Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Newt staying above the fray

    Newt staying above the fray

    Romney and Perry are doing each other and themselves damage by going at it in the way they have been, which at times seems childish, petty and insincere, which has even such mainstream commentators as John Podhoretz (A Pack of Nonsense) and Scott Johnson (Send in the Clowns) begging them to get serious.

    I still think this all benefits Newt more than anyone, the experienced adult in the room who is staying above the fray, refusing to be drawn in, and focusing on Obama as a way of setting himself apart from the GOP crowd.

    The “Lincoln-Douglass” style debate on November 5 should set Gingrich and Cain even further apart from the rest, but more important for Gingrich, it gives him the chance to eclipse Cain as the best not-Romney:

    Herman Cain is a terrific guy. He is a great talent. He has a terrific career. He has a good story to tell. He has some ideas I don’t agree with, but they’re big ideas – ‘999’ is a big idea.

    I’m in New Hampshire, where there is no sales tax. And I think the idea of a federal sales tax is not going to go over very well up here. But, nonetheless, it’s serious. I don’t have a goal of knocking anybody out. I have a goal of trying to attract people to look at big ideas and big solutions, look at a real track record, and over time, simply outgrow my friends, none of whom are my major opponent.

    In my mind, my major opponent is Barack Obama. And all these guys are friends of mine. They’re are smart people. And there is something you can learn from every single one of them. And Herman and I are going to have a great time in Houston on November 5, where they’re having a dialogue about entitlement reform based on Paul Ryan’s work.

    And I think people are going to find this surprisingly interesting and educational, but not necessarily hostile.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    BarbaraS | October 26, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    MAB

    I agree.


     
     0 
     
     0
    WarEagle82 | October 26, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    Newt may debate well but he doesn’t actually believe a word of what he says.

    Remember NY-23? The 2010 Delaware Senate race? Sofas with San Fran Nan? Piles of ethics charges? Multiple divorces? Multiple affairs? Attacks on Paul Ryan and his budget?

    And Newt has ENORMOUS BAGGAGE that will present Obama a nearly endless array of attack vectors.

    If Newt is the nominee I will be voting 3rd party again in 2012. I am simply done voting for LoTE candidates…


       
       0 
       
       0
      Cowboy Curtis in reply to WarEagle82. | October 26, 2011 at 8:35 pm

      Thanks for doing so last time around. Boy, it sure taught us all a lesson.


         
         0 
         
         0
        WarEagle82 in reply to Cowboy Curtis. | October 26, 2011 at 9:08 pm

        My conscience is clear. I exercised my freedom.

        If you don’t like the way I exercise my freedom then you may have more in common with Obama than you care to admit.

        And your voting for McCain got us where?


           
           0 
           
           0
          Cowboy Curtis in reply to WarEagle82. | October 26, 2011 at 9:25 pm

          I don’t object to your voting however you wish. I support you exercising your freedom as you see fit, as I hope you’ll support my exercise of mine in pointing out what a ridiculous pretense to virtue it is to vote for a non-entity that cannot and will not win. One of two people were, and ever could, win the last presidential election. Neither was ideal by any stretch, but one was certainly better than they other. Voting third party doesn’t wash your hands of anything other than the adult responsibility to make a distasteful choice for the good of your country. And lets be clear about something, these little Ron Paul cliques that vote third party and think they are sending a message to the republican establishment most certainly are, but not the one they intend. All they do is show that when the chips are down, these people are far to flighty and fringe to be relied upon, and that its better to court the middle. That faced with the prospect of the first truly socialist president of this nation, they chose to throw a temper tantrum rather than vote for the lesser of two evils. It accomplished nothing but self-marginalization.

          What did my vote for McCain get us? A legitimate chance, if unlikely, to head off the unmitigated disaster that an Obama administration would so clearly be. Did I like it? No. But I grit my teeth and pulled the lever, because some things are more important than my ego, anger, and desire to feel above it all just so I can cast blame on everyone else.


             
             0 
             
             0
            WarEagle82 in reply to Cowboy Curtis. | October 26, 2011 at 9:41 pm

            You are entitled to your opinion but McCain was never going to win. Just like Dole, McCain was the designated loser.

            Any distasteful choice you made did not going to benefit the country. McCain demonstrated time and time again he has no understanding of, or respect for, the US Constitution.

            I voted for an actual conservative and I will do so again when my other choices are “The Socialist” and “The Other Socialist.”

            I’ll vote for the Constitution Party again if I don’t like the GOP candidate. If we all stopped settling for “The Other Socialist” candidate we just might get something other than a socialist in the White House…


             
             0 
             
             0
            Owen J in reply to Cowboy Curtis. | October 26, 2011 at 10:02 pm

            @WarEagle82: I think you are misrepresenting history.

            McCain was very close to or ahead of Obama well into August 2008. When the first news of the impending collapse came out in mid-August, his numbers began to slip within a week. The media and members of congress hyped the news, believing it would help Obama — it did.

            When the bottom fell out in mid-Sept, McCain’s numbers went further down and he lost.

            McCain was not a “designated loser” who never had a chance. He had a decent chance until the economic news went against him. There has been a great deal of ignorant revisionist mythmaking about McCain to justify people’s emotional trauma over the loss.

            I understand why people want to do that, but it is unproductive and leads them to make stupid decisions in the future.

            If you want to help, learn from history — don’t rewrite it to make yourself feel better. In the end, you won’t.


           
           0 
           
           0
          garfman in reply to WarEagle82. | October 27, 2011 at 10:22 am

          You really have some facts wrong and your comments show you allow the liberal media to influence your voting. You mentioned Dole as the “designated loser”. With rounding to the nearest half million votes, consider the following: in 1996 Clinton 47 million, Dole 39 million and Perot 8 million. I want insult you by doing the math. In 1992 Perot got 18 million votes and insured a Clinton first term and arguably a subsequent second.

          You appealed to “a clear conscience” in most of your comments. Your implication is that someone who chooses to vote for the so-called L.O.T.E. can not have a clear conscious. That’s a patently absurd false premise. Anyone who votes is entitled to a clear conscience just by virtue of participating. Therefore, I would argue that the “wisdom” of a vote should be a higher ideal to strive for rather than a clear conscience.

          In the mean time we get stuck with liberal presidents who have a plurality verses majority win. I’m big on freedom but I would like to see some good ideas on restructuring party politics. Your “throw-away” or “send a message” votes don’t translate into policy changes that benefit you–we don’t have a parliamentary system. The Clinton years were excruciating for me and I blame Ross Perot and those who voted for him.

          Having said that I respect your right to vote for any legal candidate and would die for it.


             
             0 
             
             0
            WarEagle82 in reply to garfman. | October 27, 2011 at 8:21 pm

            Of course, I never said any such thing. Try responding to what I said instead of making something and responding to that…

            You appealed to “a clear conscience” in most of your comments. Your implication is that someone who chooses to vote for the so-called L.O.T.E. can not have a clear conscious.

    And voting third party will accomplish what exactly? Another term of The Won because you couldn’t find a reason to vote against him or for whoever the candidate is. Way to go!!


       
       0 
       
       0
      WarEagle82 in reply to MAB. | October 26, 2011 at 9:10 pm

      Voting my conscience gave me a clear conscience. That is what it accomplished.

      As I said, I exercised my freedom. If you don’t like the way I exercise my freedom then you may have more in common with Obama than you care to admit.

    Voting 3rd party is great if you hold gold and short the entire stock market. Obama has been great for my portfolio. Not so much for the rest of America.

    If the GOP doesn’t learn its lesson, I can keep shorting the market for another 4 years. The establishment might be slow learners, but I’m not.

    *note I didn’t vote 3rd party in 2008, but I sure as shit got out of the market the week of labor day 2008— you know around the time McCain demonstrated his wizardry at economic leadership.

    When your choices are dumb and dumber, better hide your gold and guns and run for cover.

    Yes, you exercised your freedom, you and how many others who might have meant the difference between what we have and perhaps something less destructive? Note, I had no illusions when it came to McCain. He was simply the lesser of two evils.

    As for your second statement about having more in common with Obama than I think — there is a world of difference, as there is no imposition of wills — no one forced you to vote third party.


       
       0 
       
       0
      WarEagle82 in reply to MAB. | October 26, 2011 at 9:29 pm

      I never said anyone forced me to vote 3rd party. Not sure where you got that. But I am done with the LoTE argument. The “lesser of two evils” still left you voting for evil. I voted for an actual conservative. As I said, my conscience is clear…


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend