Fool me once, shame on you
I will absolutely disappoint all of my conservative friends and readers if you force me to choose between Obama and Gingrich. Look, I was Gingrich’s biggest fan until he was caught doing the same thing he went after Clinton for during the impeachment proceedings. I admired him for engineering the coup in 1993 that put Congress in Republican control for the first time in 50 years. i’d actually been a fan for years before as I read about him in Hedrick Smith’s “The Power Game”
Why do you think that the Washington Post runs an article today announcing that Democrat strategists are “worried” about Gingrich. Probably because the Post wants to see a Gingrich candidacy, like when they convinced us that McCain was a better choice than George W. Bush. When they tried to tell us that they’d have voted for McCain and we believed them and ran McCain against their worst candidate since Jimmy Carter.
Republicans are about to blow their easiest election in decades by putting the corrupt Gingrich against the incompetent boob currently occupying the White House. I’ll sit the election out before I get fooled again. I have nothing good to say about Gingrich and I won’t swallow my pride all next year just to avoid a second Obama term.
Yeah, I choked down a McCain candidate, but I’m not plastering a phony smile on my face for Gingrich for a whole year like I did in 2008. You folks had better get your shit together and put up a better choice, because I’ll shut this blog down before it supports that corrupt buffoon Gingrich.
How’s that for some Monday morning controversy?
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Shitbags
I ain’t too happy either.
That sucks. It’s not that I think that Gingrich is wonderful but assisting Obama in obtaining a second term by not voting against him or by not voting at all is just unthinkable. Obama is not an incompetent boob. That apt desription belongs to Joe Biden. Obama, however, is a very dangerous fellow and needs to be out of the White House regardless of who the Republican nominee is.
It kinda makes you wish for the Dark Horse to ride in and beat the ever loving snot out of this field right now.
I’ll sit out the elections if that assmaggot Romney is the candidate. He and Obama are two sides of the same coin.
I can stomach Gingrich compared to Romney, the moronic Jew-hating Ron Paul, or the uber-RINO Huntsman.
Hell, I’d vote for Bachmann or Perry.
But there is no way in hell I’ll ever vote for Romney.
If I won’t vote for a tax and spend liberal, why should I vote for a tax and spend conservative? Gingrich blew his chance for my vote when he became what he accused the Democrats of being – in every respect.
I certainly understand your sentiment, Jonn! Gingrich had his opportunity and blew it big time. Of course, it was not entirely his fault, but he blew it none the less.
Yes, the media told all sorts of lies about him. OK, so how is that going to help anyone but the current occupant of the WH?
No doubt Gingrich is quite smart and politically astute. Not sure that would make him a better prez. Maybe, since he’s already run the gauntlet? Maybe not, since “everybody” already knows his vulnerabilities??
Still looking for a more perfect candidate.
I agree with Tim in that I won’t vote for the RINO Romney. He is the white version of Obama. He flip-flops on his positions depending on who he is talking to. Yeah, i know, all politicians do that, however, I do have his record as governor to go by and I do not like what I see. It’s one thing to swallow the bitter pill foisted upon you by the opposition majority, but to brag about signing the steaming piles and to be so proud of it that you have your official portrait painted while holding one of the leftist laws you signed makes you a phony.
I’d vote for anyone the Republicans put up no matter how much I may loathe the nominee. That may be regarded as wrong by some here but I see the imperative as getting Obama out of the White House. If that means I munch shit and pull the lever for the Ken Doll, Newt, Bachmann–literally anyone not Obama–then I munch shit.
I wish I was old enough to have been around when you got to pick the better of the two candidates instead of picking the guy that was less corrupt and incompetent. The future does not bode well for us. The republicans can’t field a guy worth a fuck and the thought of another four years with Obama makes me seriously nauseaus. With four more years to run amok AND not having to worry about getting re-elected I can’t even begin to fathom the things he is going to completely fuck up
I can’t stomach Ron Paul. I can’t stand Romney. Gingrich was a legislator, and not an executive. I like Bachman in that she doesn’t take shit, but she’s too hardcore to ever get elected, though I thought it would have been funny as hell a Cain/Bachman ticket. Would have given Libs a conniption.
truth be told, if ever there were a serious competitor to Obama he/she would have been pushed out and shut down by now. The recent treatment of Cain makes that clear. Even the most wild accusations were blasted on front pages. are they true? I tuned it all out a long time ago, because, let’s face it, in the end it didn’t matter if they were true or not. They didn’t emerge till he was a front runner, which means they were designed to kill his candidacy.
You will never get a Ronald Reagan to inhabit the center stage again. He/she would never make it that far, because the Left is in control of the Media, and conservatives who were always such (Reagan started off as a Liberal) don’t understand that playbook, can not get their mind around that convoluted mindset that news outlets play by, and which is slowly poisoning our world.
My choice is usually easy, and will be again next year. Voting for the unnamed Libertarian candidate. At least they’ll usually have earned my vote, and I always know a turd will end up as POTUS.
This is your friendly, neighborhood Liberal, speaking. I got my tired tail out to vote for John McCain because he was a damn fine candidate even if I disagreed very strongly with him on some of his legislation, because I was afraid of what I saw developing in the Obama campaign.
I watched “Conservatives” rag on this man the entire time, tear him down, and provide ammunition to the other side, and SIT OUT THE DAMN ELECTION.
Then they blamed him for losing. They called this guy who was part of the Reagan Revolution from the get-go a RINO, of all things. In fact, they call every one of the Republican field a RINO, to the great delight of the venal Democrats who have looted our national treasury.
It wasn’t me that tore Ms. Palin a new one every time she or her kids turned around. It wasn’t me who called the entire Republican field “unelectable.” It wasn’t me who decided that Herman Cain should not run because David Axelrod could dig up unsupported allegations. All that was done by Republicans.
Republicans don’t defend their own, and they buy into any stupid meme some Democrat (who IS on the other side) comes up with, whether it makes sense or not.
I, personally, really dislike Romney, and I distrust Gingrich, but given the choice, I’ll hold my nose and vote for whomever the Republican voters select, because the economy of this country cannot withstand another Stimulus.
I’ll be contributing to the Senate races this time around, because we really need to clear the Senate and hold the House if BO is going to get elected. Yes, I was a lifelong Democrat, and I see the need for a Republican sweep. Do you have any idea what an advantage this should be for you?
I sincerely hope you are all talking about the primaries, and not the general election.
“I will absolutely disappoint all of my conservative friends and readers if you force me to choose between Obama and Gingrich.”
Jonn: Well, no one can force you to choose and you’ve signaled an answer without flat-out saying it, but I’ll ask: If the election were held tomorrow and your choice was between Obama and Gingrich, which one would you choose?
You have some good points there, valerie!
Am of the opinion here that it doesn’t much matter who is elected as long as it isn’t Obama. It will take a couple more election cycles to get a really good candidate in there.
What IS important is getting some serious patriots into the Congress. That is where the country will be salvaged. No prez can ruin the country without the financial support of the Congress.
Without reining in spending it doesn’t much matter on what programs the $$ is being spent – it’s draining the economy.
Well, 2-17, if I found myself at the polls and registered and no one could leave without voting, I’d vote for Gingrich. But at this moment, I’m not registered, so someone had better motivate me to go through that process for them…and Gingrich ain’t reason enough.
@12: Valerie, McCain may have been part of the “Reagan Revolution”, however, he was always sold as a “maverick” and went against many things that us conservatives were for. That being said, when it came to leadership, he was far better at that than the current holder of the office and it was made abundantly clear during the Russian invasion of Georgia. McCain came out with a statement immediately while Obama waited 3 days to say anything and consulted with, as they admitted, a hundred advisors. I was not a McCain fan on a lot of his positions and I was really struggling to come to grips with voting for him, until he picked his VP. That at least made it easier to vote for him.
The Republicans gave the nomination to McCain as a hat tip for him bowing out of the 2000 primaries. They felt it was “his turn”. Now, they are doing the same with Romney and yes, you are correct, they are to blame for Cain, just as they were to blame for O’Donnel in Delaware, because she wasn’t one of the annointed ones that the party establishment wanted. That’s why I’m not a republican. I’m a conservative that really doesn’t like the establishment politics that have poisoned the party. They run crap up the flag pole and expect us to vote for the crap in order to get the WH. They want us to vote against Obama, not necessarily FOR the candidate they select. Plus, in many states, you don’t have party affiliation in order to vote in primaries, so democrats can go a load the box for a weak republican candidate in order to get a better candidate out of the way.
Jonn: Thanks for the answer. I had to cover my eyes and peak between my fingers to read your answer.
“Elections always come down to voting for either a douche or a turd sandwich…”
“motivate me to go through that process for them…and Gingrich ain’t reason enough”.
How about four more years of Obama, Holder, Geithner, and the prospect of another Sotomayor or Kagan on the SCOTUS?
Hmmm… I’ll vote for Anybody But Obama.
Before Obama I was convinced that a sitting president couldn’t do THAT much damage. I was wrong!
Let’s face it folks. DC is a cesspool. The President is only the largest and most visible object floating in it. There are 535 other bits floating in there too.
So yeah, until, or unless, we can really change things I’ll continue to vote for the lesser of two evils.
So as to offer a solution and not just whine.
Select Congress from the jury pool once every four years opposite of Presidential elections for single four year term. House them in barracks. Give them O-2 level pay and allowances. Military medical care, food, etc.
Sorry John, but I will cast my vote against the current administration. However, I will vote Libertarian if Romney gets the nod. He’s simply a liberal clothed in the Republican bullshit.
Damn, Allen West wouldn’t have to have left his sofa to campaign for the office. He would have swept it clean and then some.
Romney? Not even on a cold day in hell.
Gingrich? I’ve often stated that we don’t need a run of the mill politician and that I wouldn’t vote for him. Then he comes up as the brightest of the current candidates … gotta think it over and see how the running mates turn out.
Perry? Don’t like his position on illegal aliens and don’t really trust the man from what I know of him.
Bachman? I liked her a ton and really liked the Cain/Bachman or Bachman/Cain ticket. I don’t think she’s presidential material at this point but certainly is the easiest to look at!!!
Paul? Not only No but Hell NO!!! Basically, the current round of Republican candidates don’t draw my attention at all.
LtCol West? C’mon out and lets get this thing done.
I’m tired of compromising my vote just because a candidate is the ‘best chance to beat the dhimwits’. I believe this year I’m going to vote for a conservative candidate even if he/she isn’t a republican. Right now though, opportunities look dim.
Well, I am in the true minority.
I hope Obama wins, and the GOP takes the Senate, with room to spare. I don’t trust the dems, I don’t trust the GOP, and I’d rather see the whole aparatus come to a screaching halt. The reality is that the damage Obama could do to the country with a GOP majority in both houses is limited, and at that point maybe we could start doing things like Impeaching Holder etc.
Agreed John.
See this 30-min. YouTube on The Real Newt Gingrich.
But then, I’m a Paulistinian.
😉
@25: A Ronulan?? No shit? I guess we can count on you to keep the fire burning for the 2016 campaign he’ll be running, saying the same things that he has for the past 11 years?
A vote for a third party candidate in lieu of whoever is the (R) nominee might as well be a vote for Obama. I’m not thrilled with any of the choices, and since I live and vote in Texas, the process will pretty much be over by the time I get to have my say in a primary. But I’ll be damned if I get all pouty and either sit out or vote third party because I don’t really like the (R) ticket. People voting third party in 1992 gave us Bill Clinton instead of a second George H.W. Bush term.
@27: “People voting third party in 1992 gave us Bill Clinton instead of a second George H.W. Bush term.”
No, Bush Sr. gave us Bill Clinton. At some point we have to start blaming the cause, not the effect.
I’m not saying Bush Sr. didn’t have his faults, but in our system, a third party will split a vote for (usually) the Republicans. If Perot hadn’t been on the ballot (for whatever reasons he chose to run), I don’t think Clinton would have been president.
I hope Obama wins, and the GOP takes the Senate, with room to spare. I don’t trust the dems, I don’t trust the GOP, and I’d rather see the whole aparatus come to a screaching halt. The reality is that the damage Obama could do to the country with a GOP majority in both houses is limited
Unfortunately, TSO–most of the damage has already been done by the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress between 2009-2011 with Obamacare, et al, being enacted.
Without a GOP president and Senate, we’re looking at all those parts of the healthcare bill Nancy said we’d have to read to find out what’s in them coming into effect. If you think the economy is fucked now, just wait until 2014.
Also consider that Obama would be nominating at least one and possibly up to THREE (Kennedy, Ginsburg, and possibly Scalia) Supreme Court justices. I shudder to think what he’d throw up after what we got with the “wise Latina” and Kagan.
Elections most DEFINITELY have consequences.
OT-disagree. Perot pulled 19 percent of the vote, of which nearly 80 percent broke from Bush 41. Considering Clinton only got 43 percent of the vote, no way he would have been elected had Perot not run, with lesser effects of, “read my lips” and Weinberger being indicted the week before the election.
@27 – Why is it “pouty” to cast a vote for a candidate or party that espouses your ideals…rather than voting for one of two candidates/parties that don’t?
Maybe, CI, because third parties divide votes. Some say, there’s that old “some say”, that Nader cost Gore the election, by running as a 3rd party candidate. Others say that Perot cost Bush the election. Sparky did a good job of making that case.
Paul is still making noises about running as a 3rd party if he doesn’t get his way, which will give O another term to wreak his havoc on us.
@33 – I know that third parties divide votes, I wasn’t sure why that had to be characterized as “pouty”. I’m with TSO on this issue…the duopoly is the problem. Keep voting for the same two establishments and we’ll keep having the same conversation every fours years, except each time it will be the next rendition of the “most important election of our time”.
Here’s the problem with a lot of people’s arguments.
anybody but Obama: we got Obama because the country said “anyone but Bush”
Third party candidate: NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN
GOP controls the Senate/house: as much as we’d love “divided government” look what happens when the GOP controls just the house. WE CAN’T GET ANYTHING DONE
For whatever reason all our national figures have been polarizing. For years you either are so in love with them you want to give them oral sex, or hate them so much you literally want to draw and quarter them. We really need a moderating factor.
@31: I know how much Perot got, because I was one of them. Sure, Bush would have beat Clinton, however, it was his fault, not mine and that is the point I was making. Instead of saying that we’re to blame for the loss, blame the candidate. If you want me to vote FOR a candidate, present one I can vote FOR. It seems that the GOP strategy is to have us vote AGAINST the opponent instead of having a candidate we can vote FOR. The the problem I have with the GOP is that they take us for granted. Why should I be the one to have to eat the shit sammich? McCain would have won, but 3-4 million voters stayed home instead of vote and the logic of the GOP is to blame the voter, not themselves.
The list of candidates is abysmal this year. Regardless, I hope Bachman doesn’t make the cut because there is no way I’m going to vote for that waste of oxygen
“I was Gingrich’s biggest fan until he was caught doing the same thing he went after Clinton for during the impeachment proceedings.”
I have to take issue with this statement.
I won’t defend the adulterer Gingrich. I’m an old fashioned guy who happens to think that a man should be true to the gal he married, and if he can’t do that he’s kind of a dirt bag.
But I get a little perturbed when lib Dems distort the history of what happened with the Clinton impeachment. It appears that Jonn is making the same mistake.
Bill Clinton was not impeached for a consensual sex act between himself and another adult. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm
Gingrich may have been boffing broads on the side,but he didn’t lie under oath about, nor did he try to use his considerable power to block inquiry into lying. That’s the difference between Newt and BJ Clinton.
But yeah, Newt’s kind of a dud as candidates go.
I don’t trust Gingrich as far as I could throw him. A vote for the lesser of these two evils is…like voting for the lesser of two types of cancer.
Ron Paul is a tard. Anyone who says that Iran is not a threat and wants to abandon Israel to the tender mercies of the Islamo-fascists in the Middle East is dangerously naive in foreign policy to the point of foolishness. For those of you who don’t like Gingrich or Romney or think the others can’t be elected because they are too far right remember a couple of things:
Obama’s poll numbers are now below Carters. Hard to believe but true.
Obama is a flat out Marxist that wants to destroy this country and what it stands for. 4 more years of that jackass might make it to difficult to recover.
Think and think hard before you either sit home on your duff and not vote or split the vote a la Perot and get Obama re-elected. It might be the last, free election in this country before we implode.
By the way, I met McCain and was not impressed with him as much as he was impressed with himself. Weak, sweaty handshake and he was already looking over my head at the next person with no eye contact. A man that started to believe his press and had jumped the shark years ago. Contrast that to Duncan Hunter. A firm handshake and he looked you right in the eye and thanked you for your support. Too bad he didn’t get the nomination.
