Newt

[Honus]

Now can we all agree that Newt is a knucklehead? http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/newt-attacks-obama-for-bombing-libya-weeks-after-demanding-obama-bomb-libya.php?ref=fpb

Why do the TV news and talk shows treat this guy as if he has anything worthwhile to say? Newt and John McCain - those guys are on TV all the ****** time. When was the last time either of them said two consecutive sentences that made any sense?

[Txjake]

sort of like John Kerry's flip flop on the Iraq war....politicians, they are all alike....

[Honus]

Originally Posted by Txjake

sort of like John Kerry's flip flop on the Iraq war...

I'm no fan of John Kerry, but I don't think that his, "I voted for it before I voted against it," compares to Newt's recent comments. Kerry's choice of words was ridiculous, but he was consistent, and correct, on the underlying policies. We probably shouldn't waste time beating that particular dead horse, I just thought I would note the difference.

.politicians, they are all alike....

I disagree. I know a few politicians and know about several others. They and Newt are not alike.

[t walgamuth]

Originally Posted by Txjake

sort of like John Kerry's flip flop on the Iraq war....politicians, they are all alike....

No they are not all alike. many are thoughtful and responsible. We tend to hear about the idiots.

[Txjake]

Well, Newt is not an elected official any longer, so what he says is merely the opinion of a private citizen. His chances of relecetion are very slim.

[732002]

Originally Posted by Txjake

Well, Newt is not an elected official any longer, so what he says is merely the opinion of a private citizen. His chances of relecetion are very slim.

With his marriage history his chances of reelection are 0%

[MS Fowler]

Newt's inconsistency is only rivaled by Obama's--who only a few weeks ago asked for increases to military foreign aid for Libya.
Obama's comments that "Qaddafi must go" from do not agree with his current denial that we are not engaged in regime change.

Can anyone decipher what is " The Obama Doctrine"? What foreign wars or dictators does he support, and which does he oppose, and what is the consistent theme that guides him in these decisions?

[panZZer]

I tried to find that TIME magazine from around feb 2009, anyway--

http://rackjite.com/web/****head_awards.htm
scroll down.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Newt's inconsistency is only rivaled by Obama's--who only a few weeks ago asked for increases to military foreign aid for Libya...

I am not aware of the increases you are referring to, but it sounds like Obama was continuing with what he thought was a productive course of action started by W. Things have changed since then. Would you have Obama ignore the recent changes in Lybia and continue with aid to Libya?

Obama's comments that "Qaddafi must go" from do not agree with his current denial that we are not engaged in regime change.

Not true. Just because the US is not willing to allow Qaddafi to wipe out large chunks of his country's population does not mean that we are engaged in regime change, even if that is the result we would prefer.

Having said that, I am not convinced that Obama should have gotten us into this Lybia thing.

Can anyone decipher what is " The Obama Doctrine"? What foreign wars or dictators does he support, and which does he oppose, and what is the consistent theme that guides him in these decisions?

That's for people much better informed than I, but I like how he is getting other countries to carry the load for a change. As a broad generalization, Obama seems to be pragmatic, which is probably a good thing.

[MS Fowler]

Originally Posted by Honus

I am not aware of the increases you are referring to, but it sounds like Obama was continuing with what he thought was a productive course of action started by W. Things have changed since then. Would you have Obama ignore the recent changes in Lybia and continue with aid to Libya?Not true. Just because the US is not willing to allow Qaddafi to wipe out large chunks of his country's population does not mean that we are engaged in regime change, even if that is the result we would prefer.

Having said that, I am not convinced that Obama should have gotten us into this Lybia thing.That's for people much better informed than I, but I like how he is getting other countries to carry the load for a change. As a broad generalization, Obama seems to be pragmatic, which is probably a good thing.

I don't disagree. A good argument can be made for no foreign excursions for US military power. But Obama intervenes in some (apparently) civil disputes, and not in others. There are literally dozens of repressive regimes around the world who kill or oppress their populace. What prevents us from intervening there?
I'm just looking for consistency. ( Evidently Hillary, too, is fed up with the apparent lack of consistency and wants out as Sec State)

As for Newt, his role, IMO, is similar to Palin's. Both of them can solidify the conservative base (and funding) for the GOP--provided the GOP leadership pursues a conservative approach. If they continue being " me too, but not as liberals as the dems" they will be rejected by the conservatives and then we will have a GOP split and three parties. Who knows what might come out of that?
Newt's marital woes are no worse than Bill C's, and no one seemed too concerned over that. Unless its a purely partisan thing.
Newt SAYS most of the right things for a Conservative. The trouble is, I'm not convinced he actually believes what he says--and THAT is important for a conservative candidate.

[Jorn]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I don't disagree. A good argument can be made for no foreign excursions for US military power. But Obama intervenes in some (apparently) civil disputes, and not in others. There are literally dozens of repressive regimes around the world who kill or oppress their populace. What prevents us from intervening there?
I'm just looking for consistency. ( Evidently Hillary, too, is fed up with the apparent lack of consistency and wants out as Sec State)

Deja Vu. You talk like a liberal who opposed the Iraq war...

[MS Fowler]

Originally Posted by Jorn

Deja Vu. You talk like a liberal who opposed the Iraq war...

Does that mean I can, or cannot oppose the Libyan excursion?

[Honus]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

...There are literally dozens of repressive regimes around the world who kill or oppress their populace. What prevents us from intervening there?
I'm just looking for consistency...

Me too, but I don't think we are going to get it. The world is too messy for that.

...Newt's marital woes are no worse than Bill C's, and no one seemed too concerned over that...

The difference with Newt is that wives 1 and 2 were both seriously ill (including cancer in one case) when he let them know that he was in a relationship with someone else. I think people perceive a greater degree of cruelty in Newt, which can't be good for him.

I don't think he or Palin intend to run. My guess is that they do all this stuff because they want their names out there. It's what they do for a living, which is pretty remarkable.

[MTI]

The list of GOP candidates will grow. Money will be raised and a place at the table when policy and platform "planks" are decided will be jostled for. Newt's ultimate goal may be as VP or a cabinet role in the future.

[MTI]

Newt's inconsistency is only rivaled by Obama's--who only a few weeks ago asked for increases to military foreign aid for Libya.
Obama's comments that "Qaddafi must go" from do not agree with his current denial that we are not engaged in regime change.

Can anyone decipher what is " The Obama Doctrine"? What foreign wars or dictators does he support, and which does he oppose, and what is the consistent theme that guides him in these decisions?