Tagged: newt Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 10:33 PM on 03/20/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , mcdonell, newt, , , , , , vp stakes,   

    Romney Wins Big – Let the VP Stakes Begin 

    First, I take no pleasure whatsoever saying this.  Romney will be the GOP nominee.  Santorum has run out of field.  There are not enough truly conservative states left to get him to the nomination.  Of course he will keep going in the hopes of a contested convention, but in their hearts of hearts they know it is not in the cards.

    Therefore, it is time.  VP Stakes:

    There are plenty to choose from.

    Herman Cain: I don’t see it.  The issues that came up about the affair would scare off any candidate in my mind.  Why deal with that distraction when you don’t have to?  I give this almost no chance.

    Paul Ryan: A great choice, but very young.  He also has very young children who he doesn’t want to put into the spotlight at their tender ages.  Which just makes me love him all the more.  Also, very remote chance of this happening.

    Chris Christie:  This is a non-starter as far as I am concerned.  I like many things about Christie, but he adds nothing to the ticket.  He won’t bring NJ over to the GOP.  He is just as moderate as Romney is in most respects.  So I give this almost no chance.

    Michele Bachman: She will excite the base, but let’s be honest; she is a loose cannon.  Romney won’t take the chance of her blowing his last chance at being president.

    Marco Rubio: He is dynamic and from a swing state.  He had a great deal of tea party support.  Notice I said had.  There are many in the Tea Party who have lost confidence in him.  He has some issues with a brother-in-law who has had some drug dealing issues.  Of course that has nothing to do with him, he didn’t marry the guy, but the media will have some fun with that.  He also has said that he has zero intention of taking it even if offered.  Of course much easier to say no to a reporter than to the nominee.  He is also young.  He may feel he isn’t ready yet.   I would give this a 50/50 chance.

    Allen West: West has been favorable towards Newt, although he never came out and endorsed him.  West has the entire package that the conservative base is looking for.  He will make an excellent attack dog on the stump.  He will pull no punches with Obama, which will allow Romney to stay above the fray and concentrate on comparing and contrasting policies with the Obama administration.  West had some issues in Iraq that will come up again.  He sometimes doesn’t always filter what he is saying.  He also just moved in order to run for congress again.  I would give this maybe a 40% chance.

    Sarah Palin: Heaven knows she has been vetted.  But she is also very polarizing.  I also don’t think she would accept.  Why be the small dog again when she had the chance to run for the big seat and decided to bow out?  I give this less than a 20% chance.

    Rand Paul: I like Rand.  A lot as a matter of fact.  He also is another that will take on Obama without fear.  His down side is that it will add fuel to the fire to the people who accused Romney and Ron Paul of working together and Rand getting the VP seat as the payoff.  It will alienate the people who believe this.  But, it may bring in Ron Paul fans.  Not likely, but some may be willing to vote for him.  I would say this is about a 30% chance.

    I don’t see him taking any of the candidates he went up against.  The blood between Newt and him is way to bad for it to be repaired.  It looks like it is starting to get that way with Rick now as well.  I would give this the least likely of the scenarios.

    My pick is Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia.  He is currently the head of the RGA.  Has a rising profile nationally.  He has spoken at the Reagan library recently and was received well.  His administration has been very successful.  He has increased revenues without raising taxes, VA’s ratings has increased under his administration, he has kept most of his promises when he was elected, (one more year to fulfill the balance).  He is also a very good campaigner.  He is a staunch conservative, which Romney needs to excite the base.  Virginia is a swing state, and right now is trending to Obama by 8 points with Romney as the nominee.  (Which Romney was the best of the remaining candidates).


    Your predictions?

    • signpainterguy 11:03 PM on 03/20/2012 Permalink | Reply

      With Romney only just past 1/3 of the way to 1,440 delegates required to garner the nomination, you might at least “consider” that you could be jumping the gun a bit early. Santorum has already surprised the “experts” ! Much can happen and I pray it will ! I do not want Rombama !

      Alan West would fill the VP bill for me.

      Marco Rubio just may be ineligible as his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth; IF I understand it correctly. A shame; I like his brand of conservatism !

      • just a conservative girl 6:58 AM on 03/21/2012 Permalink | Reply

        There is no viable path to the nomination for anyone but Romney. You have to remember a few things, starting April 1 most states become winner takes all. You also have to look at many of the states that are left, Maryland, CT, CA, are not going to vote for Santorum. Where he does well is where they are large numbers of evangelicals. He also still has places where he is not even on the ballot; DC for instance. He also has issues with delegates in PA. He has very few delegates that he can win in that state, even though he will more than likely win the state.

