Gingrich takes lead nationally

Compared to Clinton?

 

WHEN it counts, it will be, "Anybody but b.o.!"

 

I'm just not sure either way..

Seems like in the 1970s the Republican Party began moving further right.. and more towards the extreme Moral Majority... which basically caved to the Neocons during the Bush Administration. That's when I quit the party.

I think Mitt may not be right wing enough for the Republicans.

If he were WHY in God's name would they have the slightest interest in Newt or Cain, Palin or Perry.. or Bachmann??

 

Oh you can be sure, any of the Republicans over Obama.

 

Well. I don't think so... I think the ONLY man who can beat Obama is Huntsman.. for all the reasons I have already stated.

 

He's a non-issue.

 

Its not over til the fat lady sings, bluesguy.. I hope the Republicans won't settle for Newt or any of those other morons in the GOP parade.

They would be HORRIBLE presidents and not solve any of the problems..

 

They would be HORRIBLE presidents and not solve any of the problems..[/B]

That's what we have NOW and you liberals are happy about it. The rest of the nation has been quite well aware of "They would be HORRIBLE presidents and not solve any of the problems..[/B] for 2.833 years now.
b.o. HAS to be as bad as it can get. It is easily better to take a chance on ANYONE else. Because they CANNOT be worse than the incompetent incumbent idiot clown fool b.o.

 

To call Gingrich a moron is simply ignorance of the man.

 

No - like so many of 'em he pretends to be stupid to hide the fact that he is a very nasty piece of work indeed. Fancy cheating on a wife with cancer. Scum of the earth!

 

They were already separated, the marriage having fallen apart years previously when she was diagnosed.

Newt's daughter sets the record straight

"My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.

Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.

She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.

The tumor was benign."

http://townhall.com/columnists/jackiegingrichcushman/2011/05/08/setting_the_record_straight

So let's stop the lies. She was not on her death bed. She did not have cancer it was a benign tumor not a death threatening malignancy. She was not suffering. He did not take divorce papers to have her sign.

Do you even know who his first wife was before they were married right after he graduated high school?

 

Well, who cares? Decent people stay married - there I probably agree with the teabags - and scumbags cheat. Wouldn't do if we all thought the same, but I reckon a promise is a promise.

 

I think you expected too much too soon.. There was no quick fix for the economy. I certainly knew that going in, but I was scared to death of McCain and Palin.. those two wouldn't have fixed the economy either and they would have doubled down on war spending... and probably have attacked Iran by now.

None of the GOP candidates has a clue what to do about tax reform, the economy or foreign policy.. EXCEPT Huntsman.

Mitt Romney never created and jobs.. he was a downsize, outsource, sell off hatchet man.

 

How could she have been diagnosed years earlier with a benign tumor? Biopsies are usually scheduled within ten days.. and nobody stays in hospital after a breast biopsy..

 

Bad grammar on my part

They were already separated, the marriage having fallen apart years previously, before she was diagnosed.

Better?

 

There was NEVER any fear of McCain/Palin being elected. They were sacrificial lambs put up by the Republicans because they knew that after Bush, NO REPUBLICAN was going to get elected. McCain KNEW he was "taking one for the Party." Palin knew nothing. The GOP saw her as a throwaway. The GOP's plan was for 2016. They knew they were beat for 2008.
Now surprising to the GOP, the tables are turned 4 years sooner. Now b.o is the throwaway for the Democrats. No progress on the economy, ALL international respect for the USA, LOST, Astronomical, previously unimaginable deficits. The Dems wouldn't waste an up and comer on this coming election. They'll let b.o. take the fall he deserves.

 

Actually that makes a lot of sense.. in a way, but the party could have redeemed the Bush legacy, but putting someone on the ticket who could solve the problems.

 

They knew they had no chance. Why sacrifice their 2016 candidate by making him/her a loser in 2008. McCain was a known American Hero. Known that he would and did sacrifice himself for his country and his party. That's why Palin was picked as a running mate. A nobody going nowhere. Politics is not a bloodless game. Mac and Palin were both sacrificed. Palin has made the most of her time in the sun. But was never a serious candidate. and the Democrats WILL run b.o. even though they know others have a better chance of keeping the White house in Democrats hands. But the Democratic Party bosses also know that both House of congress ARE lost. So they won't sacrifice a good candidate with a future that even if elected would be saddled with a Republican Congress. They'll let that be b.o.'s sad legacy. They know they screwed the pooch electing him.

 

You mean like Bush who succeeded where Clinton failed in Iraq and turned around the recession he inherited to full employment and declining deficits?

 

Rofl?

Bush's recession fix was to have Greenspan lower interest rates and create our current housing bubble.

He then cut taxes while increasing spending via among other things 2 wars that he could not afford.

That is the example you wish to bring up? Think about it.

 

It was softened his first round of tax cuts and took off after the second.

The deficits fell in 2005, 2006 and 2007...down to $161 billion. Revenues increased 44% with more taxpayers paying because everyone was working.

The Democrats increased the deficits TEN FOLD and have stuck us with over 9% unemployment for three years.

I'll stick with these what do Obama and the Dems have to trump 'em?

 

What on earth are you talking about? What was softened? The housing bubble? It was CREATED by the interest rate cuts when Bush took office.

You are trying to play the same game Democrats attempt with Clinton. How do you explain the elephant in the room which is the Debt....which did not go down once under Bush. What on earth does the deficit matter if the debt is continuously increasing? Bush was having fun with the accounting in the same way Clinton did.

I don't care what "Obama and the Dems" have, but I have reality for you should you choose to come back to it.

 

The recession he inherited.

Debt is the accumulated deficits, to lower the debt you first have to lower and end the deficits.

The Bush tax cuts spurred the economy to a 44% revenue increase then Bush and the Republicans passed budgets that lowered the deficits in 2005, 2006 and 2007 down to $161 billion. A TENTH of where the Democrats took it when they took over the Congress in 2008. AND everyone who wanted to work was working.

What are you having difficulty understanding there?

 

He didn't exactly inherit a recession. The tech stock bubble burst and Greenspan lowered rates to kick the can. Thats all he inherited.

I am having difficulty understanding your claim of lower deficits when Bush Jr. increased the national debt by 6 trillion over his 2 terms. How can you claim he did any good with the deficits when the debt increased by 6 trillion over his tenure. Please help me to understand how that is a good thing.

 

Yes he did exactly inherit a recession. The economic slowdown began 3rd and 4th quarters of 2000, BEFORE he was even elected. Within weeks of his election we slipped into a recession.

The budget deficits declined in 2005, 2006 and 2007 down to $161 billion. I don't know what is so hard to understand about it.