Nah, just kidding. This guy seriously needs an attitude adjustment. I'm amazed that the woman in the video was able to keep her composure the way she was. Take a listen if you want to risk your head exploding:
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Pelosi Doesn't Have Much of a Poker Face, Despite all That Expression Freezing Botox of Hers...
So now that Newt has apparently become a threat to the plans of our newly elected King Barack The First (and, one hopes, only), that Nancy McBotox Pelosi has decided it's time to take off the kid gloves and get down to the nitty gritty of dirty pool politics. Or not. A while back, just after Newt announced he was running, if memory serves, Nance said point blank that she has "something" on Newt that will "insure he will never be president." Some of my readers might remember Newt's first response to this, when Gingrich called it an "early Christmas gift" due to its being a flagrant disregard and violation of the House Rules of Conduct. I don't know the House rules by heart, but in my view, any one who uses dirty tricks for the sake of taking down someone who disagrees with you belongs in the "I"m a scumbag" category of humanity. I think we all know that the leader of the most ethical congress in American history belongs quite nicely in that little niche, don't we?
Below is the video of Pelosi putting out her supposed carrot, hoping that gullible GOP voters will take the bait and abandon Newt in droves on the word of someone who never seems to be able to ttop smiling like the Joker on a Meth high. You, loyal readers, be the judge and tell me: Is Newt really in trouble or is Pelosi just whistling past the graveyard in an attempt at making things seem safe and sound for Democrats come Super Tuesday?
For my part, I say she's bluffing, and she has a major tell. Note in the first few seconds that all she says, in kind of a manic sounding voice, in my opinion, is that "it's not going to happen." How does she know? Nance here thought the Democrats would keep control of the House in 2010, if I'm not mistaken. In short, I'm thinking she's more wrong here than a Lousianna fortune teller. And apparently so does Newt:
Below is the video of Pelosi putting out her supposed carrot, hoping that gullible GOP voters will take the bait and abandon Newt in droves on the word of someone who never seems to be able to ttop smiling like the Joker on a Meth high. You, loyal readers, be the judge and tell me: Is Newt really in trouble or is Pelosi just whistling past the graveyard in an attempt at making things seem safe and sound for Democrats come Super Tuesday?
For my part, I say she's bluffing, and she has a major tell. Note in the first few seconds that all she says, in kind of a manic sounding voice, in my opinion, is that "it's not going to happen." How does she know? Nance here thought the Democrats would keep control of the House in 2010, if I'm not mistaken. In short, I'm thinking she's more wrong here than a Lousianna fortune teller. And apparently so does Newt:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Let the Anti-Newt Barrage Continue
Let me just begin by saying I have about as much trust for the media as a housefly does for a frog. This statement can only be reinforced by the recent development being touted by Matt Drudge and Hotair, and I'm sure there are several dozen other media outlets piping it on their propaganda speakers as well.
I'm speaking of course, of Newt's supposed threat to back out of the rest of the debates if the audience is not allowed to cheer. Let me be clear here. In the video wherein Newt actually addresses the point of the moderators asking that the audience hold their applause until commercial breaks, Newt does not say anything about quitting. What he said was that he didn't appreciate and would not condone such acts by media moderators. A perfectly reasonable response, in my view, given Newt's tendency not to beat around the bush about such things. Unfortunately his choice of words and the pandering of the media outlets to the Stop Newt campaign have taken this theme and run with it. It remains to be seen if any of this will affect the outcome of Florida's primary. Romney appears to have, in a last ditch effort to regain his lead among Sunshine State voters, given this meme more than a little airtime himself. Via Legal Insurrection:
Here’s how CNS transcribed the segment (h/t Gateway Pundit):
I'm speaking of course, of Newt's supposed threat to back out of the rest of the debates if the audience is not allowed to cheer. Let me be clear here. In the video wherein Newt actually addresses the point of the moderators asking that the audience hold their applause until commercial breaks, Newt does not say anything about quitting. What he said was that he didn't appreciate and would not condone such acts by media moderators. A perfectly reasonable response, in my view, given Newt's tendency not to beat around the bush about such things. Unfortunately his choice of words and the pandering of the media outlets to the Stop Newt campaign have taken this theme and run with it. It remains to be seen if any of this will affect the outcome of Florida's primary. Romney appears to have, in a last ditch effort to regain his lead among Sunshine State voters, given this meme more than a little airtime himself. Via Legal Insurrection:
Here’s how CNS transcribed the segment (h/t Gateway Pundit):
“And we’re going to serve notice on future debates, we won’t (mumble), we’re just not going to allow that to happen. That’s wrong. The media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to. It was almost silly.”
The claim that Newt threatened to pull out of future debates, at least if this video is the proof, is a fabrication of The NY Times being hyped by Drudge.
To the contrary, if I were Newt and the network set such rules, I’d show up and in my opening announce that the audience does not need to obey the network, and invite the others on stage to join him. Is there any candidate who would not go along?
I have to agree with that sentiment. I haven't yet watched the debate, but all reports I've heard so far are Newt has lost said debate because of apparently falling into a bit of a trap regarding disclosure. More on that as I learn of it.
To end, here's my boy Newt's stance on an issue I thought long dead: The Ground Zero Mosque:
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Tortoise and the Hare: Is Romney's new Status as a Giant With Clay Feet due to Early Overconfidence?
So soon after South Carolina, Romney, whose nomination was once thought inevitable, is now beginning to crumble due to his lackluster performance in which he flubbed the chance to come clean about his tax returns in addition to giving an overall decidedly ho-hum performance, especially when compared to Newt Gingrich and his confident lambasting of John King and the media in general, as well as his far more confident display of his record while serving as Speaker of the House. Santorum made a decent showing, even if it was too little too late to go on the offense for him, at least in my view.
Regardless, it would seem that everyone and their brother has decided that Romney is now in a less than tenable position regarding his campaign, as if that wasn't obvious by the stomping Newt gave him last week. Still, it would seem that the only ones who don't yet know that Newt has pulled ahead is the Romney campaign themselves. Or perhaps they do know it, since Romney has now been backed into a corner and forced to actually commit to the Florida debates, something he had initially declined to do while he was so far ahead. To be perfectly honest, in this climate now, Romney has to enter damage control mode immediately, and entering into the debates is the most immediate way, aside from an ad blitz that will likely hit Florida in the coming days, as well as is concession speech, in which he needled Newt without actually mentioning him by name.
The question of whether or not this will help is certainly in doubt. Mitt had a big lead in Florida prior to SC, but now things seem to have turned around, if this article is any indication. Though even with the prep work Romney has done to shore up his defenses and prepare to go on the attack in the Sunshine State, this particular political junkie believes that it might not be enough. Then again, Newt could have another moment where he squanders his momentum. Call me optimistic, but I don't think that'll happen. Newt is a man who learns from his mistakes, as far as I can tell, and I think he's learned well from this one.
Still, Mitt has an uphill battle ahead of him now whereas before it seemed to be a lock. Even now on Twitter, the first pre-debate polls have been released and it's not looking good for the governor. Gingrich appears to be enjoying a nine point lead. It appears that Mittens may have to take off the kid gloves if he has a hope of winning back the senior citizen/retiree demographic.
Regardless, it would seem that everyone and their brother has decided that Romney is now in a less than tenable position regarding his campaign, as if that wasn't obvious by the stomping Newt gave him last week. Still, it would seem that the only ones who don't yet know that Newt has pulled ahead is the Romney campaign themselves. Or perhaps they do know it, since Romney has now been backed into a corner and forced to actually commit to the Florida debates, something he had initially declined to do while he was so far ahead. To be perfectly honest, in this climate now, Romney has to enter damage control mode immediately, and entering into the debates is the most immediate way, aside from an ad blitz that will likely hit Florida in the coming days, as well as is concession speech, in which he needled Newt without actually mentioning him by name.
The question of whether or not this will help is certainly in doubt. Mitt had a big lead in Florida prior to SC, but now things seem to have turned around, if this article is any indication. Though even with the prep work Romney has done to shore up his defenses and prepare to go on the attack in the Sunshine State, this particular political junkie believes that it might not be enough. Then again, Newt could have another moment where he squanders his momentum. Call me optimistic, but I don't think that'll happen. Newt is a man who learns from his mistakes, as far as I can tell, and I think he's learned well from this one.
Still, Mitt has an uphill battle ahead of him now whereas before it seemed to be a lock. Even now on Twitter, the first pre-debate polls have been released and it's not looking good for the governor. Gingrich appears to be enjoying a nine point lead. It appears that Mittens may have to take off the kid gloves if he has a hope of winning back the senior citizen/retiree demographic.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Newt Wins South Carolina! What's Next for the Former Speaker?
Well, the results are in boys and girls. It looks like Newt has carried South Carolina, according to Twitter, Hot Air, FiveThirtyEight and CBS News. All are different mediums, but they all say the same thing. Newt has won the day. We now, interestingly enough, have a three way tie between three candidates in as many states. Santorum won Iowa, Romney won New Hampshire, and now Newt has won SC after the pundits and talking heads continued to squawk about how Romney would be the inevitable nominee and we should all just bend over and take it like good little sheep. Well, the pundits all showed just how much they knew about who is and is not electable. After an early muck up in Iowa, it seems Newt has the momentum he needs to really give Romney a run for his money.
What's interesting is watching the different takes on what it means now that Newt has won. The next stop of course is Florida, where until recently Romney had an insurmountable lead against his now chief rival. FiveThirtyEight holds that things will be much more difficult for the former Governor than they were before, since the poll data that determined Romney's lead was factoring in a possible Gingrich defeat in the Palmetto State.
CBS News, on the other hand, shies away from predicting the future and simply states the facts. Newt won, end of story. Probably a good idea since no one really knows what will happen with Newt now that he's in a position to go all the way.
Hot Air appears to have liveblogged the entire event, with regular updates leading all the way up to Newt's victory. Allahpundit comments on Twitter that Newt won over most every demographic in the state, most of whom were for Romney up until debate night. Apparently someone doesn't think much of scoring a come from behind victory based on two debates, calling us the U.S. of American Idol.
Romney's boys appear to have seen the writing on the wall early, if this photo is any indication. Tough luck, guys.
Here's the actual exit poll information via New York Times for all those interested.
And that's the skinny, boys and girls. And next on the list? Florida. Onward and upward. If Newt pulls a win there, perhaps it'll be the first time since Reagan's inauguration that it will well and truly be "morning in America". What better place to usher in a new Conservative dawn than the Sunshine State, I ask you?
What's interesting is watching the different takes on what it means now that Newt has won. The next stop of course is Florida, where until recently Romney had an insurmountable lead against his now chief rival. FiveThirtyEight holds that things will be much more difficult for the former Governor than they were before, since the poll data that determined Romney's lead was factoring in a possible Gingrich defeat in the Palmetto State.
CBS News, on the other hand, shies away from predicting the future and simply states the facts. Newt won, end of story. Probably a good idea since no one really knows what will happen with Newt now that he's in a position to go all the way.
Hot Air appears to have liveblogged the entire event, with regular updates leading all the way up to Newt's victory. Allahpundit comments on Twitter that Newt won over most every demographic in the state, most of whom were for Romney up until debate night. Apparently someone doesn't think much of scoring a come from behind victory based on two debates, calling us the U.S. of American Idol.
Romney's boys appear to have seen the writing on the wall early, if this photo is any indication. Tough luck, guys.
Here's the actual exit poll information via New York Times for all those interested.
And that's the skinny, boys and girls. And next on the list? Florida. Onward and upward. If Newt pulls a win there, perhaps it'll be the first time since Reagan's inauguration that it will well and truly be "morning in America". What better place to usher in a new Conservative dawn than the Sunshine State, I ask you?
Mitt Romney Collapsing in SC?
So much for the inevitable rise and election of Mitt Romney. If indications in South Carolina are any indication, Mitt seems to be a giant whose clay feet have at last been revealed, and are beginning to suffer being chipped away little by little as Newt rises to overtake him. The Other McCain has more. Check it out.
Thursday's Debate: An Analysis of South Carolina one Candidate at a Time
I'm two days late with this, but that's only because as of this writing, I have literally just finished watching my TiVoed recording of the South Carolina debate between the remaining candidates.
We began the primary season with seven candidates. A Minnesota Congresswoman, a CEO, a former Speaker of the House, a former Governor, a current Congressman, and a former Senator. Now,with the developments happening as they have, we have been reduced to four. Herman Cain was ousted after sexual harassment charges proved he didn't have what it took to stand against the smear machine that attacks all candidates that go through this process. Michelle Bachmann shot herself in the foot with her Gardasil comments, but was really taken out of the running when Rick Perry came in blustering about how he was the ideal "Not Romney".
Now we are left with four: The Speaker, the Senator, the Congressman, and the former Governor. Each of these has, whether through luck or skill, has proven that they have staying power of some kind or another. As regular readers know, I've thrown my support, meager as it is, behind Newt Gingrich in the event of losing both Bachmann and Cain. Each of the candidates in the SC debate gave a strong showing, in my opinion. Even Ron Paul, who normally comes off as naive on foreign policy, seems to have gained some footing this time around, though that may have largely been due to the fact that the moderator, John King of CNN, stuck mostly to domestic policy questions with Paul, where admittedly he shines, but more on him later.
First, let's start with what was clearly the highlight of the debate, Newt's utter lambasting of John King for bringing up the recent interview ABCInformer held with his ex-wife Marrianne. I posted the video of the exchange in my last post, and have to admit that every time I see it, I get a tingle. Now, don't go comparing me to Chris Matthews or anything. I'm well aware of Newt's foibles, but when any politician does what he did there, standing up against the unmitigated gall of the MSM to bring personal information to bear in a presidential debate against a conservative contender for president while at the same time actively protecting Barack Obama from so much as the slightest bit of honest criticism about his record. Many are saying that that response won Newt the debate, and I was initially inclined to agree with them until I realized I was letting my support for Newt blind me to the other candidates' responses to the questions being asked.
Governor Romney did well for himself, though there were some awkward moments when the question of tax returns came up. When asked point blank by King whether or not he would release the returns, he said specifically "when my taxes are done for this year, then I'll release them." This was after a bit of wishy-washy flip-flop sounds coming out of his mouth as he attempted to dodge the issue. Makes me wonder why he's waiting. Could he have something to hide? Or does he just not want to deal with the hassle of filing taxes while he's running for the highest office in the land? I don't know, and only time can answer that riddle.
Rick Santorum FINALLY went on the offense in the debate, blasting the other candidates on all things from tax policy to abortion. His strongest argument, I believe, was when he spoke out as the only "truly pro-life" candidate in the race. This, I think, was Santorum finally flashing his social conservative cred in the hopes of getting the same kind of support he had in Iowa. It may or may not work, but if it doesn't Santorum will have to reconsider his run for the White House and back either Gingrich or Romney. But what does that mean, "truly pro-life"? Does it mean that he's the only one who's worked towards protecting unborn children while working in Washington? I don't know. Newt is pro-life as well, but Santorum, in perceiving a weak spot, tried to hit Gingrich in the chink in his armor and, I believe missed the mark. Just because Newt made a few decisions not in line with what Santorum sees as pro-life doesn't mean Newt cares any less about the unborn. Whether this will hurt Santorum or not remains to be seen, but the news buzz around the net and blogs suggests that the race may be all but over for the former Senator. Personally, I'll wait for the results to actually come in before I make that prediction.
Romney seemed less like the flip-flopper everyone says he is and largely remained consistent with his responses to King's questions, as well as the other candidate's challenges. Baine Capital didn't directly come up to rear its ugly head, which was fortunate for Romney, and when King asked about his economic views, Romney answered. After hearing him speak, I think Mitt, from an economic standpoint, would be a decent president. The major problem I have with his tendency to change his mind. Governor Romney did well for himself overall, though there were some awkward moments when the question of tax returns came up. When asked point blank by King whether or not he would release the returns, he said specifically "when my taxes are done for this year, then I'll release them." This was after a bit of wishy-washy flip-flop sounds coming out of his mouth as he attempted to dodge the issue. Makes me wonder why he's waiting. Could he have something to hide? Or does he just not want to deal with the hassle of filing taxes while he's running for the highest office in the land? I don't know, and only time can answer that riddle.
Consistency is Mitt's main weakness, and remains so, which explains why his support has stayed steady rather than rising or falling significantly during his run for the nomination. People appear too reluctant to swing his way, and as such, have gravitated towards the other three candidates in more or less equal portions. To that end, our next stop: Texas.
Specifically Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has a reputation as a staunch Constitutionalist, and it is well deserved. The man reportedly has never voted to raise congressional pay, never voted for an unbalanced budget, and has voted consistently in line with his views all through his time in Washington. Domestically, he's everything you could want in a presidential candidate, from his desire to return us to the gold standard to his ideas on cutting back on foreign aid and to as he put it "stop subsidizing" other countries by using our military to defend them when they should be defending themselves. All in all decent ideas that have merit. But where Paul falls short is foreign policy. In dealing with other countries, Paul specifically stated in the last debate that we needed a "Golden Rule" premise when dealing with countries like Iran. This is the kind of foreign policy that will likely get more Americans killed than anything else, since just because we leave other countries alone, it doesn't mean they're going to leave us alone.
Finally, we come to Newt Gingrich and his performance. While trying to remain objective, I do still believe that Newt won the debate, and reminded me a bit of old footage of Ronald Reagan talking to the press. The main difference was in tone of voice. While Reagan would talk OVER the press and deflect unwanted questions with a well placed joke, Newt made it clear that he was most certainly not going to take any of King's guff, and brought the hammer down on the issue immediately.. You've all probably already seen the footage, so I won't go into it here, but I found that Newt's tone for the entire exercise was set by that one exchange. A lot of people deride Newt for his boastful attitude, but name me one candidate that had a backbone and DIDN'T sound (at least a little) like an arrogant gasbag. Even Reagan had those moments, most notably when he walked away from the table in Iceland when the Soviets tried to use diplomacy to kill SDI. Or how about this little gem from his speech at the Berlin Wall? A bit arrogant of him to call out Gorby like that, no? Well, to some it certainly was. That doesn't mean Reagan was a bad president. In fact I argue that it made him a better one, since whatever arrogance he possessed likely helped him in his decisions to walk away from the table and tell the Soviets to "tear down this wall".
Sorry about that. Got a bit off topic.
Back to Newt's debate performance: He did well, long story short. His answers were clear and concise. He defended his record with the steel spine a president needs, and he stood by previous statements he made. That, in my view, is why I'm declaring Newt the winner. He proved that he can stand the heat, and that's what we're going to need. Someone who's been through the fire before with a proven record of success.
Way to go, Newt. Way to go.
We began the primary season with seven candidates. A Minnesota Congresswoman, a CEO, a former Speaker of the House, a former Governor, a current Congressman, and a former Senator. Now,with the developments happening as they have, we have been reduced to four. Herman Cain was ousted after sexual harassment charges proved he didn't have what it took to stand against the smear machine that attacks all candidates that go through this process. Michelle Bachmann shot herself in the foot with her Gardasil comments, but was really taken out of the running when Rick Perry came in blustering about how he was the ideal "Not Romney".
Now we are left with four: The Speaker, the Senator, the Congressman, and the former Governor. Each of these has, whether through luck or skill, has proven that they have staying power of some kind or another. As regular readers know, I've thrown my support, meager as it is, behind Newt Gingrich in the event of losing both Bachmann and Cain. Each of the candidates in the SC debate gave a strong showing, in my opinion. Even Ron Paul, who normally comes off as naive on foreign policy, seems to have gained some footing this time around, though that may have largely been due to the fact that the moderator, John King of CNN, stuck mostly to domestic policy questions with Paul, where admittedly he shines, but more on him later.
First, let's start with what was clearly the highlight of the debate, Newt's utter lambasting of John King for bringing up the recent interview ABCInformer held with his ex-wife Marrianne. I posted the video of the exchange in my last post, and have to admit that every time I see it, I get a tingle. Now, don't go comparing me to Chris Matthews or anything. I'm well aware of Newt's foibles, but when any politician does what he did there, standing up against the unmitigated gall of the MSM to bring personal information to bear in a presidential debate against a conservative contender for president while at the same time actively protecting Barack Obama from so much as the slightest bit of honest criticism about his record. Many are saying that that response won Newt the debate, and I was initially inclined to agree with them until I realized I was letting my support for Newt blind me to the other candidates' responses to the questions being asked.
Governor Romney did well for himself, though there were some awkward moments when the question of tax returns came up. When asked point blank by King whether or not he would release the returns, he said specifically "when my taxes are done for this year, then I'll release them." This was after a bit of wishy-washy flip-flop sounds coming out of his mouth as he attempted to dodge the issue. Makes me wonder why he's waiting. Could he have something to hide? Or does he just not want to deal with the hassle of filing taxes while he's running for the highest office in the land? I don't know, and only time can answer that riddle.
Rick Santorum FINALLY went on the offense in the debate, blasting the other candidates on all things from tax policy to abortion. His strongest argument, I believe, was when he spoke out as the only "truly pro-life" candidate in the race. This, I think, was Santorum finally flashing his social conservative cred in the hopes of getting the same kind of support he had in Iowa. It may or may not work, but if it doesn't Santorum will have to reconsider his run for the White House and back either Gingrich or Romney. But what does that mean, "truly pro-life"? Does it mean that he's the only one who's worked towards protecting unborn children while working in Washington? I don't know. Newt is pro-life as well, but Santorum, in perceiving a weak spot, tried to hit Gingrich in the chink in his armor and, I believe missed the mark. Just because Newt made a few decisions not in line with what Santorum sees as pro-life doesn't mean Newt cares any less about the unborn. Whether this will hurt Santorum or not remains to be seen, but the news buzz around the net and blogs suggests that the race may be all but over for the former Senator. Personally, I'll wait for the results to actually come in before I make that prediction.
Romney seemed less like the flip-flopper everyone says he is and largely remained consistent with his responses to King's questions, as well as the other candidate's challenges. Baine Capital didn't directly come up to rear its ugly head, which was fortunate for Romney, and when King asked about his economic views, Romney answered. After hearing him speak, I think Mitt, from an economic standpoint, would be a decent president. The major problem I have with his tendency to change his mind. Governor Romney did well for himself overall, though there were some awkward moments when the question of tax returns came up. When asked point blank by King whether or not he would release the returns, he said specifically "when my taxes are done for this year, then I'll release them." This was after a bit of wishy-washy flip-flop sounds coming out of his mouth as he attempted to dodge the issue. Makes me wonder why he's waiting. Could he have something to hide? Or does he just not want to deal with the hassle of filing taxes while he's running for the highest office in the land? I don't know, and only time can answer that riddle.
Consistency is Mitt's main weakness, and remains so, which explains why his support has stayed steady rather than rising or falling significantly during his run for the nomination. People appear too reluctant to swing his way, and as such, have gravitated towards the other three candidates in more or less equal portions. To that end, our next stop: Texas.
Specifically Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has a reputation as a staunch Constitutionalist, and it is well deserved. The man reportedly has never voted to raise congressional pay, never voted for an unbalanced budget, and has voted consistently in line with his views all through his time in Washington. Domestically, he's everything you could want in a presidential candidate, from his desire to return us to the gold standard to his ideas on cutting back on foreign aid and to as he put it "stop subsidizing" other countries by using our military to defend them when they should be defending themselves. All in all decent ideas that have merit. But where Paul falls short is foreign policy. In dealing with other countries, Paul specifically stated in the last debate that we needed a "Golden Rule" premise when dealing with countries like Iran. This is the kind of foreign policy that will likely get more Americans killed than anything else, since just because we leave other countries alone, it doesn't mean they're going to leave us alone.
Finally, we come to Newt Gingrich and his performance. While trying to remain objective, I do still believe that Newt won the debate, and reminded me a bit of old footage of Ronald Reagan talking to the press. The main difference was in tone of voice. While Reagan would talk OVER the press and deflect unwanted questions with a well placed joke, Newt made it clear that he was most certainly not going to take any of King's guff, and brought the hammer down on the issue immediately.. You've all probably already seen the footage, so I won't go into it here, but I found that Newt's tone for the entire exercise was set by that one exchange. A lot of people deride Newt for his boastful attitude, but name me one candidate that had a backbone and DIDN'T sound (at least a little) like an arrogant gasbag. Even Reagan had those moments, most notably when he walked away from the table in Iceland when the Soviets tried to use diplomacy to kill SDI. Or how about this little gem from his speech at the Berlin Wall? A bit arrogant of him to call out Gorby like that, no? Well, to some it certainly was. That doesn't mean Reagan was a bad president. In fact I argue that it made him a better one, since whatever arrogance he possessed likely helped him in his decisions to walk away from the table and tell the Soviets to "tear down this wall".
Sorry about that. Got a bit off topic.
Back to Newt's debate performance: He did well, long story short. His answers were clear and concise. He defended his record with the steel spine a president needs, and he stood by previous statements he made. That, in my view, is why I'm declaring Newt the winner. He proved that he can stand the heat, and that's what we're going to need. Someone who's been through the fire before with a proven record of success.
Way to go, Newt. Way to go.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Conservative Porn at it's Finest: Newt Gingrich Edition
This video, taken from tonight's debate in South Carolina, is without doubt my favorite moment yet of the primary season in general, and of the debate itself as well. Watch Newt utterly DESTROY the moderator from CNN, garnering another standing ovation from the audience similar to the one he got when he lambasted Ron Paul for his naive foreign policy ideas. If Newt keeps this up, he'll sail into the White House on a tidal wave of votes.
Rising From the Ashes: Phoenix Candidate Newt get's Much Needed Boost as Perry Drops Out
Well , boys and girls, the interview that I posted about last night just before going to bed has aired. Via The Hill, a video clip now exists of Marrianne Gingrich telling the interviewer in question that Newt wanted an open marriage so that he could keep Callista on as a mistress while at the same time remaining married to Marrianne. Whether this is true or not, I have no idea, though it doesn't mesh with the story she told in 1999, which Legal Insurrection explains in perfect brevity. I don't particularly care, in truth. My interest in the Gingrich campaign is on his ideas and his record, which more than make him qualified for the highest office in the land. The polls in South Carolina agree with me, given that Newt is now within 3 points of Romney mere days before the primary. I won't go into how the timing of the interview seems more than a little coincidental, but if I start screaming bias everywhere I go, it'll be all I see, and I'll start sounding the way Michelle Bachmann sounded when she doubled down on her Gardasil comments despite having no solid proof as to whether or not it was true. ABC News has the full skinny on the interview, and the clip I mentioned can be read there as well. There's also Newt's response to the interview, a class act, which can be viewed here.
And now that the bad news is out of the way, it's time for a pallet cleanser in the form of several pieces of good news regarding Newt and his campaign. First, we begin with the big ticket item in the news, Perry's dropping out and endorsing Newt, which has been confirmed by Legal Insurrection, Peter Hamby on Twitter, as well as Hot Air. Part of me was surprised at the fact that he didn't fall in line behind those in the Romney camp, but then I realized that he's staked his entire political image on being an anti-Romney. For him to endorse the very person he's been railing against all this time would only be political suicide in all things not having to do with the Oval Office, should he choose to pursue a Senate or House seat in the future. Either way, Perry's endorsement can only help solidify Newt's claim to being the strongest "not Romney" in the race, though the question of how much still remains in doubt. Lastly, Politico reports that the disorganization of the campaign is still with them even to the bitter end, and the exit is proving to be just as rough as the rest of the ride.
In other pro-Newt news, It appears that, according to The Daily Caller, approximately 100 Tea Party leaders from 25 states will coalesce around Newt Gingrich, giving him a more solidified foundation regarding his stance in the eyes of the Tea Party. This will likely, in my view, make up for the fact that Perry, who was only polling six percent in South Carolina, probably won't affect Newt as much as one would hope had he been doing better. Still, good news is good news, and that's what I see here.
And thus stands the current state of the campaign of future President Newton Gingrich. More to come in the days ahead, faithful readers. Stay tuned.
UPDATE: New Rassmussen Poll has Newt taking a narrow lead against Mittens in SC, and provides the real insight as to why Perry dropped out.
UPDATE: New Rassmussen Poll has Newt taking a narrow lead against Mittens in SC, and provides the real insight as to why Perry dropped out.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Opening Old Wounds: Gingrich's ex Dishes on Dirty Laundry we Already Know About
It would seem that democrats and liberals aren't the only one's who don't believe that Newt Gingrich is fit to be President of the United States. As I was milling about the internet in search of more news regarding the primaries and the progress of Newt's campaign, I somehow became lost and found myself on the Huffington Post website. Usually I only go there when I've nowhere else to go for information, but the headline of the piece in question caught my eye, mainly due to it being potentially damaging to Newt's resurgent momentum.
The basic story is this: Newt's second wife, Marrianne, has decided to do an interview with ABC insider about her thoughts on her ex-husband's presidential bid. Reading the piece through, it became apparent to me that Newt could have walked on water, healed the sick, and restored sight to the blind during his campaign and she still would likely have said he had no chance of gaining entrance to the Oval Office. Here are some choice quotes from the article:
"He could have been president," she said. "But when you try and change your history too much, and try and recolor it because you don't like the way it was or you want it to be different to prove something new ... you lose touch with who you really are. You lose your way."
"He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don't have to be connected," Gingrich added, in the Esquire interview. "If you believe that, then yeah, you can run for president."
In the Esquire interview, Marianne also dismisses the conversion to Catholicism during his current, and third, marriage. She said it "has no meaning."
These don't sound like the thoughts of a woman who is out there trying to give an objective opinion on one of the candidates for the Republican nomination. More likely, they're the rantings of an embittered woman still smarting from having been served divorce papers years ago. After all, a jilted ex-wife is hardly the most objective source to go to for information regarding a presidential hopeful, now isn't it? My personal favorite is the part where she says Newt converting to Catholicism "has no meaning". Who exactly is this woman to say that converting to a certain faith has no meaning? To whom does it have no meaning, exactly? To her? to the American people? To Newt himself? She doesn't elaborate so I don't know, but my gut is telling me that in fact Newt being Catholic has no meaning to her. But then, of course it doesn't have any meaning to her. She's not married to him anymore. Why would she even care what religion Newt is unless she just wanted to bring it up to hurt his chances at getting the nomination?
The basic story is this: Newt's second wife, Marrianne, has decided to do an interview with ABC insider about her thoughts on her ex-husband's presidential bid. Reading the piece through, it became apparent to me that Newt could have walked on water, healed the sick, and restored sight to the blind during his campaign and she still would likely have said he had no chance of gaining entrance to the Oval Office. Here are some choice quotes from the article:
"He could have been president," she said. "But when you try and change your history too much, and try and recolor it because you don't like the way it was or you want it to be different to prove something new ... you lose touch with who you really are. You lose your way."
"He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don't have to be connected," Gingrich added, in the Esquire interview. "If you believe that, then yeah, you can run for president."
In the Esquire interview, Marianne also dismisses the conversion to Catholicism during his current, and third, marriage. She said it "has no meaning."
These don't sound like the thoughts of a woman who is out there trying to give an objective opinion on one of the candidates for the Republican nomination. More likely, they're the rantings of an embittered woman still smarting from having been served divorce papers years ago. After all, a jilted ex-wife is hardly the most objective source to go to for information regarding a presidential hopeful, now isn't it? My personal favorite is the part where she says Newt converting to Catholicism "has no meaning". Who exactly is this woman to say that converting to a certain faith has no meaning? To whom does it have no meaning, exactly? To her? to the American people? To Newt himself? She doesn't elaborate so I don't know, but my gut is telling me that in fact Newt being Catholic has no meaning to her. But then, of course it doesn't have any meaning to her. She's not married to him anymore. Why would she even care what religion Newt is unless she just wanted to bring it up to hurt his chances at getting the nomination?
I don't really know what her motives are for certain, but regardless, I doubt that this interview that's going to air before the primary will hurt Newt TOO much. His dirty laundry is already out there for all to see if they spend all of five minutes searching Google. Yes, we know he's been married three times. We know that he had an affair with his current wife before divorcing her and marrying Callista. The bedside divorce aspect of the story (which, unless I'm mistaken, Marriane is the wife he divorced in that narrative) is a myth. Newt did not serve his wife divorce papers as she was dying of cancer, as the narrative goes. I won't go into the actual details because frankly they've been run through the ringer far too much for me to even care about them anymore.
Not to be outdone by a bitter divorcee, the Gingrich sisters have written a letter to ABC explaining the situation as it stands from their point of view, and I can't help but be impressed by the articulate defense they present on their father's behalf. Here's the letter in its entirety:
To: ABC News Leadership
From: Kathy Lubbers, Jackie Cushman
Date: January 18, 2012
The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved. Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events.
Bravo, girls. Bravo.
From: Kathy Lubbers, Jackie Cushman
Date: January 18, 2012
The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved. Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events.
We will not say anything negative about our father’s ex-wife. He has said before, privately and publicly, that he regrets any pain he may have caused in the past to people he loves.
ABC News or other campaigns may want to talk about the past, just days before an important primary election. But Newt is going to talk to the people of South Carolina about the future -- about job creation, lower taxes, and about who can defeat Barack Obama by providing the sharpest contrast to his damaging, extreme liberalism. We are confident this is the conversation the people of South Carolina are interested in having.
Our father is running for President because of his grandchildren -- so they can inherit the America he loves. To do that, President Obama must be defeated. And as the only candidate in the race, including Obama, who has actually helped balance the national budget, create jobs, reform welfare, and cut taxes and spending, Newt felt compelled to run -- to serve his country and safeguard his grandchildren's future.
Bravo, girls. Bravo.
Everyone Deserves a Second Chance
It has come to my attention yet again, dear readers, that Newt Gingrich's campaign is once more on the rise. Another sign of revival from Hot Air speculates that the new resurgence of Newt's campaign after the South Carolina debate two nights ago is in fact real. The stats now put Romney within 3 points of Gingrich in SC, whereas before Romney had a reported 14 point lead just days before the debate. This of course speaks to the power of a good debate performance, and lends credence to Newt's ability to speak over the rhetoric and race baiting questions of the MSM and moderators. If Newt doesn't squander this newly regained momentum, as he did in Iowa, he could give Romney a real run for his money in the months to come. Via Hot Air:
The race for the Republican presidential nomination is now nearly even with Mitt Romney still on top but Newt Gingrich just three points apart.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters nationwide shows Romney with 30% support and Gingrich with 27% of the vote. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, who was running second two weeks ago, has now dropped to 15%.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul captures 13% support from likely primary voters, and Texas Governor Rick Perry remains in last place with four percent (4%). Another four percent (4%) like some other candidate in the race, and seven percent (7%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
But the story in the new numbers, taken Tuesday night, is Gingrich’s jump 11 points from 16% two weeks ago. Romney’s support is essentially unchanged from 29% at that time, while Santorum is down six points from 21%. Paul’s and Perry’s support is also unchanged. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman earned four percent (4%) of the vote at the start of the month but dropped out of the race this week. This suggests that many voters are still looking for an alternative to Romney and currently see Gingrich as that candidate.
I'm reminded, oddly, of the Lady of the Lake just now, of Arthurian Legend. In the stories revolving around Britain's greatest King, Lady Nimue of the Lake is portrayed often as a creature of seemingly random and unexpected behavior, whose moods shift with the ebb and flow of the tides themselves. It appears to this humble blogger that Newt's campaign is doing much the same. One minute Newt is out, the next he's back in. Some will say that this cements the nomination for Romney, but in my view, I believe this only means that the outcome of the race is still in doubt, and thus we should definitely keep our eyes open. With each piece of news like this, all the Newt naysayers out there might have a new song to sing come Election Day.Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Newt Gingrich Gains more Newtmentum...And acts as Though he's Already Won
So here we have a second burst of momentum for the Gingrich faction. This is good news for Newt supporters like myself, given that I believe him to be the best man for the job in light of the loss of Herman Cain, and the fizzling of Michelle Bachmann's campaign. Yet even as he regains lost momentum and stands to become the frontrunner once more, it appears as though Newt's ego may be a bit of a detriment to his goal of attaining the nomination and the White House. I'm speak of a new story via Hot Air in which Gingrich appears to have hinted at Rick Santorum to drop out of the race and endorse him:
Another interesting development comes via the blog Motivation Truth. I don't stop off there as often as I do some other sites, but this time it proved interesting and relevant to my following of Newt's campaign. The author of the blog reports that apparently, Sarah Palin has all but endorsed the former speaker by saying "If I were a South Carolinian, I'd vote for Newt." Now, it's not an official endorsement by any means, but even a whisper of approval from Sarah Palin is worth listening to, given her power to change debates with a single Facebook note or Twitter post. Does this mean that the former Alaska governor has chosen her candidate and is only giving us a taste of what might be, as was her style back when we were all asking the question of whether or not Sarah herself would make a run for the White House? Only time will tell. In the meantime, my watchdog duties will continue.
Returning to the issue of Newt being delighted should Santorum endorse him, it would appear that the boastful Newt has returned, at least for now. But then, every politician to some degree is boastful. Even Ronald Reagan, by far one of the humblest presidents I've ever known of, had a bit of gravitas and pride that gave him the steel spine he needed to take on and defeat the Soviet Union. I don't believe that this one remark about Santorum is in any way going to really hurt Newt, but that could of course be wishful thinking on my part, however unlikely the possibility.
Lastly, my support of Newt largely comes from his stances on things like national security, his record as Speaker of the House in the nineties, and his belief that every American has the right to pursue happiness and should earn their own money through a job rather than having it handed to them by Uncle Sam. Santorum's social stances strike a chord with me, but without the economic and foreign policy stances (though I admit to knowing nothing about Santorum's foreign policy ideas) the man sort of rings hollow to me, as if he were a sort of "incomplete" candidate. There is one issue, however, where I believe they both have a good position that is effective and appealing. Santorum wants to aggressively attack the debt and slowly reform Social Security, and Newt would rather aggressively reform SS first and then take care of the debt little by little. Either plan would work if properly implemented and handled with discipline and foresight, because either way both goals get achieved. All in all, that particular stance is six of one, half a dozen of the other to me.
Mr. Gingrich made clear that he is not asking Mr. Santorum to leave the race, but the remark reflects the boastfulness the former speaker often displays when he feels a sudden boost in momentum.
“I would be delighted if he decided to endorse me,” he told reporters here after being asked if Mr. Santorum should drop out. “I’m respectful that Rick has every right to run as long as he feels that’s what he should do. But from the standpoint of the conservative movement, consolidating into a Gingrich candidacy would, in fact, virtually guarantee victory on Saturday.”
Mr. Santorum essentially tied Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses and Mr. Gingrich for fourth place in last week’s New Hampshire primary. But Mr. Gingrich often says [he] is the only Republican contender who can run a national campaign besides front-runner Mr. Romney. “I don’t think Santorum could do any of that,” he said. “It’s not because he’s not a nice guy, he just doesn’t have the knowledge that I do.
I enjoy reading Tina Korbe, but honestly I think the headline of this piece is a little misleading and a tad disingenuous. Gingrich did not in fact say, as is perfectly evident above, that he would be delighted if Santorum dropped out of the race. Honestly, who wouldn't be delighted to have a former rival come forward and make himself an ally? I'm betting the same would be true of Santorum being delighted if Newt dropped out and endorsed him, rather than the other way around. It seems to me, and is implied by Tina herself, that Gingrich's mistake (if indeed a mistake was made, which I'm not certain is the case here) was that he said it out loud. Funny, nobody said anything about it being a mistake when Newt lambasted both Ron Paul and Juan Williams. Why should another direct answer to a question that was in all actuality nothing but the truth be any different than those two debate follow ups? I don't know.Another interesting development comes via the blog Motivation Truth. I don't stop off there as often as I do some other sites, but this time it proved interesting and relevant to my following of Newt's campaign. The author of the blog reports that apparently, Sarah Palin has all but endorsed the former speaker by saying "If I were a South Carolinian, I'd vote for Newt." Now, it's not an official endorsement by any means, but even a whisper of approval from Sarah Palin is worth listening to, given her power to change debates with a single Facebook note or Twitter post. Does this mean that the former Alaska governor has chosen her candidate and is only giving us a taste of what might be, as was her style back when we were all asking the question of whether or not Sarah herself would make a run for the White House? Only time will tell. In the meantime, my watchdog duties will continue.
Returning to the issue of Newt being delighted should Santorum endorse him, it would appear that the boastful Newt has returned, at least for now. But then, every politician to some degree is boastful. Even Ronald Reagan, by far one of the humblest presidents I've ever known of, had a bit of gravitas and pride that gave him the steel spine he needed to take on and defeat the Soviet Union. I don't believe that this one remark about Santorum is in any way going to really hurt Newt, but that could of course be wishful thinking on my part, however unlikely the possibility.
Lastly, my support of Newt largely comes from his stances on things like national security, his record as Speaker of the House in the nineties, and his belief that every American has the right to pursue happiness and should earn their own money through a job rather than having it handed to them by Uncle Sam. Santorum's social stances strike a chord with me, but without the economic and foreign policy stances (though I admit to knowing nothing about Santorum's foreign policy ideas) the man sort of rings hollow to me, as if he were a sort of "incomplete" candidate. There is one issue, however, where I believe they both have a good position that is effective and appealing. Santorum wants to aggressively attack the debt and slowly reform Social Security, and Newt would rather aggressively reform SS first and then take care of the debt little by little. Either plan would work if properly implemented and handled with discipline and foresight, because either way both goals get achieved. All in all, that particular stance is six of one, half a dozen of the other to me.
Looks Like Newt Might be Getting Better
After my analysis of the field last night concerning the GOP field of potential nominees, I've come to the conclusion that Newt Gingrich may in fact have gotten the resurgence he's needed since his disastrous attack on Mitt Romney concerning Baine Capital. Specifically I'm speaking of the recent debate he had with the other GOP hopefuls. From reports on Twitter and Fox News, as well as The Other McCain, it looks as though Newt's campaign has been given a much-needed shot in the arm by his performance in the debate. I, as a Gingrich supporter, and more than a little relieved at the possibility that Newt's campaign has been revived, given that he, in my view, is the most Reaganesque candidate we've had since the Gipper himself was on the national stage. The South Carolina debates last night, as I've heard second hand from the above sources, Newt garnered a standing ovation after he called out Ron Paul for his "Golden Rule" national security nonsense. That alone is something to take notice of, since there hasn't been a standing ovation at any debate since Ronald Reagan's performance in New Hampshire in 1980.
Honestly, though, if his debate performance is any indication, Ron Paul has killed his campaign chances due to the fact that he simply has no understanding of just how much (or for that matter, the real reason why) the Middle East despises us. He continually cites, in his speeches on the Senate Floor and now on the campaign trail, that we bring it on ourselves through our occupation of the Middle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Now I'll be fair and say that Paul is a man of his convictions, and opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts from the beginning, as he continues to do so now, but that doesn't excuse his getting facts completely wrong. First off, the "occupation" that he rails against is one that was conducted at the invitation of the then-King of Saudi Arabia. I just watched the seven minute video via Hot Air's site that detailed Paul's response to Brett Baer's question regarding the congressman's complaints over the Bin Laden raid, and Lord Almighty, he makes virtually no sense at all. Not only that he sounded like a whiner when Brett completely destroys him with further follow up questions, resorting to Paul becoming little more than a stammering idiot. Why do people follow this man?
Gingrich, on the other hand, simply destroys Paul's argument with a simple statement: "Osama bin Laden was not a Chinese dissident." He then goes on to say, using Andrew Jackson as an example, that the best way to deal with our enemies is to kill them. Simple common sense from the former Speaker. Gotta love it. It's for that reason and that reason alone that I continue to support Gingrich over the RINO favorite Mitt Romney or the socially conservative Rick Santorum. To be perfectly fair, Paul did regain some footing when he mentioned that we needed to quit the wars we're in and bring the troops home, but it not the thunderous ovation that Gingrich received for dressing him down mere minutes before that, nor does it make up entirely for the nonsensical rambling he'd engaged in previously.
That being said, my previous warnings not to count Newt out of the race appear to be proving valid. When the former speaker talks turkey and lays out the facts, he's dead on. What he needs to do from this point on to win the nomination is, in my opinion, to stop the personal attacks, run against Obama rather than against Romney, and continue to provide the American people with an alternative to the current empty suit we have in the White House.
Honestly, though, if his debate performance is any indication, Ron Paul has killed his campaign chances due to the fact that he simply has no understanding of just how much (or for that matter, the real reason why) the Middle East despises us. He continually cites, in his speeches on the Senate Floor and now on the campaign trail, that we bring it on ourselves through our occupation of the Middle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Now I'll be fair and say that Paul is a man of his convictions, and opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts from the beginning, as he continues to do so now, but that doesn't excuse his getting facts completely wrong. First off, the "occupation" that he rails against is one that was conducted at the invitation of the then-King of Saudi Arabia. I just watched the seven minute video via Hot Air's site that detailed Paul's response to Brett Baer's question regarding the congressman's complaints over the Bin Laden raid, and Lord Almighty, he makes virtually no sense at all. Not only that he sounded like a whiner when Brett completely destroys him with further follow up questions, resorting to Paul becoming little more than a stammering idiot. Why do people follow this man?
Gingrich, on the other hand, simply destroys Paul's argument with a simple statement: "Osama bin Laden was not a Chinese dissident." He then goes on to say, using Andrew Jackson as an example, that the best way to deal with our enemies is to kill them. Simple common sense from the former Speaker. Gotta love it. It's for that reason and that reason alone that I continue to support Gingrich over the RINO favorite Mitt Romney or the socially conservative Rick Santorum. To be perfectly fair, Paul did regain some footing when he mentioned that we needed to quit the wars we're in and bring the troops home, but it not the thunderous ovation that Gingrich received for dressing him down mere minutes before that, nor does it make up entirely for the nonsensical rambling he'd engaged in previously.
That being said, my previous warnings not to count Newt out of the race appear to be proving valid. When the former speaker talks turkey and lays out the facts, he's dead on. What he needs to do from this point on to win the nomination is, in my opinion, to stop the personal attacks, run against Obama rather than against Romney, and continue to provide the American people with an alternative to the current empty suit we have in the White House.
Monday, January 16, 2012
And Another One Bites the Dust: Analysis of the Post-Huntsman Field
Well, it took a bit longer than I thought it would, but Jon Huntsman, via various sources including The Other McCain, Twitter, and various others, has dropped out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination. This leaves us with only a few contenders even as primary season just begins. As I write this, only New Hampshire and Iowa have decided who they want to get the nod from the RNC. Their choice has been revealed in a very close race in Iowa and in a landslide in New Hampshire to be Mitt "mittens" Romney, famed flip flopper and architect of the infamous Romneycare, which has in turn been used to construct the framework for the most hated piece of legislation since the Alien and Sedition Acts, Obamacare. Trailing behind Romney in these states is Gingrich (my personal choice, with the deaths of the Cain and Bachmann campaigns) Perry, and Santorum. My belle Michelle is still in the race, but she has now taken the place of John Huntsman as most impotent candidate, and poses no threat at all, in this humble blogger's view, of taking the nomination from Romney, Santorum or Gingrich.
Gingrich, by his own admission, believes himself capable of winning South Carolina, but of course what else can he say given that he's lost two of the most influential states in the union to a dark horse and an establishment candidate? Newt's optimism may in fact be genuine and not political posturing as some may or may not think, but after several gaffs of his, some of which occurred well before the campaign for president began in earnest, if Newt does in fact lose SC, he's going to have to seriously reconsider whether or not he's going to acquire that coveted prize that is the Republican nomination. If he doesn't get it, as even I'm beginning to believe he might not, then the question becomes who will Gingrich endorse? Will it hurt or help said candidate should Gingrich drop out? In my view, he'd only have two choices, as Perry's campaign continues to remain on life support, just ahead of Bachmann's in the viability category.
First choice, and my hopeful choice should he endorse rather than win: Santorum. Rick Santorum has gained a good deal of momentum, just as the other "not Romney" candidates have each in turn gained momentum throughout the tumultuous race for the chance to beat Obama. Santorum also appears to have gained a good deal of support in Texas. More support, it appears, than Perry even has, and it's Perry's home state. I seem to recall another presidential candidate, John Edwards, who couldn't carry his own home state during the 2008 Democratic primaries. Could Perry be the GOP's John Edwards? It's looking that way to me.
Second choice, and really the only other viable choice is in fact Romney. Should Newt endorse Romney, it is my prediction that the nomination will go to the former Bay State governor, lock stock and barrel. Newt will also cement his undeserved reputation as a RINO in the eyes of many. My fears of this occurrence also include the possibility that many Republican voters will stay home and not vote at all because "their guy" didn't make the cut. However absurd that is, it's what happened with Chuck DeVore during the California Senatorial Primary race. That's why we got Barbara "Senator Ma'am" Boxer for another six years instead of Carly Fiorina.
In conclusion, it's looking more and more plausible by the day that Romney will win the nomination. The odds are certainly in his favor, so far as I can tell. Yet at the same time, I'm not going to shift my support from Gingrich just yet. After all, nobody in the establishment thought Reagan could win, or for that matter even Rutherford B. Hayes all those decades ago was thought to be a loser candidate, yet both of them still won the day. In short, don't count out the Newt. He might just surprise us all.
Gingrich, by his own admission, believes himself capable of winning South Carolina, but of course what else can he say given that he's lost two of the most influential states in the union to a dark horse and an establishment candidate? Newt's optimism may in fact be genuine and not political posturing as some may or may not think, but after several gaffs of his, some of which occurred well before the campaign for president began in earnest, if Newt does in fact lose SC, he's going to have to seriously reconsider whether or not he's going to acquire that coveted prize that is the Republican nomination. If he doesn't get it, as even I'm beginning to believe he might not, then the question becomes who will Gingrich endorse? Will it hurt or help said candidate should Gingrich drop out? In my view, he'd only have two choices, as Perry's campaign continues to remain on life support, just ahead of Bachmann's in the viability category.
First choice, and my hopeful choice should he endorse rather than win: Santorum. Rick Santorum has gained a good deal of momentum, just as the other "not Romney" candidates have each in turn gained momentum throughout the tumultuous race for the chance to beat Obama. Santorum also appears to have gained a good deal of support in Texas. More support, it appears, than Perry even has, and it's Perry's home state. I seem to recall another presidential candidate, John Edwards, who couldn't carry his own home state during the 2008 Democratic primaries. Could Perry be the GOP's John Edwards? It's looking that way to me.
Second choice, and really the only other viable choice is in fact Romney. Should Newt endorse Romney, it is my prediction that the nomination will go to the former Bay State governor, lock stock and barrel. Newt will also cement his undeserved reputation as a RINO in the eyes of many. My fears of this occurrence also include the possibility that many Republican voters will stay home and not vote at all because "their guy" didn't make the cut. However absurd that is, it's what happened with Chuck DeVore during the California Senatorial Primary race. That's why we got Barbara "Senator Ma'am" Boxer for another six years instead of Carly Fiorina.
In conclusion, it's looking more and more plausible by the day that Romney will win the nomination. The odds are certainly in his favor, so far as I can tell. Yet at the same time, I'm not going to shift my support from Gingrich just yet. After all, nobody in the establishment thought Reagan could win, or for that matter even Rutherford B. Hayes all those decades ago was thought to be a loser candidate, yet both of them still won the day. In short, don't count out the Newt. He might just surprise us all.
Friday, December 30, 2011
No, Virginia, This is no Way to Be
Red State has an interesting little piece on the Virginia ballot debacle. Apparently they don't think much more of the process than Newt Gingrich or his campaign manager does. The site screams favortism given for Paul and Romney, given that they were able to secure half again as many signatures as necessary (15,000 as opposed to 10,000) and thus didn't garner the same scrutiny as the ones who didn't make the magic number. Well, that's just dandy. So people who get 15000 signatures don't get as closely scrutinized as people with only 14,999? Dumb. Just plain dumb.
That's my personal opinion anyway, but I can see where we, being fallible human beings, would take the lazy approach and just say "Well, he got fifteen thousand, the probability of five thousand signatures being false isn't likely." Well, to that I say bull. If anything, just by the nature of positive correlations, the more signatures you bring in, the more scrutiny you deserve, given that the percentage increase means it's far more likely that fraud WILL occur. After all, a percentage of 10000 is a lot smaller than a percentage of 15000. Fifty percent smaller, in fact. You'd think this would warrant a bit more attention from the VA Republican Party.
Not to be, apparently. Still, as I mentioned before, this is only one state out of fifty. It won't look good for the candidates that were looking forward to these primaries, but with all eyes on Iowa right now, VA seems to be small potatoes right now. But that's just me.
That's my personal opinion anyway, but I can see where we, being fallible human beings, would take the lazy approach and just say "Well, he got fifteen thousand, the probability of five thousand signatures being false isn't likely." Well, to that I say bull. If anything, just by the nature of positive correlations, the more signatures you bring in, the more scrutiny you deserve, given that the percentage increase means it's far more likely that fraud WILL occur. After all, a percentage of 10000 is a lot smaller than a percentage of 15000. Fifty percent smaller, in fact. You'd think this would warrant a bit more attention from the VA Republican Party.
Not to be, apparently. Still, as I mentioned before, this is only one state out of fifty. It won't look good for the candidates that were looking forward to these primaries, but with all eyes on Iowa right now, VA seems to be small potatoes right now. But that's just me.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
A Day That Will Live in Infamy...for Newt and his Campaign at Least
It would seem that even a major setback like not being able to qualify for the Virginia presidential ballot is going to deter Newt from winning the 2012 nomination. Comparing it to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, his campaign manager has stated that they will soldier on. Gotta admire the guy's guts. It's why I've thrown my lot in with him to win the nomination after the unfortunate rise and fall of first Michelle Bachmann, then Rick Perry, and lastly Herman Cain. Regular readers will no doubt realize that I was somewhat torn between Bachmann and Cain, until the Gardasil comment from Bachmann and the bogus sexual harassment allegations concerning Cain knocked them both, for all intents and purposes, out of the running. If for some reason the link doesn't work, here's the facebook note in its entirety.
The analogy fits quite well, I think. It caught them by surprise, and it's put their plans in a place that they didn't think they were going to be. Some of the commenters on the thread, however, are a little less than cordial. As mentioned above in the letter, the campaign manager calls the snafu a setback. But it seems that some don't appreciate the analogy. here are a few choice tidbits:
Pitfuful. Newt, if your team can't accomplish this administrative task, how could your administration deal with the real challenges that face the president?
Perhaps we should change the law just for your campaign? You are a part of the failed system if you can not follow the rules. It clearly says that write-in ballots will not be counted so why would you pursue this? These laws were written by the people and for the people and that includes you. Do not stoop to the democrats level and try to change the rules to suit your present needs.
Yeah you not getting on the Virginia ballot is just like Dec.7,1941. I didn't get all I wanted for xmas, now I know how the families of that 9/11 thing felt.
No you idiot, it's not like Pearl Harbor. It's called a horrendous ground game who doesn't know wtf it's doing. Why don't you just head to the moon and start your lunar colony already or something?
Honestly, people. This is not the time to insult a man just for making a mistake. And the comparison isn't in the least distasteful. Not that it matters in the slightest. For all those who think Virginia is going to make all the difference, it won't. It's one state among fifty. Newt still has 49 more ballots to try for. That being said, there are other ways to get on the ballot, I'm sure, though I admit I don't know that much about how things work in Virginia. Regardless, Newt isn't done yet. Don't count him out.
Thinning of the Herd: Perry not Able to Make Virginia Ballot
Well, look at that. It would seem that. Rick Perry's bid for the White House has become all the more difficult. As I just recently learned, and as many of us in the blogosphere no doubt already knew, one needs at least 10,000 signatures to qualify for the Virginia presidential ballot, and our Mr. Perry didn't make the cut, along with, unfortunately, my belle Michelle and Rick Santorum. While this doesn't necessarily rule them out for a term or two in the White House, it certainly doesn't bode well. I'm probably one of the few who actually found this surprising, given that I've never heard of this particular provision for the Old Dominion State, and this has been all over the net for all of two or three days, so everyone pretty much probably knows about it and has moved on. Since I"m a Johnny-Come-Lately, however, I will only just now be expressing my thoughts on the matter.
As mentioned above, this is at the same time not a big deal, and yet a very big deal. Perry, Bachmann and Santorum not making the ballot in Virginia means that effectively, the only candidates that people will be able to vote for in Virginia, a key state in any election, will be Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Dear Lord help us if either of these two gets the nomination. Ron Paul being the isolationist he is, and Romney being the flip-flopper HE is, either one of these two would be a bad choice to replace the current chair-warmer in the Oval Office. Romney's no doubt good at playing the political game, but his policies are more Obama-lite than anything else. As for Ron Paul, I believe this video clip says all that needs to be said about this senile whackjob's stance on foreign policy. Some of his ideas are good, but what good is a stellar domestic policy if your foreign policy amounts to "It's totally okay for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, and it doesn't matter if they say they're going to use it to wipe Israel off the map."?
What gets me more about this news development than anything else is that Newt Gingrich, my new choice for POTUS since Cain was driven out of the running by bogus sexual harassment charges, has also failed to make the virginia ballot, proving to be a rather significant setback for the former Speaker of the House. Still, Virginia is only one state out of fifty, and however many electoral votes the state has, it's still up in the air about whether Newt will win the nod from the RNC. Personally, I hope he does. I would love to see Newt wipe the floor with Obama in a debate, but the namby pamby in the White House probably doesn't have the cojones to stand at a podium without his favorite teleprompter ready and raring to go with another prepared speech.
As mentioned above, this is at the same time not a big deal, and yet a very big deal. Perry, Bachmann and Santorum not making the ballot in Virginia means that effectively, the only candidates that people will be able to vote for in Virginia, a key state in any election, will be Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Dear Lord help us if either of these two gets the nomination. Ron Paul being the isolationist he is, and Romney being the flip-flopper HE is, either one of these two would be a bad choice to replace the current chair-warmer in the Oval Office. Romney's no doubt good at playing the political game, but his policies are more Obama-lite than anything else. As for Ron Paul, I believe this video clip says all that needs to be said about this senile whackjob's stance on foreign policy. Some of his ideas are good, but what good is a stellar domestic policy if your foreign policy amounts to "It's totally okay for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, and it doesn't matter if they say they're going to use it to wipe Israel off the map."?
What gets me more about this news development than anything else is that Newt Gingrich, my new choice for POTUS since Cain was driven out of the running by bogus sexual harassment charges, has also failed to make the virginia ballot, proving to be a rather significant setback for the former Speaker of the House. Still, Virginia is only one state out of fifty, and however many electoral votes the state has, it's still up in the air about whether Newt will win the nod from the RNC. Personally, I hope he does. I would love to see Newt wipe the floor with Obama in a debate, but the namby pamby in the White House probably doesn't have the cojones to stand at a podium without his favorite teleprompter ready and raring to go with another prepared speech.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
So, Which Holiday are we Celebrating on the 25th, Anyway?
