[Dork.]

I make no secret of the fact that I approve of President Obama's handling of the Presidency. I think he has the right ideas on Health Care and the Economy, is bringing a fresh approach to Foreign Policy (even if he was caught off-guard by recent events in the Middle East), and is way, way more centrist than his critics claim he is. Still, I think it's in everyone's best interest to have a strong Republican candidate in the upcoming election. Not only will strong opposition make Obama's policies clearer, but it will be way more entertaining.

Palin and Trump are punch lines looking for a joke. Ron Paul is the bearded lady in the sideshow of the GOP circus: he'll never make it into the Big Top. Mitt Romney is currently being thrown under the GOP bus for having the audacity to think that Universal Health Care was a good idea that one time. (Jon Huntsman may make a compelling candidate, but I think I'm the only person outside of Utah who knows that.)

Luckily, Newton Leroy Gingrich, Ph.D just tweeted that he is running for President. Finally, a candidate that we can sink out teeth into! (A lot of my information that follows comes from here and here.

His Ph.D. is in History, and he was a University Lecturer before running for Congress. (Obama/Gingrich debates may have a test afterwards.) But you can't dispute his record once he got into Congress. Government shutdown or not, he was in charge of the House in the 90's when the Federal budget was balanced. He, of course, is taking credit for "forcing" Clinton to propose those balanced budgets. In truth, he probably does deserve some of the credit, even if his government shutdown is widely perceived (by the Liberal Media, of course) to have backfired.

He also emulates Clinton in one other department: his love of extra-marital whoopie. He's on his third wife now, and cheated on his first two wives before divorcing them. (He is rumored to have served his first wife with divorce papers while she was in the Hospital dying of cancer, but I'm not sure how true that was.) At least he had the decency to get married to his mistresses after divorcing his wives. Now that he's converted to Catholicism, though, one would presume that avenue is no longer open to him. (Expect a bunch of folks who want every little detail of Obama's life to insist that Newt's bad decisions are off limits.)

He also happens to be the only House Speaker in the history of the Republic to have been disciplined by the House for ethics violations, but that's probably because we didn't let Pelosi stay for long enough.

But the thing that strikes me the most about Gingrich is that he actually thinks about stuff. He's been saying that Medicare needs to be reformed for ages, and although I don't agree with his solutions, at least he's thought them through. He's a big proponent of Space Exporation (although not necessarily of NASA). He also hasn't taken the knee-jerk Republican positions on immigration. I think he would actually listen to all sides of an issue before making up his mind. (He also regularly reviews books on Amazon, which means he reads them, too. That is probably of interest only to me.)

Aside from the fact that I don't agree with him on most issues, the one thing I'm most disappointed about is his assertion that the Obama administration is "they're increasing government" and trying to "micromanage our lives," raise taxes, increase government power and strip citizens of their power. I don't see that at all, and I hope Newt is just tacking Right for the Primaries, and will back off of the divisive rhetoric should he get the nomination.

And I hope he does, because it would be very fun to watch. And should Newt win the nomination, make a sensible VP pick, and happen to beat Obama in 2012, I think he'd do a decent job. (Provided he doesn't find Mistress #3 while in office and lie under oath about it.)

What do you all think about good old Newton Leroy?

[The Final Dakar]

I think he should have been in that first GOP debate. I also think he's a giant hypocrite, judging from his congressional career and pundit work. I don't think he can appeal to moderates strongly enough.

[Big Mac]

Senate career?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Senate career?

That's the part that most bothers you?

Edit: Fixed.

[Big Mac]

Not bothered, just thought it was slightly funny. It also implies you're not as familiar with Gingrich as your hard line opinion of him implies.

I agree, however, that Gingrich may well have problems appealing to independents and getting the centrist vote. At the very least he has a record. He didn't do nearly as well as a leader of the majority party in the House as compared to his performance in leading the party to get to that majority, which is a common and justified criticism. He also has morality issues. For me personally I have doubts about him being sufficiently fiscally conservative, but I agree with him on a great many points. As a general election candidate I'd be concerned about him not matching the charisma factor of President Obama, and it's crucial that we have a charismatic candidate because we need Change in 2012.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Not bothered, just thought it was slightly funny.

Do tell.

