Gingrich?

[Marcus Bryant]

:wtf

[boutons_deux]

I love Gingrich, as proof of how fucked up the Repugs are.

[Spurminator]

He's the "smart" one.

[4>0rings]

Either that or a mormon. We had a black muslim president but we draw the line at mormons.

[Winehole23]

It chills me that a glib, self-serving, morally indeterminate tub of goo like Newt Gingrich, is still in the picture.

As ever, we get the politicians we deserve.

[Wild Cobra]

It chills me that a glib, self-serving, morally indeterminate tub of goo like Newt Gingrich, is still in the picture.

As ever, we get the politicians we deserve.
Did you feel that way about Clinton?

[boutons_deux]

Noot has so much baggage

Gingrich Proposed the Death Penalty for Pot Smokers -- Even Though He Admitted to Smoking it Himself

Over the weekend, struggling Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson reminded MSNBC viewers that GOP frontrunner Newt Gingrich had once to called to punish some drug offenders with death.

“Newt Gingrich, in 1997, proposed the death penalty for marijuana — for possession of marijuana above a certain quantity of marijuana,” Johnson explained. “And yet, he is among 100 million Americans who’ve smoked marijuana.”

“I would love to have a discussion with him on the fact that he smoked pot, and under the wrong set of circumstance he proposed the death penalty for, potentially, something that he had committed. I have troubles with that,” he added.

Johnson, a former New Mexico governor who has advocated for marijuana legalization since 1999, is at least partially correct about Gingrich’s position.

As Speaker of the House, Gingrich introducedthe “Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996.”

The bill would have required a “sentence of death for certain importations of significant quantities of controlled substances.” It would have applied to anyone convicted more than once of carrying 100 doses — or about two ounces — or marijuana across the border. Defendants would have had a window of 18 months to file their one and only appeal.

“If you import a commercial quantity of illegal drugs, it is because you have made the personal decision that you are prepared to get rich by destroying our children,” the Georgia Republican said at a fundraiser for Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA) in 1995. “I have made the decision that I love our children enough that we will kill you if you do this.”

“The first time we execute 27 or 30 or 35 people at one time, and they go around Colombia and France and Thailand and Mexico, and they say, ‘Hi, would you like to carry some drugs into the U.S.?’ the price of carrying drugs will have gone up dramatically.”

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/153414

Marijuana destroys children?

BigPharma has murdered Ms more than all the illegal drugs combined.

[hater]

1. Palin
2. Bachman
3. Perry
4. Cain

and now gingrich

it's just the flavor of the month in a long list of circus freak shows. He is actually dropping in the polls as each state reaches their voting date.

[Stringer_Bell]

Did you feel that way about Clinton?

Clinton's platform wasn't based on the bullshit that the Repugs claim are important (family values and whatever else they use to stir up fear in old white people). During the Clinton Administration, minority families had livable household incomes, so even with face-fucking a fat intern he still gets a pass - as he should.

Whoever the Repugs nominate will end up like Dole in 1996, it's gonna be a huge victory for sure. I secretly hope it's Gingrich, those debates would be hilarious cuz he's such a limp dick fatty.

[SnakeBoy]

“The first time we execute 27 or 30 or 35 people at one time, and they go around Colombia and France and Thailand and Mexico, and they say, ‘Hi, would you like to carry some drugs into the U.S.?’ the price of carrying drugs will have gone up dramatically.”I didn't know the cartels were so polite.

[cheguevara]

“If you import a commercial quantity of illegal drugs, it is because you have made the personal decision that you are prepared to get rich by destroying our children,” the Georgia Republican said at a fundraiser for Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA) in 1995. “I have made the decision that I love our children enough that we will kill you if you do this.”

:lol :wow and this guy is close to being the GOP nominee???

[boutons_deux]

mules are often forced by cartels under threat of death to themselves or their family.

[boutons_deux]

Noot's head has always spewed out lots of ideas, which enrapture his egocentric self, not anybody else.

2nd post, here's Mo pegging and destroying Noot

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/dowd-out-of-africa-and-into-iowa.html?_r=1&ref=maureendowd

[boutons_deux]

Newt’s Tax Plan, and Why His Polls Rise the More Outrageous He Becomes

Newt Gingrich has done it again. With his new tax plan he has raised the bar from irresponsibility to recklessness.

Every dollar estimate I’m about to share with you comes from the independent, non-partisan Tax Policy Center – a group whose estimates are used by almost everyone in Washington regardless of political persuasion.

First off, Newt’s plan increases the federal budget deficit by about $850 billion – in a single year!

To put this in perspective, most forecasts of the budget deficit cover ten years. The elusive goal of the White House and many on both sides of the aisle in Congress is to reduce that ten-year deficit by 3 to 4 trillion dollars.

Fight corporate influence by keeping independent media strong! Click here to make a tax-deductible contribution to Truthout.

Newt goes in the other direction, with gusto. Increasing the deficit by $850 billion in a single year is beyond the wildest imaginings of the least responsible budget mavens within a radius of three thousand miles from Washington.


http://www.truth-out.org/robert-reich-newts-tax-plan-and-why-his-polls-rise-more-outrageous-he-becomes/1323874711

[Yonivore]

“If you import a commercial quantity of illegal drugs, it is because you have made the personal decision that you are prepared to get rich by destroying our children,” the Georgia Republican said at a fundraiser for Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA) in 1995. “I have made the decision that I love our children enough that we will kill you if you do this.”

:lol :wow and this guy is close to being the GOP nominee???
Not a novel idea. In fact, we're already doing it...on the books since 1988.

Drug Kingpin Executed in Indiana Federal Prison (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/19/national/20CND-GARZA.html)

[boutons_deux]

drug kingpin, not mule, executed for murders, not for drug importation.

St Ronnie increased cocaine distribution in USA by his messing around in Central America supporting murderous, genocidal right-wingers, but he escaped execution.

[Yonivore]

drug kingpin, not mule, executed for murders, not for drug importation.
I think Mr. Gingrich's statement to the effect "...if you are prepared to get rich..." precludes the mule in favor of the kingpin.

[Winehole23]

Did you feel that way about Clinton? I never liked Clinton.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Not a novel idea. In fact, we're already doing it...on the books since 1988.

Drug Kingpin Executed in Indiana Federal Prison (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/19/national/20CND-GARZA.html)

I'm sure the 3 murder convictions (and evidence of 5 others presented to the jury) didn't help.

[cheguevara]

I think Mr. Gingrich's statement to the effect "...if you are prepared to get rich..." precludes the mule in favor of the kingpin.

Gingrich's words are pretty clear and have nothing to do with your example. Gingrich is talking about killing somebody for carrying 2 ounces of weed.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Gingrich's words are pretty clear and have nothing to do with your example. Gingrich is talking about killing somebody for carrying 2 ounces of weed.

If you can prove that someone carrying 2 ounces of pot has murdered 8 people, I think executing that person is fair.

[Yonivore]

Gingrich's words are pretty clear and have nothing to do with your example. Gingrich is talking about killing somebody for carrying 2 ounces of weed.


“If you import a commercial quantity of illegal drugs [I suspect that would be more than 2 ounces of weed. - Y.], it is because you have made the personal decision that you are prepared to get rich [I know of no one that claims the "mules" are enriching themselves by carrying for the Kingpin to which Gingrich is clearly referring. - Y.] by destroying our children,” the Georgia Republican said at a fundraiser for Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA) in 1995. “I have made the decision that I love our children enough that we will kill you if you do this.”
I've helpfully bolded, colored red, and provided commentary on the words that clearly demonstrate you're an idiot.

[Winehole23]

The challenge for Gingrich is whether voters will view him as the ultimate Washington insider or an authentic change agent who learned from his time in political exile. To many voters, Gingrich’s tumultuous reign as speaker seems like ancient history. And the more longtime Republicans in Congress, party insiders, and the media criticize Gingrich, the more he comes across as an anti-establishment, independent operator. Voters have notoriously short memories, and if Gingrich can rebrand himself as a Reagan-like conservative promising fundamental change to a broken system, he could ride the anti-Obama wave.But if he comes across as undisciplined and unstable, it could have devastating general election consequences.

Nominating Gingrich for president would be about as risky as asking Steve Jobs to return to Apple after building an undistinguished track record in his time away from the company. It’s a formula that could be a disaster, but carries the hint of success as well. Indeed, deciding whether to go with the safe choice (Romney) or gamble on Gingrich is the GOP’s real $10,000 bet this primary season.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/against-the-grain/the-gingrich-gamble-20111213

[Winehole23]

"Just remember the higher a monkey climbs on a pole," Axelrod said, quoting an expression a Chicago Alderman taught him, "the more you can see his butt. So, you know, the speaker is very high on the pole right now and we’ll see how people like the view.”http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/12/president_obama_s_campaign_advisers_reveal_the_out lines_of_his_re_election_strategy_it_s_not_pretty_ .html

[cheguevara]

I've helpfully bolded, colored red, and provided commentary on the words that clearly demonstrate you're an idiot.



Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996(Sponsor Newt Gingrich) - Amends the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act to direct the court to sentence a person convicted of bringing into the United States a proscribed quantity of a mixture or substance containing a controlled substance in an amount the Attorney General has determined is equal to 100 usual dosage amounts to life imprisonment without possibility of release (or, if the defendant has violated such provision on more than one occasion and if certain requirements under the Federal criminal code are met, to death)

you sir, are an imbecile

[Yonivore]

you sir, are an imbecile
Can you get a 100 doses out of 2 oz of weed?

Also, mules are rarely, if ever, caught and convicted twice. The first arrest resulting in a failure to deliver a load of drugs, if they are fortunate enough to escape incarceration, they would be punished by those who employed them as a mule.

I dare say it would be less pleasant than lethal injection. Might involve their families, as well.

[cheguevara]

Can you get a 100 doses out of 2 oz of weed?


:bang

right off that article (click on the link)

It would have applied to anyone convicted more than once of carrying 100 doses — or about two ounces — or marijuana across the border.

[Winehole23]

Can you get a 100 doses out of 2 oz of weed?Give it a try. You might like it. :hat

[Yonivore]

:bang

right off that article (click on the link)

It would have applied to anyone convicted more than once of carrying 100 doses — or about two ounces — or marijuana across the border.
First of all, you provided no link. And, I'm "doobie"ous you can roll 100 joints out of 2 oz of weed.

And, my second point stands.

My third point is that the War on Drugs is stupid and that narcotics should be decriminalized.

[cheguevara]

First of all, you provided no link. And, I'm "doobie"ous you can roll 100 joints out of 2 oz of weed.

.

we aretalking about buttons article, heprovided the link

[Wild Cobra]

Can you get a 100 doses out of 2 oz of weed?

Absolutely, and then some. As a lover of weed, I will venture to guess that two ounces is about 400 to 500 bong hits.

[Yonivore]

Absolutely, and then some. As a lover of weed, I will venture to guess that two ounces is about 400 to 500 bong hits.
Shows what I know about drug use.

It appears cooler heads prevailed and his bill was killed.

In any case, I don't see the U.S. -- even under a Gingrich administration -- executing anyone for carrying 2 oz. of Marijuana; which is why is probably why it failed.

[DarkReign]

Shows what I know about drug use.

It appears cooler heads prevailed and his bill was killed.

In any case, I don't see the U.S. -- even under a Gingrich administration -- executing anyone for carrying 2 oz. of Marijuana; which is why is probably why it failed.

...but that doesnt absolve Gingrich of being completely detached from reality for even entertaining the thought of executing people for possession, no matter the quantity, much less sponsoring a piece of legislation stating as such.

Gingirch wins, landslide for Obama.

[Yonivore]

...but that doesnt absolve Gingrich of being completely detached from reality for even entertaining the thought of executing people for possession, no matter the quantity, much less sponsoring a piece of legislation stating as such.

Gingirch wins, landslide for Obama.
I'm not making any prediction but, Gingrich's position on drug running in 1996 will not be a determining factor in the 2012 election.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm a cracker for Gingrich!

[Blake]

I'm a cracker for Gingrich!


:lol

[DarkReign]

I'm not making any prediction but, Gingrich's position on drug running in 1996 will not be a determining factor in the 2012 election.

I agree with that. It was a do-nothing, go nowhere piece of legislation most likely meant to grandstand during the decline of the War on Drugs charade.

Its obvious that the economy, jobs, banks, Wall Street, foreign policy and deficit spending will be the topics that shape the 2012 election.

Unfortunately for Mr Gingrich, Republicans will vote for their guy no matter what, Democrats will vote for their guy no matter what, its the independents that determine the winner.

If an independent is a moral voter or a social voter, that person most likely will not vote for Gingrich (or Obama on principal). Obama has proven to be pretty squeaky clean in his private life, Gingrich not so much. Its a sad reality that a vast majority of American voters vote with their heart, not their head. Doesnt bode well for Newt.

[DarkReign]

Moreover, Obama is a cool customer, rarely rattled or flustered. He doesnt crack.

Newt is a notorious hot-head who at some point on the campaign trail will lose his cool or say something extremely stupid (like executing citizens for possession). He cant put his ego aside long enough to ever recover should he do such a thing.

He will come across as the volatile, unpredictable ideologue that he is. That plays with the base of sycophants of either party, but not with a general electorate.

[Oh, Gee!!]

he's also a flip-flopper: he used to be for adultery (as evidenced by his past adulteries/divorces/leaving sick wives in the lurch) but now he's against it (as evidenced by his signing of the Oath to Fidelity).

[Winehole23]

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich now trails President Obama by double digits, his second straight weekly decline since becoming the GOP frontrunner. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds Obama earning 49% of the vote, while Gingrich receives 39% support. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups

[Yonivore]

Moreover, Obama is a cool customer, rarely rattled or flustered. He doesnt crack.

Newt is a notorious hot-head who at some point on the campaign trail will lose his cool or say something extremely stupid (like executing citizens for possession). He cant put his ego aside long enough to ever recover should he do such a thing.

He will come across as the volatile, unpredictable ideologue that he is. That plays with the base of sycophants of either party, but not with a general electorate.
We'll see. But, considering his debate performances so far, he's a lot more disciplined than others are describing him to be.

[Yonivore]

I agree with that. It was a do-nothing, go nowhere piece of legislation most likely meant to grandstand during the decline of the War on Drugs charade.

Its obvious that the economy, jobs, banks, Wall Street, foreign policy and deficit spending will be the topics that shape the 2012 election.

Unfortunately for Mr Gingrich, Republicans will vote for their guy no matter what, Democrats will vote for their guy no matter what, its the independents that determine the winner.

If an independent is a moral voter or a social voter, that person most likely will not vote for Gingrich (or Obama on principal). Obama has proven to be pretty squeaky clean in his private life, Gingrich not so much. Its a sad reality that a vast majority of American voters vote with their heart, not their head. Doesnt bode well for Newt.
I agree to a point.

Obama hasn't proven anything about his private life. He's been pretty much left alone. A point gets raised and the media will damn near break its back mitigating any fall out for him. The mere mention of a Republican's failing and they're putting unknown people with unvetted allegations and allowing them to uncritically assassinate their character.

Rick Perry's father once belonged to a hunting club that had a rock that someone painted "N-Word" on and the media went into 24/7 sensational coverage. Obama spends 20 years in the pulpit of a church led by a racist and it's glossed over.

We know nothing of Obama's personal life except what he's chosen to reveal. Would that the Republicans be given the same consideration, Newt Gingrich would mop the floor with Obama's ass.

[Winehole23]

it's the media's fault!

[Oh, Gee!!]

Maybe Newt's simply a flawed individual

[DarkReign]

Obama hasn't proven anything about his private life. He's been pretty much left alone. A point gets raised and the media will damn near break its back mitigating any fall out for him. The mere mention of a Republican's failing and they're putting unknown people with unvetted allegations and allowing them to uncritically assassinate their character.

I usually dont break apart posts and go "point for point" mainly because I think its an exercise in futility and that its really only used to bait and troll, but this paragraph struck me.

Thats a very, very broad generalization that can be applied to any and all candidates of every spectrum since the Reagan days. Think Clinton and Edwards for contemporary examples.


Rick Perry's father once belonged to a hunting club that had a rock that someone painted "N-Word" on and the media went into 24/7 sensational coverage. Obama spends 20 years in the pulpit of a church led by a racist and it's glossed over.

Agreed. But youre obviously treading on the much discussed double standard that does and probably always will exist as it pertains to racism among minorities and racism among the majority.

Media has nothing to really do with that. Blame legislatures if anyone at all, theyre the ones crafting hate-crime and hate-speech infractions that clearly favor one over the other. That the American psyche has acknowledged and glommed onto it isnt really the media's fault, they just exploit the phenomena for ratings.

Just the same as Fox exploited the birth certificate for their ratings. Media is money and the more you play to your audience, the more there is to be had.


We know nothing of Obama's personal life except what he's chosen to reveal. Would that the Republicans be given the same consideration, Newt Gingrich would mop the floor with Obama's ass.

We know he is married with 2 children and an over-publicized dog who comes from an American mother and a Kenyan father.

No allegations of adultery or promiscuity, except for some apparently ridiculous episode of coke and homo action in his college days that never took off because it was probably never true.

A Republican cannot be afforded the same perceived consideration simply because Republicans are, apparently, incapable of nominating anyone credible enough to win a general election. On the believability of being elected scale, I would go like this:

McCain: Good
Palin: Historical blunder that will never be eclipsed, this handed Obama the election

Bush Sr: Average (thank you Dukakis!)
Quayle: Nondescript man-child

Bush Jr: Good/Great (would have beaten any and all comers, really)
Cheney: n/a (brilliant this one)

Dole: Laughably bad
Kemp: Who?

Gingrich: Bad
VP: Trump? Why the hell not with that Republican field of candidates

The Republicans best chance to unseat Obama lies with Romney, but that is a pill the Repub base just cannot swallow or even fathom, for some reason. Hes moderate, well-spoken and a relevant politician unlike Mr. Lobb...I mean, Gingrich. I know its tough for staunch Republicans to get over what the imaginary man in the sky actually said to be written down and all, but this is the best chance, IMO.

I think Republicans and their supporters want a Rush Limbaugh-type in the White House, and in a dictatorship, you might even get your wish. But this isnt a dictatorship, its democracy-lite. Rush may be super-popular amongst like-minded partisans who actually enjoy being preached to and told what to think form the Red team, but that sort of individual doesnt play in a general election.

I dont agree with you that Gingrich would mop the floor with Obama. I think you have that exactly backwards. Obama would do and say small things to get his temper roaring and when the debates finally came, he'd drive the stake home on some issue and it would cause Newt to lose his cool and thus lose the election. Obama would be playing chess while the egotist was playing checkers.

Republicans, IMO, have an internal conflict of their own making. While Repub leadership embraced conservative media because the "liberal media" is too biased against them, they unwittingly gave their message away to the talking heads on a network whose only allegiance is to ratings and advertisers.

FoxNews is the single largest driver of a Republican nominees rise or fall, bar none, put your hand down, period. They prop up whatever flavor du jour says all the right things about abortion, immigration, taxes and social issues of all shapes, and parade that person around as the Next Big Thing.

All the while actual Republicans, like yourself if I do say so, cheer for the man/woman without ever actually seeing them compete with the spotlight directly on them. I think its because you want this person to lead without actually considering if the plebs would let him lead. Its easy to be the supporting actor to your party's version of Tom Hanks (hello, Mr. Gore), the guy will make anyone look good, but the moment you step from that star's shadow and into the light, the movie and script dont work quite as well. This field of nominees are all newbies to the national stage except Newt and Romney, with Romney being less popular amongst his own party than he is amongst the electorate! Think about that...that is how far off the Republican National Committee actually is when it comes to seating a President that isnt named Bush!

In summary, this is why I detest partisanship on the deepest level of hate I can fathom.

It isnt that I dont understand allegiance to ideals (I do) or allegiance to social issues (I do) or even allegiance to people (I do). Its that, in practice, as two movements compete with one another for the ultimate prize, it becomes a race to extremes as a means of easy separation from their competition.

McDonalds fries are far different than Burger Kings fries, that isnt a coincidence. Its a means to differentiate themselves from one another to foster competition.

The only problem with that mentality in competitive politics as opposed to a competitive marketplace is that extremism isolates pockets of the country from one another based on very obscured interpretations of falsely identified "important" issues.

Obama is not a good President, this isnt a secret. But the Other Party is so far removed from anything nearing normal to an average voter, that the party cannot even put a potential candidate on the ballot who could actually win because the conservative electorate has a laundry list of wants and needs in their candidate that do not jibe with non-conservatives on very fundamental levels.

Example: If Republicans had their way, gays would be in the closet forever in life, love and marriage. Abortion would be illegal and punishable by life in prison/death. War would start at the slightest provocation, even if that provocation came from some 3rd world shithole with no means to act on it. Most likely, Christianity would become the USA's official state religion with all the tertiary details that entails.

Even omitting the "war" part above, you would have alienated 50%+ of your countrymen from standing equal in the eyes of government and its laws. You would have reduced the country to Red (Sunnis) vs Blue (Shiites). One side vs another where one is winning and the other is not.

For all of Democrats foibles, they are not attempting to install a pseudo-theocracy in this country and theyre also not in the business of alienating everyday people. They just cant balance their checkbooks vs their promises, convince business to ignore their tax policies or make a decision without first checking with their lobbyists futures report on campaign contributions (ahem...Obamacare).

Thats why Republicans win seats in Congress en masse where their message plays in small pockets. But Democrats win office with out-of-nowhere state Senator nobodies. Theyre vanilla enough to appeal to a wider base with the added benefit of not having a partisan electorate that has unrealistic demands about social policies that 50% of the population find completely unimportant.

This sham of an election falls at the feet of Republicans and no one else. Do the country a favor and split the party for God's sake so the brains can move forward and leave the abortionists, theologists and war-mongers at the corner of Fuck-Off and Die-Young where they belong. Your party would be better for it, the White House would be better for it and most importantly, the country would be FAR better for it.

[ChumpDumper]

What does Obama have to prove about his private life?

[Oh, Gee!!]

What does Obama have to prove about his private life?

code for he's a foreign-born muslim

[TeyshaBlue]

What does Obama have to prove about his private life?

That he has one?:p:

[Yonivore]

I usually dont break apart posts and go "point for point" mainly because I think its an exercise in futility and that its really only used to bait and troll, but this paragraph struck me.

Thats a very, very broad generalization that can be applied to any and all candidates of every spectrum since the Reagan days. Think Clinton and Edwards for contemporary examples.
See a pattern? Name a Republican that's enjoyed media kid gloves.


Agreed. But youre obviously treading on the much discussed double standard that does and probably always will exist as it pertains to racism among minorities and racism among the majority.
Fine.

How about Bill Ayers? He's not a minority. What about Rezko? What about the enigmatic father figure in Obama's biography, only identified by his first name because -- well, it turns out he's a communist and Obama describes him as a mentor. What about his education? Time at Columbia? Grades? Never published an article in the Harvard Law Review he managed? There are a buttload of peripheral issues the media never bothered to square. All things over which a Republican would receive an anal exam by the media.


Media has nothing to really do with that. Blame legislatures if anyone at all, theyre the ones crafting hate-crime and hate-speech infractions that clearly favor one over the other. That the American psyche has acknowledged and glommed onto it isnt really the media's fault, they just exploit the phenomena for ratings.

Just the same as Fox exploited the birth certificate for their ratings. Media is money and the more you play to your audience, the more there is to be had.
If it was good for Fox's ratings to "exploit" why not the other networks? After all, Fox enjoys more viewers than just about all the other networks combined. you would think they would like to enjoy similar rating and, if "exploiting," a potential scandal would do that, they would.

Yet, they took a pass.


We know he is married with 2 children and an over-publicized dog who comes from an American mother and a Kenyan father.

No allegations of adultery...
Not entirely true but, again, that only lasted a day or so and disappeared.


...or promiscuity, except for some apparently ridiculous episode of coke and homo action in his college days that never took off because it was probably never true.
There's yet to be any concrete evidence of Cain's sexual misconduct or infidelity but, it persisted until his character was assassinated. Why didn't the media give him the same leeway they did John Edwards?

I still question whether or not Cain is guilty of anything.


A Republican cannot be afforded the same perceived consideration simply because Republicans are, apparently, incapable of nominating anyone credible enough to win a general election. On the believability of being elected scale, I would go like this:

McCain: Good
Palin: Historical blunder that will never be eclipsed, this handed Obama the election

Bush Sr: Average (thank you Dukakis!)
Quayle: Nondescript man-child

Bush Jr: Good/Great (would have beaten any and all comers, really)
Cheney: n/a (brilliant this one)

Dole: Laughably bad
Kemp: Who?

Gingrich: Bad
VP: Trump? Why the hell not with that Republican field of candidates
I think any Democrat could be made to look just as extreme/foolish/stupid/etc... as you have described the Republicans above if the media saw fit to do so.


The Republicans best chance to unseat Obama lies with Romney, but that is a pill the Repub base just cannot swallow or even fathom, for some reason. Hes moderate, well-spoken and a relevant politician unlike Mr. Lobb...I mean, Gingrich. I know its tough for staunch Republicans to get over what the imaginary man in the sky actually said to be written down and all, but this is the best chance, IMO.

I think Republicans and their supporters want a Rush Limbaugh-type in the White House, and in a dictatorship, you might even get your wish. But this isnt a dictatorship, its democracy-lite. Rush may be super-popular amongst like-minded partisans who actually enjoy being preached to and told what to think form the Red team, but that sort of individual doesnt play in a general election.
Actually, I wouldn't want Rush Limbaugh as President.


I dont agree with you that Gingrich would mop the floor with Obama. I think you have that exactly backwards. Obama would do and say small things to get his temper roaring and when the debates finally came, he'd drive the stake home on some issue and it would cause Newt to lose his cool and thus lose the election. Obama would be playing chess while the egotist was playing checkers.

Republicans, IMO, have an internal conflict of their own making. While Repub leadership embraced conservative media because the "liberal media" is too biased against them, they unwittingly gave their message away to the talking heads on a network whose only allegiance is to ratings and advertisers.

FoxNews is the single largest driver of a Republican nominees rise or fall, bar none, put your hand down, period. They prop up whatever flavor du jour says all the right things about abortion, immigration, taxes and social issues of all shapes, and parade that person around as the Next Big Thing.

All the while actual Republicans, like yourself if I do say so, cheer for the man/woman without ever actually seeing them compete with the spotlight directly on them. I think its because you want this person to lead without actually considering if the plebs would let him lead. Its easy to be the supporting actor to your party's version of Tom Hanks (hello, Mr. Gore), the guy will make anyone look good, but the moment you step from that star's shadow and into the light, the movie and script dont work quite as well. This field of nominees are all newbies to the national stage except Newt and Romney, with Romney being less popular amongst his own party than he is amongst the electorate! Think about that...that is how far off the Republican National Committee actually is when it comes to seating a President that isnt named Bush!

In summary, this is why I detest partisanship on the deepest level of hate I can fathom.

It isnt that I dont understand allegiance to ideals (I do) or allegiance to social issues (I do) or even allegiance to people (I do). Its that, in practice, as two movements compete with one another for the ultimate prize, it becomes a race to extremes as a means of easy separation from their competition.

McDonalds fries are far different than Burger Kings fries, that isnt a coincidence. Its a means to differentiate themselves from one another to foster competition.

The only problem with that mentality in competitive politics as opposed to a competitive marketplace is that extremism isolates pockets of the country from one another based on very obscured interpretations of falsely identified "important" issues.

Obama is not a good President, this isnt a secret. But the Other Party is so far removed from anything nearing normal to an average voter, that the party cannot even put a potential candidate on the ballot who could actually win because the conservative electorate has a laundry list of wants and needs in their candidate that do not jibe with non-conservatives on very fundamental levels.

Example: If Republicans had their way, gays would be in the closet forever in life, love and marriage. Abortion would be illegal and punishable by life in prison/death. War would start at the slightest provocation, even if that provocation came from some 3rd world shithole with no means to act on it. Most likely, Christianity would become the USA's official state religion with all the tertiary details that entails.

Even omitting the "war" part above, you would have alienated 50%+ of your countrymen from standing equal in the eyes of government and its laws. You would have reduced the country to Red (Sunnis) vs Blue (Shiites). One side vs another where one is winning and the other is not.

For all of Democrats foibles, they are not attempting to install a pseudo-theocracy in this country and theyre also not in the business of alienating everyday people. They just cant balance their checkbooks vs their promises, convince business to ignore their tax policies or make a decision without first checking with their lobbyists futures report on campaign contributions (ahem...Obamacare).

Thats why Republicans win seats in Congress en masse where their message plays in small pockets. But Democrats win office with out-of-nowhere state Senator nobodies. Theyre vanilla enough to appeal to a wider base with the added benefit of not having a partisan electorate that has unrealistic demands about social policies that 50% of the population find completely unimportant.

This sham of an election falls at the feet of Republicans and no one else. Do the country a favor and split the party for God's sake so the brains can move forward and leave the abortionists, theologists and war-mongers at the corner of Fuck-Off and Die-Young where they belong. Your party would be better for it, the White House would be better for it and most importantly, the country would be FAR better for it.
I would have to break down the post even further to answer all the points, in the preceding paragraphs with which I disagree.

But, to suggest Republicans are further away from the average voter than are Democrats is to ignore reality. This is a conservative country.

By the way, I don't much watch FoxNews and I disagree they are driving the conservative electorate.

[Yonivore]

Oh, and DR, remember Journolist?

The media is in the bag for Obama -- and Democrats.

[ChumpDumper]

If it was good for Fox's ratings to "exploit" why not the other networks? After all, Fox enjoys more viewers than just about all the other networks combined.Wrong.

[DarkReign]

Fine. Youre right. Billionaire media Republicans cannot compete with billionaire media Democrats. Poor Republicans.

So it isnt that Republicans arent mainstream enough to win the White House, its that Republicans, a notoriously white and wealthy political body, cannot compete with other notoriously white and wealthy Democrats for the White House?

..and the reason for this is because conservative media cannot compete with liberal media?

So what youre saying is, Republicans cant compete, in effect? That liberals are better at obscuring the issues through their chosen media, that reaches a wider audience thereby influencing more people?

If we are such a conservative country, why are people watching liberal media sources when there are clearly conservative options to be had?

Moreover, who is the liberal media? ABC, NBC and CNN? Who is conservative? Fox and CBS?

ABC is owned by Disney. NBC is owned by General Electric. CNN is owned by Ted Turner. MSNBC is an affiliate of NBC, also a property of GE. CBS is tricky, apparently. Was bought by Viacom, was split into CBS Corporation which is controlled by Summer Redstone through its parent National Amusements. Wow...real successful company CBS is. As it were, Sumner Redstone is a true-blue Democrat, who supported Bush over Kerry in 2004, but beyond that, he is a Democrat.

Thats just TV media, nevermind print media.

