Eye of Newt?

[Erika1487]

Does anybody else think that he has a punchers chance of winng the GOP nommination?
The reason I ask is I still get regualr updates from 'a few party insiders' and they are all saying Newt Vs Romney is what matters now and from recent internal GOP polling Newt is a mucher stonger canidate!

Newt Gingrich stomps Mitt Romney in Florida poll
Newt Gingrich is ahead of Mitt Romney by a wide margin in Florida, a key GOP primary state. Will the surge last?
By David Grant | Christian Science Monitor – 12 hrs ago

Newt Gingrich is blowing up in the polls – everywhere. But his lead is huge in Florida, a key early primary state. He's benefiting from Herman Cain's collapse in the wake of allegations of sexual harassment and the claim of a 13-year affair with single-mother Ginger White.

Consider Conservaposts’s take by Daniel Bruski on the latest numbers, which shows the former Speaker with a 24-point lead over Mitt Rommey.

conservapost:

Here’s the shattering results from the Florida Times-Union poll:

NEWT GINGRICH - 41%

MITT ROMNEY - 17%

HERMAN CAIN - 13%

RICK PERRY - 7%

RON PAUL - 4%

MICHELE BACHMANN - 3%

RICK SANTORUM - 1%

"With how things are going at this point in time, I believe that Newt Gingrich will garner Iowa, come close to or win New Hampshire, and win both South Carolina and Florida with numbers off the charts. In my nonprofessional opinion, Speaker Gingrich is the only candidate that can mount a successful bid against both Mitt Romney for the Republican Nomination and Barack Obama for the American Presidency; he harbors the experience necessary to do this right."

- Daniel Bruski

Of course, Florida - like South Carolina and Iowa - appears susceptible to the GOP’s “flavor of the moment” race to this point: Rick Perry and Herman Cain also had massive bumps in their poll numbers in all three states only to fall back to Earth as their campaigns faltered. The only constant has been New Hampshire, where Mitt Romney has maintained a sizable advantage.

[Silcc69]

Good ole Neutered Newt, at least his infidelities are well known. It is looking like it will be between him and Mitt.

[hippifried]

Is it short memories or short attention span?

Newt Gingrich was on top of the world. He was Speaker of the House, the most powerful position in the Congress. Suddenly he wasn't there anymore. He didn't just resign the Speakership, but the House seat his constituents had elected him to at least 6 or 7 times that I can remember off the top of my head. He bailed so his own party, in control of the House, wouldn't strip him of the top spot, or even his seat. Because he's a philanderer? Oh no no no... It's because he's an unapoligetic crook. He was playing fast & loose with the money from the PACs he'd set up, & the rumors were that he'd been selling face time with House members to lobbyists.

So... What are the options for the Republicans? Y'all want the known crook, the guy who flip flops so much that you have no idea what his positions are, of one of the batshit crazies (who like to think that they deserve to be the most powerful person in the world because they don't know anything & can prove it) to be your standard bearer?

[fred41]

Is it short memories or short attention span?

Newt Gingrich was on top of the world. He was Speaker of the House, the most powerful position in the Congress. Suddenly he wasn't there anymore. He didn't just resign the Speakership, but the House seat his constituents had elected him to at least 6 or 7 times that I can remember off the top of my head. He bailed so his own party, in control of the House, wouldn't strip him of the top spot, or even his seat. Because he's a philanderer? Oh no no no... It's because he's an unapoligetic crook. He was playing fast & loose with the money from the PACs he'd set up, & the rumors were that he'd been selling face time with House members to lobbyists.

So... What are the options for the Republicans? Y'all want the known crook, the guy who flip flops so much that you have no idea what his positions are, of one of the batshit crazies (who like to think that they deserve to be the most powerful person in the world because they don't know anything & can prove it) to be your standard bearer?

Yeah...too bad Newt's so dirty...it would be a great debate between him and Obama if he wasn't...

[Stavros]

If Gingrich were to get the nomination, Obama would once again be campaigning against an elderly man -I know a lot of people liked John McCain as a person, but he was a dismal debater and hopeless at oration -I would expect Gingrich to be sharper in debate, but he has no charisma, and even though many of the young people who flocked to Obama will be disilllusioned now, he will still look better up against someone who has been and gone from high office, as Hippifried has pointed out. I am surprised the Republicans don't have a young, handsome blade to represent them -they look increasingly decrepit, and void of anything interesting to say except cut-cap-balance. Again, both Clinton and Blair had the image of youth to help them, it sounds superficial, but if it suggests virility too, that may have a sub-conscious effect on voters.

[Erika1487]

The party loves Newt beacause he is a 'good ol boy insider' something Mitt Romney can't buy, party respect. The party could care less about what 'outsiders' think of Newt he is one of them.
The problem with that thinking is that what the party wants and what GOP voters want are two diffrent things. Newt is an older canidate, but lets be real unless a 40 something runs no GOP canidate will take the 'youth vote'.
I honestly think that if Newt takes the nomination in the primary he may lose badly in the general to Obama.

[Stavros]

Although it is speculation, if the turn out is low across the country, and the youth vote does not turn out for Obama like it did last time, is there any one group that can swing the result? Is it more likely to benefit the GOP? There has always been a fear in the UK that in low turn outs, the Labour Party loses to the Conservatives.

[Erika1487]

Although it is speculation, if the turn out is low across the country, and the youth vote does not turn out for Obama like it did last time, is there any one group that can swing the result? Is it more likely to benefit the GOP? There has always been a fear in the UK that in low turn outs, the Labour Party loses to the Conservatives.

Low turn out of young voters always helps the GOP, I think if the GOP base, will show up, but it is hard to say how independent voters will go this time around. There are some folks that only vote every 4 yrs and they often can be unpredecictable due to lack of intrest in the political process.

[arnie666]

I hope newt gets the nomination,just to see the entertainment value of Obama either dodging debating with him and then being chased by newt as newt reckons if obama dodges him he is going to follow obama around the states making speeches trashing his speech hours after obama. or debating him but getting trashed.

I couldn't give a shit if gingrich has been fucking women,men,trannies or even family pets while wearing a blood drenched satanic cowl in his spare time, the man speaks with the confidence of someone who knows exactly what he wants to do if he becomes president, I like his boldness ,saying he has already won it. 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,then just goes plays golf when amazingly enough both sides can't work with each other.

The buck stops with him. The media and by extension the left are going to run a very negative campaign at whoever the repub nominee is because Obama is such a failiure ,don't think that romney would get an easier time.He won't. Romney was exposed in a soft interview on fox news with brett baier , where he couldn't take someone questioning him over the flip flops and had a go after the interview ended,about unfairness. If he can't take fox news,how on earth can he face what the Obama team are going to do to him when they get started with their billion dollar muck rake? Or MSLSD/MSLGBT? Romney is a clone candidate and when something doesn't go to plan or he is questioned critically he flounders. If the repubs run him Obama will have more of a chance.

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.

[trish]

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

[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]

:whistle: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/2011/dec/02/carmaker-closes-without-green-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/politics/20obama.html?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.

[Odelay]

Claims of media bias fit in with the general tendencies of conservatives to play the victim card. This article from Harper's, written in 2006, outlines the origins and continuing currency of the idea that the conservative right wing feels most comfortable when they can accuse others of having stabbed them in the back.

http://harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081080

This article was illuminating to me because growing up in the 60's all I ever heard from my grandfather, father and uncles was how Roosevelt stabbed us in the back at Yalta by ceding all of Eastern Europe to Stalin. It was always Yalta, blah, blah, blah. And as the article goes onto show, this same narrative was in play during Korea, Vietnam and for any other phenomenon that played out in the USA that was to the disliking of the right wing.

Today, my old man is a couple of months from 80 and all I ever hear about is the liberal bias of the media. He doesn't have any objective info on that because he watches Fox and listens to Rush, 24/7. Basically, he loves playing the victim. The Left is out to get him, and it's a huge conspiracy. I love my pops, but I wish he could just chill and enjoy his old age by not focusing on the real and imagined negatives surrounding him.

[Faldur]

Today, my old man is a couple of months from 80 and all I ever hear about is the liberal bias of the media. He doesn't have any objective info on that because he watches Fox and listens to Rush, 24/7. Basically, he loves playing the victim. The Left is out to get him, and it's a huge conspiracy. I love my pops, but I wish he could just chill and enjoy his old age by not focusing on the real and imagined negatives surrounding him.

Maybe your Dad just loves his country? And is fed up like the rest of us with what the ominous government takeover is doing to it.

You can't state the things you have about media bias and have a straight face while typing it. The media in general has slanted left for well over 30 years. Some light reading for you..

Media Bias Basics (http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf)

Can't say I know many conservatives who claim to be victims. Doesn't really matter what slant the press has, nor what false claims are made up about.. (fill in the blank). The American people have shone a strong ability of discernment. They get fooled once and a while, but in the end they manage to find truth. 2012 will be a good test of that statement. You can count on the media's misuse to influence the outcome. In 2008 it was clearly evident. But in the end I don't think it was the media that produced the outcome. I think Americans were so desperate for change that they actually believed Obama would come through.

http://www.journalism.org/sites/journalism.org/files/u29/1_lead_image2.png

[Silcc69]

Maybe your Dad just loves his country? And is fed up like the rest of us with what the ominous government takeover is doing to it.

You can't state the things you have about media bias and have a straight face while typing it. The media in general has slanted left for well over 30 years. Some light reading for you..

Media Bias Basics (http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf)

Can't say I know many conservatives who claim to be victims. Doesn't really matter what slant the press has, nor what false claims are made up about.. (fill in the blank). The American people have shone a strong ability of discernment. They get fooled once and a while, but in the end they manage to find truth. 2012 will be a good test of that statement. You can count on the media's misuse to influence the outcome. In 2008 it was clearly evident. But in the end I don't think it was the media that produced the outcome. I think Americans were so desperate for change that they actually believed Obama would come through.

http://www.journalism.org/sites/journalism.org/files/u29/1_lead_image2.png

Love how that article fails to mention how the right DOMINATES talk radio. So while that article carry some weight it does leave out that fact. I can turn on the radio and point out about 7 conservative talk show hosts. 3 are local guys. On the liberal end there is 1 guy and he is a local guy and he just passed away. So again what does that say about media bias? The right isn't getting clobbered as they would liek to put it.

[Silcc69]

I also ran up on these and these comments are just WOW.....

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-half-sister-republican-gingrich-backs-obama-060148672.html

[trish]

The coverage chart is simply bogus. That the left wing dominates the media is a right wing myth propagated by the media, which is, after all, owned by a handful of right wing plutocrats. The media, from radio to tv, caters to the baser instincts of the viewing public: scandals, diatribes, scandals, rants, scandals, fear mongering, scandals, whining pundits and scandals. If the right wing is covered more negatively (and there's absolutely no evidence that they are) it's because they're more scandalous. The bottom line for the media moguls (who are most assuredly right wing) is money. They air what sells and they air whatever promotes the agenda that most suits their bottom line.

[Faldur]

Love how that article fails to mention how the right DOMINATES talk radio. So while that article carry some weight it does leave out that fact. I can turn on the radio and point out about 7 conservative talk show hosts. 3 are local guys.

Completely agree. You can't keep a liberal talk show on the air, Air America is the perfect example. People don't like to listen to it. And radio is still driven by ratings, and competition. Thank goodness if your a conservative. Liberals should be sending American taxpayers a thank you for NPR, without federal funds it would have gone by the wayside long ago.

But when you get to major television networks you don't see the same honest competition. All the majors have been owned/managed by left leaning groups or individuals who as long as they don't out liberal there competition they don't upset the apple crate. The insurgence of FOX news and the large viewership it brings in is a statement, at least to me, that the same audience that talk radio sees is there in television also.

FOX News is ranked 4th last week in primetime of all cable channels, and 5th in a Total Programming Day. Again, rated with all cable news channels. My humble opinion, if there were a conservative station among the big 4 networks it would drive the others out of business or force them to change the slant.

[trish]

People don't like to listen to it. Democrats generally don't like listening to assholes rant, whether it's favorable to them or not. They may listen for awhile but soon grow tired of it. Republicans, on the other hand, eat that shit up.

[Odelay]

Maybe your Dad just loves his country? And is fed up like the rest of us with what the ominous government takeover is doing to it.

You can't state the things you have about media bias and have a straight face while typing it. The media in general has slanted left for well over 30 years. Some light reading for you..

Media Bias Basics (http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf)

Can't say I know many conservatives who claim to be victims. Doesn't really matter what slant the press has, nor what false claims are made up about.. (fill in the blank). The American people have shone a strong ability of discernment. They get fooled once and a while, but in the end they manage to find truth. 2012 will be a good test of that statement. You can count on the media's misuse to influence the outcome. In 2008 it was clearly evident. But in the end I don't think it was the media that produced the outcome. I think Americans were so desperate for change that they actually believed Obama would come through.

http://www.journalism.org/sites/journalism.org/files/u29/1_lead_image2.png

My Dad does love his country. That's the difference between you and I, Faldur. I believe that liberals are just as likely to love our country as conservatives. You don't. You want one party rule. I think one party rule has proven devastating across the ages. All you do is mock liberals. I listen to my father every day for 22 years, and as often as I can for these last 28. You close your ears to the opposition and dismiss all their arguments. I don't. I want a vibrant opposition party. That's why I'm plugged into this GOP primary. I want to see some evidence of sanity returning to it. So far, I don't. That's simply my opinion. It's a free country, up to this date, so I totally want you to have the right to differ with my opinion. As for the liberal bias of the media, I will only say this... I see the NY Times, Wash Post, the major television networks, etc., having a corporate bias towards profits. Business philosophy is inherently conservative. So there it is... I differ with you again. I think the media is corporate/conservative biased. Thus, liberals' only hope is to have some moderate to conservative Democrat (see: Carter, Clinton, Obama) get elected to the White House. There's no chance that a principled liberal like Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold will ever have a shot.

[BluegrassCat]

Maybe your Dad just loves his country? And is fed up like the rest of us with what the ominous government takeover is doing to it.

You can't state the things you have about media bias and have a straight face while typing it. The media in general has slanted left for well over 30 years. Some light reading for you..

Media Bias Basics (http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf)

Can't say I know many conservatives who claim to be victims. Doesn't really matter what slant the press has, nor what false claims are made up about.. (fill in the blank). The American people have shone a strong ability of discernment. They get fooled once and a while, but in the end they manage to find truth. 2012 will be a good test of that statement. You can count on the media's misuse to influence the outcome. In 2008 it was clearly evident. But in the end I don't think it was the media that produced the outcome. I think Americans were so desperate for change that they actually believed Obama would come through.

http://www.journalism.org/sites/journalism.org/files/u29/1_lead_image2.png


I'm glad to see that you're presenting evidence for your position, it's much better than "because I say so." Although the link you provide takes up a whole lot of space, they never provide any evidence that the media actually is biased. They show what people think and how journalists identify but no actual evidence of bias in reporting.

This graph you provide on the other hand does show what could be called bias if you assume both candidates deserved equally positive treatment. There's a case to be made that McCain was the worse candidate with more negatives to discuss than the new candidate of Hope, but that's subjective.

However this graph from data from the Project for Excellence in Journalism about the 2000 election is not subjective. It clearly demonstrates that Gore received much more negative coverage and much less positive coverage than Bush.
http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i269/Megworen/graph.jpg

So Gore got biased coverage in 2000 while McCain got biased coverage in 2008. What this definitely shows is an absence of a liberal media bias. But there are other biases that could account for it. Fatigue/Novelty bias: both McCain and Gore were old news going up against new fresh faces and the media embraced the new guys while criticizing the familiar pols.

But as Odelay rightly pointed out, most media is a corporate enterprise with a corporate bias which translates into a conservative bias most of the time. But never underestimate laziness and group-think as biases in the media.

[Ben]

Newt encounters a different kind of Tea Party

by Laurie Penny (http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/laurie_penny) - 05 December 2011

"To my astonishment, the audience applauds. Gingrich is in a spot."
http://images.newstatesman.com/articles/2011//20111205_134683081_w.jpg Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich speaks at a town hall meeting, Staten Island, New York City, 3 December 2011. Credit: Getty Images


"You're from Britain? You want to watch out," says the man with the Newt 2012 sticker plastered across his paunch. "If you don't do something soon, your country will be under Sharia law. And that won't be any good for you, miss. You know what I'm saying."
I have come to a meeting of the Staten Island Tea Party, where Newt Gingrich, currently the front-runner in the Republican presidential debate, is about to give a campaign speech.
My new friend, Kevin Coach, is a retired police officer in his early sixties. He was a supporter of Herman Cain, but as the former pizza-chain mogul's presidential bid recently collapsed in a welter of sexual assault allegations, Kevin has switched allegiance . "Anyone but Mitt Romney," he says.
We need to talk about Kevin, and the five hundred other overwhelmingly white, middle-aged Americans who have gathered to hear Gingrich speak today.
This man -- a former cop with fists like ham hocks that he thumps on his knees for emphasis, a libertarian blogger, a Tea Partier and, finally, a person wearing a baseball hat without a shred of irony -- is everything that people like me are supposed to loathe. But I don't.
When he informs me about the practical dangers of the burqa -- "no side vision. Those women are constantly getting run down by cars" -- he flashes a grandfatherly smile, and I suspect that the safety of young women on the roads of a notional Islamic Caliphate of Britain is, on some level, a genuine concern for him.
The basic emotional language Kevin Coach is speaking is one of fear, and I believe that this fear comes from a place that is chillingly familiar.
Suddenly, it's time for the Gingrich show.
The presidential hopeful takes the stage, surrounded by an entourage of security personnel, well-wishers from central casting and a terrifying fem-bot of a wife who is here to promote a children's book she has written about American exceptionalism, which stars Ellis the baby elephant on a journey of neoliberal indoctrination. The book is available in the lobby.
There is a call to stand, and the pledge of allegiance is chanted with hands on hearts and the veterans in the audience applauded with that peculiarly American cultish credence that is somehow less, rather than more, frightening when it's happening all around you rather than on the television.
We take our seats, and it takes Newt Gingrich -- a man with the aspect of a toad with expensive dental work and whose forced exit as Speaker in 1998, under a cloud of corruption, followed midterm election defeat-- roughly three minutes to lose the interest of half the audience.
The people gathered here are less rapt by Gingrich's clunky, high-school-debate-champ, pro-market propaganda than they are by praise for the idea of America as an "exceptional nation", which draws the largest cheer of the afternoon.
Stand-up fights nearly break out at two separate points in the speech, the first when a group of infiltrators from the Occupy movement stand up and attempt to disrupt the proceedings by shouting "Mic check!". As they are evicted, thick-necked men seated all around me stand and pump their fists in the air, chanting "Newt! Newt! Newt!"
This Tea Party gathering is a jumpy, anxious crowd, teetering between violence and implosion. It is a crowd that wants its prejudices pandered to, a crowd that is worried about jobs, a crowd that has allowed itself to be convinced of a wholescale, unfair confiscation of privilege from white, middle-aged, middle-class Americans; a crowd whose members want to believe that they are still special and powerful, as if they ever were.
It is not a crowd of monsters. If it were, it would be easy to dismiss. It is a crowd of frightened, angry human beings watching their lives get steadily worse, and that is a far scarier prospect.
These people could come from any state in America. They are parents and grandparents and teachers and small business owners, the core of the Republican vote, and they are swallowing hard lumps of rhetoric about dissolving the welfare state and cutting taxes for the rich washed down with bland Obama-bashing that always steers far enough away from overt racism to avoid headlines.
This is how the trick is done. This is how -- with the Eurozone is in crisis, with rioting and protest in the streets of major cities across the world and the Durban climate talks likely to signal the end of even the limited climate concessions offered by the Kyoto protocol -- a friend of big business like Gingrich persuades white-collar workers to vote in their millions to protect banks and corporations from regulation.
The trick, however, is wearing thin. During the question-and-answer session, a middle-aged man in a fleece jacket takes the microphone and tells the crowd, struggling to stop his soft voice from breaking, that he is at risk of having his home foreclosed, that he is fighting a bank that wants to take everything from him and his family. He wants to know, should Gingrich become president, "What would you do regarding the financial crisis and making the banks pay?"
To my astonishment, the audience applauds. Gingrich is in a spot. This man has obviously not been listening to the preceding hour of gentle tubthumping about giving banks even more freedom to do whatever the hell they like with public money. The candidate gives a mitigated statement in support of small, local banks, and the audience cheers.
"I'd just like to say," says the questioner, quietly repeating the mantra of the Occupy movement, "that I am one of the 99 per cent, and I appreciate this dialogue."
It's a dialogue of desperation and hope that answers the same concerns shared by many of the ordinary Americans gathered here, without resorting to co-optable xenophobia or cheap cultural prejudice. It's a dialogue that gets to the heart of injustice in the developed world.
And it's a dialogue with which, soon enough, even the Republican Party may find itself forced to engage.

[Stavros]

Is Gingrich too cerebral for the Tea Party types? He would be the first President with a PhD since Woodrow Wilson, having written a thesis on education policy in the Belgian Congo at Tulane in 1970 (although in the US a thesis is only part of the overall work required for a PhD). His own grasp of history is selective, as one would expect from a professional politician, vide his latest comments on Palestinians as an 'invented people'. McCain wasn't any good at speeches but still got the nomination; can this dreary old hack with a warped view of history make it?

[Ben]

Gingrich Calls Palestinians 'Invented' People

Saturday, December 10, 2011 by Al-Jazeera-English (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/12/201112108493783540.html)

Republican presidential hopeful defends Israel and says Palestinians are Arabs who "had a chance to go many places".

Republican White House hopeful Newt Gingrich has stirred controversy by calling the Palestinians an "invented" people who could have chosen to live elsewhere.
The former House of Representatives speaker, who is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for the 2012 presidential race, made the remarks in an interview with the US Jewish Channel broadcaster released on Friday.
Asked whether he considers himself a Zionist, he answered: "I believe that the Jewish people have the right to a state ... Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire" until the early 20th century,
"I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs, and who were historically part of the Arab community.
"And they had a chance to go many places, and for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and it's tragic."
Most historians mark the start of Palestinian Arab nationalist sentiment in 1834, when Arab residents of the Palestinian region revolted against Ottoman rule.
Israel, founded amid the 1948 Arab-Israel war, took shape along the lines of a 1947 UN plan for ethnic partition of the
then-British ruled territory of Palestine which Arabs rejected.
More than 700,000 Palestinians were forced from their lands by Zionist armed groups in 1948, in an episode Palestinians refer to as the Nakba or "catastrophe".

'Irrational hostility'

Gingrich's comments drew a swift rebuke from a spokesman for the American Task Force on Palestine, Hussein Ibish, who said: "There was no Israel and no such thing as an "Israeli people" before 1948.
"So the idea that Palestinians are 'an invented people' while Israelis somehow are not is historically indefensible and inaccurate.

