Talk-show host offers Newt Gingrich $1 million to drop out

[JoeChalupa]

http://news.yahoo.com/talk-show-host-offers-newt-gingrich-1-million-014908204.html?fb_action_ids=2511873828441&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_source=other_multiline&code=AQBp8brmJNfMrihA9odk2J3g-obmctmLsEWKMKTYzM8aMc0eRu6L4ZNZ1YQ32-pEemXgqcrIHCPbKRYlUYw_bFh1K-x1Mn5qbQlmhF66E7Sy1pj8z4vpQoTak58vjjJzyL1uKcKQtmRO BPJb99qT-3i6iHG86_HEOOkPVpRGkAJwM-jSdI542CjNtdGQ92iXgWc#_=_

NEW YORK (TheWrap.com) - Some conservatives don't believe in Newt-mentum.

Popular right-wing talk-radio host Michael Savage has offered Newt Gingrich $1 million to drop out of the race for the GOP nomination because he doesn't believe the former Speaker of the House can beat President Barack Obama.

"While it's true that (Mitt) Romney is not a strong a conservative as many would like him to be, the most pressing issue before America today is defeating Barack Obama. And that is something Newt Gingrich cannot do," the nationally syndicated Savage said on his blog.

And why is that?

Savage has a long list on his blog, including Gingrich's ads with Nancy Pelosi, his past infidelity and the fact that -- no matter his intelligence -- when he appears on TV "he will come off badly compared to Obama and look like nothing more than what he is: a fat, old, white man."

Ouch.

So, after a lengthy diatribe in all caps, Savage offered Gingrich $1 million to "set his ego aside" and "take the money ... and don't run."

Savage said he will reveal further details soon.



What the hell?

[boutons_deux]

Gingrich is unelectable.

The majority the Repug Congresspeople, the Repug power structure, and Wall st (giving their money to their boy Willard Gekko) don't want, would detest, Gingrich as their candidate.

[Yonivore]

What the hell?
Obviously, some conservatives don't want Newt Gingrich to be the Republican nominee.

But, the bottom line is; they will vote for whomever is on the ballot opposite Barack Obama. And, if the economy doesn't improve drastically, so will independents and moderates.

Newt Gingrich wouldn't be my choice as a candidate but, if it's him, I will wholeheartedly support his campaign.

Additionally, of all the Republicans in the field, Gingrich is the one person I would love to see on the dais debating Barack Obama.

He has a command of history and his ideology like no one since Ronald Reagan -- and, no, I'm not saying he's the next Ronald Reagan. But, he is a Master Debater.

I hear Texas will have a $1.6 Billion dollar surplus going into the next legislative session. Perhaps Perry will see another bump in his numbers. It also doesn't hurt that Obama's home state of Illinois is fighting to keep Sears from moving to Texas -- in favor of a better business climate.

[coyotes_geek]

I hear Texas will have a $1.6 Billion dollar surplus going into the next legislative session. Perhaps Perry will see another bump in his numbers.

Even if that $1.6B surplus is true, it doesn't help Perry since the Texas leg doesn't meet again until 2013.

[Yonivore]

Even if that $1.6B surplus is true, it doesn't help Perry since the Texas leg doesn't meet again until 2013.
It's in the news -- it helps.

[clambake]

so much for "crackers"

[JoeChalupa]

Joe Scarborough predicts an Obama victory if Newt gets the nomination but Newt is currently polling above Obama in some key states. Only time and votes will tell.
But I've said that this election is the GOP's to lose. Obama's approval rating and the economy make it almost impossible for him to win.

[Yonivore]

Joe Scarborough predicts an Obama victory if Newt gets the nomination but Newt is currently polling above Obama in some key states. Only time and votes will tell.

But I've said that this election is the GOP's to lose. Obama's approval rating and the economy make it almost impossible for him to win.
Again, Newt would not be my choice but, if he is the nominee he stands a good chance of beating Obama.

1) He will make Barack Obama look like the thumb-sucker he is in any and all debates. They will be embarrassing affairs.

2) Newt Gingrich is doing something the other politicians are not; he's spending his time persuading the electorate his ideas, his ideology, and his approach are right. Everyone else is spending their time trying to persuade the electorate they think like they do and would govern like they would.

And,

3) As you said, there's a good chance the "anybody-but-Obama" sentiment will continue to next November unless there's a miraculous economic recovery that, right now, isn't expected.

[boutons_deux]

$1.6B doesn't erase the $25B TX debt

Also, plenty of parents are pissed about the huge cutbacks and layoffs in the schools. There also rich districts suing the state for robin hood distribution of taxes from rich to poor districts.

Perry isn't that popular in TX, most TXans don't want him as Pres.

[Yonivore]

$1.6B doesn't erase the $25B TX debt

Also, plenty of parents are pissed about the huge cutbacks and layoffs in the schools. There also rich districts suing the state for robin hood distribution of taxes from rich to poor districts.
Name a state with a Democrat at the helm that is going to see a $1.6B surplus in its next budget.


Perry isn't that popular in TX, most TXans don't want him as Pres.
Because they want to keep him as Governor. Hair Perry can be Texas Governor for as long as he wants.

[spursncowboys]

Have you ever listened to M. Savage? His schtick is to do this kind of stuff.

[Yonivore]

Have you ever listened to M. Savage? His schtick is to do this kind of stuff.
Yeah, I've listened to him -- until I can reach the knob to change the channel. He's as annoying as Sean Hannity.

Savage will vote for whomever is running against Barack Obama, on the Republican ticket.

[Winehole23]

the one million dollars was never in jeopardy

[coyotes_geek]

$1.6B doesn't erase the $25B TX debt


There is no $25B TX debt. There was a defecit on the initial budget but the legislature balanced it through spending cuts, tapping the rainy day fund and anything else they could think of that wasn't a tax increase.

[Yonivore]

There is no $25B TX debt. There was a defecit on the initial budget but the legislature balanced it through spending cuts, tapping the rainy day fund and anything else they could think of that wasn't a tax increase.
I could be wrong but, I'm pretty sure Texas is constitutionally prohibited from incurring debt.

[Winehole23]

hedging safe bets now



worried?

[Winehole23]

:lol

[coyotes_geek]

I could be wrong but, I'm pretty sure Texas is constitutionally prohibited from incurring debt.

There's a balanced budget amendment, and I'm pretty sure the legislature is prohibited from borrowing money for the general fund.

Certain state agencies can issue bonds, but the debt service has to come out of their bi-annual budget that the legislature appropriates to them. There's also restrictions on what you can sell bonds to fund. I'm reasonably confident that it's limited to things like infrastructure, facilities and equipment.

[Yonivore]

There's a balanced budget amendment, and I'm pretty sure the legislature is prohibited from borrowing money for the general fund. Certain state agencies can issue bonds, but the debt service has to come out of their bi-annual budget that the legislature appropriates to them.
:tu Thanks.

I was reading through Section 49 but, the Texas Constitution isn't as concise or definitive as other documents.

[JoeChalupa]

Yeah, I've listened to him -- until I can reach the knob to change the channel. He's as annoying as Sean Hannity.

Savage will vote for whomever is running against Barack Obama, on the Republican ticket.

Yeah, they both pretty much suck. Most, if not all, GOP voters will vote for Gingrich and while I agree that Newt is a great debater...he also has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth and make outrageous statements that very well could cost him the election.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, they both pretty much suck. Most, if not all, GOP voters will vote for Gingrich and while I agree that Newt is a great debater...he also has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth and make outrageous statements that very well could cost him the election.
It won't cost him the election against Obama if, as you and I agree, the economy still sucks.

And, Obama has a knack for eating his feet too. Particularly when the teleprompter breaks down.

[ChumpDumper]

At least Savage is talking Newt's language.

[Wild Cobra]

Obviously, some conservatives don't want Newt Gingrich to be the Republican nominee.

Newt is not presidential material. But neither is Obama.


But, the bottom line is; they will vote for whomever is on the ballot opposite Barack Obama. And, if the economy doesn't improve drastically, so will independents and moderates.

I think those who dislike Newt, like I dislike him, may simply not vote. Newt will garentee a lower republican and conservative turnout than Romney. It might make the difference.


Newt Gingrich wouldn't be my choice as a candidate but, if it's him, I will wholeheartedly support his campaign.

I will only vote for him to get rid on the Marxist occupying the WH.


Additionally, of all the Republicans in the field, Gingrich is the one person I would love to see on the dais debating Barack Obama.

Style over substance? I agree, he is a far better charlatan than Obama.


