27 Reasons Why Newt Gingrich Would Be A Really, Really Bad President

Just to stir the pot, I thought I'd post an article that sums up what I've been telling everybody since I learned Newt was gonna run - enjoy!

The American Dream
Thursday, November 17, 2011

In recent weeks, the poll numbers for Newt Gingrich have absolutely skyrocketed. Many now believe that he has a legitimate shot at winning the Republican nomination. But the truth is that he would be a really, really bad president. Gingrich is a big time Washington insider who believes in individual health care mandates, who supported the bailouts, who was instrumental in cramming NAFTA down the throats of the American people and who is either soft or wrong on just about every single issue that conservatives care about. His personal life has a history of being a mess, his finances have a history of being a mess and his campaign was such a mess a few months ago that most observers considered his candidacy to be completely dead. He has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations for two decades and he has been spotted attending meetings at the Bohemian Grove. He sounds good during a debate, but it really boggles the mind that anyone would consider voting for someone with such a nightmarish track record.

The funny thing is that a lot of Tea Party activists are now jumping on board the Gingrich bandwagon. A couple of years ago, the Tea Party movement was very much anti-establishment and Tea Party activists declared that they were sick and tired of “fake conservatives” and “RINOs”.

Well, other than Mitt Romney, there isn’t anyone left in the Republican field that is more of a “fake conservative” than Gingrich is. Gingrich is a big time “RINO” that represents just about everything that the Tea Party is supposed to be against.

It just seems inconceivable that a big chunk of Republicans would actually be thinking of voting for Gingrich at this point. Yes, four more years of Obama would be a complete and total disaster for America, but so would a Gingrich administration.

The following are 27 reasons why Newt Gingrich would be a really, really bad president….

#1 In 2008, Newt Gingrich did a television commercial with Nancy Pelosi in which he stated that they both agree that “our country must take action to address climate change”. He now calls making this commercial “a mistake”, but this is yet another example of the lack of sound judgment that Gingrich has shown throughout his entire political career….

#2 Newt Gingrich also worked with Nancy Pelosi to promote the idea of a national sales tax on energy.

#3 In a 2007 interview with PBS, Gingrich endorsed the idea of a “cap and trade” scheme to limit carbon emissions….

“I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.”

#4 During this campaign, Newt Gingrich has loudly denounced Obamacare, but in 2008 he wrote a book entitled “Real Change” in which he endorsed an individual mandate for health insurance.

#5 In fact, earlier this year Newt Gingrich stated during an interview on NBC’sMeet the Press that he still believes in an individual mandate. The following is from an exchange between host David Gregory and Gingrich during the show….

MR. GREGORY: All right, let me ask you about another hot-button issue in the Republican primary, of course, and that’s health care. Mitt Romney having to defend his proponent–that he was a proponent of universal health care in Massachusetts, and specifically around this idea of the individual mandate where you make Americans buy insurance if they don’t have it. Now, I know you’ve got big differences with what you call Obamacare. But back in 1993 on this program this is what you said about the individual mandate. Watch.

(Videotape, October 3, 1993)

REP. GINGRICH: I am for people, individuals–exactly like automobile insurance–individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: What you advocate there is precisely what President Obama did with his healthcare legislation, is it not?

REP. GINGRICH: No, it’s not precisely what he did. In, in the first place, Obama basically is trying to replace the entire insurance system, creating state exchanges, building a Washington-based model, creating a federal system. I believe all of us–and this is going to be a big debate–I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care. I think the idea that…

MR. GREGORY: You agree with Mitt Romney on this point.

REP. GINGRICH: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay–help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond…

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

REP. GINGRICH: …or in some way you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.

MR. GREGORY: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?

REP. GINGRICH: It’s a variation on it.

#6 Newt Gingrich has made some very curious statements about Obamacare. For example, he recently made the following statement about the Obamacare law….

“Now there are about 300 pages that are pretty good”

#7 The truth is that Newt Gingrich is very, very soft on health care. Just consider the following excerpt about Newt from a recent Washington Post article….

In 2005, he sat down with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton to make common cause over health care. He said he and Clinton “have the same instinct” on health care and praised the notion of a health-care “transfer of finances” from rich to poor. “I risk sounding not quite as right wing as I should,” Gingrich said at the time. “I’ve spent enough of my life fighting,” he added.

#8 Newt Gingrich voted for higher taxes on numerous occasions. While he was Speaker of the House, the amount of taxes collected by the federal government from the American people increased from $1.001 trillion to $1.511 trillion. Would the amount of taxes extracted from us increase by another 50 percent during a Gingrich presidency?

#9 In 2008, Newt Gingrich stated that he would have voted for the TARP bailout if he was still a member of Congress.

#10 In 2003, Newt Gingrich boldly promoted George W. Bush’s prescription drug bill. Because of that bill, the federal government is now facing an additional 17 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.

#11 Newt Gingrich is a big time Washington insider that is often paid huge sums of money for doing next to nothing. Gingrich has said that he was paid $300,000 for “work” that he did for Freddie Mac, but according to Bloomberg he actually earnedsomewhere between $1.6 million and $1.8 million between 1999 and 2008.

So what did he do for Freddie Mac? Gingrich claims that he warned Freddie Mac about the housing bubble, but the report by Bloomberg disputes this….

None of the former Freddie Mac officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said Gingrich raised the issue of the housing bubble or was critical of Freddie Mac’s business model.

It turns out that much of the “work” that Gingrich was expected to do never actually got done….

Former Freddie Mac officials familiar with his work in 2006 say Gingrich was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.

He was expected to provide written material that could be circulated among free-market conservatives in Congress and in outside organizations, said two former company executives familiar with Gingrich’s role at the firm. He didn’t produce a white paper or any other document the firm could use on its behalf, they said.

#12 Newt Gingrich has also had a very “cozy” relationship with the ethanol industry. The following is from a recent NewAmerican article….

The cozy relationship Gingrich has with the ethanol industry led to his consulting business winning more than $300,000 in fees from the ethanol lobby after he left Congress. The Wall Street Journal noted April 27, 2011 that “Professor Gingrich says his ethanol support is grounded in his lifetime of studying history and intellectual problems, but what about that $312,500 from the ethanol lobby?… We’ve never suggested Mr. Gingrich has been bought off, though of course there wouldn’t be an ethanol lobby to hire Mr. Gingrich if there weren’t politicians like Mr. Gingrich willing to prop it up with taxpayer dollars, tariffs and mandates.”

#13 Newt Gingrich is a firm believer in the job-killing “free trade” agenda of the globalists. Newt Gingrich voted for NAFTA and he is a staunch supporter of the WTO. He once made the following statement on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives….

“What we’re being told is that free trade with Mexico would devastate the U.S. economy. With its low wages, Mexico would unleash a flood of cheap imports into our markets. There would be a mass exodus of U.S. factory jobs, as hordes of American companies fled across the border…. All this is scare talk.”

#14 Newt Gingrich is pro-amnesty for illegal aliens. He has made statements on numerous occasions where he has advocated a “pathway to citizenship” for the millions of illegal immigrants that have been living in this country for an extended period of time.

#15 In 1995, Newt Gingrich actually promoted the idea that the War Powers Actshould be repealed.

#16 Newt Gingrich seems very confused when it comes to abortion. Just consider the following statements….

A- “I believe most Americans are pro-choice and anti-abortion.”

B- “I think that abortion should not be legal, and I think that how you would implement that I’m not sure.”

C- “As with any public policy, the more strongly public opinion is swayed in defense of unborn life, the more our laws should and will change as a result.”

#17 The following is how author Dick Williams described Newt’s attitude toward pro-life issues when he became Speaker of the House in 1995….

Gingrich is opposed to abortion but does not believe the nation is ready to enact a constitutional ban. In the first three months of 1995, while the Contract With America was being debated, he angered some Republican congressmen by detouring them from anti-abortion amendments to bills and by putting aside their arguments that a welfare reform package might lead to an increase in abortions.

#18 Newt Gingrich supported the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that put a significant number of new restrictions on gun owners.

#19 Several of the Republican candidates are suggesting that the Department of Education should be shut down, but back in 1979 Newt Gingrich voted for the creation of the Department of Education under President Jimmy Carter.

#20 News Gingrich has said that he believes that we should have Singapore-style drug tests for Americans.

#21 How can we trust Newt Gingrich to manage America’s finances when he has done such a horrible job managing his own finances. According to Politico, Gingrich once owed a debt to Tiffany Jewelry that was somewhere between $250,000 and $500,000. Politico tried to find out if this debt was still active but Gingrich was not willing to talk about it….

When asked by POLITICO whether Gingrich has settled this debt, and why he owed between a quarter-million and a half-million dollars to a jeweler, Rick Tyler, Gingrich’s spokesman, declined to comment.

“No comment,” he said in an email.

#22 How can we trust Newt Gingrich to run America when he can’t even run his own campaign? A few months ago, the senior staff of his campaign resigned en masse. It is literally a miracle that the Gingrich campaign has lasted as long as it has.

#23 For someone that preaches against debt, he sure seems to be able to rack it up. Back in July, it was reported that the Gingrich campaign was a million dollars in debt.

#24 Newt Gingrich was once fined $300,000 by the House Ethics Committee. An article in Esquire detailed why he received such a large fine….

His bitterness only deepened when the House Ethics Committee started investigating GOPAC’s donations to his college class and caught him trying to hide his tracks by raising money through a charity for inner-city kids called the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation. Another charity of his called Earning by Learning actually spent half its money supporting a former Gingrich staffer who was writing his biography. Gingrich even gave out the 800 number for videotapes on the House floor. The Ethics Committee found him guilty of laundering donations through charities, submitting “inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable” testimony, and making “an effort to have the material appear to be nonpartisan on its face, yet serve as a partisan, political message for the purpose of building the Republican party.” Seven years after he had destroyed Jim Wright for a lesser offense, the committee punished Gingrich with the highest fine ever imposed on a Speaker of the House, $300,000.

#25 Newt Gingrich has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations since 1990. This alone should immediately disqualify him from consideration for the Republican nomination.

Former Congressman John R. Rarick once said the following about the Council on Foreign Relations….

The CFR, dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education and mass communication media, should be familiar to every American concerned with good government and with preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and our free-enterprise system. Yet, the nation’s right to know machinery – the news media – usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities.

The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high-level decisions for converting the United States from a sovereign constitutional republic into a servile member of a one-world dictatorship.

#26 Newt Gingrich has been spotted attending meetings at the Bohemian Grove. I wonder what all of those evangelical voters that Newt is courting would think if they learned of the pagan rituals and mock child sacrifices that take place there every year?

#27 Many Republican voters are deeply troubled by the fact that Newt Gingrich has actually cheated on two different wives and is now married to a third wife. The following is how a recent CBS News article described his marital history….

When he was speaker of the House, Gingrich had an affair with Callista Bisek, then a young committee staff aide, while married to his second wife, Marianne Gingrich. He divorced Marianne in 1999. Eighteen years earlier, he proposed to Marianne while he was still married to his first wife, Jackie Battley, who has said that Gingrich told her he wanted a divorce while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery.

When his second wife asked him how he could give speeches on family values while he was cheating on her, Gingrich is reported to have said the following….

“It doesn’t matter what I do,” he answered. “People need to hear what I have to say.”

Newt Gingrich doesn’t just have skeletons in his closet – he has a whole family of skeletons in his closet.

Hopefully the American people will realize that Newt Gingrich would be an absolute disaster as president.

This country is rapidly running out of time, and the 2012 election represents one of the last chances that we have to turn this nation around.

If America elects Newt Gingrich, we will stay on the same road that Clinton, Bush and Obama have been marching us down.

We simply cannot afford that.

Please choose wisely in 2012 America.

Link to article

Yeah, I know. I don't like Newt's RINO positions and past.

The only thing he has going for him is he is articulate and "better than Romney".

I could not care less about his marital history though. I won't vote for him in the primary, though I would vote a straight (R) ticket if he was the candidate in the General election.

I won't vote Romney under any circumstances. Anybody who signs an AWB is a non-starter in my book.

"Some years ago, I was invited to speak at a National Review conference in the government capital. In my talk, I praised our predecessors in the Old Right, who came together in opposition to FDR's domestic fascism and drive to war. Afterwards, in the question period, up pops a furious Newt Gingrich to say, at length, that conservatives must love Roosevelt––he was Reagan's hero, after all––and to criticize Franklin or his policies was to risk being written out of the conservative movement. I responded that this is what's wrong with contemporary conservatism: its corporatism and militarism. I never saw Newt again, and I was not invited back." -Lew Rockwell

Thanks for turning the light on Newt. Need to bring his past out for the public to see.

This guy is pure establishment shit. And has been for years. Ron Paul in 2012. EVERY other candidate is bought and paid for.

Including Paul, in his own way.

