|
Post by Ritty77 on Jan 9, 2012 23:19:48 GMT -5
Mr. Sarah (Todd) Palin has endorsed Newt!
So he's got that goin' for him.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Jan 10, 2012 14:13:27 GMT -5
Geez. It seems like Newt wants to run against Obama, as a DEMOCRAT. WTF!
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Jan 10, 2012 20:59:02 GMT -5
I must have missed that announcement. I have been overwhelmed with a rather large distraction lately but, I didn't realize I had the political side of my head in the proverbial sand.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Jan 10, 2012 21:17:59 GMT -5
Not literally. He's talking like a liberal; accusing Mitt of trying to make money instead of helping the workers.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jan 24, 2012 10:36:20 GMT -5
South Carolina Message By Thomas Sowell www.JewishWorldReview.com | Just days before the South Carolina primary, polls showed Mitt Romney leading Newt Gingrich. Then came the debates and the question about Gingrich's private life, which brought a devastating response from the former Speaker of the House — and a standing ovation from the audience. Apparently the television audience felt the same way, judging by the huge turnaround in the support for Gingrich. The stunning victory in South Carolina brought Newt's candidacy back to life. But the message from South Carolina was about more than a reaction to how Gingrich dealt with a cheap shot question from the media. Nor was it simply the Republican voters' response to Newt's mastery as a debater. The more fundamental message is that the Republican primary voters do not want Mitt Romney, even if the Republican establishment does — and it is just a question of which particular conservative alternative the voters prefer. The successive boomlets for Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain showed the Republican voter's constant search for somebody — anybody — as an alternative to Romney. The splintering of the conservative vote among numerous conservative candidates allowed Romney to be the "front-runner," but he never ran far enough in front to get a majority. Mitt Romney's supposed "electability" — his acceptability to moderates and independents — has been his biggest selling point. Moreover, he is just the kind of candidate that the Republican establishment has preferred for years: a nice, bland, moderate who offends nobody. This is the kind of candidate that is supposed to be the key to victory, no matter how many such candidates have gone down to defeat. If the bland and inoffensive moderate was in fact the key to victory, Dewey would have won a landslide victory over Truman in 1948, and John McCain would have beaten Barack Obama in 2008. Whomever the Republicans choose as their candidate is going to have to run against both Barack Obama and the pro-Obama media. Newt Gingrich has shown that he can do that. Romney? Not so much. Mitt Romney's fumbling when trying to answer the simple question of whether he would or would not release his income tax records is the kind of indecisiveness that is not going to cut it in a nationally televised debate with President Obama. Gingrich is not just a guy who is fast and feisty on his feet. He has a depth of understanding of what issues are crucial, experience in how to deal with them and — almost equally important — experience in how to shoot down the petty, irrelevant and "gotcha" distractions of the media. Does Gingrich have negative qualities? More than most. Wild statements, alienation of colleagues, reckless gambits. His use of the rhetoric of the left in attacking Bain Capital was a recent faux pas, though one that he quickly backed away from. But if we are serious — and there has seldom, if ever, been a time in the history of this nation when it was more necessary to be serious — then we cannot simply add up talking points for or against a candidate. What matters is how that candidate stands on issues that can make or break the future of this country. Polls show the public as a whole with more negative attitudes toward Gingrich than toward Romney. But negative opinions, like other opinions, are not set in stone. If the election campaign changes the opinions of a significant minority of the anti-Gingrich voters — when the alternative is Obama — it will not matter how much the remainder may hate Newt. Is this a gamble? The painful reality is that everyone in this year's field of Republican candidates is a gamble. And re-electing Barack Obama is an even bigger gamble. Whichever candidate the Republican voters finally choose from this year's field, they are bound to have reservations, if not fears. Gingrich's worst could be worse than Romney's worst, both as a candidate and as a president. But Gingrich's best is much better than Romney's best. Sometimes caution can be carried to the point where it is dangerous. When the Super Bowl is on the line, you don't go with the quarterback who is least likely to throw an interception. You go with the one most likely to throw a touchdown pass.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jan 24, 2012 11:14:01 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?tag=newt-gingrichThe Newtron bomb and plastic, fantastic Mitt Published January 23, 2012 | By Bruce McQuain Yesterday, on our podcast, Dale, Michael and I talked for quite some time about the significance of Newt Gingrich’s win in South Carolina. Does it foretell a Gingrich nomination? Probably not … or at least not necessarily. What it may signal, more than anything, is that the GOP voter doesn’t want some timid nominee who is mostly in a prevent defense mode. Or Mitt Romney as he has presently evolved. I was under the mistaken impression that the interminable debates were really not having much of an effect. The South Carolina debates and results changed that impression for me pretty dramatically. What Gingrich accomplished, with those two debates, was electorally remarkable. He literally changed the course of a primary that all the polls told us was Romney’s – and pretty comfortably too. The big question though is what does it all mean? After all there are many ways to interpret this primary result. Perhaps the biggest take-away may be that voters want a fighter. They’re tired of the apologies for what they believe. They want someone who is, as Michael described Newt, “unapologetic” about their conservatism. The question that then follows is, does that mean they want Newt? That’s actually a complicated question. Gingrich certainly was the choice in South Carolina after his “unapologetic” debate performances. But, per the polls, he wasn’t their choice prior to them. So has Newt suddenly become acceptable as a candidate or was it primary voters really expressing their dissatisfaction with the rest of the field and using Newt as their surrogate example of why? I frankly think it is the latter. Quin Hillyer described Newt as the “Bill Clinton of the right, half the charm and twice the abrasiveness”. If you’ve at all followed Newt Gingrich’s career you understand the truth of HIllyer’s description. Gingrich is, in political terms, a human hand grenade. In his previous life as a minority member of Congress, he was a designated bomb thrower. He has, many times in his career, managed to insert his foot in his mouth to such a depth that he’s killed the impetus of whatever good thing he had going at the time. However, in the South Carolina debates, he said what many conservatives have been longing to hear said. And he also did something that conservatives love – he smacked the mainstream media, not once but twice. But is that enough to carry him through the nomination process to victory? That’s the pregnant question. Will voters tire of him quickly? Will Romney again reinvent himself as a fighter for conservative values? One of the theories out there is that voters have factored Newt’s baggage into their calculations about the man and have decided, the hell with it. But Conn Carroll reminds us that for the most part, ‘America hates Newt Gingrich’. His negatives far outweigh his positives and he runs poorly against Obama. Of course, he was running poorly against Romney in South Carolina until a few days ago. The other question about Gingrich is can he manage to discipline himself enough to somehow avoid doing or saying something which would doom his run for the nomination and/or his candidacy should he win the nomination? My guess is, if there was a betting line established on that question, the odds wouldn’t favor Newt at all. Finally, there’s the question of how the big middle – the independent voter – will react to Newt. While he may, at least for the moment, satisfy conservative voters, they won’t win the election for the right. The premise of the Romney campaign, at least viewed from here, is that their primary goal must be to woo indies because, in their calculation, conservative voters will eventually come into the fold when it is clear that Romney is the inevitable nominee. I don’t think that calculation is necessarily wrong, but it is very unattractive to conservative voters. And what the Romney team doesn’t seem to understand is that these primaries, unlike the general election, are where political activists and conservatives are much more likely to show up than independent voters. And, of course, if you can’t get past the primaries, how acceptable you’ve made yourself to indies is really a moot point, isn’t it? So Florida just became a lot more interesting. As did the debates that are going to happen in the state. We should see at least some of the questions I’ve posed answered there, or at least be given a hint as to their eventual answer. Is Newt the one or will he eventually bomb. And will we see plastic fantastic Mitt Romney reinvent himself yet again in an attempt to defuse the Newtron bomb? All this and more, coming to a state near you soon. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Jan 30, 2012 14:08:12 GMT -5
I hear Newt ads against Romney on the local radio stations. PA's primary is April 24th. Seems like Newt's in it for all the long hall regardless of the FL outcome. He might do very well in Florida. It's "winner take all" in delegates there.
Got my Newt shirt today! Full steam ahead!
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Jan 30, 2012 14:55:10 GMT -5
A screenshot: ;D BUCHANAN: Reagan White House saw Newt 'political opportunist... not trusted'... HUNT: Gingrich May Be Trying to Win One From the Gipper... PALIN: 'Annoy A Liberal. Vote Newt!' CHUCK NORRIS BATTLES FOR GING... George Will: 'We're At The Horrid Stage'... Gingrich: Romney 'Breathtakingly Dishonest'... 'Pro-abortion, pro gun-control, pro tax-increase'... Tells Fla. voters Mitt's not kosher... PREDICTS 5 MORE MONTHS OF THIS... Threatens to nix reporters from future debates... Romney Mocks Gingrich: 'Look in the mirror'... POLLS, POLLS, POLLS... Go Newt!
