflash! Newsflash! Troll posts 2 day old news. Fortunatley you don't post alot because what you do post is contrived and always bashing a conservative. You are like a gay guy pretending to be homophobic. Why don't you just come out of the closet? Barack Obama is personally offended, no wait he's disgusted, that you accused him of being conservative since according to you that's all I "bash" lol. Now let's see all your posts "bashing" republicans? Edited January 21, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Barack Obama is personally offended, no wait he's disgusted, that you accused him of being conservative since according to you that's all I "bash" lol. Now let's see all your posts "bashing" republicans? What are you for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 What are you for? Ron Paul 2012 Now let's see all your posts "bashing" Republicans to show how "fair and balanced" you are ... 3X LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Now let's see all your posts "bashing" Republicans to show how "fair and balanced" you are ... 3X LOL So, you're one of those fanatics? Church of Paul, eh? He has some good points but ruins it with his off the wall schit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 The polls have Newt pulling away here at the end! Go Newt Go! http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/ppp-gingrich-leads-romney-by-in-sc-111709.html Gingrich's lead has actually increased in the wake of his ex-wife's controversial interview with ABC. Although one night poll results should always be interpreted with caution, he led the final night of the field period by a 40-26 margin. One thing that continues to work to his advantage are the debates. 60% of primary voters report having watched the one last night, and Gingrich has a 46-23 lead with those folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) So, you're one of those fanatics? Church of Paul, eh? He has some good points but ruins it with his off the wall schit. So you're into whoever the mainstream media serves up as acceptable Republican candidates. lol think for yourself much? But hey why bother when you can have Fox, CNN and NY Times do it for you? Woo hoo let's go attack Iran now ... they have a "bomb" from the same people who brought you Iraq's WMDs! Edited January 22, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 So you're into whoever the mainstream media serves up as acceptable Republican candidates. lol think for yourself much? But hey why bother when you can have Faux do it for you? Woo hoo let's go attack Iran now ... hurry turn on the TV, O'Reilly is going to the call the Pope "senile" again for opposing the war in Iraq and Hannity will say attacking them with the other conflicts we're in is as simple as "walking and chewing gum" again. Woo hoo, all time encores you won't want to miss! From the same people who told you Iraq had WMDs! Yes, Ron, let's rely on the free market for all our solutions....without actually asking ourselves how the free market got, or stays, that way. Or, as a more likely characterization of you, Michael Moore, let's pretend that oil is the reason people are terrorists. Their bastardization of their religion has nothing to do with it, and if we simply prance around the world apologizing for being good at our various jobs individually and as a whole, they will stop being terrorists. Hey I love the free market as much as Ron, but, is the free market going to make sure that the Straight of Hormuz stays open? Does the free market go over to countries who allow people to train to do ****ty things to lots of countries including ours, and kill them there, before they have a chance to pull their ****ty schit here? I acknowledge that fear of terrorism can be used for political gain. It's a valid point. I also acknowledge that hitting the wrong people can come back at us. That's a semi-valid point that has been distorted: nothing says those people wouldn't have become terrorists or supporters regardless. It doesn't help, but no one can say for certain what it does. But, does that mean terrorists and enemy nations like Iran don't exist? Didn't we hear that from Michael Moore, before there were 5 more attempted terror attacks and a planned assassination on our soil? Why the F are you listening to that proven idiot? Your valid points don't resolve the very real threats that terrorism poses to us. This is a lesser of 2 evils situation. We don't have the luxury of waiting until they come here and then arrest and try them in a civilian court. No, I said it right: it's a luxury. Are you willing to risk innocent people's lives for your luxury? I know, it's OK when it's other people's innocent lives, just like it's OK when it's other people's money, right? If you are serious about your position, then sure, you should be talking in terms of defense spending reductions, however, you then MUST also advocate for 3x the budget for the FBI, Homeland, etc., and you should be a big fan of the Patriot act, because those are the only tools that make your approach viable. Now, let me guess, you don't want that either, right? What else is left? Oh, that's right, the Free Market.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 So you're into whoever the mainstream media serves up as acceptable Republican candidates. lol think for yourself much? But hey why bother when you can have Fox, CNN and NY Times do it for you? Woo hoo let's go attack Iran now ... they have a "bomb" from the same people who brought you Iraq's WMDs! So, because I have a different opinion than you I'm being directed by other people? How come I have this feeling that you are actually this weazly little liberal pissant playing that you are something that you are not. Probably because your MO is just like a Conner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 So, because I have a different opinion than you I'm being directed by other people? How come I have this feeling that you are actually this weazly little liberal pissant playing that you are something that you are not. Probably because your MO is just like a Conner. Because you confirm it with your conviction that anyone who disagrees with your politics must be a "liberal" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Because you confirm it with your conviction that anyone who disagrees with your politics must be a "liberal" No, your body of work makes it hard for anyone to distinguish any difference from you and Pasta Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 You know who really has to be embarrassed over Newt's win last night? ABC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 You know who really has to be embarrassed over Newt's win last night? ABC. I doubt they are embarrassed at all. They have no reason to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 You know who really has to be embarrassed over Newt's win last night? ABC. Embarrassed? Why? It was counter-intuitive and the reaction was out of left field (then again, was there ever any doubt that Southerners don't like religions that are not Baptist / "Born Again" / "Evangelical" .... but make no mistake that many of the reporters and anchors in that outfit are privately high-fiving because they were part of reviving the primary campaign of someone who has probably a 15% shot at beating their man Obama. This would be like expecting HuffPost to sheepish if they had helped Christine O'Donnell out-primary Mike Castle. !@#$ that --- they'd be doing jumping jacks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I doubt they are embarrassed at all. They have no reason to be. Yes, they did Gingrich a giant favor by coming out with that question, especially at the beginning of the debate. They thought they were going to take him down and instead they gave him a big boost. So yes, they have something to be embarrassed about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Yes, they did Gingrich a giant favor by coming out with that question, especially at the beginning of the debate. They thought they were going to take him down and instead they gave him a big boost. So yes, they have something to be embarrassed about. It was in the news, which sucks, in itself. They would be doing themselves and him a disservice by not bringing it up. And by starting with that, it wasn't hanging over the debate. It is a shame that the whole thing is going on. If it was an issue, ot wouldn't have come out now, ot would have been brought up a long time ago. The villain here, is his ex wife, not the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) Yes, they did Gingrich a giant favor by coming out with that question, especially at the beginning of the debate. They thought they were going to take him down and instead they gave him a big boost. So yes, they have something to be embarrassed about. Just to be clear, CNN and Mr. King embarrassed themselves with elevating the debate question. Yes Adam, it was news and should be asked, but certainly not the first question. ABC were the ones hawking the ex-wife interview right before the voting, they should be embarrassed, but of course they aren't. Media Political Cartoon . Edited January 22, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts