How many listened to his speech after winning South Carolina tonight? I was very impressed. If he wins the election he intends to challenge Obama to 7 three hour debates and Obama can even have his teleprompter. No chance of course but I look forward to Obama's excuses.
I think that ABC collaberating with his ex-wife blew up in their faces and really gave Newt a big boost in So. Carolina. His take down of the ABC moderator to open the debate sealed it for him. Newt is a very smart man, his problem IMHO is that he has a hard time not coming off as an arrogant asshole and making off the cuff remarks that are not well thought out. But he does know how the govt works.
Good for South Carolina that they showed their conservative Christian colors with pride. But a Newt Gingrich presidential candidacy would be a disaster for the Republican party, similar to the Barry Goldwater candidacy in 1964. Is history doomed to repeat itself?
They said that about Reagan too. So without the mushroom cloud, what lie will the liberals pull out this time?
The Protestant Evangelical Christian Right is more myth than monster; at least in the Republican Party. Here is how the candidates finished today in Protestant; Christian; Evangelical South Carolina: 1. Newt Gingrich (Roman Catholic) 2. Mitt Romney (Mormon) 3. Rick Santorum (Roman Catholic) 4. Ron Paul (Protestant) Dropped out: Rick Perry (Protestant) John Huntsman (Mormon)
ABC is in league with the Liberal left as is every other main stream media outlet except FOX. The interview with the ex-wife was clearly timed and coordinated for its maximum effect; the intention was to finish off Gingrich at key moment in the campaign and with maximum visibility. Instead, it appeared to help him. I call it the "Clinton Phenomena". Men basically do not care. Particularly when everything in our nation is on the brink. We would vote for Meyer Lansky if he gave us to best chance to get out of this crisis and start re-building. Some women feel the same; some others are drawn to the bad boy persona; the guy who gets caught and looks you in the eye and says " is that all you got?" Romney projects a weak nature, in my view. His eyes always shift down when confronted, he tends to mumble his replies and he is killing himself with his refusal to produce his tax returns. he probably is perfectly legit yet his refusal casts a shadow since it has been made an issue. The best man for the job is not a candidate. Chris Christie.
Sorry cant vote for the man (Newt) would rather not vote at all... disgusted with it all..... its a sad day if the Republicans put him up as a candidate.
I agree and you can bet the Obama machine is tooling up to knock Newt to kingdom come if given the chance. As much as I wouldn't mind a moderate alternative such as Romney appears to be I am concerned that any GOP president-elect would succumb to far right pressures if elected and therefore would just be a trojan horse.
Huh? I wasn't, but I can see from my comments that you might draw that conclusion. My point was that IMO Newt is as ill-suited to be elected president in 2012 as BG was in 1964. I'm not trying to compare the specific traits of each man. Heck, I hardly remember BG's specific traits. I was 20 years old in 1964 and presidential politics were far down on my list of priorities. :wink: P.S. Just to be certain that you don't confuse my political views with Dave's, I want to affirm that my views are moderate (middle of the road, as some would say). In that respect, I'm as far away from Dave as I am from the conservative right, but I am open to both sides' points of views. Although I consider myself a Democrat, I consider Reagan the greatest president of my lifetime.
Don't disagree with that...but they DID say that about Reagan as well, so that part of the "comparison" works, methinks. FWIW I'm not a big Newt supporter.
Certainly you're not saying that the former speaker of the House doesn't have the experience to be president. Look at the complete lack of experience the current president had. Does his personal life bother you? Just because he's not a paragon of virtue like FDR, Kennedy, of Clinton doesn't make him "ill-suited" does it? Then there was his attempts to reach across the aisle. His commercial about global warming with Pelosi. Now if that's your objection, I can see it.
It might be useful at this point to review the 1994 Contract with America which Gingrich was a principal architect. Read it over and tell us just whih points you disagree with and why. Content of the Contract The Contract's actual text included a least of eight reforms the Republicans promised to enact, and ten bills they promised to bring to floor debate and votes, if they were made the majority following the election. During the crafting of the Contract, proposals were limited to "60% issues", i.e. legislation that polling showed garnered 60% support of the American people, intending for the Contract to avoid promises on controversial and divisive matters like abortion and school prayer. Reagan biographer Lou Cannon would characterize the Contract as having taken more than half of its text from Ronald Reagan's 1985 State of the Union Address. Government and Operational Reforms On the first day of their majority in the House, the Republicans promised to pass eight major reforms: require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress; select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse; cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third; limit the terms of all committee chairs; ban the casting of proxy votes in committee; require committee meetings to be open to the public; require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase; guarantee an honest accounting of the Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting. Major Policy Changes During the first one hundred days of the 104th Congress, the Republicans pledged "to bring to the floor the following [ten] bills, each to be given a full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote, and each to be immediately available for public inspection." The text of the proposed bills was included in the Contract, which was released prior to the election. These bills were not governmental operational reforms, as the previous promises were; rather, they represented significant changes to policy. The main included a balanced budget requirement, tax cuts for small businesses, families and seniors, term limits for legislators, social security reform, tort reform, and welfare reform. Implementation of the Contract The Contract had promised to bring to floor debate and votes 10 bills that would implement major reform of the Federal Government. When the 104th Congress assembled in January 1995, the Republican majority sought to implement the Contract. In some cases (e.g. The National Security Restoration Act and The Personal Responsibility Act), the proposed bills were accomplished by a single act analogous to that which had been proposed in the Contract; in other cases (e.g. The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act), a proposed bill's provisions were split up across multiple acts. Most of the bills died in the Senate, except as noted below. The Fiscal Responsibility Act An amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget unless sanctioned by a three-fifths vote in both houses of Congress (H.J.Res.1, passed by the US House Roll Call: 300-132, 1/26/95; rejected by the US Senate Roll Call: 65-35, 3/2/95, two-thirds required), and legislation (not an amendment) provide the president with a line-item veto (H.R.2, passed by the US House Roll Call: 294-134, 2/6/95; conferenced with S. 4 and enacted with substantial changes 4/9/96 [1]). The statute was ruled unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998) . The Taking Back Our Streets Act An anti-crime package including stronger truth in sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions (H.R.666 Exclusionary Rule Reform Act, passed US House Roll Call 289-142 2/8/95), death penalty provisions (H.R.729 Effective Death Penalty Act, passed US House Roll Call 297-132 2/8/95; similar provisions enacted under S. 735 [2], 4/24/96), funding prison construction (H.R.667 Violent Criminal Incarceration Act, passed US House Roll Call 265-156 2/10/95, rc#117) and additional law enforcement (H.R.728 Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act, passed US House Roll Call 238-192 2/14/95). The Personal Responsibility Act An act to discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by reforming and cutting cash welfare and related programs. This would be achieved by prohibiting welfare to mothers under 18 years of age, denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, and enacting a two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. H.R.4, the Family Self-Sufficiency Act, included provisions giving food vouchers to unwed mothers under 18 in lieu of cash AFDC benefits, denying cash AFDC benefits for additional children to people on AFDC, requiring recipients to participate in work programs after 2 years on AFDC, complete termination of AFDC payments after five years, and suspending driver and professional licenses of people who fail to pay child support. H.R.4, passed by the US House 234-199, 3/23/95, and passed by the US Senate 87-12, 9/19/95. The Act was vetoed by President Clinton, but the alternative Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act which offered many of the same policies was enacted 8/22/96. The American Dream Restoration Act An act to create a $500-per-child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle-class tax relief. H.R.1215, passed 246-188, 4/5/95. The National Security Restoration Act An act to prevent U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command unless the president determines it is necessary for the purposes of national security, to cut U.S. payments for UN peacekeeping operations, and to help establish guidelines for the voluntary integration of former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO. H.R.7, passed 241-181, 2/16/95. The "Common Sense" Legal Reform Act An act to institute "Loser pays" laws (H.R.988, passed 232-193, 3/7/95), limits on punitive damages and weakening of product-liability laws to prevent what the bill considered frivolous litigation (H.R.956, passed 265-161, 3/10/95; passed Senate 61-37, 5/11/95, vetoed by President Clinton [3]). Another tort reform bill, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was enacted in 1995 when Congress overrode a veto by Clinton. The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act A package of measures to act as small-business incentives: capital-gains cuts and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. Although this was listed as a single bill in the Contract, its provisions ultimately made it to the House Floor as four bills: H.R.5, requiring federal funding for state spending mandated by Congressional action and estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost more than $50m per year (for the years of 1996-2002[3]), was passed 360-74, 2/1/95. This bill was conferenced with S. 1 and enacted, 3/22/95 [4]. H.R.450 required a moratorium on the implementation of Federal regulations until June 30, 1995, and was passed 276-146, 2/24/95. Companion Senate bill S. 219 passed by voice vote, 5/17/95, but the two bills never emerged from conference [5]. H.R.925 required Federal compensation to be paid to property owners when Federal Government actions reduced the value of the property by 20% or more, and was passed 277-148, 3/3/95. H.R.926, passed 415-14 on 3/1/95, required Federal agencies to provide a cost-benefit analysis on any regulation costing $50m or more annually, to be signed off on by the Office of Management and Budget, and permitted small businesses to sue that agency if they believed the aforementioned analysis was performed inadequately or incorrectly. The Citizen Legislature Act An amendment to the Constitution that would have imposed 12-year term limits on members of the US Congress (i.e. six terms for Representatives, two terms for Senators). H.J.Res.73[6] rejected by the U.S. House 227-204 (a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority, not a simple majority), 3/29/95; RC #277. Other sections of the Contract Other sections of the Contract include a proposed Family Reinforcement Act (tax incentives for adoption, strengthening the powers of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and elderly dependent care tax credit) and the Senior Citizens Fairness Act (raise the Social Security earnings limit, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance). Non-implementation of the Contract A November 13, 2000 article by Edward H. Crane, president of the libertarian Cato Institute, stated, "...the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%."[4 Effects of the Contract Some observers cite the Contract with America as having helped secure a decisive victory for the Republicans in the 1994 elections; others dispute this role, noting its late introduction into the campaign.[citation needed] Whatever the role of the Contract, Republicans were elected to a majority of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1953, and several parts of the Contract were enacted. Some elements did not pass in Congress, while others were vetoed by, or substantially altered in negotiations with President Bill Clinton, who would later sarcastically refer to it as the "Contract on America."[5][6] As a blueprint for the policy of the new Congressional majority, Micklethwait & Wooldridge argue in The Right Nation that the Contract placed the Congress firmly back in the driver's seat of domestic government policy for most of the 104th Congress, and placed the Clinton White House firmly on the defensive. George Mason University law professor David E. Bernstein has argued that the Contract "show[ed]... that [Congress took] federalism and limited national government seriously," and "undoubtedly made [the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Lopez more viable."[7]
My feeling is that Congress does not want to see such reforms. It is not in their collective or individual best interests.
Newt has an early lead in Fla now and is on a roll. It's only a matter of time though IMHO till he steps on his crank. The media after getting a black eye in So.Carolina will now turn it up a notch to show the voters in Fla all his flaws, but Newt himself will be the most likely one to do himself in with some statement.