Krauthammer on Gingrich: 'He's Done. This is a Capital Offense. It's Over'
Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich had a tough day on "Meet the Press" Sunday.
So troubling was his performance that syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer told "Special Report's" Bret Baier Monday, "He’s done...This is a capital offense...It's over" (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):
BRET BAIER, HOST: Charles, how big of a deal is this?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: This is a big deal. He’s done. He didn't have a big chance from the beginning but now it's over. Apart from being contradictory and incoherent as we saw in those two bytes you showed where he contradicted himself in the course of one day on the individual mandate. Calling the Republican plan which all but four Republican members of the House have now endorsed and will be running on, calling it radical and right-wing social engineering is deadly.
I mean, I think every one of these Republican candidates running for the House is going to have a Democratic opponent who’s going to run an ad that you can write today. It’s going to start, “Even the conservative Newt Gingrich, the former leader of the Republicans in the House, says, ‘It’s radical, it’s social engineering.’”
Reagan had the Eleventh Commandment: do not, thou shalt not attack fellow Republicans. This is a capital offense against the Eleventh Commandment. He won’t recover.
As bonus coverage, the discussion later changed to Mitch Daniels:
KRAUTHAMMER: If Daniels does not run – although I think probably he will now - if he doesn't, I think there’s a good chance that either a Christie or a Ryan will be kind of drafted in to bring electricity, new energy into the Party. So, I think that could be, it wouldn't close the list of major candidates if one of those two decides that this is the moment.
BAIER: Well, a Ryan-Gingrich debate would be interesting.
Is Krauthammer right on either count?
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
G_______
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 9:19pm.
One can only hope that G_______ is done...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
U______*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 9:50pm.
Cajun totally agrees with U_____.
U______________
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 10:03pm.
Rad79 also agrees with U__________.
S______ D_______ a____ a_____
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 10:05pm.
S______ D_______ a____ a_____ w_____ U________
-- . - --- ---
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 10:57pm.
-- . - --- ---
.. / .-- --- ..- .-.. -.. /
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 11:16pm.
.. / .-- --- ..- .-.. -.. / -... . / ... ..- .-. .--. .-. .. ... . -.. / .. ..-. / -.-- --- ..- / .-- . .-. . / -. --- -
~--
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 11:27pm.
I l--- y-- g---. L--
What are you kids doing down there?
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 11:54am.
Don't make me come down there!
Y'all even brought in the morse code!
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 8:55pm.
LOL at one and all!!!
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Newt's toast. He was
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 9:28pm.
Newt's toast.
He was probably only good to the end of February anyway; he might not make it to Iowa now though. His fundraising will tell the tale in only a matter of weeks, I'd guess.
this town ain't big enough for the both of us....
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 9:30pm.
What stage could have held obama's and Newt's egoes at the same time?
Gingrich was done when he stepped down as Speaker
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 8:30am.
He's a Beltway dinosaur who's been on both sides of major issues in this election. He never had any traction, and he's not going to get any now that he's stiffed the Ryan Plan.
He bought into Grobal Warmthing.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 9:31pm.
He woulda had to come out and admit it is all a scam now. What is it that confuses him? We don't want a big government transferring money to others. Yes. Yes. Yes. We get it. The very poor among us need help. But the definition for what is poor just keeps getting looser and looser until we look around and there is bags of cash going to people that can work and pay for their own stuff. And ObamaCare is the straw that broke the camel's back. It has to go. And the government has to quit spending so much money. It has to. That is not a decision we are making. It has to be done or the system will eventually break down. So the problem here is, am I an extremist for thinking this? I am some kind of right wing extremist for thinking the government should just do what the government is supposed to do. Not give everybody and his brother a handout.
I don't think so.
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 11:07pm.
--That you are "some kind of right wing extremist", I mean.
I find some of the same things to be true--and I'm even not totally against redistribution of income. And I think we could have some sane limits--if it weren't for the Cloward and Piven Marxists who want to "collapse the system".
Quasi
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 11:10pm.
Please feel free to redistribute your own income. Keep you hands off of mine. I've earned it and intend to keep it.
How's that working out for ya?
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 11:42pm.
Is your intent to keep your money keeping you from paying any more taxes? Do you need to cheat in order to fulfill that intent? How close is that "intent", anyway?
You're picking a fight with a guy who's for less government and "sane limits", simply on purism? Yeah, you libertarians are sooo winning the fight with your lib-like ideological purism.
Not a hell of a lot I can do, Quasi-socialist---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 2:03am.
to keep the government from taxing me, but I feel like Rad does; you wanna redistribute your wealth, have at it.
Stay the hell away from what I earned.
I do whatever I can, to keep as much as I can, out of whatever I earned, for myself. If you consider that cheating, I couldn't care less.
Anyone who doesn't do so is stupid.
Socialism sucks, and so does quasi-socialism.
MD
There's not a lot I can do about it either.
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 11:26am.
You do get the point that I vote for a lot of the people who you would have. It would be funny that if in the one act where I can affect your purse, in voting for representatives, I'm stealing from your purse, but if you vote for them, it's okay.
Simply because I don't toss and turn at night because some "unworthy" is benefiting from what I earn, how is my acceptance of that, reaching into your purse, if given the case that I voted for similar candidates?
So knock off the rhetoric. I really don't care what you think either. It's not like blind sloganeering is going to change anyone's mind.
Quasi
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 8:01am.
So me wanting to keep what I've earned implies I cheat on my taxes?
Also, being willing to pay for the defense of my country and the spending authorized by the Constitution is completely different than the government taking what I've earned and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it.
That's being a conservative not a libertarian.
It's worse than that, Rad
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 8:37am.
I believe the Democrats are saying that if you want to keep what you earn, you're a racist.
As for redistribution of wealth, 47% of taxpayers paid no Federal income tax in 2009, and many of that 47% actually received checks from Washington. That means that the wealth of half the citizens went to paying for all of the Federal government. That's one helluva redistribution.
No.
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 10:22am.
Wanting to keep what you earn does not imply you cheat on your taxes. But cheating on your taxes entails you keep more of what you earn and so therefore, better accomplish the stated "intent". So how are you accomplishing your intent now. Or as I asked "How close is that intent, anyway?"
Thus the "cheating" part is not the emphasis, if I assume he's cheating, then asking "How close" has less effect, because I assume that he's close and there is no gap. I actually assume he isn't cheating, otherwise the statement "How's that working out for ya?" is answered by "I am fulfilling my intent to keep more of my money by sacrificing my integrity and cheating on my taxes." So it's working well.
Also the US Constitution does not cover all forms of income distribution for a person in the US. I identify it as mainly a libertarian idea that the controls on the national government are meant as some overarching "philosophy" of what all governments should be. But the restrictions on the federal government were mainly there to 1) conserve what could be conserved of the states' previous agreement in the Articles and 2) assuage the fears of the state governments about the proposal for a stronger central government. So you resemble a libertarian the more you think that all discussions of spending have directly to do with the US Constitution.
Quasi
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 11:15am.
So, when you said "Do you need to cheat in order to fulfill that intent? How close is that "intent", anyway?"
You weren't making any inferences that I cheat on my taxes? Because I feel bringing the word "cheat" into the discussion insults me. I just don't get how wanting to keep the wealth I've earned leads to "fulfilling my intent to keep more of my money by sacrificing my integrity and cheating on my taxes." Just as wanting money doesn't lead me to rob or steal, it leads me to go about it legally, by earning my money.
I wasn't attacking you on a personal level, but I don't agree with "some redistribution of wealth". That is not a role outlined by the federal government by the Constitution. Again, following the Constitution doesn't make me a libertarian.
I will say being "Quasi socialist" is similar to being "Quasi pregnant". You are or you aren't.
"You weren't making any
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 6:11pm.
"You weren't making any inferences that I cheat on my taxes? Because I feel bringing the word "cheat" into the discussion insults me."
I'm sorry if you took it that way. It was actually not my intent as I expanded on from the text of that post.
"I wasn't attacking you on a personal level,"
I quote from your post: "Keep you hands off of mine." I think a personal indictment is a justifiable read from that wording. But I don't like the typical forum squabble. I'm not going to pretend that my reading is your intent, just justified. But even though I took that as a personal indictment, my point wasn't personal, but tried to continue the flow.
Vet suggested that his principles should have a wider appeal than a particular political disposition. I said that I agreed with what he said, identifying myself to be of a different political disposition. You then took issue with my stated difference (which gives evidence of Vet's point having broader appeal). I got a little gruff, but nonetheless tried to bring back the focus to a broad/narrow base idea, the unpopularity of libertarianism being illustrative of the purest form of "I earn it, I keep it." I'm "straddling the target" (the only target you gave me), with libertarianism being the purest form--and provided a miraculous conversion to libertarianism, the most effective development keeping your money.
However, given that miraculous conversion, my "not totally against redistribution" does not entail that I require it, either. So I can assent to the will of the governed to redistribute no wealth. I'm not locked in.
"I will say being 'Quasi socialist' is similar to being 'Quasi pregnant'. You are or you aren't."
I disagree. If being socialist requires Marxism, then I'm not. I'm totally opposed to Marxism. Historians describe the economies of the ancient Sumerian cities as "socialist" 5000 years before Marx. Marx was suggesting a brand of it as the penultimate step before communism. So not even Marx was socialist as much as he was communist. And yet Marxism is the most common context for modern socialism.
A fetus in the womb cannot be adapted to be anything but what its nature and the the mother's nurture allow it to be. Concepts do not have the same fixedness. Christians accept that Jesus was fully for the Law and yet instrumental to a new Covenant not under the Law, by "fulfilling the Law". The Law turned out to be not the absolute that the Jews had been thinking it was for centuries, but an instrument to be used how the Lord pleased. Those who could not adapt to God's revealed variation on this centuries-old concept rejected their Messiah (as Christians read it) and saw their seat of power to administer the Law totally destroyed 40 years afterward. How much the Ancient of Days was a "Law-ist" depends on perspective and case.
Quasi
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 05/18/2011 - 9:48pm.
Socialism defined: so·cial·ism
[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Are you for it or against it?
I have no idea what your last paragraph was supposed to mean in relation to this discussion.
My friends here are not libertarians. They are conservatives.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 9:00am.
As I said Mr. Quasi-socialist. They are abusing our trust by constantly expanding the definition of poor. This downturn, bad as it was, only 5 percent of those that had jobs lost their jobs. Unemployment went from 4 point something to 9 point something. But as Dick Morris said - Medicaid went up by 54% in the last two years. Food Stamps went up by 60%. That is abusing our trust. Yes, we think the government should help the poorest of the poor. But that should be somewhere around 2 to 5% of our population. Not an ever ever ever increasing base that now seems to include most of the middle class.
It is not the job of the government to hand out money. And because we allowed for it in a tiny way, they are abusing our trust by handing out more and more simply to get votes.
So please, my friends just want the same as me. The government should be doing what it was tasked with. That means the federal government should be doing its job, not its job and the job of the state governments and handing out money and... and... and...
The point of my first post
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 11:09am.
was to agree with you that what you were saying is not "far right". I thought the point was to say it's common sense and does not make you "some kind of right wing extremist". And I say that as a guy that is "not totally against redistribution of income".
Then somebody attacks me, totally unrelated to my point about my divergence--when the divergence is the point of reference. Is ideological purity the point, or isn't it?
And when addressing the pure form of "I earned it and I intend to keep it" means a sort of libertarianism where the Constitution is turned into a sort of manifesto and the limitations so as to not encroach upon the states gets read as a general theory of government. To the extent that people employ this idea, they do not conserve the original context of the Constitution and are ideological libertarians with an ethic of selfishness. If you actually plan to give some of that to charity, "keep"-ing it is a bad way to say it--not to mention politically destructive. So I take him at his word, he intends to keep his money.
The facts are that a sudden miraculous libertarian conversion of the US would best fulfill the "I earned it, I keep it" ethic. So again, as it is obvious he will brook no compromise with the other segments of society that might find redistribution acceptable, anything less than libertarianism is perhaps further compromise with paying for things he doesn't agree with.
A lot of BS blather from you, Quasi-socialist---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 7:01pm.
and yet you refer to others as using rhetoric.
You are either an educated phony, a pseudo-intellectual, or a self-important drone.
Religious tithing is voluntary; charity is voluntary.
Governmental dipping into personal incomes is not a voluntary situation, and it continues to contribute to the erosion of freedom within this country.
You come aboard with the username 'Quasi-socialist', and when you get heat instead of the apparent hosannas you feel are your due, you get pissy.
You sure you aren't a dyed-in-the-wool liberal?
MD
Ah.
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 8:53pm.
Can't answer.
An argument that you don't have the patience to hear is not "blather". And not enjoying an off-topic slur is not seeking hosannas. More hyperbole, which is by definition rhetoric.
Define your criteria for "dyed-in-the-wool" liberal?
Hey, MD,
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 9:10pm.
if Quasi would throw in a few phrases in Elizabethan English, I'd swear it was our old bud, Hank Mud. Sure does go on and on, like Hank did.
Oddly enough, UpNorth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 05/18/2011 - 4:03am.
I do see a similarity, in that even without the flowery Elizabethan prose, I don't always understand where Quasi is coming from.
Must be that socialist thing.
MD
Quasi---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 1:44am.
Being retired, "patience" is not an issue with me.
Anything you present in a post, I read. I just don't always agree with what you have to say.
In that regard, even if you believe implicitly in what you post, to me it is blather.
You have posted some exceptionally good stuff to read; alas, no one bats a thousand, and, while you may have the courage of your convictions in stating that you are not all that much against the redistribution of wealth - people who truly believe that, in my opinion, got dropped on their head one too many times as a toddler.
Personally, I don't see the extravagant exaggeration of hyperbole to be be the equivalent of the insincere grandiloquence of rhetoric, but that may be a bit of a fine nit to pick.
A "dyed-in-the-wool" liberal has no problem with giving away my earnings in order to (1) curry favor with a particular group, or (2) feel good about himself.
I suppose a quasi-socialist has other reasons for wealth distribution, eh?
MD
I must take issue with one comment.
Submitted by Tailgunner on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:57am.
The Constitution is more than a 'manifesto'. It's the LAW of the LAND.
And the fact that it's being more increasingly disregarded is a direct result of this 'living, breathing' crap liberals have been using for decades to undermine it. This is a major cause of the unchecked usurpation of the most basic functions of our state and local governments by liberal central planning apparatchiks.
You're creating a false idea that federal government's 'encroaching on the states' is somehow anticonstitutional when in fact it does legitimately preempt the states in several specific areas (treaties, declaring war, maintaining a military and printing money, etc).
Your 'original context' is false and baseless.
CANDIDATE Obama: 'Yes, we CAN'.
PRESIDENT Obama: 'BECAUSE we CAN'.
I think that Gingrich just
Submitted by jdhawk on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 9:36pm.
I think that Gingrich just stepped on his "d*ck!" What a dumb a**. I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher. Of all the asinine things to say, this tops it. If he gets the party's nomination, I'll stay at home like I did when the dufus, "can't we all just get along,"' McCain was nominated.
Where has this guy been the last two years? The majority of the American people viscerally hate duhbamacare. They don't want anything to do with it. They know instinctively that duhbamacare will provide us with the crap like European socialized heathcare that is dooming European economies to oblivion.
This guy just pisses me off. Not only for this stupid thing that he has done, but the damage to the rest of the party. K is right. This will be used in dimocratic campaign adds for the next two years. He screwed conservatives across the country with his nonsense.
Is Newt trying to make us an offer we can't refuse?
Submitted by Ted Clarke on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 9:36pm.
First, he gave us his "Contract with America".
Now it looks like Newt is putting out a "Contract ON America".
Done
Submitted by dpc1212 on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 9:39pm.
I'm Done with Newt. I was trying to give him a chance, hoping he show consistency, conviction, an allegience to conservative values, but after what I read this afternoon. I'm through. I don't want to hear anymore from Gringrich. He needs to get out now before he does more harm.
I watched what I could of
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 9:42pm.
I watched what I could of that segment and yes Gingrich stepped in cow poop and then played with it. However, I have not heard these clowns say anything about Herman Cain. Typical beltway clowns the lot of them. Herman Cain for President.
Glad it happened early
Submitted by NC Boy on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 9:49pm.
The guy was bound to take himself down. I'm glad it happened early. The tragic thing is the collateral damage to our ability to deal with the deficit.
I hope he is done. I want
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 9:53pm.
I hope he is done.
I want him to join Trump and Huck on the sidelines and I hope he takes Romney with him.
Romney may get the nod h/t RNC. Dole and Mc Cain redux baby
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 11:42pm.
Afterall it's Mitt's turn... Did He just get a bunch of (UNION) funds, $10.25 million worth?
Union funds would be very effective in torqueing the campaign trail, ea whorehouse Harry.
Time for some new leadership .... like ....Herman Cain...
You Didn't Build That.
Romney is McCain's son, but it won't be enough
Submitted by ChrisMills on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 5:24am.
This is an astute point about Romney. Dole and McCain were RINOs who won the nomination and Romney is in line with that tradition. But, irony aside, I think the conservative party is done with this tradition. The Tea Party changes the dynamic here and Romney will see a groundswell against him in the primary. He will lose. They'll rally around one candidate and leave Romney in the dust no matter how much money he raises.
Chris, Man O' man I hope you are correct.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 2:09pm.
However, my post from yesterday, is now up-dated with this from today...
Tim Pawlenty isn’t independently wealthy and may not even raise this quarter what Romney did Monday. Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin could raise significant cash online and through direct mail, but would have trouble putting together the network of bundlers necessary to put up Romney-level money.
Ok Where O' where is the Taxed Enough Already party wing of the republican party.... Just how effective are they?
It is for that reason I am 100% confident that Congress will do the wrong thing and raise the debt ceiling for the 75th time in 50 years. In the end there will be some kind of phony compromise with each side claiming victory. But while the politicians celebrate another dodged bullet, the U.S. economy will continue to be shot full of holes.
You Didn't Build That.
Hannity/Levin
Submitted by Texndoc on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 10:13pm.
I listened to Hannity and Levin and heard Newt go from one to the other. On Hannity he doubled down, basically calling Paul Ryan "reckless" and "inexperienced" and Levin had him backtracking with his tail between his legs.
Did you see the clip Fox News played on Newt's first day in Iowa? The Iowa voter who shook his hand and would not let go:
"I thought what you did to Paul Ryan was disgusting. You sandbagged him and every Republican in Congress. Why don't you get out now before you make a bigger fool of yourself?"
here ya go...
Submitted by texasborngranny on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 9:47am.
http://www.breitbart.tv/iowa-voter-to-newt-why-dont-you-get-out-before-y...
@1:32
Thanks, granny!
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 12:02pm.
That made my day.
I hope Newt takes the Iowan's advice. He's a dead man walking/talking.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
So is Krauthamer giving
Submitted by balboa on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 10:16pm.
So is Krauthamer giving liberally biased commentary, or, given the criticism from the right, is this just good ol' fashioned commentary?
It's probably lost on you.
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 11:02pm.
But, all of what Krautheimer said was analytical. None of it was "Yay, Ryan!" or "Boo, Newt!" He simply pointed out how much aid Gingrich had given to the political opposition of all but four congressional republicans. He didn't even engage in the "How horrific it would be if the Dems won because of this" type of things that your guys do.
But it takes the ability to analyze words, so it's probably lost on you.
Stick A Fork In Him...
Submitted by packman on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 10:35pm.
Newt's done. I don't always agree with Krauthammer, but this time he's right on. This is an unrecoverable error, from which Newt cannot escape. Give it up Newt baby...its already over for you, a self-inflicted but unfortunately fatal gunshot wound to the foot...or was that to your head?
"...Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread..." ~Thomas Jefferson
I, too used to disagree...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 11:59am.
with Dr. Krauthammer, but I got tired of admitting I was wrong.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-John Adams
to stumble
Submitted by Tjexcite on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 10:44pm.
To stumble out of the gate is one thing but to trip and fall on the way to the staring block and fall on ones shoes to put their foot in their mouth is another.
But is the right doing what the left did to Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond. Not that Newt had a lot going for him but to shun him as soon as he announces even though everyone knew he was a swishy RINO. All they needed was an excuse to put in the the 4th line and he delivered with style.
Disagree Tj
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 10:51pm.
If Newt is going to be a RINO better to get it out now, and get him out now. We aren't going to survive if we don't get the right candidate our Republic will not survive.
9.0 On The Flop Scale
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 11:09pm.
A calculated move to garner media support, Newt ran head first into a wood chipper. He got his headlines and water cooler buzz, just not quite the effect he wanted.
He and Romney have shown this week what colossal mistakes they are for the GOP ticket. Better now than later. Thanks boys!
Sublime, strat
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 8:46am.
"Newt ran head first into a wood chipper". Man, that made me laugh.
What a week. No Huck, No Donald, and Newt self-destructed. Sweet. Paul Ryan, baby!!!!
BTW, going to see Allen West today, he's doing a Town Hall down the street from my High School. He was on Cavuto yesterday, he'd been pumping gas in Palm Beach, talking to his constituents. LOL, he had trouble with a Jag "Yag-oo-war", he said he thought it was a democrat plant to make him look bad! Too funny. Blonde Mom is soooo excited to see him, she wants him to run for President.
So what question should I ask him, if I have the opportunity? I'm thinking TSA sexual assaults on children, Mexican Drug violence (did you see Drudge and the slaughter IN Guatemala by the Zetas?), and my "snoopy question"....what's Paul Ryan really like?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Buh-Bye Boys - Take Romney With You
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 1:46pm.
You are a lucky girl to get to see West and interact with him. You carry all our best wishes for the man. I like how Blonde Mom is energized to see West. Fantastic. You two must have wonderful conversations.
Jaguar is now owned by Tata Motors out of India. Before that it was Ford. I like some Fords but not a good match for a British luxury auto IMO. Reminds me of when Harley Davidson was sold to AMF or Fender guitars sold to CBS, both thankfully rectified later on. Scary that Jags are now outsourced to "boob motors". What's next - BMW sold to ChiChi's? ;-)
All the topics you wrote about would be good areas to broach. The excursion into Libya might be fertile ground for the former military man. Also, the exchange of gunfire between Pakistan and NATO today would likely be a hot topic. As a Congressman, he helps hold the purse strings and can help shape the mission with Libya. What are we doing there? What blood and treasure are we committing there and to what end? Obama seems flaccid in his plan and goal. His 60 day (?) clock is running out for when he must go to Congress for their blessings. Is West at liberty to talk about this?
I had not heard about the Guatemala massacre. Horrendous. Sickening how such evil can occur to what were probably gentle people. These criminals need to be hunted down with the same relentlessness we had for bin Laden. These gangs need to be destroyed. There can no longer be any quarter or rationale to not secure our border.
Gingrich is done
Submitted by Dolphie on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 11:20pm.
I would have given him a chance - given the Contract for America.
His side steps on Global Warming - I thought he was keeping the enemy closer and a foot in the door to stay on top of what the left was doing.
However - calling all of us radical right is over the top. Then implying everyone _must_ buy insurance - the government does not have the right to TELL us what we are and are not to do. This is not Europe or Asia. This is the USA. He has lost touch with America.
I must admit - I really do not know much about Paul Ryan, however he is growing on me. Ryan is on target with his fiscal plans.
Like other posters - I am EXTREMELY upset that the Beltway is not paying attention to Herman Cain. Now, there is a man! Strong, patriotic, built successful businesses, fiscally conservative, true All American, eloquent, well spoken (succinct and to the point). I am liking him more and more - we just need to get him past the RINO blockade.
Chris Christie is losing me rapidly. He is falling in step with Global Warming and I have zero patience with people who fall for that SCAM. Anyone with even one shred of intelligence and common sense can see through the false and faked reports. Anyone who has lived longer than a decade realizes - the climate goes through phases/cycles. Anyone who has studied history would clue in in a hot minute.
No
Submitted by sablegsd on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 12:08am.
he's not right.
christie appointed a muslim to the bench. That is unforgivable.
Shades of Jack Kemp
Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 12:47am.
The Newt Gingrich of today reminds me of how the late Jack Kemp ended up. Both, when younger, were on the cutting edge of conservatism with exciting ideas, but later on, both just sounded negative and bitter towards the newer generations of conservative leaders. In a way, it's kind of sad. Gingrich was out of his time. He should've just stayed with writing history books and talking about his "American Solutions", which never does seem to actually come up with any....
One and Done
Submitted by David Kramer on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 3:36am.
Hey, know what Gingrich has in common with Obama?
Newt runs for the Presidency and in one week is done.
Obama has the Presidency for one term and is done.
Newt is T.O.A.S.T.
Submitted by llhjunk on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 8:21am.
as in "Totally Out And Stricken Terminal" with his statement on MTP Sunday. When I read this Monday morning, my stomach turned and pondered the idea that here is supposedly a really really smart man saying really really dumb things. On Sunday, his core ideal was to curry favor and not articulate truth.
I totally agree with the "hammer" on this one, or is he agreeing with me? At any rate, the current announced field for the GOP has me yawning. TPAW actually came across as robotic and "hey, I'm a regular guy" routine was tiring in the first FOX debate. (he surely did take his handler's advice and "tell them who you are and what you've done")
Although I did not know much about H. CAIN, at least he raised some and he has my attention at the moment. Romney has lost me for now as he refuses to see the mistake of his continued stance on healthcare in Mass. He should do a TPAW and admit he made a mistake and it is not working as he had hoped. In the last Prez cycle, I thought Romney would have been the best Repub candidate.
Right now we seem awash in mediocrity and hoping for Daniels will only add "dull" to the listing. Could a person with only BUSINESS experience make a good president? Right now, I tend to think so. After all, we have had POLITICIANS in government and in the immortal words of CAIN, "how's that been work'n for ya"?
Couldn't agree more...
Submitted by notinstl on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 9:35am.
Newt has shown his true colors....and quite early too...he didn't learn anything from Obama, obviously. Newt was never a viable candidate...and by announcing his candidacy and crapping on republican policy, it could be the shortest run in history.....I hope gingrich doesn't succumb to being the darling of MSNBC for the next few months....
Heard Newt on Mark Levin
Submitted by g00se99 on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 9:35am.
You can hear the clip on youtube. He tries to explain his position and its painful to listen to. Mark is restrained but you can tell he's thinking, "Is this guy for real?".
I never took him seriously!
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 11:46am.
His spots on Hannity and O'Reilly always make me hit the fast forward button, or step out for a smoke, but in just ONE day he became TOAST! Ok, kids, lets move on to more serious candidates, because ANYONE can beat O'Bozo, but we need the RIGHT one!
Newt is both the smartest and the dumbest man in the room
Submitted by kevinm13 on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 1:11pm.
Newt could probably out-debate any of the candidates and make President 0bama look even more foolish than he does by himself, but Newt has personal baggage and has said some things that won't get him past Iowa. He has denigrated the House and many conservatives. He has sat with Nancy Pelosi, the wicked witch of the west and done a commercial supporting global warming, which is a liberal hoax. Newt would make a good adviser on certain issues but he should stay in the private sector advising the public sector rather than jumping into this race.
Newt...
Submitted by Djinn1975 on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 1:35pm.
meh, never cared much for him anyway, good riddance. Still would love to see Ryan run. He announced he won't be running for WI's upcoming Senate vacancy. Comfy in the HOR or thinking about POTUS? Read about a dude on WND this morning that sounds like a dream. I'm keeping my eye on him, Roy Moore, check him out.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=299729
I listened to Levin's show
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 3:07pm.
I listened to Levin's show last night and Newt was trying to explain himself. It was very weak . . . Mark wasn't buying it either.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
One word.
Submitted by Tailgunner on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 3:39pm.
Sarah.
CANDIDATE Obama: 'Yes, we CAN'.
PRESIDENT Obama: 'BECAUSE we CAN'.
1
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 8:51pm.
And what a word it is! :-)
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
At least
Submitted by Bob K on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 5:09pm.
we will be spared having to hear any more RINO-isms from him for a while.