http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/13/newt-gingrich-schools-cbss-pelley-killing-american-born-terrorists-ov
Gingrich would destroy Obama in a debate.
But I also don't think we will ever get to find out. Newt fill fall, too. It's going to be Romney.
that everyone else's lives have to be put at risk for your opinion.
If so, I don't get it. If Romney is the nominee, lives will be "put at risk?" How?
between Pelly (imagine that, a "moderator" engaging IN the debate as oppposed to moderating!!) and Newt.
Of course you are in agreement with Newt so Snow's comments are indeed of track. You can let him know you agree with Newt and that will settle that.
Perhaps he's been hitting the sauce and hit the wrong key.
you'd also be in the ACLU camp on whacking terrorist...lol.
And, in fact, I'm on the record here on several occasions in support of the killing of Al-Awlaki. And of course OBL before him.
I know, hyper defender of the Constitution that you are....hahaha
I never was a "strict constructionist" and love "activist judges." So it ain't to hard for me to believe that if someone has said he's going to try to kill you, it's OK to pop a cap in his ass at the first opportunity.
I know, I know, (___________) fill in the blank about whatever "personal baggage" he has. That does'nt mean shit in a debate about policy and you know it.
What Newt has and NO ONE else does is a claim to credit for the economic boom in the 90's that Clinton likes to take credit for. He will tell the OTHER SIDE of the story.
Since LIBBIES like to tout Clinton "ERA" policies, dontcha think it would be beneficial to have the House Majority Leader at the time tell HIS side of the story???
Newt would eat professor O'failure's lunch.
but his personal baggage is relevent, too. Also, I agree Newt would do well in a debate, but doubt he would eat Obama's lunch. I do hope Newt underestimates Obama as much as you do. I just think he's smarter than that.
in terms of the political media circus? I must confess to not being well studied on all of Newt's percieved personal failings.
I don't over estimate Obama's ability to distort his own record or shift blame to someone else. Nor do I underestimate his followers blind alligence to his messianic message.
Lets cut to the chase, leaving all the media political crap aside, who has the best record of economic progress under their watch, Newt or uhhhh, O'Failure?...lol
First of all, Newt was around in a different era and I give Clinton more credit than I give him for the strong economy then. I mean, if you're going to blame Obama for the economy now because he's Prez, you must give Clinton the credit back then. Otherwise, you've also got to blame Boehner and the House Republicans for today's economy. Unless, that is, you have a total double standard. Second, many of the seeds of the '08 financial collapse were sewn during Newt's watch as Speaker. Third, Obama inherited this situation and has done his best to fix it with relentless opposition from Republicans who don't care if their "just say no" approach is hurting the economy. Last, since September (and continuing today) the economic indicators are on the upswing. If the economy is strong a year from now, Obama will win no matter how well Newt does in the debates.
Republican held Congress with Clinton in White House. Obama held WH and DEMS held Congress.
The power equation is completely different therefore the blame allocation is different, understand?
Please stop with this O'failure line about Reps stifling Dems. It's one of those canard thingies. Sure, IF the economy ignites Obama will be a lock, but it won't. There is still way more shit to hit the fan. Obama had his chance at QE stimulus and pissed it away. That bullet CANT be fired untill the next crisis which will happen when EU implodes and budget reality hits here at home. Too much debt for there NOT to be another crash.
The Reps control the House and have done nothing to promote job creation. In fact, they've stymied everything Obama has tried to do, even when it was a program they've previously been in favor of.
As for the future, you seem awfully sure of yourself. Please go back and read the financial news for the past month. All indicators have been trending up, including today (see attached article). But like most Rep. supporters, it sounds like you actually WANT a bad economy so you can blame Obama for it.
As for a canard, you'll recall you asked for a French translation from me recently.
Reminder: it's "Baise un canard." Please do so immediately! LOL!
-- Modified on 11/15/2011 4:05:11 PM
dont try the DNC talking point that I WANT a bad economy. hell, i'd love a great economy even if it means listening to shithead another 4 years...i'd buy earmuffs.
Rather than enthusiastically back front runner Romney is VERY telling.
candidate whose "turn it is." They will surely support romney unless he fucks it up between now and the spring.
But at this point it is not easy to enthusiastically back a boring guy like Romney. But, when push comes to shove, they will. They do not want four more years of Obama.
Unfortunately, it is very likely that they will have to endure him for four more years.
And that is because so many evangelicals and Tea Partiers will sit on their hands if Romney is the nominee.
Democratic and Republican voters, and which ones will vote and won't vote regardless of the choices. I'm not talking about those voters that cross party lines, i.e. independents.
You do remember, Obama had to pull out all the stops to get college students, blacks, hispanics and other traditional Democrats to vote in 2008. He had people everywhere pushing, pleading, promising. He got a great turnout. It was the key reason he won. This time around I'm just not feeling it. I think the students will go back to their core competencies, i.e. drinking and fucking. Obama will obviously get 95% of the black vote and 60%+ of the Hispanic vote, but not in the same numbers as 2008. At the end of the day they just don't turn out to vote in the same numbers as other demographics.
What was the turnout in 2008? Something close to 60%? We'll be lucky to see a 50% turnout in 2012. I got a feeling inicky the evangelicals and Tea Partiers will trump the students, and minorities in turnout percentages.
-- Modified on 11/14/2011 9:31:32 PM
But the one thing I wouldn't discount is Obama's skill and ability when it comes to campaigning.
I do think you're right that turnout will be lower and many of the motivated Obama voters from '08 will stay home. But I also think that's true on the right. Look for a lot of ballot inititatives that play to right- and left-wing issues as a way both parties will motivate their voters to go to the polls, hoping they'll also vote for their candidate for POTUS. That's what Rove did brilliantly for Bush in 2004. He had state Republican parties put initiatives against gay marriage on the ballots of key states and it boosted the turnout for Bush.
But, in the end, if it's Romney vs. Obama I think O wins.
over how great Obama is doing.
Instead what we get is daily posts knocking everyone else.
The silence is VERY telling.
I don't think I've been silent. In fact, I produced a long defense of my pro-Obama position in response (I think) to pwilley a few days ago. I guess you missed it, though I don't require you to read all my posts because trying to do that would probably cause you to lose your job! lol! Then you'd blame your unemployment on Obama. lol!
that would make me a lib now would'nt it? or wage slave?
willy, talk about living on a different planet...where's my nailgun?
Though it might have been someone else. Do a little research and be careful not to nail yourself in the nuts with that nailgun. lol!
-- Modified on 11/15/2011 1:36:42 PM