Newt surging in SC

[Saltheart]

Newt has pulled ahead of Romney in SC. It remains to be seen what damage the liberal news can do by pushing his ex wife into the public eye on the eve of the election but right now he's favored to win. If he does , it makes Florida a big , big primary and Newt could certainly win there.

One big problem is both Santorum and Paul take votes away from Newt primarily. Paul is on his own mission but Santorum will eventually drop out and Newt will get almost all those votes if he is still at all alive in the primary race. So things are getting interesting.

I find it interesting that Newt's ex wife is now the networks sweetheart just before a primary Newt is likely to win. I also find it interesting they will air Newts ex wife but not the rebuttle of friends and family who refute her claims. The news media is overwhelmingly liberal and they have great fear of Newt. They know if his campagne can take hold , nobody can stand up to him face to face in debates , etc. This ex wife thing is their desperate attempt to keep him out.

So lets see what happens.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Saltheart

Newt has pulled ahead of Romney in SC. It remains to be seen what damage the liberal news can do by pushing his ex wife into the public eye on the eve of the election but right now he's favored to win. If he does , it makes Florida a big , big primary and Newt could certainly win there.

One big problem is both Santorum and Paul take votes away from Newt primarily. Paul is on his own mission but Santorum will eventually drop out and Newt will get almost all those votes if he is still at all alive in the primary race. So things are getting interesting.

I find it interesting that Newt's ex wife is now the networks sweetheart just before a primary Newt is likely to win. I also find it interesting they will air Newts ex wife but not the rebuttle of friends and family who refute her claims. The news media is overwhelmingly liberal and they have great fear of Newt. They know if his campagne can take hold , nobody can stand up to him face to face in debates , etc. This ex wife thing is their desperate attempt to keep him out.

So lets see what happens.

and newts reply in the very first question in the debate last night was stellar.

Im the biggest noisemaker on this board about the liberal media, but I think character is relevant. I heavily criticized obama for the rev wright church. I think newt with 3 wives, no debate he was cheating twice and no debate he was criticzing Clinton at the same time is a serious character flaw. He can do what he wants in his personal life but cheating on a wife means you're a liar. A liar to someone who trusts and depends on you.

[mekcotuit]

To blame the media for leaving your first wife when she got cancer or leaving your second wife when she got M.S. is no different that blaming the victim of a rape. Newt needs to own his history and realize his decisions were not compatible with qualities the American people seek in their leader.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by mekcotuit

To blame the media for leaving your first wife when she got cancer or leaving your second wife when she got M.S. is no different that blaming the victim of a rape. Newt needs to own his history and realize his decisions were not compatible with qualities the American people seek in their leader.

I agree that he needs to own his history, my question is, what qualities do the American people seek in their leader?

[spence]

Originally Posted by mekcotuit

Newt needs to own his history and realize his decisions were not compatible with qualities the American people seek in their leader.

I think that's the big point his ex wife was trying to make...that Newt thinks what he does and what he says shouldn't have anything to do with one another. Pretty stupid to open with a question about his ex, he obviously was expecting it and had a prepared response.

Newt's doing well because he's down south, picked up some endorsements and Romney is making mistakes. Other than his opening retort his debate performance wasn't his best.

As undesirable a candidate Romney is, he does appear to be the establishment's choice.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

IAs undesirable a candidate Romney is, he does appear to be the establishment's choice.

-spence

I would say "only option" rather than choice.
And to look at some recent history - the last "establishment" choices where:
John McCain
GWB
Bob Dole

Yawn.........no one was excited about any of these candidates. could be the end of the repubs......

[Saltheart]

Why wasn't this all "exposed" in Iowa or NH? Why now when Newt has the best chance to win an important state and set himself up to win Florida (and by winning these two in a row , makes him the likely candidate). Its all orchestrated to deliver the low blows at a critical time and steer the election in the direction the media wants. There is no way to justify the media using its air time to steer an election. get out front , admit that you are against a candidate , show where you money to buy airtime is coming from and make sure actual money is paid to do it and so we know who is behind this money so we know what they gain by doing it. To have unlimited free airtime available to trash a candidate with no accountability by hiding behind "entertainment air time" is a gross abuse of the media's power. Do you want the election outcome to be steered by the TV execs?

One man one vote. A network gets to steer millions of votes without anyone knowing what people are behind it all. Its not just steering the primary vote. I believe the networks are trying to weaken all the republican candidates and the strongest in particular in an effort to manipulate the Presidential Election . They want a weak candidate to oppose Obama and if a strong one may emerge from the primaries , they want to be sure he's damaged goods before the presidential election.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Saltheart

Why wasn't this all "exposed" in Iowa or NH? Why now when Newt has the best chance to win an important state and set himself up to win Florida (and by winning these two in a row , makes him the likely candidate). Its all orchestrated to deliver the low blows at a critical time and steer the election in the direction the media wants. There is no way to justify the media using its air time to steer an election. get out front , admit that you are against a candidate , show where you money to buy airtime is coming from and make sure actual money is paid to do it and so we know who is behind this money so we know what they gain by doing it. To have unlimited free airtime available to trash a candidate with no accountability by hiding behind "entertainment air time" is a gross abuse of the media's power. Do you want the election outcome to be steered by the TV execs?