And Like a prophet he is hated in his own land:

The Prophet from Texas: How Ron Paul predicted 9/11, Bush's failure in Iraq, Middle East uprisings, the dot-com bubble & 2008's financial collapse
http://www.freedomrevolves.com/2011/11/prophet-from-texas-how-ron-paul.html

“Everyone makes mistakes,” the aphorism goes. Of course, but some more than others. Unfortunately, in the cable news age, it is often difficult to identify who’s winning the political prognostication game. Conjecture lobbed from the anonymity of online blogs and round-the-clock punditry is forgotten with time, but sadly, so are the accurate predictions of thoughtful commentators. While most of our nation’s leaders would rather forget their casual, daily speculations, time has consistently vindicated one independent voice on the Hill: Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

The good doctor hasn’t just proved right in some general “freedom works” sense. His predictions have been repeatedly, even eerily, reliable. For example in 2000 during at a time when terrorism failed to receive a single mention in Bush’s inaugural address, Paul seems to have foreseen the terrorist attacks that would occur just 17 months later on 9/11. “We are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes,” he said referring to the bombing in Iraq and Serbia.

"This generates the hatred directed toward America, even if at times it seems suppressed," he continued, "and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism, since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state… The cost in terms of liberties lost and the unnecessary exposure to terrorism are difficult to determine, but in time it will become apparent to all of us that foreign interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens." While 9/11 left most Americans confused, Paul remained steady. “Though many Americans have just become aware of how deeply we are involved in this war,” he wrote, “it has been going on for decades. We are obviously seen by the terrorists as an enemy.”

His prediction long-forgotten, the president ignored the congressman’s diagnosis of the causes of the conflict—namely, U.S. Middle East interventions—and instead embarked on epic quest to remake the Middle East. Paul predicted not only Bush’s global war on terror, but also his domestic anti-terrorism laws like the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, a rejection of habeas corpus and the legalization of torture that quickly followed. As far back as 1999, he foresaw that “when a foreign war comes to our shores in the form of terrorism, we can be sure that our government will explain the need for further sacrifice of personal liberties to win this war against terrorism as well.” After 9/11, he repeated this prediction to no avail.

“When we retaliate for this horror we have suffered, we must be certain that only the guilty be punished,” he cautioned on September 12, 2001. “More killing of innocent civilians will only serve to flame the fires of war and further jeopardize our security.” While the U.S. has not suffered a terrorist attack since September 11, this is certainly not the result of our nation building effort in Afghanistan. As Paul described in 2001, Middle East nation building “ironically enough, could serve to further Osama bin Laden's twisted plans for a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West,” forwarding “his hateful plan.”

After our invasion of Iraq, bin Laden confirmed Paul’s view. “Despite America being the greatest economic power and possessing the most powerful and up-to-date military arsenal,” he gleefully pointed out, “19 young men were able, by the grace of Allah, the Most High, to change the direction of its compass.” In 2010, Rolling Stone Magazine asked Bin Laden’s son Omar if there would be more attacks. “I don't think so,” he replied. “He doesn't need to. As soon as America went to Afghanistan, his plan worked. He has already won." In other words, we fell right into the trap of which Paul had warned.



In part because Paul realized it was a trap, he also foresaw the devastating consequences of an Iraqi invasion. He warned of “massive Iraqi civilian casualties" that would result in "more worldwide condemnation.” Both the civilian casualties (at least 100,000) and condemnation quickly came to fruition with even the UN Secretary calling the war “illegal” in 2004. In 2002, he also predicted the war would cost twice as much as the White House estimate of a pathetic $50-$60 billion. In 2008, he revisited his predictions. “My ‘radical’ predictions were in fact, not ‘radical’ enough,” he explained. “I warned of a draining 30-year occupation. Now, politicians glibly talk about a 100-year occupation as if it is no big deal. On cost…we have already burned through around $550 billion in Iraq, at a rate of about $2 billion per week.” Today, the total stands at over $800 billion.

Furthermore, it came as no surprise to Paul that our invasion failed to turn up any WMD’s as even President Bush has admitted. Addressing the House in 2002, Paul asked, "Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate? Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate—which just confirms that there is no real threat?"

Paul even discerned the political consequences of the war in 2002, seemingly prescient of the 2006 elections when Democrats retook the House largely on an anti-war message. “There are even good political reasons for not initiating this conflict,” he said. “War is not popular. It may seem popular in the short run, when there appears to be an immediate victory and everyone is gloating, but war is not popular. People get killed, and body bags end up coming back. War is very unpopular, and it is not the politically smart thing to do.

Paul also thought that Russia might use the Iraq War as an excuse to invade Georgia, a forecast realized in 2008. He even predicted the current uprisings in the Middle East writing in April, 2002 that “Peace, of sorts, will come to the Middle East, but will be short-lived… Some of our moderate Arab allies will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists.” While we do not know who exactly has overthrown/is overthrowing Mubarak and Gaddafi, we do know that both of them were our “Arab allies.”

The doctor has not simply been on a recent hot streak, either. In 1983, he advocated closing our overseas embassies because they “helped to precipitate the Iran hostage crisis and possibly even in Lebanon,” referring to the terrorist attack on our embassy there. While not a prediction exactly, it took less than a year for the prudence of his position to be demonstrated when terrorists struck the Kuwaiti embassy in December of 1983 and Lebanese Embassy again in 1984. Several recent embassy attacks continue to impress the importance of his position.

Nor have the congressman’s forecasts been limited to foreign policy. In the 1980s, he predicted the savings and loan crisis and violence from Ronald Reagan's expanding drug war, and although it may be fashionable in the GOP today to oppose bailouts, it was Ron Paul in 1979 who saw that the Chrysler bailout was “merely the prototype, the harbinger, of crises to come.” It’s hard to disagree in light of the recent bailouts it and GM received in 2008 and 2009.

In the 1990s, he was alone in Congress prophesying the destruction of dot-com bubble. “In the 10 years that Greenspan has headed the Fed, $2 trillion of new credit has been created. This generous dose of Fed credit has fueled the 5-year superboom on Wall Street,” he warned. “Government officials continue to try to reassure the American people that there is no inflation to worry about. Stock prices, though, are greatly inflated... and probably represent the greatest financial bubble known in history.” When the crash came two years later in 2000, Paul’s warnings were forgotten, and Greenspan was handed the reigns of the recovery.

Greenspan’s response to the dot-com crash—the creation of more credit—led directly to another even larger crash the following decade. As early as 2002, Paul and his Austrian economist friends were describing our distorted housing market with what turned out to be remarkable accuracy. “Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever,” he warned. “When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.”

Even in 1998, Paul was warning that the “moral hazard created by federal deposit insurance” could create“systemic risk posed by any future episode that might involve the imprudent use of derivatives and excessive amounts of leverage,” a near dead on description of the 2008 crash. In 2003, Paul reiterated his concerns about the housing market, explaining the inevitable collapse of Fannie and Freddie. “The special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing… Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE [Government Sponsored Enterprise] debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.” He was right; he was so right, but again, like with the war on terrorism, the ones most complicit in creating the problem were again in charge of finding the solution.



Paul knew that this would be the case, however, and also predicted the outcome: our current debt crisis. Writing in 2002, he expected that “a major economic downturn” “will decimate U.S. Federal Government finances, with exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending. Federal Reserve policy will continue at an expanding rate, with massive credit expansion... The Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives. Military and police powers will grow, satisfying the conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas.” President Obama with missiles and bombs rather emphatically confirmed that last prediction in Libya last week.

Part of his independence is Paul’s firm belief that both parties are corrupted and do not deliver on their promises. In 2009, for example, as the debate about health care reform heated up, he said, “Whether they are Republicans or Democrats, they are going to support the corporations. Even in medical care reform, who do you think is going to come out well on this? Corporations, drug companies, and insurance companies, they are being protected. Some conservatives accuse Obama of wanting socialized medicine. I don’t think so. I think he wants to perpetuate corporatism.” Not only was he right that Obama would strike a compromise with both the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries later that year, but he was also right before the election when he said that Obama’s promise to remove troops from Iraq would turn out to be “pure political talk.”

Ron Paul’s uncanny ability to predict the future has people calling him a modern day prophet. Paul, however, is no prophet. He just has the intelligence to look dispassionately at the facts and the courage to speak his mind, even when Federal Reserve economists call him a “pinhead” and his fellow Republican presidential candidates laugh at him on the debate stage. Paul saw the danger of our interventionist foreign policy, not by magic, but by simply looking at what Osama bin Laden has said about his motivations He foresaw the housing market collapse and savings and loan crisis through a basic understanding of economic laws. Both predictions relied on his belief that government cannot centrally plan the world. “Central planning makes promises it cannot possibly keep,” he wrote in 2008. “Freedom empowers the individual. Central planning dehumanizes the masses. There may always be a struggle for power and government, but for this reason, freedom will always win out in the end.” Let’s hope so, Dr. Paul.

All this talk is just talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1RKPfMqGOg

Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY&feature=player_embedded

The amazingly accurate predictions of Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Gfzgxh3ZQ

He's a moron.

+1

It's obvious that this country needs more debt, more wars, and a president without a consistently true voting record.

I assumed he was talking about Newt...

Yeah, you know, the guy currently with more support than Dr. Paul.

Public support means little if anything to me. Hitler also had amazing public support. It didn't make his ideas any more justified. I do not let public support dictate my own values and opinions to me, as most voters do. This is why we have a band wagon effect and a new front runner every month. If people were to look at their own values and positions and support the candidate that is the most agreeable to them with some level of competency we would not have this band wagon effect with the candidates every month. It is rather sad to be honest.

Any of the Republican candidates would be better than Obama.

I'm not so sure I agree. I have more respect for someone who tells us he wants to ban guns, than I do for someone who tells us he loves guns and then tries to ban them. (Romney) At least we know what Obama's agenda is and the public is rejecting his far left ideas more and more while he is in office. A progressive with an "R" by his name would just lead to building resentment for the republican party while he is in office. I talked about this more in my "Hypothetical question" thread.

Are you kidding me?

Support is all a candidate has!

Without it, they might as well be Dr. Ron Paul.

That is where you are very wrong. A candidate is just a person. A person is defined by their values, their morals, their ideas, their production and their impact on the world. When they are dead their support will mean nothing and they will be defined by their values. Just as a new shiny car will not be defined by how many people liked that car, when it is sitting in the junk yard 20-30 years later but will instead by defined by the articles and memories of those who drove that car.

Support may look good just as wax will look good on that shiny new car. But it will not change my opinion or support for a candidate. That candidate is just a person, and I would be very reluctant about supporting some of the values of these candidates. If a person has support of 100% of his peers but has no values, has no morals, has no ideas and has no productivity who is he and what does he mean?

And almost all respectable political analyst agree that Dr. Paul has the strongest and most loyal supporters of any candidate.

Obama 2012!

GTFO Hippie!

GO OBAMA.....

All is lost...Cain is gone

In order to prove your worth to your new overlord, you must clean every commode at occupy wallstreet, then, and only then, will you prove your worth.

Ron Paul 2012! Newt's a piece of shit:

Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocricy

A coin flip would be 50% better by default.

TXL

this might be the last potus election before the state goes total. RON PAUL 2012

Got to love Newt! He sounds like Cain's lawyer saying that a man's consensual extramarital affairs are just OUT OF BOUNDS. Good luck with that.

"Newt Gingrich said that a threat from ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to disclose information she learned while serving on an ethics committee investigating him during his time as Speaker of the House would "totally abuse the ethics process" and violate rules of the House of Representatives."

Total abuse of the ethics process, eh? Request the docs release and we'll decide for ourselves asshole. We don't need Pelosi to interpret what's in them.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/197255-gingrich-fires-back-at-pelosi-over-threat

I remember when he was in Congress and was the Speaker of the House. When it looked like there would be a Repub leadership revolt and he might lose out as Speaker, he resigned his elected office as Representative from Georgia, right after being elected to his 11th term. If he wouldn't even fulfill his elected office then, why would I vote for him for elected office now?

Republicans have short memories. I'm trying to figure out the support I have seen on this board for a man like Newt .



I don't get it.

Every member here should be supporting Paul or Johnson.

Nope. I'm voting Perry. Paul looks good a lot of the time then says stupid shit that makes no sense. Johnson who?

If Perry runs the USA at least good as he has Texas, we will be fine, even if he isn't perfect on all fronts.

So, for all of those who hate Newt, who you gonna vote for if he ends up winning the nomination?

I don't particularly care for Newt either because his history screams progressive, and I most likely will not vote for him in the primary, depending upon who is left by the time Texas has theirs, but if he makes it to the general election he'll get my vote. At least his position on the 2nd Amendment appears to be better than Mitt's.

Anybody but Obama. This guy has got to go.

Who cares? We're fighting for the nomination right now. We'll deal with hypotheticals later.

Obama derangement syndrome is making Republicans lose their minds at alarming rates.

Your two legit (poll and media wise) choices are Romney and Newt, both of which favor .gov run healthcare.

Shit we had folks threatening to leave the damn country if Obamacare passed.

Remember, it was treason and such?

Now it needs to be "repealed AND REPLACED" with a Republican form of .gov run healthcare?

Screams of "Who is John Galt" have been replaced with "Anyone but Obama".



You've got a couple of progressive, left of center, privileged, white, flip flopping, sacks of shit in first and second place and you are still chanting "Anyone but Obama."


Deranged is correct.

Obama NEEDS white, privileged, flip flopping, elitist, ass douches to run against so he can demonize them as typical Republican Corporate shills, because they ARE typical Republican Corporate shills, only these two ass clowns are progressive, sell their momma for a little more power, Republican shills.

No one seems to be worried that IF we actually do beat Obama with Newt or Romney, we are actually stuck with Newt or Romney.

What will 4 years of Newt or Romney do to a nation this divided?

Picture the Tea Party after they are reminded at how liberal the modern Republican party is.

Picture the OWS asshats during the term of either one of these guys.

It will be and epic clusterfuck that will push more conservatives away in disgust and rile up the liberal machine so that they can run "Anyone but...." 2016!


It's just amazing how people who will form up and protest .gov spending or threaten to leave the country over Obamacare will turn around and dismiss real conservative candidates.

Obviously all the outrage and disgust in an government run wild has dissipated and people feel that as long as "their side" is in power all will be well in the universe.



Let's also remember that the next President will likely preside over multiple downgrades of our sovereign debt, and have to deal with the break up of the EU.

He will have to manage the aftermath of the "Arab Spring" and all the new radical regimes.

He will be the King Ding-a-Ling of Top Turd on Shit Mountain as the global economies either grind to a halt as the easy credit bubble deflates, or a world that explodes into violence to divert attention from finances.

As of now King Obama has done a beautiful job of failing miserably at everything he or his administration touches, maybe it wouldn't be so bad to leave him and his merry band of morons in place to utterly destroy any credibility that progressiveism or liberalism or socialism has.

Or, maybe it's about time to retire the Republican brand. What better way to go out than with a progressive hack at the helm, elected solely on the fact that he wasn't the worst President possible.

At this point it seems pretty clear that very few voters have the gumption to accept that the status quo being maintained will destroy our nation and our liberty.

A vote for one of these "top tier" candidates is exactly that, a vote for status quo. Keep the party going, consequences be damned.

Yep, good call.

Gary Johnson, who has already indicated he will look at a 3rd party nomination. He is more than qualified for the job, he was a highly successful governor for 8 years in New Mexico. He cut taxes and vetoed over 750 bills in order to shrink the size of the state government. In a state that typically has had a democratic governor, (6 of the last 8 governors were Dem before Johnson) he defeated two democrats including the incumbent governor. He is exactly the type of candidate we should be looking at but the media totally ignores him, just look at the "Johnson who" earlier in this thread.

How many employees did he have when he started eight years ago, and how many does he have now ?

He was New Mexico's Governor from 1995 til 2003. Not sure on the exact before & after numbers but he cut 1200 state jobs.

"As Governor he cut taxes 14 times (annually $123 million), vetoed over 750 bills (more than the other 49 governors combined), cut the rate of government growth in half, reduced welfare spending 30%, balanced the budget, eliminated the state's deficit, privatized half of the state prisons, was a national advocate for school vouchers. He increased the budget for the state's education system and signed a $1.2 billion highway improvement package to upgrade 500 miles of state roads. When he left office New Mexico had 1,200 fewer government employees. Johnson was called "the most fiscally conservative governor" during his two terms."

http://www.conservapedia.com/Gary_E._Johnson

Are you going to send me a new dillo?

Careful, you might wind up voting for the "asshole" when Dr. Paul either bows out, goes independent, or endorses another candidate. (you never know, you might like the taste of crow.)

You could always write in Dr. Paul by default, which would still be what Obama want's you to do.

Or, you could always stay home. (decisions, decisions.)

Sounds good.

2003 ? What's he been doin' for the last eight years ?

Come to think of it, with as close as the presidential elections have been, it would suck to vote for a certain independent masquerading as a republican, and Obama ends up winning re-election because of it. (Yeah, we taught the republicans a lesson! Will be their battle cry.)

I refuse to vote for anyone that believes in big government progressive policies and had questionable moral values regardless of their political party. Too bad more Americans don't use the same discretion when selecting candidates. Can't you see that they're all the same? That Obama is just in the democratic wing of our one progressive party? Democrat and Republican don't matter anymore, that is why we are relying on Obama to veto this recent bill to protect our freedom. I wish people would stop letting the media and political parties tell them who to vote for and start voting for who they believe in.

Gingrich>Obama

what true conservative?

Sorry, I can't vote for a man who can't stand with our allies, or who want's to decriminalize illegal drugs. ( I don't call it progress to let someone use half their home as a grow house, and their bathtub as a place to cook up some ecstasy.)

And I don't call it liberty to have the government dictate to the people what they are and are not allowed to put in their own bodies.

The Federal government does not have the power in our constitution to regulate drugs, period. At least the progressives of the past acknowledged this by passing a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol.

The drug laws we have do not stop drug use, I think this is fairly obvious. All they do is make it profitable for criminals and drug cartels.

If a person is irresponsible enough to put drugs that can harm them into their own body, isn't that their own personal decision and not the governments? Millions of Americans harm themselves everyday with alcohol and tobacco and its legal because the government says these are okay. But if a person chooses to use pot or pain meds, it is illegal because the government doesn't think you're responsible enough to make decisions for yourself.

Also, I assume you are referring to Ron Paul. I don't think he doesn't want to support our allies, he just doesn't want to keep paying them with our tax money. We are borrowing money to give away, that doesn't make sense.

Okay, but most Americans don't want other countries to have the ability to drag us into any kind of war. Most Americans don't want us financing the defense of our "allies".

I find it very hypocritical when "small government conservatives" fall all over themselves to use Federal government to grab the unconstitutional authority to regulate drugs. I love how everything is "the state's responsibility" until it comes to an intrusive law that their own moral compass has been programmed to accept. The thing that you should accept is that public opinion is still VERY much anti-drug use. And if, tomorrow, the US cut off ties from the drug war, Florida would likely pass a law immediately mimicking the federal drug laws. Let's say, on a hunch, that California legalized it. Then we could all sit and watch and see what happens to CA.

I find the argument of "well then everybody will use drugs" as the same toothless, BS argument that the Antis use when they say "allow concealed carry and blood will flow in the streets". And if CA legalizes drugs, and all of a sudden the crime rate there drops dramastically, the drug industry gets commercialized (and likely regulated) and it becomes safer, etc, etc. And who knows, all of a sudden people realize they were wrong to talk about Ecstasy in the bathtub, because that's only a small minority. Then Nevada decides to accept it. Then Colorado.

That's what we should want. A marine was killed while supposedly holding his child in his own home in the last few weeks. Shot 60 times by SWAT, I think? Oh, they thought there might be drugs in the house. In America, this happened. We should be so proud.

I won't even drop into how the drug war has hurt the 2nd Amendment... but you should know that the NFA was passed in response to the number of public officers killed during the prohibition of alcohol. And isn't it convenient that the AWB was passed citing the loss of police officers in fighting gang activity? Gangs involved in drugs. The 2nd Amendment exists to allow the citizenry to fight back against a government power grab. And isn't it interesting that when it's actually used, the government immediately grabs more power to regulate arms instead of just pulling back from the behavior that was "unacceptable"? And it's always to protect the innocent 3rd party who had no say in the policy to begin with, the public officers.

Actually, Newt is very much so anti Gun Rights:

http://www.dallasblog.com/201112051008573/dallas-blog/gun-owners-call-gingrich-anti-gun-politician.html

Gingrich=Obama
Perry=Obama
Bachmann=Obama
Santorum=Obama
Romney=Obama
Huntsman>Obama
Paul>Obama

Take a look at the nominee's voting history and stances throughout their career instead of just listening to the mainstream media. This is why the majority of the population are nothing but sheeple; they listen to the propaganda and take it as truth, and are sadly too lazy to do some research of their own to validate statements. It'll surprise you if you do a little homework. Most of the nominees are nothing but puppets (just like Obama).

I agree.
Newt and Romney would get a pass. They would be worse than Obama.

+1

I'm talking "states" rights.

I don't give a rat's ass what bankrupt California does, I don't live in California.

And I don't equate Alcohol and tobacco users with speedball, or meth head junkies.

And I'm sorry if you don't think that giving money and a helping hand to our Israeli brethren is not "worth it". (I believe it's worth it's weight in gold just for intel purposes.) Being that Israel "is" a democracy like we are.

From what I've seen, alcohol has done more damage and taken more lives than drug use has. People have an interesting view on foreign policy... some people just don't like taking a look at history (or using some freakin common sense for the matter ex: If X country drops bombs on mine and 'accidentally' kills my family in 'collateral dmg'... I'd be fucking pissed and would do 'something' about it). Most Americans just fail to see this or their too lazy to do some study... Oh well.

Copyright © 1996 - 2013 :: AR15.Com LLC :: All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.