The Trash Newt Thread
 

Now that Newt is climbing in the polls he is obviously the next one with the target on his back. Politico and others will be scheming and caniving soon.

This thread is provided so that all you lefties out there can get a head start on Politico.

I provided the thread, now you can provide the trash.

No need to trash Newt. He has self-immolated with his own behavior.

Well, then it should be quite easy for everyone to pile on.

What exactly has he done to get such a bad rep?

x2

Beat me to it.;)

Newt already ran and already got trashed. We could have a retrash Newt thread.

Well, the connotation of the thread seems to be intentional trolling?

Easy now, thats not fair.

Gingrich is clever. If he can get into one-on-one debates with Romney, he will probably do well, until people fact check him and compare his pronouncements against his previous positions. Once that starts, I think he will fall back in the polls. People who know him well seem to have little respect for him, so I would not expect to see people coming to his defense unless he starts to look like he might win.

Here's a good piece on Newt's comical reaction to events in Lybia earlier this year: Newt Gingrich on Libya policy: Firing in every direction - The Washington Post

You do realize that Politico is run by a former assitant to President Reagan, do you not? :

Fred Ryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And he is not some editor there, he is the CEO, the guy who only needs to pick up the phone if there is some kind of biased reporting going on, you know that, right? How exactly is a guy who spends his time on the side being the chairman of the Reagan Presidential Library, how can he somehow be a "lefty" at the same time? Are you saying he is a spy of some sort? That the GOP lets a spy run the Reagan Library, a shadow Democrat of some sorts? I don't think so. What I think, is that when you identify "Politico" with "lefties", you are simply making it all up. Politico is a news outlet run by a top member of the Republican Establishment wing, so it is pretty easy to make the case that Politico is probably in the bag for Romney, given who actually runs the place, a Reagan guy, then it is to claim it is some "lefty" information outlet. The real truth is you are so brainwashed, it is impossible for you to see the truth, and that anyone who attacks your guy must be a "lefty". So the real truth is, you are so far to the right, even the Reaganites have become "lefties" to you.

Why are you making things up about "lefties" when it is obvious that you folks on the right are eating each other alive in your quest for power?

The biggest rap on Newt is the fact that he has been married three times, and each marriage failed because he was cheating on the previous wife with some young thang who worked in his office. His last dalliance was with a women 23 years his junior, who he was banging on the side at the same time he was accusing Clinton of being a serial philanderer. The grotesque hypocrisy of this man is unbelievable.

The poll fluctuations of GOP Candidates probably signals a large demographic of poll responders that haven't made up their minds yet. Gingrich and Paul benefit from the stumbles of Cain and Perry.

Why do you want to trash Newt? Whats wrong with you?

This is what Tea Partier's do...

Paul is an impossible pick for the RWNJ crowd for his heresies against defense spending. I think they are stupidly blinded by their rigid views, Paul represents a Libertarian revolutionary viewpoint that, if he was elected, would put in place a conceptual view of the COTUS that could essentially destroy the Rooseveltian New Deal revolution. It amazes me that this crowd, like Larry, is so heavily propagandized to vote for The Corporate State faction, that they miss who their truly revolutionary candidate is. Gingrich is simply a continuation of Bush and his failures, but I bet the nuts back him in droves now that the real nuts like Perry and Bachmann and Cain have shown their feet of clay. If Gingrich gets in, he will simply continue the Deal Makers Congress and the entire rotten system that runs this country, as he feeds his suckers trite slogans, right wing hate and hoax emails. Paul, on the other hand, represents a revolutionary break from business as usual, which is why the Right Wing Fascists hate him. For that reason, he might even get my vote if I think the positives of ending the military-industrial complex's stranglehold on this nation could be broken, and that outweighs the negatives of unfettered capitalism, the thing he truly represents.

I'm not suggesting that candidates like Paul or Newt have increased support based on the polling, it's more a reflection of the lack of a dominant front runner this early in the campaign. Santorum, Bachmann, and Huntsman are likely going to run out of money after the initial primaries unless they do well. Perry, Gingrich, Cain and Romney may have a bit more leeway in their finances.

This is the first time that I've ever had to question your reading skills. I explained WHY in the OP.

There is one interesting tidbit in this barely legible rambling. It kind if implies that the Repubs are the only ones into deal making. That's one of the funniest things I've read on here in quite awhile.

Also, I'm missing the connection between GW and Newt. Neither one of them was in DC at the same time as the other.

In the midst of Solyndra, GM, the Wall Street and other connections to the Whitehouse, this is quite a hypocritical laugh.

I'd certainly consider Paul if he is still in the race when I get a chance to vote. Unlike many of my conservative friends, I think Paul represents a more correct view of foreign policy.

Red= Well there you go.
Blue= Never implied.

I don't see Politico leaning any which way but loose, ever since their endorsement of President Bush years ago. I enjoy reading you tell Larry he's brainwashed and basically implying ignorance to the 'truth', when you yourself take the stance of every lefty I have the so 'gracious opportunity' to converse with in Connecticut.

Don't worry Larry, we're just too simple and ignorant to see that the left wing knows whats best for us common folk. Maybe I should emulate our current President and play a round of golf in between classes and conferences. Or lend money to companies that go belly up all over the place. Or force emissions regulations that no one wants to adhere to except So Cal. Buy out an awful auto union to produce more cars no one 'wants'.

As to our ravenous appetite for power, I don't recall President Bush entering a conflict without Congressional approval or throwing fliff around like a sultan. I also only recall the slaying of one dictator under Bush's regime, and two down thus far in the Obama Presidency.
So... who's the war monger?

I don't get why anyone follows the leader boards regarding who's on top in the public vote for the Republicans. While Romney isn't the furthest right candidate we've got, he's well moderate enough to succeed appealing to ALL constituents. Plus, it's the RNCs final decision anyways. Cain is obviously a no go-- he has less foreign policy education than Obama. Gingrich is an easy kill skeleton wise, but I would thoroughly enjoy watching him mop the floor with Obama in a debate. I can hear him stutter like Dubya now.

No, you're not making any sense. On the one hand you are a self professed right wing nutjob but on the other hand you want to trash Newt. I mean if you didn't want to trash Newt you wouldn't have started this thread. Is there a closeted pinko leftist deep down inside you yearning to get out? Whats your deal?

He was beating whichever person who was going to post the thread to the chase? Pretty simple reading comprehension. Unless you're playing coy.

I voted for Ron Paul in 2008. This next time I will not vote for him because of his party membership.

And you're questioning the reading skills of others?

Jesus, talk about regurgitated propaganda.

You might miss his one chance:

Poll: Ron Paul claims frontrunner status, soaring past Gingrich, Romney | The Raw Story

I like Cain and Paul. Thanks for the info JR. I'm starting to wonder if the better presidents are womanizers;).

Truman was as true to Bess as they come. I believe history is coming to regard him as a pretty decent Prez.

I also hear no womanizing rumors about Nixon, Carter, Reagan, GHWB, GWB and Obama.

I will leave it to you which are good prez's and which are not.

Personally I prefer a man who is true blue but his political actions interest me a lot more than his personal actions.;)

Why can't you libs get your head screwed on straight! Obama is the worst President in American history. Corrupt as they come. You believe everything that the liberal media spews on a daily basis. They'll tell you that's is OK to play in the middle of the Interstate and you will probably the first one on the road playing. Get real!

Well, we have quite the presidential historian here . . . ;)

Talking in absolutes...

For an unknown number of years, Gingrich's foundation has been shamelessly trading on what prestige his name has by awarding Honorary Awards for excellence to people seemingly taken from the phone book, in exchange for a handling fee of around $5000 IIRC.

Was reported to have taken in millions doing that.

How old are you?

Well at least with a womanizer you know that he knows how to screw others !! ;)

Havent seen a woman candidate put her hand up yet. Maybe its too hot in the kitchen.
From experience over here, the last thing you want is a woman in the top job !!

Might as well resurrect this old gem...



Newt - A Prairie Home Comedy - YouTube

Aside from eviscerating the military and then immediately involving the military in a war it was ill-prepared to fight and and when we were winning, essentially surrendered and that cost the lives of of over 50k men and a couple hundred thousand wounded, I see your point.

:D gee, does someone feel threatened by a strong woman?

We have Michelle Bachman, but she hasn't been polling too well lately. I take it you're not happy with Julia Gillard. I don't know anything about her politics, but I do believe that with the removal of Ukraine's Yulia Tymoshenko(currently in prison for abuse of power-maybe you are on to something), Gillard may be the best looking head of government anywhere at the moment.

Thatcher seems to have done better than ok running the UK.

There is a cute song about 'Gingrich the Newt' by the Austin Lounge Lizards on You Tube. I would post a link if I could figure out how that is done, but it is easy to find.

I think this song was written in the late 90's.

There is really no need to trash Newt here. The other Republicans on the stage will do that quite well, thank you.

One reason I would not trust Newt with the job of President is that he has had close to it once and blew it. When he tried to shut down the Federal Government in the 90's and Clinton turned him inside out you would have thought he would have tried to get around Clinton in another way, but his next attempt to shut down the Government was tossed in his face by Clinton again. What's that old saying Republicans invented a few years ago? If you do the same thing and expect different results you are an idiot or something like that?

The 'Contract with America' which did deliver on a few items and was interesting, but Newt was unable to bring it home during the next election and had to resign his position because of it.

If he can't outsmart Bill Clinton then why should I expect him to outsmart any other world leader?

Gee does someone get personal with his every comment?

Clinton was the cleverest, most politically adept president we have had since LBJ. Nobody but LBJ could have outmaneuvered Clinton and probably not more than half the time. Now that would have been a hell of a political cage fight: LBJ vs Clinton!

only with people who have gotten "personal" with me, like "layback", who compared barack obama to an animal at the zoo. (and, for the record, i don't even like barack obama, the ultimate sell-out, for reasons that have nothing to do with his ethnicity. ) maybe you should think before posting.

.....and according to you Viet Nam was a justfiied war and we won it?

Getting personal with Obama is the same as getting personal with you (your own words), yet you don't like Obama.

No. No.

It was not justified and we lost. I guess the context of the time is important -- the majority of Americans thought we were in a life or death struggle with the USSR and bought the Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon argument that the commie expansion must be stopped. In my opinion it could have been won and was lost largely due to the national press taking sides and accelerating the change in America's willingness to support it. But having won, so what?

Besides, using one bloody unjustifiable fiasco to justify another is not a useful argument, is it?

Thanks for posting this Bot!

There are many young readers here and even a few that should be old enough to know this. The guys you mentioned indeed propogated the "fight against communism" ploy. Hindsight is 20/20 so many people don't understand the popular perception of the time.

Of course, ignoring this fact makes them feel superior, so I suppose we should just let it pass so they can feel good.

How can anyone debate with such a soaring intellectual?

I think a more objective view of our last few presidents would put George W. Bush in that position. An unnecessary war that destroyed our national reputation in the world and put us in the eyes of the rest of the world in the same league as Hitler, cutting taxes for the wealthiest people during wartime and crony capitalism have essentially robbed all of us of a prosperous future, and I doubt whoever succeeded him would have had it much better at attempting to turn that around. I fail to see what exactly Obama has done to put him into the same class with the disaster that preceded him. These clowns love to say 'during the Obama administration debt has increased..blah..blah', but what they fail to say is that Obama's first year in office was under Bush's last budget, which included the massive TARP bailouts and other expensive actions necessary to keep the banking system from exploding, and that much of the spending that followed was the correct thing to do to keep prices from going into a deflationary death spiral with the resultant massive unemployment, as seen in the 1930's. Bush dumped a series of blunders and disasters created by his insane administration right into Obama's lap.

Bush's crony capitalism gave us a better economy than BO's crony socialism?