One man one vote. A network gets to steer millions of votes without anyone knowing what people are behind it all. Its not just steering the primary vote. I believe the networks are trying to weaken all the republican candidates and the strongest in particular in an effort to manipulate the Presidential Election . They want a weak candidate to oppose Obama and if a strong one may emerge from the primaries , they want to be sure he's damaged goods before the presidential election.

I don't think ABC conducted the interview until just this week. According to ABC they've been courting her for some time, as well as the Gingrich campaign and family for their counterpoint.

The problem is if you take this off the table what's next?

-spence

[Nebe]

so am i crazy if i think Ron Paul is the best option?? He seems to be the only one who will actively admit our countries faults and present viable options to address them.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think ABC conducted the interview until just this week. According to ABC they've been courting her for some time, as well as the Gingrich campaign and family for their counterpoint.

The problem is if you take this off the table what's next?

-spence

The problem is they do go on the attack how they choose in an agenda like manner. He did it, he owns it. But the media has an agenda and it's most times to go after the non-liberal.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I would say "only option" rather than choice.
And to look at some recent history - the last "establishment" choices where:
John McCain
GWB
Bob Dole

Yawn.........no one was excited about any of these candidates. could be the end of the repubs......

Haven't We Lived Through This Primary Before?


I'm thinking of a Republican primary. It starts with a candidate (John McCain/Mitt Romney) who ran once before, came in second place, and won over the party's elite class without winning over its base. Other candidates, understandably unwilling to accept this, line up: An under-funded social conservative (Mike Huckabee/Rick Santorum), an elder statesman who's walked to the altar three times (Rudy Giuliani/Newt Gingrich), a libertarian who wants to bring back the gold standard (Ron Paul/Ron Paul).

The conservative base is displeased. In the year before the primary, it pines for a perfect candidate. At the end of summer, on (September 5/August 13), it gets him: (Fred Thompson/Rick Perry). The dream candidate immediately rises to the top of national polls, but collapses after lazy, distant* debate performances. When the primaries arrive, he's in single digits and reduced to attacking the front-runners. But in Iowa, he does just well enough to justify staying in the race.

The social conservative (wins/almost wins, depending on what math you believe) Iowa. Flush with victory, eager to prove himself in all battlegrounds, he spends most of the next week in New Hampshire. But the surge can only take him from the margin of error to (13/9) percent of the vote. The old dream candidate, now a national laughingstock only known for a debate moment ("I'm not doing any hand shows"/"Oops") has already moved on to South Carolina. He flies to New Hampshire just to participate in a debate, deeply annoying the supporters of (Ron Paul/Buddy Roemer), whose candidate had worked harder there. He polls a pathetic 1 percent, but stays in the race. The field is crowded enough that a horrified base sees how the front-runner, who's won the endorsement of (Lindsey Graham/Nikki Haley), can win South Carolina with a plurality of the vote.

The Republican base looks at the wreckage and shudders. It can never allow this to happen ever again.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

so am i crazy if i think Ron Paul is the best option?? He seems to be the only one who will actively admit our countries faults and present viable options to address them.

Yes, you and Ron Paul are both crazy.

-spence

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

.

Im the biggest noisemaker on this board about the liberal media, but I think character is relevant. I heavily criticized obama for the rev wright church. I think newt with 3 wives, no debate he was cheating twice and no debate he was criticzing Clinton at the same time is a serious character flaw. He can do what he wants in his personal life but cheating on a wife means you're a liar. A liar to someone who trusts and depends on you.

Don't leave out the Kennedy's and yet they still held public office.

JFK was a whore master and Ted, a murder, drunk and cheater and divoicee which is a no no in his catholic religion

And do not leave out Patrick.

And the one that crashed the plane was at the time balling the sister in law and wife trying to get into the mile high club. His wife was about to leave him and did not want to go to the wedding.

LOL

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Saltheart

Why wasn't this all "exposed" in Iowa or NH? Why now when Newt has the best chance to win an important state and set himself up to win Florida (and by winning these two in a row , makes him the likely candidate). Its all orchestrated to deliver the low blows at a critical time and steer the election in the direction the media wants. .

So how did it happen? On the daily morning liberal media call they all decided not to break the story and sit on it in the hope he would do well in Iowa and NH and then they would break the story? Did they know about the "open marriage" issue for years but didn't break it?

Makes you wonder what other dirt the liberal media has on other pols. but is waiting for them to run for president b/f breaking it.

[Raven]

of more than equal condemnation has been
FOX news handling of Ron Pauls coverage
making him the ghost candidate which only strengthened
his following.... and YES Nebe! he is a great Option
because he's for AMERICA First and to HELL with giving away
billions of dollars to everyone.....that is OVER!! we are BROKE
as a NATION ....and he has the BALLS to admit it...
we cannot play world cop.....can't afford it

name one country that has offered the united states
any money for our natural disasters relief in 2011. you can't!!!!!!