Don’t let the press pick another McCain, Dole or whoever for you because he is a centrist or moderate and they like him. This is no time for working with the otherside that is destroying us. Its time to defeat them.
@41: “Contrast that to Duncan Hunter. A firm handshake and he looked you right in the eye and thanked you for your support. Too bad he didn’t get the nomination.”
He was my preferred candidate four years ago. Unfortunately, he dropped out of the race before the primary happened in my state. He’s not the most moving of speakers, a little wooden, but he’s still a man with convictions.
Somebody ought to select that man as a running mate.
TSO: The way I read you, you’re not an Obama loyalist, you just want that good old tension between Congress and the White House. Normally, I’d be all for that healthy check and balance but after the damage Obama has done thus far, I’d like to see a Republican in the White House SO LONG AS he or she is willing to lead in undoing what the Big O has done. The next guy can start with articulating our foreign policy, reduce taxes to increase job creation, rescind Obama-issued executive orders AND stop using executive orders to bypass Congress, cease with the shadow gov’t appointees who are not subject to Senate approval, and perhaps name a non-ideologue to the Supreme Court if that opportunity arises. Did I mention health care?
@42: My candidate as well. We could have done, and did, far worse.
Don’t think Gingrich is strong enough or smart enough?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/13/newt-gingrich-schools-cbss-pelley-killing-american-born-terrorists-ov
He also has said that he might indeed ask Col. West to be VP. strong team and I’d follow a Master Blaster anywhere.
Every time you see Gingrich debate or speak you get the distinct feeling that he is the smartest man in the room with the best grasp of the world as we live in it and a sense of the history that made it so. A debate between Gingrich and Obama would be between a man (Obama) that as an extreme Narcissist thinks he’s the smartest man in the room and a man that actually is. A debate between Col. West and Biden, well, that would be truly epic.
Old Trooper (26): I guess we can count on you to keep the fire burning for the 2016 campaign [Ron Paul will] be running, saying the same things that he has for the past 11 years?
Frank: 1. I seriously doubt he’ll run in ’16.
2. He’s been saying the same things for thirty-plus years.
3. Yeah, you can count on me!
🙂
“A debate between Col. West and Biden, well, that would be truly epic.”
Now, that’s funny. I think that Biden might just run off the stage at some point. He is, without a doubt, the stupidest man ever to preside over the Senate. Plus, there’s that little plagiarism thing of his.
Miss Ladybug (27): A vote for a third party candidate in lieu of whoever is the (R) nominee might as well be a vote for Obama.
Frank: Yeah, in Amerka, ya gotta vote for either the RupubliCrat or the Demublican.
Uhh, no thanks.
In 1992, Howard Phillips “debated” his friend Pat Buchanan on the latter’s radio program: Should
conservativesconstitutionalists focus on reforming the GOP, or find “new guards for their liberty”? Phillips convinced me of the latter.So whenever I have cast my vote for Ron Paul, or Howard Phillips, Or Michael Peroutka, or Chuck Baldwin, I voted for them — not whoever the “greater of the two evils” was that election year.
[html fail]
CI (34): … except each time it will be the next rendition of the “most important election of our time”.
Eagle Keeper (aka Frank): Wish I had a nickle for every hair-on-fire who warned me that I didn’t have the luxury of voting my conscience “this time,” because “this is without a doubt the most important election of our lifetime.”
As one wag has said, “If God had intended for us to vote, He would have given us candidates.” So when I sees an actual candidate, I votes for him.
Of course, as another wag has said, “If voting actually changed anything, it would be illegal.”
jonp (41): Ron Paul is a tard. Anyone who says that Iran is not a threat and wants to abandon Israel to the tender mercies of the Islamo-fascists …
EK: 1. Anyone who uses the term “Islamo-fascist” is a tard’s tard.
Iran: One nuke. In a few years. Maybe.
Israel: 300+ nukes, with delivery. Today.
And Osirek 1981 on their resume.
Besides, when did it become the US of A’s job to defend Israel? She’s defended herself rather admirably for the last 60+ years.
(Not counting that “USS Liberty” Bravo Sierra.)