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Jan 30, 2012 18:20:14 GMT -5
If Rassmussen Reports is correct, and he usually is, Newt's gonna get crushed in FL.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jan 31, 2012 8:20:15 GMT -5
The Republican establishment is smearing Gingrich By Thomas Sowell www.JewishWorldReview.com | The Republican establishment is pulling out all the stops to try to keep Newt Gingrich from becoming the party's nominee for President of the United States -- and some are not letting the facts get in their way. Among the claims going out through the mass media in Florida, on the eve of that state's primary election, is that Newt Gingrich "resigned in disgrace" as Speaker of the House of Representatives, as a result of unethical conduct involving the diversion of tax-exempt money. Mitt Romney is calling on Gingrich to release "all of the records" from the House of Representatives investigation. But the Wall Street Journal of January 28, 2012 reported that these records -- 1,280 pages of them -- are already publicly available on-line. Although Speaker Gingrich decided not to take on the task of fighting the charge from his political enemies in 1997, the Internal Revenue Service conducted its own investigation which, two years later, exonerated Gingrich from the charges. His resignation was not due to those charges and occurred much later. Do the Romney camp and the Republican establishment not know this, a dozen years later? Or are they far less concerned with whether the charges will stand up than they are about smearing Gingrich on the eve of the Florida primaries? There are also charges made about what Congressman Gingrich said about Ronald Reagan on March 21, 1986. But this too is a matter of public record, since his remarks are available in the Congressional Record of that date, so it is remarkable that there should be any controversy about it at this late date. On that date, Gingrich praised Reagan's grasp of the foreign policy issues of the day but later questioned whether the way the actual policies of the Reagan administration were being carried out was likely to succeed. Gingrich was not alone in making this point which such conservative stalwarts as George Will, Charles Krauthammer and others made at the time. Since a column of my own back in the 1980s suggested that the administration's policies seemed to be to "speak loudly and carry a little stick," I can well understand the misgivings of others. But that is wholly different from saying that all who expressed misgivings were enemies of Ronald Reagan. One can of course lift things out of context. But if you want to read the whole context, simply go on-line and get the Congressional Record for March 21, 1986. Among the other places where the smears are exposed are the Wall Street Journal of January 29th, Jeffrey Lord's article in the American Spectator's blog of January 27th, and an article by Heather Higgins in Ricochet.com of January 29th. Unfortunately, there are likely to be far more people who will see the smears than will have time to get the facts. But, if nothing else, there needs to be some understanding of the reckless accusations that have become part of the all-out attempt to destroy Newt Gingrich, as so many other political figures have been destroyed, by non-stop smears in the media. Gingrich is by no means above criticism. He has been criticized in this column before, over the years, including during the current primary season, and he will probably be criticized here again. But the poisonous practice of irresponsible smears is an issue that is bigger than Gingrich, Romney or any other candidate of either party. There have long been reports of people who decline to be nominated for federal judicial appointments because that means going before the Senate Judiciary Committee to have lies about their past spread nationwide, and the good reputation built up over a lifetime destroyed by politicians who could not care less about the truth. The same practices may well have something to do with the public's dissatisfaction with the current crop of candidates in this year's primaries -- and in previous years' primaries. Character assassination is just another form of voter fraud. There is no law against it, so it is up to the voters, not only in Florida but in other states, to punish it at the ballot box -- the only place where punishment is likely to stop the practice.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Jan 31, 2012 20:40:52 GMT -5
Romney is Obama lite. A teleprompter for a campaign victory speech. Sigh.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Feb 2, 2012 21:58:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Feb 5, 2012 9:51:10 GMT -5
Two more delegates for Newt!
Tampa or bust!
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Feb 5, 2012 16:32:38 GMT -5
Why Gingrich's Tax Plan Beats Romney'sNewt's flat tax would do a lot more to attract capital, spur growth and reduce compliance costs.By ARTHUR B. LAFFER JANUARY 31, 2012 online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204652904577192660439187438.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTopIf we judge both leading contenders in the Republican primary, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, by what they've done in life and by what they propose to do if elected, either one could be an excellent president. But when it comes to the election's core issue—restoring a healthy economy— the key is a good tax plan and the ability to implement it.Mr. Gingrich has a significantly better plan than does Mr. Romney, and he has twice before been instrumental in implementing a successful tax plan on a national level—once when he served in Congress as a Reagan supporter in the 1980s and again when he was President Clinton's partner as speaker of the House of Representatives in the 1990s. During both of these periods the economy prospered incredibly—in good part because of Mr. Gingrich. Jobs and wealth are created by those who are taxed, not by those who do the taxing. Government, by its very nature, doesn't create resources but redistributes resources. To minimize the damages taxes cause the economy, the best way for government to raise revenue is a broad-based, low-rate flat tax that provides people and businesses with the fewest incentives to