He has a command of history and his ideology like no one since Ronald Reagan -- and, no, I'm not saying he's the next Ronald Reagan. But, he is a Master Debater.

His words resonate of Reagan, but his actions do not.

[ChumpDumper]

lol Reagan

[Yonivore]

Newt is not presidential material. But neither is Obama.
Who's more presidential? Newt or Obama? Those may be your choices.


I think those who dislike Newt, like I dislike him, may simply not vote. Newt will garentee a lower republican and conservative turnout than Romney. It might make the difference.
And, that's a vote for Obama.

The national pundits painting themselves in the "I won't vote for Newt" category first have to paint themselves out of the "I'll vote for whomever is running against Obama" category; if, in fact, they were sincere about all the pronouncements that another term of Obama will ruin the country ::cough:: Glenn Beck ::cough::


I will only vote for him to get rid on the Marxist occupying the WH.
So why make the previous statement?


Style over substance? I agree, he is a far better charlatan than Obama.
And, the only one of the two -- hell, the only one on the Republican side of the campaign equation for that matter -- that ever successfully pushed through conservative issues on a national level.


His words resonate of Reagan, but his actions do not.
Helping Reagan reform Medicare, orchestrating the return of the first Republican Congress in nearly a half century, and the Contract with America were all Newt Gingrich conservative accomplishments. Name something as significant accomplished by Mitt Romeny.

Face it. If Newt is the nominee, and, no, he's not my ideal candidate either, you and I and everyone else will vote for him to make sure Obama does not have a second term.

The Washington punditry that is bashing Newt now are just a bunch of Washington insiders he's pissed off at one time or another. Good for him...it makes him appear to be more of an outsider. The flyover states and the vast majority off the country don't know what a political prick he was -- but, then again, maybe we need a political prick in office.

[Wild Cobra]

Who's more presidential? Newt or Obama? Those may be your choices.

More presidential?

I guess on a scale 1 to 10, a 4 is better than a 2. I have to hold my nose to call that presidential though.



And, that's a vote for Obama.

The national pundits painting themselves in the "I won't vote for Newt" category first have to paint themselves out of the "I'll vote for whomever is running against Obama" category; if, in fact, they were sincere about all the pronouncements that another term of Obama will ruin the country ::cough:: Glenn Beck ::cough::

This is true. Think about it. When all people have is a choice of the lesser evil, are they motivated to get out and vote? When people have to hold their nose to vote, how many do so?


So why make the previous statement?

Because I am not typical. I stated I will normally vote 3rd party when I don't like a major candidate. I know I'm spoiling the vote in doing so, because we don't have runoff elections. i wonder how many people would vote for "none of the above" is it was a viable option?


And, the only one of the two -- hell, the only one on the Republican side of the campaign equation for that matter -- that ever successfully pushed through conservative issues on a national level.

Remind me please what that was.


Helping Reagan reform Medicare, orchestrating the return of the first Republican Congress in nearly a half century, and the Contract with America were all Newt Gingrich conservative accomplishments. Name something as significant accomplished by Mitt Romeny.

A master charlatan in action. Why did the republicans renege on the Contract with America?

As for Romney, i found a few in our threads four years ago. I don't remember now. If you recall, I supported him back then.


Face it. If Newt is the nominee, and, no, he's not my ideal candidate either, you and I and everyone else will vote for him to make sure Obama does not have a second term.

Sure, I will. I stated as such. It's just that too many people will fail to vote at all if it is less important in the day than something else.


The Washington punditry that is bashing Newt now are just a bunch of Washington insiders he's pissed off at one time or another. Good for him...it makes him appear to be more of an outsider. The flyover states and the vast majority off the country don't know what a political prick he was -- but, then again, maybe we need a political prick in office.

Believe that if you want. He had flipped on too many issues. He is for amnesty. He lead the largest increase in republican earmarks ever.

Fuck him.

[Yonivore]

This is true. Think about it. When all people have is a choice of the lesser evil, are they motivated to get out and vote? When people have to hold their nose to vote, how many do so?
Everyone wanting to get rid of the stench that's infected the White House for four years. We've been holding our noses for three years now.

You've already stated you'll vote for him. Moderates and independents don't have the visceral hatred of him that you seem to...and, they're sick and tired of what Obama has wrought.

Oh yeah, Gingrich's House of Representatives issued four balanced budgets in - a - row.