[striperman36]

For Katrina,

People's Republic of China: On September 2, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that it will offer $5 million along with emergency supplies, including 1,000 tents, 600 generators, bed sheets, immediately for disaster relief. China also offered to send medical care and rescue workers if they were needed.[14] This aid package consisting of 104 tons of supplies later arrived in Little Rock, Arkansas.[15] A chartered plane carrying the supplies arrived on September 7

Greece offered 500,000 if they could put it on their credit card

Most of the EU offered through the Red Cross

Karsi gave back 100K of bribes

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Raven

name one country that has offered the united states
any money for our natural disasters relief in 2011. you can't!!!!!!

Venezuela's Chavez offered something like 1 million barrels of oil and some other assistance to the region. And that's from someone high up on the US government's "Most Hated" list.

[striperman36]

Cuba sent over 1500 drs.
Iran: Offered to send humanitarian aid and 20 million barrels (3,200,000 m3) of crude oil.
Iraq: Pledged $1 million to the Red Cross via the Red Crescent.

[PaulS]

I hear Haiti had a great banana crop this year. You think they would have offered us some of their gruel.

[striperman36]

there's trees on Haiti?

[PaulS]

They might have eaten them.

[Raven]

barely a drop in the bucket

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I would say "only option" rather than choice.
And to look at some recent history - the last "establishment" choices where:
John McCain
GWB
Bob Dole

Yawn.........no one was excited about any of these candidates. could be the end of the repubs......

perspective..........

Obama ...................... Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum
Obama .................... John McCain
Kerry ..................... GWB
Gore .................... GWB
Clinton ..................... Bob Dole
Clinton ..................... GHWB
Dukakis ........................ GHWB
Mondale ...................... Reagan
Carter .................... Reagan

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

when I look at the list and ask who is/was more likely to carry out the oath...it's pretty easy

funny how frequently Detbuch brings up this mythical document and how so many here pretend as though it doesn't exist ..........

[justplugit]

[QUOTE=scottw;916064]perspective..........

Obama ...................... Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum
Obama .................... John McCain
Kerry ..................... GWB
Gore .................... GWB
Clinton ..................... Bob Dole
Clinton ..................... GHWB
Dukakis ........................ GHWB
Mondale ...................... Reagan
Carter .................... Reagan

[QUOTE]

Kerry,Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter says it all.
LOL, Thanks for the boring memories.

[Raven]

when Gingrich told off CNN's reporter

i clapped like it was a patriots touch down

[Raven]

Originally Posted by mekcotuit

Newt needs to own his history and realize his decisions were not compatible with qualities the American people seek in their leader.

while that might be a true statement ....I'd take four years of Newt than four more years of Barak any day...

or whom ever, even Elmer Fudd would be Better than that looser.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

when I look at the list and ask who is/was more likely to carry out the oath...it's pretty easy

So you're saying that massive spending, tax increases, health care mandates, elective war, eroded rights to privacy etc...

You think they've done a good job?

If the argument is who's done a better job of upholding the Constitution I think you'll find it's a draw.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So you're saying that massive spending, tax increases, health care mandates, elective war, eroded rights to privacy etc...

You think they've done a good job?

If the argument is who's done a better job of upholding the Constitution I think you'll find it's a draw.

-spence

Though they all have, Presidents, Representatives, and Judges, acted outside of their Constitutional bounds, I don't think "it's a draw." The progressives (including progressive Republicans) have outscored the conservatives by quite a margin. And what the progressives tend to do is raise the bar of unconstitutinalism by creating previously non-existing methods of doing what is not constitutionally granted. Which, in turn, paves the way for all that succeed them to use the new powers to "rewrite" the Constitution.

Do you approve of this way to make the Constitution a "living" document? I recall you stating about as much, that it must change with the times. I thought it curious that you were more fervid over following the letter of the U.N. Convention on torture than on following the letter of the Constitution. And that you are more concerned about how we appear to the world when a handful of soldiers occaisonally act stupid than when our political leaders perpetually trash our constitutional rules.

You have mentioned a few times that what is needed to set the ship of state right is only some structural adjustment. Could you be more specific? What structure needs to be created or changed?

[Duke41]

I think newt with 3 wives, no debate he was cheating twice and no debate he was criticzing Clinton at the same time is a serious character flaw. He can do what he wants in his personal life but cheating on a wife means you're a liar. A liar to someone who trusts and depends on you.[/QUOTE]

Newt has zero morals period. Milts a tax doger, so who is left. Ron Paul or Santorum. Obama is going to walk in this term.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Duke41

I think newt with 3 wives, no debate he was cheating twice and no debate he was criticzing Clinton at the same time is a serious character flaw. He can do what he wants in his personal life but cheating on a wife means you're a liar. A liar to someone who trusts and depends on you.

Newt has zero morals period. [/QUOTE]

While I agree 100% with your first statement, when it comes to the second, the fact that he admited he was wrong, set things straight with his God, and for all we know hasn't repeated the behavior over the last decade should allow him the second chance we would all want.