[imitchellg5]

He feels like Just Another Republican to me who doesn't bother telling us what his actual policy is, just attacking everyone else's instead.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It also implies you're not as familiar with Gingrich as your hard line opinion of him implies.

People do make mistakes you know. Or are you one of the people that thinks Obama actually thinks there's 57 states?

The real implication is I have trouble parsing Congress from its whole as a place of ****ery.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

What do you all think about good old Newton Leroy?

I don't really care.

There is no way in hell anyone could make matters worse than Obama.

He is screwing up America so royally, our collective asses will be sore for decades.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

People do make mistakes you know. Or are you one of the people that thinks Obama actually thinks there's 57 states?

The real implication is I have trouble parsing Congress from its whole as a place of ****ery.

It's not a big deal, really. Sorry I brought it up. But FWIW, there's a major difference between the House and Senate, and Gingrich was never a Senator. It just stood out to me, but then again politics is my field so those kinds of things will stand out to me.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's not a big deal, really. Sorry I brought it up.

It's not that you brought it up, it's how you brought it up. Better to have it corrected in the long run.

(Also, funny you should call my opinion hard-line when yours doesn't differ much in mine)

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But FWIW, there's a major difference between the House and Senate, and Gingrich was never a Senator. It just stood out to me, but then again politics is my field so those kinds of things will stand out to me.

Yes, I'm sure your educational background would make such a faux pas much more conspicuous. My problem is I don't think of Gingrich as a Senator or Representative (I'd hesitate if questioned), but merely as the Speaker. While I know what the full title is, I almost never think it through (It doesn't help that historically speaking, he reads as the face of that entire Congress).

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I agree, however, that Gingrich may well have problems appealing to independents and getting the centrist vote. At the very least he has a record. He didn't do nearly as well as a leader of the majority party in the House as compared to his performance in leading the party to get to that majority, which is a common and justified criticism. He also has morality issues. For me personally I have doubts about him being sufficiently fiscally conservative, but I agree with him on a great many points. As a general election candidate I'd be concerned about him not matching the charisma factor of President Obama, and it's crucial that we have a charismatic candidate because we need Change in 2012.

Interesting. I think he may be the only Republican candidate with an ounce of Charisma who isn't a total train wreck. And he is going to tout that he's the only candidate on either side that's actually participated in balancing a Federal budget -- what more do you want to prove his fiscal credentials?

The Speaker of the House doesn't really get a chance to command the nation's attention as much as the President does. I've always been impressed with Gingrich when I hear him speak, although I don't agree with him. I think he can hold his own vs. Obama in the Charisma department, once we all start listening to him at length.

[The Final Dakar]

Let's cut to the chase – which one is taller?

[OAW]

Gingrich is an interesting character. On the one hand he's known to propose thoughtful policy ideas ... and I respect that even though I disagree with most of them. But on the other hand, he's also an ideological bomb thrower. It's like he has this inner "Ann Coulter" that he can't seem to keep under control. Add to that his utter hypocrisy on the whole Monica Lewinsky thing ... his recent "justification" of his serial adultery by claiming that it was the result of him working so hard because of his love for his country ... well let's just say that on balance he's kind of a clown. But he certainly knows how to hustle up a dollar. Newt, Inc. brings in millions. And I suspect that he knows full well that he has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected President. But a high profile run will certainly make his pocket's fatter.

OAW

[Dork.]

I had actually come to the exact same conclusion about Mike Huckabee. (Except Huckabee won't quite hustle up for a dollar as well, but that's a minor point). I had become impressed with some of Huckabee's policy ideas, and I think he's a good communicator as well, but when I read further I found he was far more of a social conservative than I'd be willing to stand.

Maybe I can just tolerate Newt's ideological bombs more than Huckabee's? Even though Newt seems much more willing to throw them, I consider the damage to be a lot less, perhaps?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Let's cut to the chase – which one is taller?

You know, Newt looks like he ought to be a short guy, but I'm not so sure. I found several links on the Internet claiming he was 6 ft tall, and one claiming he was 3' 4". Should I average them?

Obama is, apparently, 6" 1". So, no matter what, Obama has the higher ground in this contest.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I make no secret of the fact that I approve of President Obama's handling of the Presidency. I think he has the right ideas on Health Care and the Economy, is bringing a fresh approach to Foreign Policy (even if he was caught off-guard by recent events in the Middle East), and is way, way more centrist than his critics claim he is. Still, I think it's in everyone's best interest to have a strong Republican candidate in the upcoming election. Not only will strong opposition make Obama's policies clearer, but it will be way more entertaining.

Palin and Trump are punch lines looking for a joke. Ron Paul is the bearded lady in the sideshow of the GOP circus: he'll never make it into the Big Top. Mitt Romney is currently being thrown under the GOP bus for having the audacity to think that Universal Health Care was a good idea that one time. (Jon Huntsman may make a compelling candidate, but I think I'm the only person outside of Utah who knows that.)

Luckily, Newton Leroy Gingrich, Ph.D just tweeted that he is running for President. Finally, a candidate that we can sink out teeth into! (A lot of my information that follows comes from here and here.

His Ph.D. is in History, and he was a University Lecturer before running for Congress. (Obama/Gingrich debates may have a test afterwards.) But you can't dispute his record once he got into Congress. Government shutdown or not, he was in charge of the House in the 90's when the Federal budget was balanced. He, of course, is taking credit for "forcing" Clinton to propose those balanced budgets. In truth, he probably does deserve some of the credit, even if his government shutdown is widely perceived (by the Liberal Media, of course) to have backfired.

He also emulates Clinton in one other department: his love of extra-marital whoopie. He's on his third wife now, and cheated on his first two wives before divorcing them. (He is rumored to have served his first wife with divorce papers while she was in the Hospital dying of cancer, but I'm not sure how true that was.) At least he had the decency to get married to his mistresses after divorcing his wives. Now that he's converted to Catholicism, though, one would presume that avenue is no longer open to him. (Expect a bunch of folks who want every little detail of Obama's life to insist that Newt's bad decisions are off limits.)

He also happens to be the only House Speaker in the history of the Republic to have been disciplined by the House for ethics violations, but that's probably because we didn't let Pelosi stay for long enough.

But the thing that strikes me the most about Gingrich is that he actually thinks about stuff. He's been saying that Medicare needs to be reformed for ages, and although I don't agree with his solutions, at least he's thought them through. He's a big proponent of Space Exporation (although not necessarily of NASA). He also hasn't taken the knee-jerk Republican positions on immigration. I think he would actually listen to all sides of an issue before making up his mind. (He also regularly reviews books on Amazon, which means he reads them, too. That is probably of interest only to me.)

Aside from the fact that I don't agree with him on most issues, the one thing I'm most disappointed about is his assertion that the Obama administration is "they're increasing government" and trying to "micromanage our lives," raise taxes, increase government power and strip citizens of their power. I don't see that at all, and I hope Newt is just tacking Right for the Primaries, and will back off of the divisive rhetoric should he get the nomination.

And I hope he does, because it would be very fun to watch. And should Newt win the nomination, make a sensible VP pick, and happen to beat Obama in 2012, I think he'd do a decent job. (Provided he doesn't find Mistress #3 while in office and lie under oath about it.)

What do you all think about good old Newton Leroy?

An excellent analysis Dork.

Of course I could immediately assume because you find him palatable after the praise you've heaped on what I feel has been a folly to the Presidency; Gingrich should be avoided at all costs, but he does have a solid track record of fiscal conservatism and the more you listen - the more likable he becomes. He makes an awful lot of sense. He's a very, very serious candidate for the Presidency, but I don't think he has a snowball's chance of beating Obama. He's an old, laid-back, grey-haired white man with some good points and a lot of dry factoids. America wants a rock star and there is literally no one on the right, serious about running, that can give them one.

[OldManMac]

I would love to see him run. It would ensure Obama another victory (and I'm not that big of an Obama fan, although I definitely think we could do worse). Gingrich is a slick used car salesman, who came up with some really interesting excuses for his infidelity; he's not trustworthy. Then again, the American people are by and large pretty gullible (as one can see, where they just voted in lots of people who are creating and passing measures to help widen the gap between the rich and the rest of us). America's best days are behind us; we're no longer as important on the world stage as we used to be, and we certainly can't afford to be the world's policeman anymore (although we certainly won't stop trying).

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course I could immediately assume because you find him palatable after the praise you've heaped on what I feel has been a folly to the Presidency; Gingrich should be avoided at all costs

but he does have a solid track record of fiscal conservatism and the more you listen - the more likable he becomes. He makes an awful lot of sense. He's a very, very serious candidate for the Presidency, but I don't think he has a snowball's chance of beating Obama. He's an old, laid-back, grey-haired white man with some good points and a lot of dry factoids. America wants a rock star and there is literally no one on the right, serious about running, that can give them one.

I disagree. When Americans pay attention to politics, they pay attention to things that matter to them. It doesn't matter what the messenger looks like or how much of a "Rock Star" they appear to be. If enough people think they're not getting the job done, they'll look at the alternative. If the alternative passes the "sniff" test, then the old guy will get Voted Off The Island. (This is why Obama is making such a big deal about Doing Something about gas prices, even if there's not much he can do: he doesn't want the common voter blaming him for it.)

Don't count Newton Leroy out just yet. I believe he can present his "dry factoids" in a manner that can resonate with the typical voter. The next Republican nominee is going to have to either convince folks who voted for Obama last time around to change sides, or convince scads of new voters to pull the "R" lever. If Newt can't do it, who can?

(For the record, in my old age I'm starting to understand Fiscal Conservatives more and more. I wish they didn't want to start and end every conversation with tax cuts. I think Newt may understand that reducing the deficit is more important than cutting taxes.)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I would love to see him run. It would ensure Obama another victory (and I'm not that big of an Obama fan, although I definitely think we could do worse). Gingrich is a slick used car salesman, who came up with some really interesting excuses for his infidelity; he's not trustworthy. Then again, the American people are by and large pretty gullible (as one can see, where they just voted in lots of people who are creating and passing measures to help widen the gap between the rich and the rest of us). America's best days are behind us; we're no longer as important on the world stage as we used to be, and we certainly can't afford to be the world's policeman anymore (although we certainly won't stop trying).

I think that if some are going to take the "I don't have a rat's ass" about Clinton's affairs, that the same principles should be extended to Newton as well.

I for one don't give a rat's ass about any body or any thing he has slept with.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think that if some are going to take the "I don't have a rat's ass" about Clinton's affairs, that the same principles should be extended to Newton as well.

I for one don't give a rat's ass about any body or any thing he has slept with.

So two wrongs make a right? That's another problem that no one wants to address. I think we have a bunch of children running Washington (both sides of the aisle).

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think that if some are going to take the "I don't have a rat's ass" about Clinton's affairs, that the same principles should be extended to Newton as well.

I think whether it's an issue relates to one's policy stance on ass-banditry.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

So two wrongs make a right? That's another problem that no one wants to address. I think we have a bunch of children running Washington (both sides of the aisle).

I don't think that we should be in the business of assessing what they do in their personal life is wrong or right, so long as what they do in their personal life is legal and doesn't affect their ability to do what we are paying them to do: craft legislation and lead.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think whether it's an issue relates to one's policy stance on ass-banditry.

That would be when their personal life interferes with their jobs.

If we didn't hear a peep about the Lewinsky thing but it still took place, would it have affected his ability to be president so long as he was able to sort this out with Hilary - whether this meant divorcing her or whatever?

Yes, these sorts of traumatizing life events affect their jobs, but so do events that nobody has direct control over (e.g. death, health, etc.), not to mention personal mistakes/flaws that people do have control over but are not transparent to the public (e.g. feuds, alcoholism, etc.)

All of this analysis is just distracting though, because the impact of all of this will have an influence on their job performance. It is our business to assess their job performance, not the process in which they do their jobs (so long as it is legal)

[besson3c]

What I said also applies to critique of vacation time and stuff like that, especially since in these cases we don't even have a solid means to assess these sorts of things even if we wanted to. Sometimes a vacation is exactly what is needed to clear ones head and recharge batteries, sometimes it is frivolous.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think that if some are going to take the "I don't have a rat's ass" about Clinton's affairs, that the same principles should be extended to Newton as well.

I for one don't give a rat's ass about any body or any thing he has slept with.

I agree, but this is the man that screeched about Clinton's hanky-panky while he was gleefully committing his own. That hypocrisy disqualifies him.

[besson3c]

I agree

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I agree, but this is the man that screeched about Clinton's hanky-panky while he was gleefully committing his own. That hypocrisy disqualifies him.

He didn't "screech about Clinton's hanky-panky", he screeched about the subsequent perjury and obstruction of justice. Now, there was a Democrat witchhunt leading to some 80+ ethics charges against him; all dropped, but one that found him guilty of using a tax exempt college course for a political agenda. I don't know how much weight that will carry with the general populace seeing as that's what college appears to be for anyway, but it does constitute the first time a House Speaker was reprimanded for an ethics violation. This coupled with the serious questions of his extramarital shenanigans should give any conscientious conservative pause for thought.

If it weren't for the people representing us that appear to have some personal integrity, you'd think this degree of self-absorption, deceit, and hubris were necessary to even desire public office.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't know how much weight that will carry with the general populace seeing as that's what college appears to be for anyway,

You're on fire this week! (That's not snarky -- I think you've been genuinely funny lately.) You should start your own political blog!

If it weren't for the people representing us that appear to have some personal integrity, you'd think this degree of self-absorption, deceit, and hubris were necessary to even desire public office.

Actually, I think it is. You need a certain amount of ego to decide that you want to be a loud voice representing your community, some amount of secrecy to handle negotiations properly, and enough ambition to desire to advance your agenda among people who don't agree with you. Those are all desirable traits, but it takes a lot of effort to keep those traits from turning into self-absorption, deceit, and hubris.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Not only will strong opposition make Obama's policies clearer, but it will be way more entertaining.

You guys have the most entertaining political races. I think that's why so many of us outside the US are so interested in your politics.
(that, and of course, the fact that *your* political choices have a huge impact on *our* governments and economies)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I agree, however, that Gingrich may well have problems appealing to independents and getting the centrist vote.

If it's centrist votes that the Republicans want, then they'd probably better stay away from Trump and Palin. Run McCain again with a more moderate mate and I wouldn't be surprised if he won.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Gingrich is an interesting character. On the one hand he's known to propose thoughtful policy ideas ... and I respect that even though I disagree with most of them. But on the other hand, he's also an ideological bomb thrower. It's like he has this inner "Ann Coulter" that he can't seem to keep under control ...

As I said earlier. Gingrich just has a hard time keeping his foot out of his mouth. Now he has the GOP up in arms about his recent comments on the Sunday news talk shows.

Gingrich inspires another GOP revolt -- against himself - CNN.com

Of course, it's beside the point that what he said that has the GOP up in arms actually had some merit. He got off message as he is prone to do ... and now he's being taken to task for it.

OAW

[Kerrigan]

Just what the country needs--another professor for president.

The hypocrisy issue is his biggest disqualification. Secondly, his views on spending reductions (he wants fewer of them) will not sit well with the party.

However, he would be excellent in a debate with Obama.

My primary vote will most likely be going to Romney or (hopefully) Perry.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

You're on fire this week! (That's not snarky -- I think you've been genuinely funny lately.) You should start your own political blog!

I appreciate that Dork.

Actually, I think it is. You need a certain amount of ego to decide that you want to be a loud voice representing your community, some amount of secrecy to handle negotiations properly, and enough ambition to desire to advance your agenda among people who don't agree with you. Those are all desirable traits, but it takes a lot of effort to keep those traits from turning into self-absorption, deceit, and hubris.

Good points all and I hope the candidates throwing their hats into the ring are able to avoid the trappings of fame. The good news is I think folks are getting a little more keen to the ones who start out of the gate with the self-absorption, deceit, and hubris and will avoid them like the plague. Some of them have deceived themselves and believe they actually have a shot at the Presidency. I hope they learn otherwise.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Just what the country needs--another professor for president.

Yeah, the last thing we want is somebody who might be smart running for office!

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He didn't "screech about Clinton's hanky-panky", he screeched about the subsequent perjury and obstruction of justice.

Linda Tripp was a hoot.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by screener 

Linda Tripp was a hoot.

The astute hoot snatched $600k in loot from a lawsuit against the Justice Dept jackboot.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The astute hoot snatched $600k in loot from a lawsuit against the Justice Dept jackboot.

Paid by the taxpayers, what a hoot.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by screener 

Paid by the taxpayers, what a hoot.

Of course. Legitimate grievances for a blatant violation of one's privacy are not worth your tax money unless the Administration has an (R) after it.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course. Legitimate grievances for a blatant violation of one's privacy are not worth your tax money unless the Administration has an (R) after it.

Yeah, Lewinski's privacy means dick.
Who taped who?

[Dork.]

Gentlemen! This thread is about Newton Leroy, not about Monica! I know it's hard to tell the two of them apart sometimes, but please focus!