avoid or otherwise not report taxable income, and the least number of places where they can escape taxation. On these counts it doesn't get any better than Mr. Gingrich's optional 15% flat tax for individuals and his 12.5% flat tax for business. Each of these taxes has been tried and tested and found to be enormously successful. Hong Kong, where there has been a 15% flat income tax on individuals since 1947, is truly a shining city on the hill and one of the most prosperous cities in history. Ireland's 12.5% flat business income tax propelled the Emerald Isle out of two and a half centuries of poverty. Mr. Romney's tax proposals—including eliminating the death tax, reducing the corporate tax rate to 25%, and extending the current tax rates on personal income, interest, dividends and capital gains—would be an improvement over those of President Obama, but they don't have the boldness or internal integrity of Mr. Gingrich's personal and business flat taxes. Imagine what would happen to international capital flows if the U.S. went from the second highest business tax country in the world to one of the lowest. Low taxes along with all of America's other great attributes would precipitate a flood of new investment in this country as well as a quick repatriation of American funds held abroad. We would create more jobs than you could shake a stick at. And those jobs would be productive jobs, not make-work jobs like so many of Mr. Obama's stimulus jobs. Tax codes, in order to work well, require widespread voluntary compliance from taxpayers. And for taxpayers to voluntarily comply with a tax code they have to believe that it is both fair and efficient. Fairness in taxation means that people and businesses in like circumstances have similar tax burdens. A flat tax, whether on business or individuals, achieves fairness in spades. A person who makes 10 times as much as another person should pay 10 times more in taxes. It is also patently obvious that it is unfair to tax some people's income twice, three times or more after it has been earned, as is the case with the death tax. The current administration's notion of fairness—taxing high-income earners at high rates and not taxing other income earners at all—is totally unfair. It is also anathema to prosperity and ultimately leads to the situation we have in our nation today. In 2012, those least capable of navigating complex government-created economic environments find themselves in their worst economic circumstances in generations. And the reason minority, lesser-educated and younger members of our society are struggling so greatly is not because we have too few redistributionist, class-warfare policies but because we have too many. Overtaxing people who work and overpaying people not to work has its consequences.On a bipartisan basis, government has enacted the very policies that have created the current extremely uneven distribution of income. And then in turn they have used the very desperation they created as their rationale for even more antibusiness and antirich policies. As my friend Jack Kemp used to say, "You can't love jobs and hate job creators." Economic growth achieved through a flat tax in conjunction with a pro-growth safety net is the only way to raise incomes of those on the bottom rungs of our economic ladder. When it comes to economic efficiency, nothing holds a candle to a low-rate, simple flat tax. As I explained in a op-ed on this page last spring ("The 30-Cent Tax Premium," April 18), for every dollar of net income tax collected by the Internal Revenue Service, there is an additional 30¢ paid out of pocket by the taxpayers to maintain compliance with the tax code. Such inefficiency is outrageous. Mr. Gingrich's flat taxes would go a lot further toward reducing these additional expenses than would Mr. Romney's proposals. Mr. Gingrich's tax proposal is not revenue-neutral, nor should it be. If there's one truism in fiscal policy, it's this: Wasteful spending will always rise to the level of revenues. Whether you're in Greece, Washington, D.C., or California, overspending is a prosperity killer of the first order. Mr. Gingrich's flat tax proposals—along with his proposed balanced budget amendment—would put a quick stop to overspending and return America to fiscal soundness. No other candidate comes close to doing this. Mr. Laffer, chairman of Laffer Associates, is co-author with Stephen Moore of "Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status" (Threshold, 2010).
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Feb 6, 2012 7:15:19 GMT -5
Excellent article. I still cannot understand what other republicans see in Mitt Romney.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Feb 6, 2012 13:40:14 GMT -5
I’m solidly in the anybody but Obama camp.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Feb 6, 2012 16:10:55 GMT -5
I’m solidly in the anybody but Obama camp. That's for sure! I agree, Todd, but Mitt polls a lot better v Obama for some reason. It seems to me that Mitt fits exactly into Obama's class warfare argument. Obama will have the OWS crowd whipped into a lather, but they're likely to make even bigger fools of themselves as the weather warms and the conventions are held. Hard to see Newt making another run, but it's possible, and he would be harder to pin as a one-percenter. If Santorum is the nominee, the Leftists will switch attack modes and paint him as "extreme." One thing I know, by the time the election nears, right-leaning voters will pick right up where they left off in 2010. We're just waiting patiently.
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Feb 6, 2012 21:25:33 GMT -5
If you can believe some of the polls, Obama is taking a pretty commanding lead over Mitt. If Mitt is the nominee, I'll bvote for him. But...I will be wishing for anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Mar 6, 2012 22:11:18 GMT -5
Super Tuesday pundits and media fawning over Mitt. He won Vermont, Mass (basically his home areas) and Virginia (where just he and Paul were on the ballot). Hardly a strong showing.
Still waiting for Ohio and the western states.
Mitt's the front runner, but about as weak of one as you can get.
GO NEWT!
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Mar 7, 2012 17:32:40 GMT -5
I read where Sara Palin voted for Newt in the AK primary.
|
|