        It is over. Romney is the nominee. Rick had to have IL last night to have any kind of chance and he fell way short.

        Cubans back in the 60’s were given citizenship very quickly. He may very well have been born to citizens. Also, the court has never ruled on what Natural Born Citizen means. I admire your consistency in the matter though. I have read quite a few people going after Santorum as well.

        • signpainterguy 5:05 PM on 03/21/2012 Permalink | Reply

          As I said, Santorum won some states the experts said he wouldn`t; I`m not giving up on him !

          Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution is clear enough on what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen; a person born on US lands to parents who are citizens. Notice “parents” is plural; meaning, not one parent or the other, but BOTH ! THAT makes Obama ineligible. IF Cubans were given immediate(ish) citizenship, then there`s probably no issue with Rubio`s NBC status ! That would be good !

    • Joe 3:27 AM on 03/21/2012 Permalink | Reply

      If you any understanding of math Rick has lost. He’s beginning to embarass himself. If Mitt picks Rand and flips the NADA hes got my vote.

    • fuzislippers 5:17 PM on 03/25/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Great post. Romney needs two things: foreign policy cred and TEA Party support. Make that three things, actually, because he needs to reach out to minorities, too.

      For these reasons, the short list for the Romney campaign probably includes Rubio, Jindal, and West. No way in hell is either Palin or Bachmann on it, but they may be stupid enough to consider Christie or Rand Paul. I doubt he’s thinking Ryan as Ryan’s strength is the economy and budget (the same as Romney’s purported strengths). Ryan would add to a Santorum ticket, not Romney’s. I’d love to see him pick Herman Cain, but seriously doubt it’s even a distant thought. My pick is Colonel West.

      There is a chance that he’ll go with Nicki Haley, a smart choice for the women’s/minority vote, but I wouldn’t put money on that one.

      • just a conservative girl 6:03 PM on 03/25/2012 Permalink | Reply

        The reason that I think he will go McDonnell over West is that Romney is a play it safe kind of guy and West is very bold choice. I am not sure he is that bold.

        • fuzislippers 6:18 PM on 03/25/2012 Permalink | Reply

          I like McDonnell, but he adds nothing to the Romney ticket. He’d balance an unhinged Newt, tho. ;)

          • just a conservative girl 6:45 PM on 03/25/2012 Permalink | Reply

            Well A. Newt won’t be the nominee (much to your happiness I am sure;}) and B. he can’t take McDonnell anyway. They are from the same state. You are right, West adds a great deal, but I still think it is a little more bold than Romney is willing to go.

            • fuzislippers 6:50 PM on 03/25/2012 Permalink | Reply

              Oh Romney will all but sell his soul for a political win. He proved that in 1994.

  • just a conservative girl 9:33 PM on 01/22/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: newt, , sowell   

    Quote of the Day – Thomas Sowell Edition 

    “Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich’s past, rather than on the nation’s future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: ‘If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.’ If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means we’ve lost, big time.”

  • just a conservative girl 9:41 PM on 01/10/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , newt,   

    Quote of the Day – Rush Limbaugh Edition Part 3 

    “Newt is trying to dredge up long-lasting negatives and have them attach to Romney (this is what’s so unsettling about this) in the same way the left would. You could, after all these Newt bites, say, ‘I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message’.”

    Rush on Newt’s attack on capitalism.

    And my quote to Newt is the STFU.


  • just a conservative girl 3:01 PM on 01/02/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , newt, , ,   

    Iowa Predicitions 

    For what it is worth, here are my predictions for tomorrow’s caucus in Iowa.  

    While Ron Paul has been falling in the polls over the past week, I still believe he will pull out the victory, but by a small margin.  The reason why is his supporters are loyal to a fault.  They are organized and energized.  They will show up tomorrow night no matter how much snow is on the ground or how cold it is.  No other candidate has that sort of energy behind him.  

    Sadly, Romney will come in second.  My thoughts on Romney becoming the nominee are no secret.  Yuck.  But I do believe that it is inevitable at this point.  I will give his campaign credit where credit is due.  Placing in the top three in Iowa is to paraphrase Biden a BFD.  Romney is not the type of candidate that normally does well in Iowa.  The largest part of the republican party are very social conservative.  

    Santorum will be the real stunner of tomorrow.  He will have a top three finish.  The problem is that he put all his eggs in the Iowa basket,  and not getting a real return on it until now.  He has no money and very little organization moving forward.  New Hampshire is only 8 days away.  Now Santorum is the type of candidate you would expect to do well in Iowa, but not in New Hampshire.  He lacks any clear economic policy of consequence, so he will not get traction moving forward.  I expect him to drop out right around South Carolina.  

    Perry will finish in the top 4.  He also seems to be catching fire again.  He also has social conservative creds that fit well with the average GOP’er in Iowa.  Unlike Santorum, his campaign is still well funded, and he has real plans for the economy and shrinking government.  So he can still catch fire down the road.  He will do well in South Carolina as well.  

    Newt’s star has faded.  He has little money and his inability to get on the ballot in Virginia and Missouri have shown the cracks of his campaign when it comes to discipline and organization.  As late as 10 days ago he didn’t have sponsors to speak for him at every voting location.  He may not still.  Ultimately, people want to vote for a winner and the person who is most likely to run a good general election campaign.  Newt ain’t it.  If he manages to get to Super Tuesday, he may be able to pick up some steam and give Romney a run for his money, but does he have the money to last that long?  Not likely.  

    Bachmann will finish dead last (Huntsman is not competing in Iowa) and will be dropping out of the campaign within the next 7 to 10 days.  I have said all along she wasn’t in it to win it.  She had something to prove to the leadership of the congress who didn’t back her desire for place at the leadership table. 

    • zillaoftheresistance 7:36 PM on 01/03/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Actually, Rick Santorum has also been pretty darned organized in New Hampshire AND South Carolina and has made many trips to both places in the past year. He’s been to these places more than most of the other candidates, you probably just don’t know about it because until very recently, everybody but a handful of us bloggers has been ignoring him completely.

  • just a conservative girl 2:19 AM on 12/25/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , newt, , ,   

    Some Thoughts on Virginia’s Primary Ballot Failures 

    As a resident of Virginia I will say that I am not at all pleased to have two choices and only two choices.  That said, there are very clear rules in place and every candidate had the same access to those rules.  Three candidates never even bothered to put in signatures for review.  I suppose they just never got enough to make it worthwhile.  One of those candidates, Rick Santorum, lives in Virginia.

    Now, our Lt. Governor Bill Bolling is one of the Chairs for the Virginia for Romney campaign.  That has led to some charges that he was rooting for this and possibly there was corruption involved.  Anyone involved in the republican party in Virginia could have gone to help verify the signatures.  I myself was sent an email with an invitation to attend and volunteer to help verify all the signatures.  There is no proof whatsoever that Bolling had anything to do with the outcome.  It is very unseemly to make these charges without any evidence to support them.  Bolling has already announced his bid for the Governorship in 13, I don’t think he would take the chance of ruining his chances to help Mitt Romney get elected.  He has had his eyes on the governor’s chair for quite some time.  The ballots were verified by mainly volunteers.  The likelihood that all of them were corrupted to push the outcome in any one direction is very hard to believe.

    Gingrich has made the following statement:

    The Gingrich campaign responded that “only a failed system” would disqualify Gingrich and other candidates. It said Gingrich would pursue an aggressive write-in campaign in Virginia.

    The law is very clear in Virginia, there is no option for a write in campaign.  While I am sure that people can still write in a name, it will not be counted.  This law has been in place since 1999.  This will be the fourth presidential election since these laws have been implemented.  In this time no other major candidate has failed to get on the ballot.  Here is a list of people who qualified for the Virginia ballots in the past:

    2008 – Barack Obama, Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, John Edwards; Ron Paul, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney.

    2004 – Al Sharpton, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Dick Gephardt, Lyndon Larouche.

    2000 – Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, George W. Bush, John McCain, Steve Forbes.

    So Newt wants me to believe that the system is broken even when the like of Lyndon Larouche or Al Sharpton can get the necessary signatures?  That doesn’t pass the smell test to me.   Does it to you?

    This comes down to one thing and one thing only.  They lack the organization necessary to run a national campaign.  Running for president is very difficult.  As it should be since it is a very difficult job.  Even Jill over at Pundit and Pundette; a huge Perry supporter, asked if he was just winging it.  Perry turned in sheets that were not notarized.  A very simple and free thing to do.  It is also is clear indication that no one on Perry’s staff bothered to look at the sheets when they were turned in by the volunteers.  I will give Perry credit here as he is not making himself into a victim as Newt appears to be doing.  So far he seems to accept the inevitable.  He will not be on the ballot for one of the biggest prizes of Super Tuesday.

    Look, getting people to sign these petitions is not easy.  I am not saying that it is, but they were only required to get less than barely over one tenth of one percent of qualified voters.  But the fact that it is difficult is the reason that an organized campaign is vital.  You must have the staff to organize the volunteers.  Another thing to remember is Virginia has off-year elections.  We had an election last month.  Every campaign has access to the information on where the voting locations were and what the past numbers of voters showing up to those locations are.   This is low hanging fruit, everyone showing up is a registered voter.  I volunteered on election day.  I only saw people out for Romney, Newt, and Obama.  I asked the other volunteers at the results party that I went to and none of them saw any for any of the other candidates that I listed.  I personally signed for Cain, Newt, and Rick Santorum.  I wouldn’t sign for Romney and was never asked to sign for any other candidate.  I am also on the email list for virtually every candidate and was only asked to collect signatures for Romney and Cain.

    Newt would like to change the rules because he is unhappy with the results.  That is a leftist tactic.  I find it abhorrent that Newt is now looking for a way around the rules.  While I do feel cheated that I only have two choices on my ballot.  The people who cheated me were the candidates themselves.

    Now, I am going to get back to celebrating Christmas.

  • just a conservative girl 6:19 PM on 12/24/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , newt,   

    Quote of the Day – Lt. Governor Bill Bolling Edition 

    I understand that Speaker Gingrich is disappointed that he didn’t make the Virginia ballot, but blaming the process is a mistake. Everyone knew the rules, and Governor Romney and Congressman Paul had no trouble complying with the rules. The other candidates failed to do so, and they have no one to blame for that but themselves.

    Bill Bolling, Lt. Governor of Virginia on Newt’s Gingrich’s statement calling the Virginia ballot application system broken.

    People need to remember that Newt lives in Virginia.


  • just a conservative girl 12:54 AM on 12/11/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , newt, racial tensions   

    Supporting Newt is Racism? 


    So says Glenn Beck.  It is no secret that Beck doesn’t like Newt; no, it is more like he can’t stand him.  That is fine, he has the right to his opinion.  Beck doesn’t think that there is a big difference between Newt and President Obama.  He feels that they are so much alike that if a tea party member supports Newt it must mean that they don’t like Obama due to racism.  


    “If you have a big government progressive, or a big government progressive in Obama… ask yourself this, Tea Party: is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy, it must be about race. I mean, what else is it? It’s the policies that matter.”


    The stretch in logic that one must make to come to this conclusion must mean that Beck is a contortionist.  Look Newt has issues.  He has done many things that upset social conservatives, he has upset the republican establishment (not to say to that is bad thing), he has upset moderates, and he certainly has upset the left (again, not a bad thing).  



    But, to think that Newt would have done the things that Obama has done over the past three years is simply ludicrous.  Would we have Obamacare?  Would we have had almost a trillion dollar in stimulus that really only stimulated friends of the far left?  Would he have signed Dodd/Frank?  I don’t think any of these things would have happened.  



    Does he really want me to believe that Newt’s supporters are racist?  Newt also has done some very good things in his career.  He led the first republican comeback of the House of Representatives in four decades.  When others said it couldn’t be done, he did it anyway.  Many of the things that are traditionally credited to President Clinton; such as welfare reform and a balanced federal budget, were done under his watch. 



    So let me ask you a question Mr. Beck, why should I believe that you are a conservative when you pulling the race card from the bottom of the deck?  How is what you just said any different than what the left does anytime you criticize President Obama?  



    This is not the first time that Beck has played the race card.  Let’s hope it is his last.  


  • just a conservative girl 1:24 PM on 12/06/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , newt, , ,   

    Quote of the Day – Michele Bachmann Edition 

    “Gingrich is the same as Mitt Romney. You’d think these guys had been the standard-bearer for the conservative movement and the Republican Party, but they’re great pretenders — they’re frugal socialists, people want something that’s very bold and very different, they won’t get it in either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.”

    Michele Bachmann on Newt and Mitt.

    I don’t understand her strategy here.  This isn’t going to help her win.

    • SignPainterGuy 3:45 PM on 12/06/2011 Permalink | Reply

      If she articulates well what “frugal progressive” means, perhaps it will help her. She`s right !

      • just a conservative girl 3:48 PM on 12/06/2011 Permalink | Reply

        She didn’t say progressives, she said socialists. Not the same thing, nor do I think that either of them are socialists.

        • SignPainterGuy 8:43 PM on 12/06/2011 Permalink | Reply

          Glenn Beck this morning clarified the term to “frugal progressive” since Newt isn`t a socialist in Glenn`s way of thinking. Following his thought, Michele is correct.

          • just a conservative girl 10:16 PM on 12/06/2011 Permalink | Reply

            Why exactly does she need Glenn Beck to clarify her statements for her? I am not trying to be a wise guy, just asking.

            • SignPainterGuy 1:01 PM on 12/07/2011 Permalink | Reply

              I doubt she “needed” it; it`s just what Glenn does. I agree with him. I agree with Michele (after the term change). Mostly.

  • just a conservative girl 11:47 PM on 10/11/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , newt, ,   

    GOP Bloomberg/Washington Post Debate 

    I personally really liked the format.  The candidates seemed much more human in a way.  It seemed much more like a conversation this way.  After all, we are trying to decide who will represent the party and run for the presidency.  Americans want someone they feel like they can relate with to a certain extent. 

    Jon Huntsman is a very rude man.  I really didn’t like the dig to Perry on the Mormon comments.  While I understand that since he is a Mormon, he felt disrespected by the comments, but Perry did not make them.  It made him seem small and petty. 

    Gov. Perry had the perfect opportunity to hit Romney on Romneycare tonight and punted.  He still seemed out of it and was far too defensive.  He had to hit it out of the park tonight and barely got up to bat.  Where’s the fork?  He is done. 

    Romney really interested me tonight.  When they had the chance to ask questions to the other candidates I was very surprised by him choosing Michele Bachmann.  You would think he would go after Perry or Cain.  Voters that are partial to Bachmann are not going to vote for Romney in a primary setting.  As usual, he did no harm and kept most of his attacks towards Obama. 

    I thought Cain did damage to himself tonight by choosing Alan Greenspan as his model for Fed Chair.  Greenspan?  I have to fully agree with Ron Paul on this one; disaster.  Many of Greenspan’s policies helped lead to the financial meltdown we are having now, he kept the interest rates at artificially low rates which was a contributing factor to the mess we are in.  He was the biggest target tonight and handled it pretty well.  A few stumbles, but overall he did OK, although his defense of TARP is not something that most conservatives want to hear. 

    Rick Santorum didn’t get enough talking time.  But he isn’t a realistic top-tier candidate at this point. 

    Michele Bachmann did a better job tonight, she seemed focused and stayed on point.  Although, I think she needs to stop bringing up her 23 foster children so often.  It seems like she is trying to use to score points.  For some reason it doesn’t sit well with me.  She didn’t do enough to revive her campaign, but she will probably last until New Hampshire.  She will more than likely be on a few short lists for VP, although I find it unlikely she will get it. 

    Newt was the grown up in the room.  Again, he kept his focus on Obama and his policies.  I recently read a post on Legal Insurrection saying maybe it is time to give him another look.  The professor may be correct.  There are many things that I don’t like about him, but he has big ideas.  He is big picture guy and that may be what we need right now. 

    Ron Paul was Ron Paul.  Nothing really loony and some good points about the financial mess. 

    Overall, I would have to give the win to Romney.  But he has been running for president since 07, so he should be winning. 

    Biggest loser: Charlie Rose.  Does that man get enough sleep? 



    • SignPainterGuy 12:19 PM on 10/12/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Overall, I have to say I enjoyed the debate / QnA. The format did it, not NPR, WaPo, for sure. Lefties just don`t usually get the Christian / conservative mindset, so I quit looking or even hoping they suddenly will. Karen and the other girl, even Charlie got their smackdowns right off the bat, Bachmann first and then Newt not accepting the left`s premises, pointing the blame at the politicians who created the mess, not Big Banking and Corps. That was great !

      Yeah, Romney won by default as much as anything else by not being asked about his RomBamaScare consultants going to the WH and assisting in the writing of ObummerScare. He`s most polished, besides Newt, and just didn`t lose. I still don`t trust him to insist on complete repeal of OblamerScare.

      All the candidates made some good points, being centered on the economy, where most have experience and knowledge. Even Paul was un-loony. Newt was good and acted as a cheer leader for the whole panel.

      I agree that Huntsman was insulting; he isn`t pres. mat`l.

      Cain needs to tweak his single-ish issue 9-9-9 plan so it`s less harmful to those on fixed income, otherwise, it`s the only plan that restructures / simplifies the tax code, eliminates all loopholes, grants CERTAINTY to biz owners so they know what`s coming, they can adapt and get back to biz. When he selected Greenspan as his rolemodel for a fed ch., I took it to mean “A.G. of the `90s”, not his later yrs. I hope so, cause A.G. was a disaster later. That may be bad for Herm. Still my favorite though !

      Bachmann`s point that adding a new revenue stream for congress (nat`l sales tax) would be next to impossible to remove later has much merit.

      I think the biggest loser was Karen Tumulty. An MBA from Haahvud and still believes in Keynesian economics and caught a polite smackdown with most of her questions.

      • just a conservative girl 7:12 PM on 10/12/2011 Permalink | Reply

        According to Cain his plan is to require a two third majority to make any changes to it. Which will be very difficult, if not impossible, to get.

        Let’s say he becomes the next president, not a scenario that I feel is likely, but if he does, it will never pass into law anyway.

        His entire point is to get the country to a flat tax. But if he calls it a flat tax he will be laughed at.

        • SignPainterGuy 10:26 PM on 10/12/2011 Permalink | Reply

          Purely coincidentally, I just left his website; Phase II is the “Fair Tax”. The “Flat” tax is still “income” tax. The “Fair” tax is a sales tax, not a tax on income, but a consumption tax, tax on what you spend, not on money earned, which is punitive and invasive by way of the requirements to report from whom, how, where, doing what, you earned your money. IMO, none of the gov`s business ! The Fair tax works IF the IRS is eliminated. A dream of mine !

          No guarantee it would pass, but it`s the best idea offered so far, again, IMO !

  • just a conservative girl 10:31 PM on 06/13/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , newt, , presidential race, ,   

    The CNN Debate 

    Just some quick thoughts as I don’t have a great deal of time. 

     I think that Michele Bachman did a great job.  She sometimes has a habit of getting her facts a little mixed up, but not tonight.  She showed that she is able to stay on topic and answer questions with quick soundbites that get to the point. 

     I think that Tim Pawlenty was the big winner tonight.  He came across as likable, knowledgeable, and a good conservative.  Job well done. 

     Newt showed why he has been described as the brain or the idea guy.  He is in his element in a debate format and tonight was no exception.  The big downside was that he outright lied in my opinion.  He is sticking to his ridiculous story that what he said about Paul Ryan was taken out of context.  It was a live interview Newt, we ain’t buying what you are trying to sell with this one.  You just made yourself look dishonest. 

     Herman Cain I think was one of the biggest losers.  Not because of his answers, just that he wasn’t given much of a chance to speak.  The questions went mainly to Romney, Newt, and Pawlenty.  I guess these are the three that CNN has deigned the viable candidates for the nomination.  Overall his performance was strong, just not nearly enough face time. 

     Ron Paul was Ron Paul.  I agree with much of what he would do on fiscal policy, but he loses me on social issues and foreign policy. 

     Romney was doing his somersaults about Romneycare or as Pawlenty’s newest phrase Obamney Care.  Not happening Mitt.  I am not buying it, you seem unwilling to sign an all out repeal and nothing less is acceptable.  Screw this waiver idea of yours. 

     Rick Santorum also did pretty well, he showed he can debate with the rest of the field.  Santorum is out for me, I will not vote for him even if he is the nominee so I don’t really care what he has to say. 

     What I did find refreshing is that they talked about some of the third rail topics.  Ethanol and entitlement reform.  We need to open and honest to the American people, we are broke and it is time we take on the tough and scary subjects.  We are almost out of road and can no longer just the kick the can.  The right needs to talk openly and honestly about these topics and not allow the media and the left to turn this into throwing granny over the cliff scenario.  Oh, wait they already did that. 

     What are your thoughts? 

    • zillaoftheresistance 7:14 AM on 06/14/2011 Permalink | Reply

      What do you have against Rick Santorum?

      • just a conservative girl 9:33 AM on 06/14/2011 Permalink | Reply

        Nothing against him. I won’t vote for anyone who has young children. I seriously question the judgement of anyone who would purposely put their young kids in that fishbowl. Not a healthy environment for them to grow up in.

        Old fashioned idea, yes. Out of the mainstream, yes. But it is a principle I believe in. No young kids in the White House.

        • zillaoftheresistance 8:07 PM on 06/14/2011 Permalink | Reply

          So if he were the nominee would you not vote, vote for Obama, or go 3rd party? I’m voting to get Obama out of the White House, even if I have to hold my nose to vote for a GOP ticket that I don’t like. Obama is too danged destructive, we can’t survive another 4 years of him.

          • just a conservative girl 8:48 PM on 06/14/2011 Permalink | Reply

            I wouldn’t vote for Obama. 3rd Party is pretty hard in Virginia, so I guess I wouldn’t vote. I have the luxury of it being a red state. Yes, it went to Obama last time but that was an abhorition. So I am not all that worried about it.

            But I will NOT bend on this principle. Family is the bedrock of our society and should be only second to God. If someone doesn’t put the well being of their child first, than they don’t deserve my vote.

            • zillaoftheresistance 9:22 PM on 06/14/2011 Permalink | Reply

              So no Sarah Palin for you then. Are Cain’s kids grown? What about Bachmann? I know she’s got a lot of kids but I don’t know their ages.

              • just a conservative girl 10:36 PM on 06/14/2011 Permalink | Reply

                Palin is out. Cain is grandpa so his kids are older. Bachmann’s are all grown as well. The only other one that may be an issue for me could be Pawlenty. I think his kids are right at the age that I would vote for them. I think they are all teenagers. Which to me is still a little young, but at least they have a better comprehension of things at that age.

    • Obi's Sister 8:26 PM on 06/14/2011 Permalink | Reply

      I was pleased that they didn’t attack each other. Obama MUST BE A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT.

      • just a conservative girl 10:37 PM on 06/14/2011 Permalink | Reply

        Me too. Pawlenty got quite a bit of pushback today for not going after Romney, but I think there is still time for that. Especially since you consider that Romney is wimping out for the Iowa straw poll.

  • just a conservative girl 9:36 AM on 05/17/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: newt   

    A Message for Newt 

    Newt’s kick-off for his presidential bid has not exactly been stellar.  The man can’t talk for more than a few minutes without contradicting himself.  On the Sunday talk show circuit he called Paul Ryan’s plan right-wing social engineering and radical.  A quote that will be used in democratic fundraising for years to come.  Thanks, Newt.  While I do agree that people in this country don’t like a great of political change too quickly, he could have used better words to describe that. 

    I really just have one thing to say………Oh, I will let Ray Charles say it for me. 

    • fuzislippers 10:11 AM on 05/17/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Don’t sweat Newt, he’s a non-starter.

      I agree the “right-wing social engineering” comment is unfortunate, but it’s not going to be used by leftists. It’s going to be used against Newt, personally, by his opponents in the Republican primary. Leftists LOVE social engineering, they don’t see it as a flaw at all. That’s going to cause the same sort of internal conflicts that BO letting the SEALs and CIA do their job caused for the right. We like that kind of action, so there was a lot of defending of BO’s essentially illegal action (that also, btw, includes Libya–where BO did not get the approval of Congress, as is required by the Constitution and is now looking for more ways around the Constitution to extend the Libyan war/”kinetic military action”).

      In other words, what should be a liability and could be used against Newt to great affect, will not be because it happens to be in line with what leftists think/agree with. Newt is Newt’s greatest liability, and he’s been done in a Republican primary since he said he was a serial adulterer because he’s such a patriot. Actually, before that, he’s never had a chance of winning the nomination.

      • just a conservative girl 10:36 AM on 05/17/2011 Permalink | Reply

        It is his use of the word radical that the left will use. They will cut that soundbite to use that one word. I am just amazed that Newt himself thought he had a chance at the nomination. Or possibly he is just using it to increase the size of his speaking fees like some have said.

        • fuzislippers 12:18 PM on 05/17/2011 Permalink | Reply

          That was just stupid (who needs stupid in a president?). We just learned (or had confirmed) that congressional dems are directed to use the word “extreme” when discussing republican policies, so Newt stumbles out there and calls them “radical”? What an idiot.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc