Eye of Newt?

[arnie666]

I hope Newt gets the nomination too. Just to see this community college "professor" get mulched into creamed corn.

We are agreed then,and Obama can wheel his teleprompter to the debates as well. Can't get fairer than that.

[onmyknees]

As much as I'm a political junkie, and it would be great theater to see Newt swatting away Obama's class warfare barbs in a debate.....it's not going to matter. (I never felt Obama was as smart as Chris Matthews promised us he was anyway) The so called Main Stream Media will carry the water for Obama again. It's already begun setting the stage to label Newt unelectable . Look...Newt's a smart guy, (albeit complete with lots of baggage) and in an election like this where people are thirsting for a leader, and a job he might be able to score a 51-49 and a whisker in the electoral map win over the Jimmy Carter clone we have there now, but don't underestimate the power of the liberal press. For folks like us who don't rely on the fascists at the NY Times and Brian Williams, and Andrea Mitchell who long ago shed any reality of fairness... for their version of the day's news there are millions that do. And the second Obama appears down by a few points in the polls....they'll pull out all the stops similar to what they did to McCain accusing him of an affair with a lady friend and campaign worker. Another October surprise like what they tried on Bush the elder...Facts won't deter them....they're on a mission. They write the narrative and fill in the blanks.
The only chance the establishment has is Romney. He's too clean to be smeared by the liberal media to the degree they'll destroy Newt, and he appeals to independents. I don't trust him as far as I can toss him, and he won't shake up Washington like we so need, but he will be able to put us back on sounder financial ground.

[hippifried]

Ir's not baggage, it's just plain old dirt. It wasn't the media. Newt got dirty all by himself. He wen't out of his way to play in the mud & muck, & he still hasn't stopped selling mudpies, let alone bathe (metaphorically speaking). He's not electable because he can't hide the public record.

The fanatic wing of the Republican Party despises Mitt Romney, but they didn't like John McCain either. The problem is that he changes his positions like a chameleon to blend in with whoever's vote he's courting on a day by day basis. That's all on the public record too.

[russtafa]

i hope Sarah Palin gets back into the presidential race and becomes your next president ,politics would become a lot more interesting

[Stavros]

The problem with Obama can now be summed up simply,he tells europe going through a massive crisis to 'sort it out yourselves',that is strikingly similar to what he tells the repubs and dems in the house and senate. The man has no leadership skills,he isn't a deal maker,prepared to get his hands dirty. he is totally unsuited to being head of a superpower,he fills key positions with people who want to take the US into a european socialist direction
Newt is the only one who can take it and give it back ,in my opinion. He has been asked about ,immigration ,global warming where there are questions are he isn't consistant as well as his affairs, and he comes across much better.

The US Federal Reserve provided Europe with $3.3bn credit in the last week, I don't see that as indifference; and perhaps you can tell us what European state still claims to be socialist? Bulgaria?

Gingrich might be an acid debater, the question is whether or not the voters think they can trust him in the White House -he doesn't represent anything I believe in, but having coherent policies alone doesn't get anyone into the White House. And being coherent isn't the same as being right.

[onmyknees]

Ir's not baggage, it's just plain old dirt. It wasn't the media. Newt got dirty all by himself. He wen't out of his way to play in the mud & muck, & he still hasn't stopped selling mudpies, let alone bathe (metaphorically speaking). He's not electable because he can't hide the public record.

The fanatic wing of the Republican Party despises Mitt Romney, but they didn't like John McCain either. The problem is that he changes his positions like a chameleon to blend in with whoever's vote he's courting on a day by day basis. That's all on the public record too.

I'm not blaming the media for Newt's issues at all....sure we should know about his flip flops, and his personal failings...what I am blaming them for is their total lack of curiosity about Obama . Even to this day the 3 major networks have run a total of 3 stories on Fast and Furious and Solyndria. There have been 8 different Congressional hearings. Maybe you just don't see the bias because you're not tuned in...or because you agree with the bias....that doesn't mean it's not happening.
If Newt's marriages are an issue....why wasn't Rev Wright and the awful things he said about Bill and Hill...and white folks? The 3 majors and the NY Times didn't give that a whiff. Or don't you think it was at least worth some reporters time to disclose to us in more detail about all those "present" votes he had in the Illinois Legislature on tough issues? WHo the hell votes present 40% of the time? It may have been an insight to the way he'd govern....or not govern as the case may be. Hey...you and the MSM got what you paid for Hippie. An aloof, detached, disinterested , demagogue who when he's not campaigning...he's on vacation.

PS...If there is a fanatic right wing....is there also a fanatic left wing...or are they sensible and mainstream in your jaded world?

[trish]

Not much on this

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...en-energy-aid/

either.

Whether it's Solyndra or Aptera it doesn't much matter. New energy saving technology will require a large amount of capital to overcome the initial expenses of research and development as well as to catch up on the head start other nations have got on us in energy development. There will be lots of failures, that's the nature of competitive evolution. Some of the failures will have been backed by Obama and some by Issa. Go figure. No need to get in a tizzy fit about the New York Times which is one of the world's most trusted rags.

[BluegrassCat]

Even to this day the 3 major networks have run a total of 3 stories on Fast and Furious and Solyndria. There have been 8 different Congressional hearings. Maybe you just don't see the bias because you're not tuned in...or because you agree with the bias....that doesn't mean it's not happening.

Complaining about non-existent media bias. This just shows what a far-right media bubble you dwell in. I guess it shouldn't surprise me anymore, you're so far out of the mainstream.

The Washington Post, the most establishment of establishment media sources, published 43 stories about Solyndra. The New York Times, that liberal bastion, ran more than 30 stories. ABC News: 17 video news segments, CBS News: 8 video news segments, NBC Nightly News: 6 video segments with 30 more on MSNBC.

All of this for a total non-scandal. The media is biased, heavily biased towards laziness, salacious stories and easy explanations, which does tend to amount to a bias in favor of conservatives.

[nonnonnon]

Some of the best presidents have been white men over 35! I say give him a shot

[thombergeron]

I'm not blaming the media for Newt's issues at all....

You have repeatedly claimed to be a "political junkie," and yet you seem to have no awareness at all of what is being reported on the subject.

Even to this day the 3 major networks have run a total of 3 stories on Fast and Furious and Solyndria.

As has been very competently noted above, this statement is farcically inaccurate.

If Newt's marriages are an issue....why wasn't Rev Wright and the awful things he said about Bill and Hill...and white folks? The 3 majors and the NY Times didn't give that a whiff.

A google search for "Jeremiah White" limited to the New York Times site returns 22,200 hits. You did no verification at all for this post, and consequently, you look like an unhinged lunatic.

Or don't you think it was at least worth some reporters time to disclose to us in more detail about all those "present" votes he had in the Illinois Legislature on tough issues? WHo the hell votes present 40% of the time? It may have been an insight to the way he'd govern....

It appears that you were unconscious for much of 2007 and 2008. This issue was pushed exhaustively by the Clinton campaign during the primary. Early on, The New York Times, of all places, assigned not one, but two reporters to disclose more details about the practice of voting "present" in the Illinois legislature:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us...pagewanted=all

Turns out, Chicken Little, when one is fully informed of the procedural idiosyncrasies of the Illinois legislature, it's not actually that big a deal.