Originally Posted by OAW 

Of course, it's beside the point that what he said that has the GOP up in arms actually had some merit. He got off message as he is prone to do ... and now he's being taken to task for it.

I don't think he got off message, he did precisely what he intended to do: distance himself from the Ryan budget, and present himself as a middle ground between two "extremes". The Republican leadership may be taking him to task for it, but I'm not at all sure whether voters care. Heck, that middle ground that always win Presidential elections may even agree with him! I think Gingrich sees that the Republican Party has a rift, and he wants to try and bring the tea party back to reality, to prevent the moderates from voting for Obama again.

And I'm starting to think that even his jabs at Obama will be entertaining, Recently, he contrasted himself with Obama: Obama is the "Food Stamp" president, while Gingrich would be the "Paycheck" President. Sounds like something that someone who's looking to get offended would call racist. But he backed it up by saying that the number of people on Food Stamps has increased under Obama's tenure, which is a perfectly reasonable explanation. I'm surprised no one has taken the bait yat.

Make no mistake -- even when he goes "off message", he has a plan. Contrast this with Joe Biden, who has no filter at all between brain and mouth. When Joe goes off-message, it's a big ****ing deal.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I don't think he got off message, he did precisely what he intended to do: distance himself from the Ryan budget, and present himself as a middle ground between two "extremes". The Republican leadership may be taking him to task for it, but I'm not at all sure whether voters care. Heck, that middle ground that always win Presidential elections may even agree with him! I think Gingrich sees that the Republican Party has a rift, and he wants to try and bring the tea party back to reality, to prevent the moderates from voting for Obama again.

How does bringing the tea party back to reality help prevent moderates from voting for Obama? Do you mean that he would be getting his party in his camp, and segregating his party from the tea party folk? The problem with this theory is that there are many in his party who might be more inclined to support the tea party folk. This might actually make things worse.

[Big Mac]

Newt's short presidential campaign is finished. Stick a fork in it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Newt's short presidential campaign is finished. Stick a fork in it.

Huh? Why is it finished?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Huh? Why is it finished?

He dared to question the party line.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

He dared to question the party line.

I would think this accomplishes the exact opposite in helping Newt's cause, because the Ryan plan to replace Medicare with private vouchers is completely retarded right now, and I'd like to think that moderate voters see that.

Replacing Medicare with private vouchers might eventually make sense, but some work is needed for us to get there. Like Newt said, it's too extreme for right now. Baby steps.

[Kerrigan]

There is a very good reason for this, besson.

He knew he would never win the nomination in the first place. He's a serial adulterer with too much baggage. He's also very smart, and knows he would never win the nomination.

By running for president, he can attract national attention to himself. And by bucking the party line on the most important issue to the GOP, budget cuts,, he can make himself popular with people on the left--such as yourself. Then, when he loses the nomination, he has newfound respect, which opens doors for him in the Beltway.

In a nutshell: he never had a chance at winning, and what little chance he has is now completely gone. But, he has newfound respect in Washington.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

There is a very good reason for this, besson.

He knew he would never win the nomination in the first place. He's a serial adulterer with too much baggage. He's also very smart, and knows he would never win the nomination.

By running for president, he can attract national attention to himself. And by bucking the party line on the most important issue to the GOP, budget cuts,, he can make himself popular with people on the left--such as yourself. Then, when he loses the nomination, he has newfound respect, which opens doors for him in the Beltway.

In a nutshell: he never had a chance at winning, and what little chance he has is now completely gone. But, he has newfound respect in Washington.

I don't get it. What does he stand to gain in building up support among the left if he doesn't see himself as a presidential candidate? Apparently he's been doing fine without the left in terms of getting himself re-elected.

[Kerrigan]

He's unelectable, and knows it. But now he at least has respect from the left, so it opens doors for him in terms of booking speaking events, getting political appointments, and other highly lucrative endeavors.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I would think this accomplishes the exact opposite in helping Newt's cause, because the Ryan plan to replace Medicare with private vouchers is completely retarded right now, and I'd like to think that moderate voters see that.

Why is the Ryan plan completely retarded but the status quo that Democratic party embraces (as do you apparently) - that's destroying the country financially - is not retarded?

Medicare as it stands is retarded, bankrupting and unconstitutional.