"Such statements seem to merely reflect deep historical ignorance and an irrational hostility towards Palestinian identity and nationalism."
Sabri Saidam, adviser to the Palestinian president, told Al Jazeera, "This is a manifestation of extreme racism and this is a reflection of where America stands sad, when Palestinians don't get their rights...this is sad and America should respond with a firm reaction to such comments that, if let go, more of which will come our way,"
"Let me ask Newt Gingrich if he would ever entertain the thought of addressing Indian Americans by saying that they never existed, that they were the invention of a separate nation, would that be tolerated?"
"Let's also reverse the statement; let's put ourselves in "the shoe of Jews who are listening now. Would they ever accept such statements being made about them?"
Saidam said, "I think it's time that America rejects such statements and closes the door to such horrendous and unacceptable statements."
Gingrich also sharply criticised US President Barack Obama's approach to Middle East diplomacy, saying that it was "so out of touch with reality that it would be like taking your child to the zoo and explaining that a lion was a bunny rabbit."
He said Obama's effort to treat the Palestinians the same as the Israelis is actually "favouring the terrorists".
"If I'm even-handed between a civilian democracy that obeys the rule of law and a group of terrorists that are firing missiles every day, that's not even-handed, that's favouring the terrorists," he said.
He also said the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, share an "enormous desire to destroy Israel".
The Palestinian Authority, which rules the occupied West Bank, formally recognises Israel's right to exist.

President Mahmoud Abbas has long forsworn violence against Israel as a means to secure an independent state, pinning his hopes first on negotiations and more recently on a unilateral bid for statehood via the UN.
Gingrich, along with other Republican candidates, are seeking to attract Jewish in the US support by vowing to bolster Washington's ties with Israel if elected.
He declared his world view was "pretty close" to that of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and vowed to take "a much more tougher-minded, and much more honest approach to the Middle East" if elected.

[Ben]

Is Gingrich too cerebral for the Tea Party types? He would be the first President with a PhD since Woodrow Wilson, having written a thesis on education policy in the Belgian Congo at Tulane in 1970 (although in the US a thesis is only part of the overall work required for a PhD). His own grasp of history is selective, as one would expect from a professional politician, vide his latest comments on Palestinians as an 'invented people'. McCain wasn't any good at speeches but still got the nomination; can this dreary old hack with a warped view of history make it?

He is, like most politicians, an opportunist. Or he could be like Obama. Unprincipled. Yep! Obama has absolutely no principles or core beliefs and doesn't really care about issues.
Newt is basically a strict opportunist and a corporate stooge. Who, like most politicians, is completely hostile to democracy.
When politicians talk about freedom and democracy, well, they mean the exact opposite.
He'll be worse than Obama.
Oh, his half-sister is a lesbian. Don't think that'll go over well with the Tea Party crowd -- and the other narrow-minded classic conservatives that are the heart of the Re-puke-lican Party.

[Stavros]

BBC Radio 4 this evening had a profile of Gingrich. In spite of his PhD and an interest in history, he is not a theoretical politician with a rigid set of conservative values like Reagan. Rather, as someone who knew him well pointed out, he bases all of his political programme on established trends that focus groups and opinion polls have established the voters care about. Instead of beginning with a personal credo: I believe that...he says: What are the key issues for voters, and then builds his speeches and campaigns around that. So in that sense, yes, he is an opportunist; but by appealing to the issues that people care about, and with his acid wit, he could be a formidable opponent in a debate- but a debate, not a speech. One of his detractors said he is a brilliant strategist, but no President, because he has 10 ideas a day of which 2 are reasonable, 2 are mad, 8 are in between, but he can't decide which is important.

Gingrich has surely heard of David and Goliath, but can't acknowledge that Goliath was a Philistine = Falustin = Palestinian, and is right to argue that the Ottoman Empire contained muiltiple religions, nationalities, multiple identies, but his argument about the Palestinians being an 'invented' people misses a critical point: being American is an invented identity -all those immigrants from Europe and Asia could have gone somewhere else (and did); being French is an invented identity, it is still debated when 'France' was a country where French was the universal language -in the so-called UK, English was not the 'universal' language until the 17th century, and even then and until the 20th century, people were born in Wales who spoke no English (the opera singer Bryn Terfel did not learn English until he was I think about 7 or8 years old).

Gingrich could have asked what happened when the Ottoman Empire was defeated on the battefields of the Middle East at Baghdad in 1917, and Megiddo (aka Armageddon) in 1918. He could have queried the 'right' of the British and the French Empires to invent Palestine, and Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and TransJordan, and the 'right' of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud to seize Mecca and 'unite' the Nejd and the Hejaz and be so pleased with the result that he invented a state named after his own family, ie Saudi Arabia. But then he could also have discussed the invention of Israel as a 'Jewish state' even though after three attempts that state can't define a Jew in law to anyone's satisfaction, even though the biblical claims for it should not include any of the coastal areas where, historically, Jews did not live, and even though the World Zionist Congress in spite of its title did not represent the world's Jews; and even though in Israel today the Orthodox Jews who live mostly in illegally occupied Palestine think that the existence of Israel is a heresy....but as is obvious, most Americans have no idea what the reality of Israel and Palestine is, and because they 'identify' with this place as a 'US ally' (which it is not) in an anti-US region (which the Middle East is not), this is how he will PLAY the game. At least we can rest assured this jaded emperor of what-might-have-been will never be President.

[Ben]

Influence Peddler for President

Gingrich, his lawyers, and his staff adamantly insist that it's rude and crude to call him a lobbyist.

by Jim Hightower (http://www.commondreams.org/jim-hightower)

Mea culpa, I misspoke, my bad. I stand corrected. I have called Newt Gingrich a lobbyist.
Apparently, he hates that tag, even though he has indeed gotten very wealthy by taking big bucks from such special interest outfits as IBM, Astra Zeneca, Microsoft, and Siemens in exchange for helping them get favors from federal and state governments.
But Gingrich, his lawyers, and his staff adamantly insist that it's rude and crude to call him a lobbyist. No, no, they bark, the Newt is "a visionary."
Major corporations, they explain, pay up to $200,000 a year to the corrupt former House speaker's policy center for the sheer privilege of bathing in the soothing enlightenment of Newt's transformative vision. Also, as the man himself constantly reminds everyone, he has a Ph-By-God-D. So he's "Dr. Newt," the certified visionary.
Yet, the center's own sales pitch to lure potential corporate clients makes crystal clear that the visionary services he offers entail doing what (excuse the term) lobbyists do.
For example, the center brags that Newt has "contacts at the highest levels" of government, and that being a paying customer "increases your channels of input to decision-makers."
One corporate chieftain who hired the well-connected Washington insider for $7,500 a month plus stock options says that Gingrich "made it very clear to us that he does not lobby, but that he could direct us to the right places in Washington."
So, Mr. Do-Not-Call-Me-a-Lobbyist is, in fact, selling his government contacts and peddling his political influence. But he doesn't lobby. Instead, he directs, makes calls, arranges meetings, opens doors, and (of course) has visions.
I'm glad we got that cleared up. From now on, I'll call Newt what he is: a Washington influence peddler. Yes, that's much better.

[Dino Velvet]

All this Israel butt kissing pisses me off. Sometimes I think the candidates care more about Israel than the US. I'm more of a Conservative but when the Social Conservatives or the super religious show up I look for the exit. I'd rather straddle the fence than drink anyone's Kool-Aid or allow myself to be Hannitized.

[Silcc69]

All this Israel butt kissing pisses me off. Sometimes I think the candidates care more about Israel than the US. I'm more of a Conservative but when the Social Conservatives or the super religious show up I look for the exit. I'd rather straddle the fence than drink anyone's Kool-Aid or allow myself to be Hannitized.

So what republican candidate do you like?

[Dino Velvet]

So what republican candidate do you like?

You mean which is the least bad? I guess Romney. If you were me who would you pick? I mean, I like Ron Paul. He's a good man and I might agree with 80% of what he says. But, the other 20% I'm wondering what we're going to do with Grampa. At least he's no liar or Israel butt-licker.

I'm not a Republican and don't vote in any Primary. I enjoy being an Independent even though more often that not I vote Conservative. I'm at a very confused period with politics and really don't care for anybody.

I'm enjoying Trump trying to play off his feelings getting hurt. Looks like he got stood up at the prom except for a couple of stooges. Even Bachmann shined him on.

[thombergeron]

Media Bias Basics (http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf)

Thanks. Because when I'm looking for information on media bias, I like to turn to the guy who used to run the National Conservative Political Action Committee.


Can't say I know many conservatives who claim to be victims.

It's funny that you say that, since the site you just linked to is an extended diatribe on the media's victimization of conservatives. It was only a few of years ago that Bozell threw a public hissy fit because Olbermann put him on the "Worst Person in the World" segment.


http://www.journalism.org/sites/journalism.org/files/u29/1_lead_image2.png

So you grab a chart from the non-partisan Pew Research Center, but present it out of context without the accompanying analysis:

http://www.journalism.org/node/13307

which shows that McCain's negative coverage was actually a result of his really bad campaign. Coverage of McCain's campaign began positive, then swiftly went negative following his nonsensical reaction to the financial crisis and his decision to launch a negative campaign against Obama. It also shows that coverage of Sarah Palin, while slightly negative, was far more positive that coverage of Joe Biden.

[Ben]

You mean which is the least bad? I guess Romney. If you were me who would you pick? I mean, I like Ron Paul. He's a good man and I might agree with 80% of what he says. But, the other 20% I'm wondering what we're going to do with Grampa. At least he's no liar or Israel butt-licker.

I'm not a Republican and don't vote in any Primary. I enjoy being an Independent even though more often that not I vote Conservative. I'm at a very confused period with politics and really don't care for anybody.

I'm enjoying Trump trying to play off his feelings getting hurt. Looks like he got stood up at the prom except for a couple of stooges. Even Bachmann shined him on.

That's what I like about Ron Paul. He's not a stooge. He's thoughtful. Honest. Extremely principled. You know where he stands on the issues. All the rest are phonies. Typical of politicians. They say anything. And don't believe anything they say -- ha ha! Whereas Ron Paul does.
I, too, disagree with Paul on a lot of issues. But he actually believes in, say, unfettered markets.
He, rightly, said: if we espouse free market principles then we don't bail out the banks. We don't continue to have this corporatism that has been a part of Washington for god knows how many years. He, actually, used the term soft fascism. To describe the very close relationship between Washington and big corporations. (How the hell is that free market capitalism?)
He IS an actual fiscal conservative. Newt Romney -- yes!, Newt Romney -- aren't fiscal conservatives. The Republican Party (if they're even a political party anymore... and one can even say that about the Dems) do not care about fiscal restraint. Paul does.

Air Force Vet Ron Paul Drops Bombs On Newt Gingrich for War Deferments

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/air-force-vet-ron-paul-drops-bombs-on-newt-gingrich-for-war-deferments/

Ron Paul on NBC Talks about soft fascism and aaron russo. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE-1yXRRrmU)

[hippifried]

So what republican candidate do you like?
I like the one who isn't brain dead.

Uh... Wait a minute. Oh yeah, never mind.

[Dino Velvet]

That's what I like about Ron Paul. He's not a stooge. He's thoughtful. Honest. Extremely principled. You know where he stands on the issues. All the rest are phonies. Typical of politicians. They say anything. And don't believe anything they say -- ha ha! Whereas Ron Paul does.
I, too, disagree with Paul on a lot of issues. But he actually believes in, say, unfettered markets.
He, rightly, said: if we espouse free market principles then we don't bail out the banks. We don't continue to have this corporatism that has been a part of Washington for god knows how many years. He, actually, used the term soft fascism. To describe the very close relationship between Washington and big corporations. (How the hell is that free market capitalism?)
He IS an actual fiscal conservative. Newt Romney -- yes!, Newt Romney -- aren't fiscal conservatives. The Republican Party (if they're even a political party anymore... and one can even say that about the Dems) do not care about fiscal restraint. Paul does.

Air Force Vet Ron Paul Drops Bombs On Newt Gingrich for War Deferments

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/air-force-vet-ron-paul-drops-bombs-on-newt-gingrich-for-war-deferments/

Ron Paul on NBC Talks about soft fascism and aaron russo. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE-1yXRRrmU)

Whether I agree with him or not, Ron Paul really digs in and fights for what he believes. I admire and respect him. I feel similar with Dennis Kucinich even if the 80/20 is reversed. He is also a good man with integrity regardless of Left/Right. Truth is truth.

Ben, I might be more Conservative than Liberal but I'm no Republican. You and me probably agree on a lot as we both like Ron Paul. Bella is crazy about the guy.

I live in California so my vote as a Conservative is usually a waste of time. I know this but voting is my right. If Ron Paul runs as a 3rd Party Candidate, I might vote for him.

[nonnonnon]

this is a real commercial! :) can you say echo chamber?
Blueberry Pie - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPklYj7gYLo&)

[Ben]

Newt Gingrich's net worth: $6.7 million



http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-07/504063960-25132202.jpg (http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-07/504063960-25132202.jpg)


Newt Gingrich campaigns in South Carolina earlier this month. (Bruce Smith /Associated Press)

July 25, 2011 (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/25)|By Kim Geiger | Washington Bureau
Newt Gingrich had a net worth of at least $6.7 million and income of at least $2.6 million in 2010, according to financial disclosure forms (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/227793-newt-gingrich-2010-personal-financial-disclosure.html) that were released Monday.
That’s a considerable jump from 2006, when financial disclosures filed by Callista Gingrich reported the couple’s net worth at between $873,000 and $2.4 million.

[Ben]

An addendum -- :)

The net worth of GOP presidential contenders:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44836853/ns/business-us_business/t/net-worth-gop-presidential-contenders/#.TvPf8lZGr4Y

[Ben]

Newt Gingrich Campaign Resurgence Funded by Secretive Coterie of Super PACS, Wealthy Donors - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV_yszQXP6U)

[Ben]

Newt's my NEW hero.

Gingrich Argues With Fox & Friends Over Bain - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMhpP0DFlPA)

[Ben]

Newt Gingrich: Justice Roberts Obamacare Decision Good for Country - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPLlSvgUIs&feature=plcp)

[fred41]

Is that guy the "Wayne's World" of news reports...really?