Well, boys and girls, it's that time of year again. After months of absence due to my wanting to focus on studies in a new profession wherein I sit for eight hours and type furiously while four people speak back and forth to one another, I have returned, though for how long I cannot say. This profession, known as court reporting, has taken up so much of my time, in fact, that I've had to neglect this site for far too long; but being that the day upon which our Savior humbled himself and came into this world wrapped in swaddling clothes and in a bed of hay is upon us, I think it's time I dusted this place off and took up the role of watchdog once again. However, I'm changing things up a bit. Instead of exclusively pointing out the douchebaggery that goes on concerning people trying to ruin Jesus's birthday for him and everyone else trying to celebrate it, I've decided to point towards the positive aspects of Christmas, which last year had eluded me due to my being as blind as the proverbial bat because of my swimming in the cesspool of politics. Wow. Quite the run-on sentence there. I must have a lot to say regarding this particular subject. Well, let's get started, shall we?
In 2008, I finally became aware that there were dangerous people out there who wanted to change the very fabric of the makeup of this great country, and turn it into something that the Founding Fathers never wanted it to be. The election of King Barack the First tore the scales from my corneas and sent me on a mission. I was going to be like a bloodhound on meth and uncover every outrageous wrongdoing perpetrated by groups like the ACLU and CAIR. I was going to be Sam Spade, and I was going to expose every single wrongdoing for what it was on this blog and on Facebook and anywhere else I could. I became so gung ho about my little crusade that for a while there, all I saw was the negative. Add to that a wretched holiday season last year wherein my car broke down, I had almost zero money for gifts, and that turned out to be the last holiday season that I would spend with my would-be mother-in-law, and it was pretty much a recipe for disaster waiting to happen.
Still, the closer the holiday actually came, the more I felt genuine holiday cheer, and it turned out not to be so bad after all. But that's not what this post is about. This post is about the current Christmas season and the fact that even though I didn't see the good things about it last year, I can see the good this year once again. I was lost, as the song says, but now am found. That said, let's begin.
Last year at Christmas I was introduced through Youtube and Moonbattery.com to a comic by the name of Brad Stine. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. After all I'd heard and seen about Liberal Hollywood and the left leaning entertainment industry, I was floored and relieved to see the stylings of a genuine Christian Conservative Comedian (CCC for short), and a downright hilarious one at that. This post is where I first placed a video I found on moonbattery that had me rolling in the aisles because of Brad's no nonsense approach towards political correctness and how absurd the very idea is.
Well, to make a long story even longer (ha ha) I once again have come across Brad Stine in the form of the movie entitled "Christmas With a Capital C". In this spectacular film, the town of Trapper Falls is celebrating Christmas the same way they always have: by putting up a Nativity scene in the front yard of the mayoral residence. That is, until an old resident of the town files a complaint that the town is in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause.
This of course, leads the town's mayor, a devout Christian, to find a way to fight back against the onslaught of bureaucratic hooplah and preserve the fifty year old tradition.
All in all, the movie was awesome, and was a very refreshing change from the negative stories about Nativity scenes being taken down in Texas, as this link informs all who click it.
Before, I was afraid our Christmas traditions were under attack from so many angles that we didn't stand a chance. Now, with more and more displays of holiday cheer popping up this year than last year, perhaps the tide has been turning. Here's hoping that's the case.
In 2008, I finally became aware that there were dangerous people out there who wanted to change the very fabric of the makeup of this great country, and turn it into something that the Founding Fathers never wanted it to be. The election of King Barack the First tore the scales from my corneas and sent me on a mission. I was going to be like a bloodhound on meth and uncover every outrageous wrongdoing perpetrated by groups like the ACLU and CAIR. I was going to be Sam Spade, and I was going to expose every single wrongdoing for what it was on this blog and on Facebook and anywhere else I could. I became so gung ho about my little crusade that for a while there, all I saw was the negative. Add to that a wretched holiday season last year wherein my car broke down, I had almost zero money for gifts, and that turned out to be the last holiday season that I would spend with my would-be mother-in-law, and it was pretty much a recipe for disaster waiting to happen.
Still, the closer the holiday actually came, the more I felt genuine holiday cheer, and it turned out not to be so bad after all. But that's not what this post is about. This post is about the current Christmas season and the fact that even though I didn't see the good things about it last year, I can see the good this year once again. I was lost, as the song says, but now am found. That said, let's begin.
Last year at Christmas I was introduced through Youtube and Moonbattery.com to a comic by the name of Brad Stine. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. After all I'd heard and seen about Liberal Hollywood and the left leaning entertainment industry, I was floored and relieved to see the stylings of a genuine Christian Conservative Comedian (CCC for short), and a downright hilarious one at that. This post is where I first placed a video I found on moonbattery that had me rolling in the aisles because of Brad's no nonsense approach towards political correctness and how absurd the very idea is.
Well, to make a long story even longer (ha ha) I once again have come across Brad Stine in the form of the movie entitled "Christmas With a Capital C". In this spectacular film, the town of Trapper Falls is celebrating Christmas the same way they always have: by putting up a Nativity scene in the front yard of the mayoral residence. That is, until an old resident of the town files a complaint that the town is in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause.
This of course, leads the town's mayor, a devout Christian, to find a way to fight back against the onslaught of bureaucratic hooplah and preserve the fifty year old tradition.
All in all, the movie was awesome, and was a very refreshing change from the negative stories about Nativity scenes being taken down in Texas, as this link informs all who click it.
Before, I was afraid our Christmas traditions were under attack from so many angles that we didn't stand a chance. Now, with more and more displays of holiday cheer popping up this year than last year, perhaps the tide has been turning. Here's hoping that's the case.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Is This the Sound of a Kingdom Falling?
The title of this post is derived from one of my favorite novels, A Storm of Swords. The scene the line is from is one wherein one of the major characters, Catelyn Stark, is worrying over her son, newly crowned King of the North, and the fact that his war of rebellion against their political enemies is not going his way. Such appears to be the case with one Michelle Bachmann and her budding (until now) political aspirations.
I like Michelle Bachmann. I agree with her Tea Party friendly message, and I like her record as well. However, after her slew of gaffs involving the Gardasil issue, it appears to me, your humble Crusader for Constitutional Justice, that her campaign has, as Rush Limbaugh put it recently, jumped the shark. Unfortunate, too, because I was looking forward to seeing the first female President of the United States, especially in light of the attacks calling the Republican Party anti-woman. I was hopeful from the beginning. "Run, Michelle, run", I was always saying back even before it was hinted at that she would announce her candidacy. Of course, by the time I heard she was running, I had already begun to get sucked into the Herman Caine Camp. I had a choice to make, and had made it, yet now with Cain doing so poorly in the polls, and Bachmann's campaign folding like an origami crane, I may find myself believing more and more that Rick Perry will end up being the nominee for the Republicans this time around.
I believe, however, that my belle Michelle still has a chance to snag the nomination if she enters damage control mode. Unfortunately, according to Hot Air, rather than backpedal on the issue, she doubled down with an anecdote about a mother who supposedly became mentally retarded as a result of being medicated with Gardasil. This only hurts the woman in the long run. I hope she is able to see the error of her ways, because all in all, I believe that Michelle Bachmann is, despite her mistakes, the best candidate to become our new leader of the free world. Here's to hoping she does, and that I'm right.
I like Michelle Bachmann. I agree with her Tea Party friendly message, and I like her record as well. However, after her slew of gaffs involving the Gardasil issue, it appears to me, your humble Crusader for Constitutional Justice, that her campaign has, as Rush Limbaugh put it recently, jumped the shark. Unfortunate, too, because I was looking forward to seeing the first female President of the United States, especially in light of the attacks calling the Republican Party anti-woman. I was hopeful from the beginning. "Run, Michelle, run", I was always saying back even before it was hinted at that she would announce her candidacy. Of course, by the time I heard she was running, I had already begun to get sucked into the Herman Caine Camp. I had a choice to make, and had made it, yet now with Cain doing so poorly in the polls, and Bachmann's campaign folding like an origami crane, I may find myself believing more and more that Rick Perry will end up being the nominee for the Republicans this time around.
I believe, however, that my belle Michelle still has a chance to snag the nomination if she enters damage control mode. Unfortunately, according to Hot Air, rather than backpedal on the issue, she doubled down with an anecdote about a mother who supposedly became mentally retarded as a result of being medicated with Gardasil. This only hurts the woman in the long run. I hope she is able to see the error of her ways, because all in all, I believe that Michelle Bachmann is, despite her mistakes, the best candidate to become our new leader of the free world. Here's to hoping she does, and that I'm right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)