From Disney's corporate website:
http://corporate.disney.go.com/citizenship2010/overview/governance/


A wide array of issues is of interest to the Company. Examples include: protection of intellectual property; broadcast, cable and internet regulation; freedom of expression; free and fair trade; travel and tourism; privacy; and economic development including appropriate taxation.

Sounds pretty conservative to me. They are either faking it with their ABC news broadcast or theyre playing to what the audience wants to hear. Which could mean two things. 1) Disney is a liberal company disguised as a conservative as evidenced by their numerous political contributions or 2) the audience they speak to, Americans, is quite a bit less conservative than you seem to imply.

NBC, owned by General Electric

A GE document citing their 2006 political contributions.
http://www.ge.com/files_citizenship/pdf/ge_political_contrib_2006.pdf

Seems to me GE is rather broad based in the political scope. A company like that can be seeing as they are one of the largest stock-holders in government.

Again, this implies two things: 1) GE is politically neutral but contributes to the liberal media conspiracy while still donating large sums of money to Republicans and 2) it would seem their audience isnt quite as conservative as you imply it should be.

It seems to me the liberal bias is a myth perpetuated by those who cannot fathom someone else having the audacity to disagree with them on political talking points.

Republicans are not mistreated, nor do they endure any more degree of scrutiny than a Democrat based solely on party affiliation.

A person will be mistreated and they will endure a higher degree of scrutiny when they are the easiest target out of two.

Physics, man. Path of least resistance. You have two equally sized whales you can hunt, one going west, one going east, only one boat. The whale going east cant hold its breath as long, thereby surfaces more and swims slower than the other. You choose to go west?

I dont think so.

[Yonivore]

Fine. Youre right.
I'll take it.

[ChumpDumper]

Fine. Youre right. Billionaire media Republicans cannot compete with billionaire media Democrats. Poor Republicans.

So it isnt that Republicans arent mainstream enough to win the White House, its that Republicans, a notoriously white and wealthy political body, cannot compete with other notoriously white and wealthy Democrats for the White House?

..and the reason for this is because conservative media cannot compete with liberal media?

So what youre saying is, Republicans cant compete, in effect? That liberals are better at obscuring the issues through their chosen media, that reaches a wider audience thereby influencing more people?

If we are such a conservative country, why are people watching liberal media sources when there are clearly conservative options to be had?

Moreover, who is the liberal media? ABC, NBC and CNN? Who is conservative? Fox and CBS?

ABC is owned by Disney. NBC is owned by General Electric. CNN is owned by Ted Turner. MSNBC is an affiliate of NBC, also a property of GE. CBS is tricky, apparently. Was bought by Viacom, was split into CBS Corporation which is controlled by Summer Redstone through its parent National Amusements. Wow...real successful company CBS is. As it were, Sumner Redstone is a true-blue Democrat, who supported Bush over Kerry in 2004, but beyond that, he is a Democrat.

Thats just TV media, nevermind print media.

From Disney's corporate website:
http://corporate.disney.go.com/citizenship2010/overview/governance/



Sounds pretty conservative to me. They are either faking it with their ABC news broadcast or theyre playing to what the audience wants to hear. Which could mean two things. 1) Disney is a liberal company disguised as a conservative as evidenced by their numerous political contributions or 2) the audience they speak to, Americans, is quite a bit less conservative than you seem to imply.

NBC, owned by General Electric

A GE document citing their 2006 political contributions.
http://www.ge.com/files_citizenship/pdf/ge_political_contrib_2006.pdf

Seems to me GE is rather broad based in the political scope. A company like that can be seeing as they are one of the largest stock-holders in government.

Again, this implies two things: 1) GE is politically neutral but contributes to the liberal media conspiracy while still donating large sums of money to Republicans and 2) it would seem their audience isnt quite as conservative as you imply it should be.

It seems to me the liberal bias is a myth perpetuated by those who cannot fathom someone else having the audacity to disagree with them on political talking points.

Republicans are not mistreated, nor do they endure any more degree of scrutiny than a Democrat based solely on party affiliation.

A person will be mistreated and they will endure a higher degree of scrutiny when they are the easiest target out of two.

Physics, man. Path of least resistance. You have two equally sized whales you can hunt, one going west, one going east, only one boat. The whale going east cant hold its breath as long, thereby surfaces more and swims slower than the other. You choose to go west?

I dont think so.Good post.

Small correction: CNN is part of the Time-Warner conglomerate now.

I see yoni chose to declare victory and run away.

[Winehole23]

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/07/3358812/billionaire-gives-5-million-to.html