Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 25, 2014, 03:00:22 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83029 Posts in 2258 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2012 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 42 Print
Author Topic: 2012 Presidential  (Read 135868 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1050 on: November 28, 2011, 09:59:37 PM »

I don't know when these problems accumulate to the point of counting without evidence.  If true I agree with one opinion I heard expressed today.  The double standard the media applies to Republicans and especially conservative Republicans is a fact.  Rather than scream out unfair, we should embrace the higher standard as part of our brand.  We hold our candidates to a higher standard.  It is what we do, not just because they do.

Elephant in the room is that front runner Gingrich has the same problem as the new Cain accusation.

I don't like where the accuser reflexively gets examined, however if you want to get at veracity that comes next. ABC News is on it: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/herman-cain-denies-affair-allegation/story?id=15042918#.TtROZHJK0QY
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1051 on: November 28, 2011, 10:52:27 PM »

I'm not quite sure "unfair" is appropriate; given only recently Congressman Anthony Weiner (Democrat) was driven from office for cybersex.  His wife didn't seem to mind, and he just
used the internet and texted, yet he is gone...  A lot less than...

But moving on to that "elephant in the room".  You are right, Gingrich does have the same problem (repeatedly) as the new Cain accusation.  And for Gingrich it's a fact; not an accusation.
He's a serial adulterer. 

Following the logic of "we hold our candidates to a higher standard" and "embrace the higher standard as part of our brand" I presume in your opinion Gingrich is simply
not qualified since obviously he doesn't meet a "higher standard" or even a "lower standard".  I mean does he even have a standard?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1052 on: November 29, 2011, 12:21:02 AM »

You can judge Newt.  I was writing about the voters' dilemma.  Weiner is disgusting.  In general, Republicans purge their most disgusting as they are discovered.  Democrats often don't.  Weiner almost wouldn't leave.  Marion Barry, the guy with the 100k in the freezer, Ted Kennedy, Dodd, Frank...  Just my observation. Did one of those guys really drown the girl, not call for help, then win reelection with 62% of the vote the next year and go on to serve 8 more 6-year terms and to become the 3rd longest serving senator in U.S History?

Mary Jo Kopechne, dead at 28
As for adulterers in the White House: Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton - more than half of recent Dems.  Judge whomever you want.  I already predicted Newt isn't the nominee.  Same guy on the other side - no problem.

Obama and Huntsman are one allegation away from being the subject here.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1053 on: November 29, 2011, 06:48:42 AM »

Obozo seems not to have any bimbo eruptions. Just Gunwalker and Chicago green-graft corruption. No biggie, right, JDN?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1054 on: November 29, 2011, 08:32:20 AM »

Obama and Huntsman are one allegation away from being the subject here.

I wish Huntsman would be the "subject" of "anything", but unfortunately Huntsman is a nonentity in this race. 
Yet he's qualified and clean; I kind of like that.  I would have voted for him.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #1055 on: November 29, 2011, 09:11:16 AM »

Since we are talking presidential in this thread, it should be noted that:

A.  The JFK and LBJ daliances occured in a day when the media, generally, were much more "hands off" than they are now.
B.  Ted Kennedy was denied the presidency, or at least a presidential nomination, by Democratic voters.  And, most historians, pollsters, political science types think that was based in large part on his personal history.
C.  Gary Hart was caught read handed, and withdrew from the presidential race.

You can judge Newt.  I was writing about the voters' dilemma.  Weiner is disgusting.  In general, Republicans purge their most disgusting as they are discovered.  Democrats often don't.  Weiner almost wouldn't leave.  Marion Barry, the guy with the 100k in the freezer, Ted Kennedy, Dodd, Frank...  Just my observation. Did one of those guys really drown the girl, not call for help, then win reelection with 62% of the vote the next year and go on to serve 8 more 6-year terms and to become the 3rd longest serving senator in U.S History?

Mary Jo Kopechne, dead at 28
As for adulterers in the White House: Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton - more than half of recent Dems.  Judge whomever you want.  I already predicted Newt isn't the nominee.  Same guy on the other side - no problem.

Obama and Huntsman are one allegation away from being the subject here.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1056 on: November 29, 2011, 09:16:17 AM »

A.  The JFK and LBJ daliances occured in a day when the media, generally, were much more "hands off" than they are now.

Bwahahahahaha!

Hands off? Like they tried to bury the Lewisnsky scandal until Drudge forced their hand? Like how they covered up "Silky Pony's" love child story until the Nat'l Enquirer broke the story?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #1057 on: November 29, 2011, 09:27:10 AM »

No.  Like there wasn't a 24 hour news cycle.  Like when people didn't check news, etc. from their phones, but waited until the morning paper.  Like when there were three networks, and you waited until the 6:00 news to get the day's news.  Before blogs. There weren't constant feeds from FaceBook, Twitter (Weiner's demise) and other social media.  Like JFK could ask the nation's leading newspaper not to run a story on the building Cuban Missile Crisis and it didn't (see Day 5: http://homepage.mac.com/oldtownman/filmnotes/thirteendays4.html).  Before presidential campaigns were three years in the making.  Before the media followed starlets around incessently.  There were allegations that JFK slept with Marilyn Monroe.  Can you imagine Kim Kardashian or whoever is the biggest, hottest name in Hollywood these days, going to the WH in secret??? 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1058 on: November 29, 2011, 09:27:51 AM »

John Edwards and Rielle Hunter; the affair US media won’t touch
 






LAST UPDATED AT 13:26 ON Tue 29 Jul 2008
 



American journalists are at sixes and sevens about how to cover the revelations about the two-times presidential candidate – and, until recently at least, a frontrunner for the position of Barack Obama’s running-mate - John Edwards. As reported yesterday on The First Post, the American scandal sheet the National Enquirer ran an apparently well-sourced story last week about catching Edwards (above left) staying in the same Los Angeles hotel as his alleged mistress, Rielle Hunter (above right), with whom he is also rumoured to have had a lovechild.

With the exception of Fox News, who have independently verified many of the Enquirer’s claims (that Edwards was in the Beverly Hilton room and that when the reporters jumped him as he was leaving he took refuge in a men's lavatory), none of the major news organisations has touched the story. What is more surprising is that even the political blogosphere, which would normally be all over such a tale, has shied away.
 
This has astonished journalist and satirical film-maker Lee Stranahan, who today has posted a blog on the Huffington Post, attempting to explain why there is still an apparent embargo in the US media. He asks first why Edwards hasn't denied the reports. "Let's go with the assumption that Edwards is innocent for a moment; he didn't have the affair so the baby isn't his. If he didn't do anything wrong then it seems like he'd have good reasons to stop the rumors. A DNA test months ago would have ended all speculation about the paternity of the baby. And if there are rumours and you're innocent, WHY go visit the subject of those rumours at a hotel and leave at 2:45 in the morning? Why hide in the bathroom when reporters catch you leaving?"
 
Stranahan believes there will soon be "a tsunami-sized scandal for the Democratic Party" and a "typhoon of press coverage is close to breaking", but he is most surprised by the absence of comment on the matter by "the progressive blogosphere", citing TalkingPointMemo.com, DailyKos and FireDogLake. He goes on: "Despite what some people are going to say, this is news. A former Senator and Vice Presidential candidate who was running for President less than six months ago and is now on the shortlist for Vice President has a long affair during the campaign and fathers a child, covers it up, and then is caught at a hotel with the mother of the child. News! Oh - and his wife made regular appearances on the campaign trail and has been diagnosed with cancer."
 
Stranahan finishes by suggesting that if the story had been about Mitt Romney, the former Republican presidential candidate who is being talked up as John McCain's potential running-mate, we would be hearing "peals of laughter" from the Democrats. "Would it have made the progressive blogs? C'mon, of course it would."
 
Will Stranahan's call to "progressive" bloggers be heeded? Watch this space. ·
.

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/people/38901/john-edwards-and-rielle-hunter-affair-us-media-won%E2%80%99t-touch
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1059 on: November 29, 2011, 09:32:32 AM »

Speaking of dalliances, how about our revered Jefferson, or Harding, or Eisenhower?

It seems Democrats can do it AND Republicans can do it.

And many Democrats AND Republicans have had their political career ruined for their dalliances.  
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1060 on: November 29, 2011, 09:34:41 AM »

But if you have a protective -D next to your name, the media will spike the story, if they can.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1061 on: November 29, 2011, 09:36:41 AM »

Former Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker said Sunday he chose not to run the story that former President Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky because he and his staff didn't feel they were on firm enough ground.
 
"If we had gotten that wrong," Whitaker told CNN's Howard Kurtz on Reliable Sources, it "could  have been a mortal blow to Newsweek's reputation" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
 


HOWARD KURTZ: More now of my conversation with CNN executive, Mark Whitaker.
 
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
 
(on camera) I want to come back to your career. One of the most famous or infamous decisions you made - you were filling in as editor at the time - was in the Monica Lewinsky story. Mike Isikoff basically had the goods or at least it looked that way later. The thing I never understood about the decision to hold the story, then of course Drudge got hold of it and the "Washington Post" broke it, is that you had confirmed that Ken Starr, independent prosecutor, was investigating this.
 
MARK WHITAKER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT CNN, FORMER EDITOR OF NEWSWEEK: Right. Right.
 
KURTZ: Why wasn't that enough to go on? Well, I'm sure you've asked yourself this a hundred times.
 
WHITAKER: Right, right, right, right. Well, a couple things is that Mike really knew a lot. It wasn't like Woodward and Bernstein writing a little piece where they only knew about Starr. He knew a lot about it, but he had never met Lewinsky herself. All of his sources were sort of around her. So we didn't know, you know, just how credible she was. And by the time, once when Starr had her, you know, basically under protective custody to sort of, you know, question her, we couldn't get to her.
 
The other thing which we didn't talk about at the time but I talk about in the book is that I had stepped in for Maynard Parker, who was undergoing treatment for cancer at the time. Maynard had been aware for almost a year that Mike was working on this story, but he had never told me, and he hadn't told Rick Smith, who was the publisher. He hadn't told Don Graham. So -
 
(CROSS TALK)
 
KURTZ: You were parachuting into this...
 
WHITAKER: So we only found out about any of this two days before we had to make a decision whether to publish or not. So there was a lot of, during those two days, a lot of discussions and examination going back to the sources, trying to get extra information from them. But frankly, we didn't feel by, from Thursday to that Saturday that we were on firm enough ground to report a story that wouldn't just be a story about Ken Starr, that ultimately would be about accusing the president of having sex in the Oval Office with an intern, which was, if we had gotten that wrong could have been, you know, could have been a mortal blow to "Newsweek's" reputation.
 
(CROSS TALK)
 
KURTZ: The potential down side must have loomed very large.
 
In the end, Whitaker's decision was Matt Drudge's gain.
 


In the wake of the past week's media firestorm concerning the alleged sexual harassment by Herman Cain, Whitaker's decision seems even more curious.
 
After all, his investigative reporter had been working on the story for almost a year.
 
How long were Politico's people working on their hit piece that ran without the name of one of the accusers or any specifics about the alleged offenses?
 
Also of note was how this interview with Whitaker was pre-taped meaning that Kurtz knew he had discussed the Clinton-Lewinsky affair with him.
 
Yet in the previous more lengthy segments concerning the Cain allegations which totaled 22 minutes, Kurtz never once brought up how the press covered the various Clinton sex scandals by comparison.
 
Some fine media analysis, wouldn't you say?



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/06/former-newsweek-editor-why-he-didnt-run-lewinsky-story-we-didnt-feel
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #1062 on: November 29, 2011, 10:04:42 AM »

First of all, at the time this story came forward, Edwards was no longer for president.  Given that the thread is related to presidential politics, this perhaps is a media thread discussion.

Second, the fact that the National Enquirer broke the story is supportive of my overall point, which was the shift in media coverage since the 1960's.

Third, in about week's time from the story posted below, Edwards had admitted the affair.  On ABC news.  So maybe the MSM media didn't ignore the claim as much as you claim.

Fourth, I'll bite and say you are right, and that the media did ignore the claims.  Many on this forum have decried the MSM media's treatment of Cain in the wake of unsubstantiated claims of sexual harrassment and infidelity.  Would you rather that the media leave Cain alone, or are you just pissed that they left Edwards and Clinton alone?

John Edwards and Rielle Hunter; the affair US media won’t touch
 






LAST UPDATED AT 13:26 ON Tue 29 Jul 2008
 



American journalists are at sixes and sevens about how to cover the revelations about the two-times presidential candidate – and, until recently at least, a frontrunner for the position of Barack Obama’s running-mate - John Edwards. As reported yesterday on The First Post, the American scandal sheet the National Enquirer ran an apparently well-sourced story last week about catching Edwards (above left) staying in the same Los Angeles hotel as his alleged mistress, Rielle Hunter (above right), with whom he is also rumoured to have had a lovechild.

With the exception of Fox News, who have independently verified many of the Enquirer’s claims (that Edwards was in the Beverly Hilton room and that when the reporters jumped him as he was leaving he took refuge in a men's lavatory), none of the major news organisations has touched the story. What is more surprising is that even the political blogosphere, which would normally be all over such a tale, has shied away.
 
This has astonished journalist and satirical film-maker Lee Stranahan, who today has posted a blog on the Huffington Post, attempting to explain why there is still an apparent embargo in the US media. He asks first why Edwards hasn't denied the reports. "Let's go with the assumption that Edwards is innocent for a moment; he didn't have the affair so the baby isn't his. If he didn't do anything wrong then it seems like he'd have good reasons to stop the rumors. A DNA test months ago would have ended all speculation about the paternity of the baby. And if there are rumours and you're innocent, WHY go visit the subject of those rumours at a hotel and leave at 2:45 in the morning? Why hide in the bathroom when reporters catch you leaving?"
 
Stranahan believes there will soon be "a tsunami-sized scandal for the Democratic Party" and a "typhoon of press coverage is close to breaking", but he is most surprised by the absence of comment on the matter by "the progressive blogosphere", citing TalkingPointMemo.com, DailyKos and FireDogLake. He goes on: "Despite what some people are going to say, this is news. A former Senator and Vice Presidential candidate who was running for President less than six months ago and is now on the shortlist for Vice President has a long affair during the campaign and fathers a child, covers it up, and then is caught at a hotel with the mother of the child. News! Oh - and his wife made regular appearances on the campaign trail and has been diagnosed with cancer."
 
Stranahan finishes by suggesting that if the story had been about Mitt Romney, the former Republican presidential candidate who is being talked up as John McCain's potential running-mate, we would be hearing "peals of laughter" from the Democrats. "Would it have made the progressive blogs? C'mon, of course it would."
 
Will Stranahan's call to "progressive" bloggers be heeded? Watch this space. ·
.

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/people/38901/john-edwards-and-rielle-hunter-affair-us-media-won%E2%80%99t-touch
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1063 on: November 29, 2011, 10:11:22 AM »

First of all, at the time this story came forward, Edwards was no longer for president.  Given that the thread is related to presidential politics, this perhaps is a media thread discussion.

**Just pointing out the MSM's obvious agenda and double standard.

Second, the fact that the National Enquirer broke the story is supportive of my overall point, which was the shift in media coverage since the 1960's.

**The fact that the Edwards issue was known, but only the Enquirer ran it says something when the Enquirer leads the MSM on journalistic ethics.

Third, in about week's time from the story posted below, Edwards had admitted the affair.  On ABC news.  So maybe the MSM media didn't ignore the claim as much as you claim.

**Much like Drudge forced the MSM hand on Lewisnky, the Enquirer forced the MSM to cover the Edwards story. If they had not, the MSM would have buried those stories, just like they have tried to avoid covering "Gunwalker".

Fourth, I'll bite and say you are right, and that the media did ignore the claims.  Many on this forum have decried the MSM media's treatment of Cain in the wake of unsubstantiated claims of sexual harrassment and infidelity.  Would you rather that the media leave Cain alone, or are you just pissed that they left Edwards and Clinton alone?

**I'd rather the MSM use one standard for everyone, rather than acting as an arm of the DNC.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #1064 on: November 29, 2011, 10:39:36 AM »

Your response was helpful, GM.  Thank you. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1065 on: November 29, 2011, 10:47:41 AM »

Now, the bit I saw last night on the newest Cain accuser actually had some appearant substance, with cell phone bills that would seeming corroborate the claims made. Which is a big improvement over the previous claims.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1066 on: November 29, 2011, 11:48:31 AM »

Good memory about Gary Hart, that episode ran counter to my rule.   In his case it was current rather than dragged from the past and it may have been stupidity over infidelity. He also had a more solid and qualified competitor ready to be nominee if he showed any sign of stumble so there wasn't much question about dumping him. The Gennifer Flowers revelation might have derailed anyone but Clinton.  Maybe it would have brought him down if it came out earlier but that field at that time didn't have much else.  The real point might be deeper - powerful men (like Tiger Woods) aren't very faithful - another rule with exceptions...
Media coverage of the allegations against Cain makes sense because it is newsworthy - we are trying to vet these guys and we don't want to be blindsided later.  In the case of Politico, the obsession is bizarre  considering how little they had.  That was a business decision.  They wanted to keep their ownership of the story above any fair and balanced consideration.

GM is right IMO on John Edwards, the 'real' press wouldn't touch it until after he was out.  (already discussed while I was writing)

Ted Kennedy was a pretty serious challenger for the Presidency in 1980 even with all his baggage.  He almost upended a sitting President in his own party.  I agree with the BD assessment that Americans wouldn't let him be President for his personal past, but Democrats almost chose him.  His crime was far more serious (2 month suspended sentence embarassed).  From the left, his problem had to do with his electability with the center.  To Democrats, he was a hero. They kept him to represent their own state and they accepted him as a national figure; they just didn't trust the rest of us to vote this despicable man up or down. (As a hit and run victim, I can call him despicable, contemptible, vile.) Which Senate term was he in when the waitress sandwich allegation landed or when the drunken skirt chasing while married evening ended with his companion nephew charged with rape.  Neither of those resulted in the Mass. media or Dem electorate insisting he step down.  A sad reflection on all who admired him IMHO.

With JFK and LBJ, yes times were different in that voters didn't really know of the affairs.  My point is that knowledge later does not stain their honor with those who honor their service, but an allegation against a conservative... that is over the line!

It is the politicians who bring their pretty wives and charming children to the podiums at the rallies and into the photos in the brochures to show us what a man they are because of their dedication to marriage and family.  Certainly Bill Clinton did that, and JFK.  There was hardly a Newt sentence from the 1990s that didn't start with Marianne and I. His dedication to her is part of who he is. Or not.  Now without explanation it is Callista and I. At least Cain mostly kept his wife out of it.

Reagan was the first divorced President with 2 kids from each marriage, a potential character flaw.  One side focused on his right wing extremism and the other side liked where he was headed, so nothing came of that.

Cain is out for other reasons I think, but this seals it.  Newt is Newt - a unique case.   We will see, but I predicted Romney.  Nobody is perfect but Republicans in general don't like running against the character question.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1067 on: November 29, 2011, 12:14:02 PM »

JDN: I would have voted for him. [Huntsman]

Someday maybe you can explain your support for concepts further to the left economically with your support for Huntsman that continued after his rather bold and conservative economic plan came out.  Centrists puzzle me more than leftists. 

Regarding Huntsman, I never heard him tout what I thought was his biggest accomplishment in Utah, advancement of relatively cleaner and more locally sourced natural gas use in transportation.  Gas station sign in Utah 2008:
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1068 on: November 29, 2011, 12:25:09 PM »

As Crafty said, Newt could shadow and taunt the President into extended debates with him.  Here is the taunt:

I will challenge him to 7 Lincoln Douglas style debates, no moderator, 2 adults, talking about the nation...

"If he wants to use a teleprompter that will be fine with us."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/27/newt_to_obama_lets_debate_you_can_use_a_teleprompter.html
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1069 on: November 29, 2011, 11:16:18 PM »

JDN: I would have voted for him. [Huntsman]

Someday maybe you can explain your support for concepts further to the left economically with your support for Huntsman that continued after his rather bold and conservative economic plan came out.  Centrists puzzle me more than leftists. 

It's a good question.  I think I'm not alone among the American public in this dilemma. 

I like the middle.  Too far to the right, too far to the left, they are both bad IMHO.

But to answer your question, I think Huntsman, among all those running is most qualified. 

Much much more important, somehow, among those running I trust him the most.  Trust to do the right thing is important.
While I don't agree with him on all issues, I TRUST him. He's fiscally conservative, he proved that in Utah, he was a superb governor, but also, he has a heart and good morals.
Yet he has his own opinion.  He doesn't genuflect to the Tea Party.  He's Mormon; so what?  While I'm Lutheran, I happen to like and respect Mormons. 

Further, no offense, he knows more than Panda Express; frankly he is the most qualified out there on foreign policy especially
in Asia - my real concern.  The middle east is a nuisance in the big picture, but Asia is our future.  The next election is about the economy, not the middle east.
Who cares about the middle east except their oil?

I trust him, he's experienced, he has common sense, he's bright, and he has morals; no offense that's more than I can say for the other candidates Republican or Democrat.

He doesn't have a chance, but you asked...
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1070 on: November 30, 2011, 04:51:10 AM »

I noticed the exchange between Romney and him on China in the foreign policy debate (a debate which I thought to be quite good btw).  Romney staked out a rather hard line on China. After speaking plainly and clearly in favor of trade and the lack of desirability of a trade war, he challenged the way it has gotten away with beggar-thy-neighbor exchange rates, intellectual property theft, and IP theft and industrial espionage via hacking.

These points seem to me quite sound.

Huntsman's response spoke of the danger's of trade war.  He seemed to me the essence of a good man who had been "captured" by the country in which he was posted.  It is a common dynamic no doubt, but nonetheless he seemed weak to me on this issue-- an issue in whose competence he has claimed particular competence due to his ambassadorship there and his speaking of the language.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1071 on: November 30, 2011, 09:22:53 AM »

Paraphrasing good humor from James Tarranto WSJ 'Obama's path to 270', keep in mind Obama is trying to get to 270 starting with 2008 count of 365.  I hope he makes it to 270 and further, at least to 268!
-------
I agree with Crafty on Romney and China.  I'm not fully on board with the exchange rate argument but intellectual property theft isn't funny anymore and there are other areas of contention.  We can voice and push our concerns and win some ground without starting a trade war by doing that, not by only buddying up and accepting the status quo.
-------
Regarding Huntsman, being a fiscal conservative with the Utah budget is different than being a fiscal conservative in Washington today.  We are 40% out of balance!  None of them, not even Bachmann, will cut spending now by 40% or anything close to that, so they are all pragmatists and none of them conservative.  Oops did I forget about Ron Paul...

But my question to JDN was really about Huntsman's economic plan versus Obama's, not Huntsman compared to other Republicans. Huntsman is to the right of me in his economic plan, he would ELIMINATE the federal tax on capital gains, and I would not.  His top marginal tax rate cut makes the 1980 candidate Reagan look timid.  Reagan proposed to cut all rates across the board by 30%.  Huntsman's top rate cut on the wealthy is 42% from where the are scheduled to go right now in current law. 

I understand that you like and trust Huntsman for these other areas, that he is sounding centrist themes, and that none of us get all we want in a candidate, but my question is narrower.  With Huntsman coming in to the right of me, isn't the Obama's economic plan closer to the economic views you have argued for on the board than Huntsman's?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1072 on: November 30, 2011, 10:26:46 AM »

There is an irony that if Cain drops for adultery reasons Gingrich will benefit.

More irony, it could be Romney soon challenging Gingrich to a series of two-way Lincoln Douglas style debates.
-------
On paper Perry is still the most conservative challenger with perhaps the best resume.  On the radio yesterday he sounded sharp.  Then in person in NH he made more gaffes.  None worse than Obama, but more gaffes right when he needs to be at the top of his game.  The gaffes like Bachmann are on peripheral points.  If the Republic is near collapse, why are you BSing about anything other than your top 3 or top 5 points?

Other favorites of mine did not hold up to the bright lights of pressure.  Besides Fred Thompson, I remember watching Jack Kemp freeze up in a VP debate on questions he would normally hit out of the park.

I don't care about their ability to debate but I do care about electability and ability to govern.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1073 on: November 30, 2011, 05:40:41 PM »



ROOM AT THE TOP IN GOP FIELD

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on November 29, 2011
 
The conventional wisdom is that the GOP nomination race has boiled down to Mitt
Romney versus Newt Gingrich. Not so fast! A contest limited to these two men would
leave two key Republican constituencies unsatisfied. And unsatisfied voters tend to
stray. Particularly in Iowa.

While Romney is the strong favorite among the financial and political base of the
Republican Party and Gingrich is the strong favorite among national security types,
neither plays very well with evangelicals or Tea Party activists. Until these two
vital elements of the Republican coalition have been satisfied, the fat lady has not
sung and we cannot assume a two-way race.

Evangelicals don't like Romney because he is Mormon. Unfair, unjust, bigoted -- but
true. Tea Party types don't like him because of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, a more
legitimate beef. Both groups would probably prefer Gingrich to Romney, but neither
is enamored with Newt. Evangelicals choke on his personal baggage and remember that,
as Speaker, he tended to put fiscal and economic issues first. Southern Baptists --
who make up half the evangelical vote -- are not thrilled with a converted Roman
Catholic from the South. Tea Party people see Newt as part of the Republican
establishment. He's not as bad as current Speaker John Boehner, in their view, but
he's not simpatico with the Tea Party, either.

In a two-way race, the Tea Party and evangelicals probably would go with Gingrich to
stop Romney, but it's too early to have to settle for a candidate they don't really
like. So there is clearly an opening for another candidate to make it a three-way
race -- at least in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Who will it be? Herman Cain is the obvious alternative. But he might have blundered
badly by way of his inexplicable decision to "reassess" his candidacy. He stayed in
the race and all that, but he seemed to waver. In doing so, he lent some credence to
the new allegations of an affair just when it was being discredited by a review of
the accusing woman's checkered history. If Cain can regain his footing and do well
in the debates by returning to his 9-9-9 theme and focusing on the fundamental
reform it represents, he could be the third candidate.

If Cain falters, can Rick Perry step up? Probably not. He has performed so poorly as
a candidate that his incompetence has become its own negative. That, on top of his
positions on the vaccination issue and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants,
would seem enough to bar a comeback.

That could leave Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. Bachmann has never really
stumbled. She looked bad saying that HPV vaccines can cause mental retardation, but
she has been strong and effective in all the debates. She is obviously very
knowledgeable on national security issues and highly articulate on the deficit and
ObamaCare. Particularly if Cain can't recover, look for Bachmann to move into the
void. After all, she's not far behind in Iowa. The Insider Advantage Poll has her at
10 percent, tied with Cain and behind Romney (12 percent), Paul (13 percent) and
Gingrich (28 percent). We Ask America has her tied with Romney for second place, at
13 percent, behind Gingrich at 29 percent. It is easy to see Bachmann finishing a
strong second in Iowa and getting back into the race.

Santorum has all the right positions, but doesn't really turn voters on. He seems
self-righteous, complaining and somewhat self-indulgent. His subtext is always, "You
are not giving me my due. I was for these issues before any of you guys, and nobody
realizes it." He seems to see himself as the victim in the Republican debates,
complaining about the placement of his lectern, his scarcity of airtime and the
general injustice of it all. Not an attractive picture.

So look for Cain or Bachmann to move up, depending on how the former does in the
next few days. Nature and politics both abhor a vacuum, and that's what we have on
the right of the Republican primary field these days.


 
 
 
 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1074 on: November 30, 2011, 05:44:10 PM »

Morris overstates the Momon issue. I expect the base to push hard for whomever is the nominee, given that no one paying attention wants to live through the horrors of a second term of Buraq's.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1075 on: December 01, 2011, 12:31:26 PM »

RCP has Newt as GOP frontrunner nationwide and leading in Iowa, SC and Florida.

Rasmussen has Newt over Obama 45% - 43%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups
--------------
Meanwhile... Ron Paul releases Newt hypocrisy video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl9PHy6MMTk
--------------
NY Times, My Man Newt, By MAUREEN DOWD  Tongue in cheek praise for Newt from the left
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/opinion/my-man-newt.html?_r=2&emc=eta1
--------------
And this at National Review:
Newt Gingrich Said What? by Jim Geraghty
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/284472/newt-gingrich-said-iwhati

A few of Newt Gingrich’s… Not-So-Greatest Hits:

August 30, 2004: “Now he’s back, preaching the gospel of party moderation. At an Aug. 30 forum held by the centrist Republican Main Street Partnership, Gingrich heralded the GOP’s new, bigger big tent. “Everywhere I’ve been, I’ve argued in favor of electing the moderates,” Gingrich said… He even chastised the fiscally conservative Club for Growth — a group that finances primary challengers to Republican incumbents they deem too liberal — for not getting with the program. “Their strategy is explicitly wrong,” Gingrich said. “The key is to elect more Republicans and have a bigger majority and be more inclusive.”

In June 2005, the New York Times raved about a “balanced and thoughtful” report from a bipartisan task force headed by Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and George Mitchell, the former Senate majority leader, declaring, “Lawmakers should take the time to at least thumb through this report, especially those who have been demanding Secretary General Kofi Annan’s resignation, supporting the ill-conceived nomination of John Bolton as the United States ambassador to the United Nations and backing the latest benighted attempt to withhold America’s legally obligated dues.”

In October 2005, Gingrich called for “universal but confidential” DNA testing.

In April 2006, Gingrich appeared to suggest that too many U.S. troops were in Iraq. At the time, there were 23,000 127,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq. (The previous figure referred to Afghanistan). With the surge, the number of troops in Iraq reached 162,000.

    During speaking engagements Monday at the University of South Dakota, Mr. Gingrich faulted the White House for installing an American-run government in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was driven from power.

    “It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003,” Mr. Gingrich told students and faculty, according to the Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, S.D. “We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it.”

In November 2006, Gingrich suggested “adopting rules of engagement” that would “break up” terrorists’ “capacity to use free speech.”

    “My prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us,” Gingrich said in the transcript.

    “This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement,” he said.

In April 2007, he raved about the leadership skills of New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg:

    “Mayor Bloomberg’s potential presidential bid is getting a boost from a former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and a former Democratic congressman of Tennessee, Harold Ford, who during a visit to New York praised the mayor for his leadership and ability to make government run effectively.

    During a lunch at the Four Seasons Hotel with some of the city’s biggest political donors yesterday, Mr. Gingrich said he takes his hat off to the mayor for proving government can be effective. He also credited Chancellor Joel Klein for his work in the city’s schools.

    “The effectiveness they ‘ve shown in actually getting the city to work is an integral story of what could happen in Albany or could happen in Washington if you had leadership that understood the power of metrics and understood the power of forcing really big decisions,” Mr. Gingrich said.

Also that month, he took a surprising tone at a “debate” with Sen. John Kerry on the topic of climate change.

    Before Kerry got a word in, Gingrich conceded that global warming is real, that humans have contributed to it and that “we should address it very actively.” Gingrich held up Kerry’s new book, “This Moment on Earth,” and called it “a very interesting read.” He then added a personal note about saving vulnerable species from climate change. “My name, Newt, actually comes from the Danish Knut, and there’s been a major crisis in Germany over a polar bear named Knut,” he confided.

    The warm and fuzzy Gingrich surprised Kerry, who jettisoned prepared remarks that accused the former speaker of “marching in lock step with the climate-change deniers.” Instead, Kerry found himself saying: “I’ve always enjoyed every dialogue he and I have ever had.” He added that “your statement is very, very important” and gushed: “I frankly appreciate the candor.”

    The debate ended. They shook hands. Kerry put an arm around Gingrich. Gingrich put an arm around Kerry. For a brief but terrifying moment, they appeared to be on the verge of a hug.

In 2007, he accused the Bush administration of fighting a “phony war” on terrorism, and declared “a more effective approach would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil.”

In 2008, he hailed John McCain’s efforts in the crafting of the TARP legislation:

    Gingrich put out a statement hailing McCain’s eleventh-hour intervention. “This is the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate and rivals President Eisenhower saying, ‘I will go to Korea’.” Eisenhower’s pledge was enough to reassure voters that if elected he would find a way to resolve the Korean conflict. McCain’s high-octane involvement in the bailout is meant to convey the same sense of stature and leadership, and to provide cover to reluctant Republicans to support a deal that runs counter to everything they thought they stood for.

In December 2008, he criticized the RNC for its ad attacking Obama’s connections to Rod Blagojevich, calling it “a destructive distraction.”

In January 2009, he declared that newly-elected RNC Chairman Michael Steele would be “a force for real change in America.”

In February 2009, he assessed three potential Republican nominees:

    Alaska’s Governor Palin, John McCain’s running mate in 2008, could be “very formidable” as a presidential candidate in 2012, Gingrich said. But he stipulated that would be the case only if she “seeks out a group of sophisticated policy advisers” and “spends time developing a series of fairly sophisticated positions.” He noted that “Palin starts in Iowa with a substantial advantage. I think she has a very big base among the fundamentalist wing of the party.” He also mentioned two other potential Republican presidential candidates. “If the economy is still a mess a year from now, then [former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt] Romney’s economic credentials start to come back in an important way,” Gingrich said. He cautioned that “Romney has got to figure out how to close the sale.”

    And if Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison becomes governor of Texas, the second largest state, “she is an instantly formidable candidate,” Gingrich said.

The former Speaker has also found time to review 156 books on Amazon.com, including a rave review of Sen. Chuck Schumer’s “Positively American.”
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #1076 on: December 01, 2011, 01:37:54 PM »

I am on the sidelines at this point between Mitt and Newt. 

I think people overestimate Newt's baggage.

The past is the past and much of the American public will not care about the baggage if Newt continues to sould like the best one with the best ideas for the job.

I am not happy with the illegal position but I understand it.  The cat is way out of the box with regards to that.  If we need to be reasonable with the illegals who are here with their clans in order to capture some of the Latino vote in order to stem the "progressive movement cancer from the liberals than so be it.  OTOH at least Newt points out that those who came here illegally must never be given citizenship.   

Let the left overestimate what short memories the public has or the concern they will have for Newt's past "indescretions" if they find his ideas too compelling to resist.

Look at Clinton.   No matter who sleazy no matter how dishonest no matter what lies and disgusting BS he or Hillary would come out with it made no difference.  The economy was good (of course due to the tech bubble) and he is now remembered as a great her.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1077 on: December 01, 2011, 05:27:32 PM »

"I am on the sidelines at this point between Mitt and Newt."  - Me too. I will vote for someone on Super Tuesday but it is likely over by then.  They both involve political risk at least from a conservative point of view, and the potential for greatness.  Momentum will be a huge factor in the primaries.  The one who shows he can bring in votes in different early states will look electable and electability will be the number one criteria.

"I think people overestimate Newt's baggage."  - I disagreed with D. Morris when he wrote that Newt's past would be vetted in the primaries, but I agree with that now.  As GM wrote about Mormonism, Newt past is becoming older news everyday.  It will keep you from voting for him or it won't, but there will be much bigger issues.  If he wins with evangelists in Iowa he should be fine with the more socially liberal moderates in the general election.  More likely he will annoy them some other way.  The contrast between Obama and any of them in terms of direction of the country will be striking.  That said, I do not like conceding the moral high ground on anything to this administration.

"I am not happy with the illegal position but I understand it."  - The Romney camp put that out as a big deal after the last debate.  Since then Newt is up and Mitt is down.  No one knows what to do about otherwise law abiding illegals living long term here.  The boldness of it makes Newt look like he is thinking his the way through to the general election.  Mitt's hands aren't clean on it and no one has a better answer. 

Newt was asked by Hannity how he would show that he could stay disciplined politically and he said by being disciplined.  We'll see.  If so, will he be a focused and disciplined President.  The past indicates no, but he has never been President.  Maybe yes.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1078 on: December 01, 2011, 07:43:38 PM »

1) Doug, your are a buzz kill  cheesy

2) I thought Newt's one hour on Hannity last night was an outstanding performance-- very presidential.  Makes me want to forget/ignore all the excellent points the Doug just brought up cheesy
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1079 on: December 01, 2011, 08:04:20 PM »

"Newt was asked by Hannity how he would show that he could stay disciplined politically and he said by being disciplined.  We'll see.  If so, will he be a focused and disciplined President.  The past indicates no, but he has never been President.  Maybe yes."

I'm sure he'll play less golf and basketball than the current occupant



No matter if it's Beltway Newt or Mittens, I'll clamp this on and vote.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1080 on: December 01, 2011, 09:05:11 PM »

"Doug, your are a buzz kill"  - I think you refer mostly to the Geraghty piece in National Review.  We can all use the sad face on that as long as you don't shoot the messenger. 

(I get no joy in bringing more bad news or negative opinions to people, so for sure don't read this: http://www.businessweek.com/politics-policy/joshua-green-on-politics/archives/2011/12/if_newt_gingrich_is_the_answer_tea_party_has_failed.html or this cutting paragraph attributed to Mark Steyn: http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/284569/if-newt-criticism-makes-one-rino-i-guess-steyn-too)
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1081 on: December 01, 2011, 10:46:44 PM »

Doug, the buzz kill comment was in self-deprecation.  smiley  There is accuracy in a considerable number of the charges.  Frankly, at the moment, my mood is to want to ignore it or rationalize it.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #1082 on: December 02, 2011, 10:50:47 AM »

MSLSD "hate all republicans" crowd has been bashing Newt for being condescending and conceited.  Bashing him for his "I make 60K a speech" comment and some of his other declarations.  I think they are quite terrified of him. 

I can't think of anyone more arrogant and condescending and self serving patronizing than the one and only Brock-man.  The Clintons are a close second.

So this charge from them is desperation.   They will every night yell and hoot and scream everything they can.

They are wrong in the estimation of Newt's "baggage".  The risk to him is less his baggage but more going forward with his tendency to make errant statements.  I hope he will listen to handlers for once and be careful by staying on a well rehearsed and vested script before he opens his occasionally big mouth.

The country is clearly willing to look away from personal stuff if the right leader comes forward - IMHO.

The left has no one to blame for this.  They lowered the bar themselves with the CLontons and previously with the Kennedys.

 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1083 on: December 02, 2011, 10:54:21 PM »



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY&feature=player_embedded

As much as I don't like Ron Paul, I love this ad.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1084 on: December 03, 2011, 04:41:56 AM »

Shame on Ron Paul!

a) Newt has disavowed the bit with Nancy Pelosi as "Stupid.  I don't know what I was thinking."
b) Using the bit about "right wing social engineering" by Paul is a serious lack of integrity on his part.  As Paul no doubt knows, Newt's point was that Baraq should have not gone against the majority of the American people in imposing Obamacare, and were the Republicans to ram something through in a similar manner, it too would be social engineering.  His point is correct, and utterly sound.
c) If I have it correct the support on individual mandates was in the early 90s when HillaryCare was on the table.  As the implications became clearer, Newt moved away from it.  Thus, if my memory is correct, then Paul is deceiving by leaving the dates out
d) Concerning "lobbying" for the FMs-- I am not clear yet on this, but I gather that Newt handled things so that technically he was not a lobbyist.  Not pretty, but if I am correct in my memory neither is Paul blurring the distinction pretty.  I have heard that there is something showing Newt supporting, not just advising, the FMs in 2007.  If true, this would be bad.
3) Concerning working with the health care industry, I heard Newt explain this on Hannity as supporting electronic medical records, something in which he believes.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1085 on: December 03, 2011, 01:01:43 PM »

And another one bites the dust.....

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/03/election/2012/cain-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

As for the ad, I AGREE with GM, "I LOVE THIS AD".

And as the pool get's smaller and smaller the focus and heat on Gingrich will only increase. 
This guy is the best the Republican's can do?

« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 01:11:56 PM by JDN » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1086 on: December 03, 2011, 01:20:43 PM »

Very impressive defense of Newt.  There is more negative comment out there, I didn't want to pile on until I knew we had people up to the task of answering. ) Vetting him now only makes him stronger.  Some follow up:  

On the Pelosi park bench scene, yes he said it was stupid - the single most stupid thing he has done in recent memory.  Forgiveness is fine but a smart man calling a calculated move stupid now is (IMO) a brush off of the question - what he was thinking when he did it.  

Freddie Mac, mortgage historian for millions of dollars?  Not totally candid.  Lobbyists don't call it lobbying.  He was taking money to help a very anti-conservative program be more palatable to conservatives.  Mortgages are now going from 90% federal to 100%, without reform.  

On the positive side of mandate support, unlike Pelosi-Obama, Newt included the option of posting a bond instead of being forced to buy an insurance product one may not want.  Holding people personally responsibility for their own expenses is conservative.  Bringing the federal government further into healthcare is not. (MHO)

Good point on the electronic medical records.  
-----------------
George Will yesterday called Gingrich the least conservative candidate of the bunch.  Ripped Romney perhaps worse.  (His wife works for Perry.)  A few specifics with mostly broad brush swipes, Newt has somehow rubbed G. Will the wrong way over the years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romney-and-gingrich-from-bad-to-worse/2011/12/02/gIQArsM3LO_story.html

Romney and Gingrich, from bad to worse  (I think the editors write the titles)
By George F. Will, Published: December 2

Republicans are more conservative than at any time since their 1980 dismay about another floundering president. They are more ideologically homogenous than ever in 156 years of competing for the presidency. They anticipated choosing between Mitt Romney, a conservative of convenience, and a conviction politician to his right. The choice, however, could be between Romney and the least conservative candidate, Newt Gingrich.

Romney’s main objection to contemporary Washington seems to be that he is not administering it. God has 10 commandments, Woodrow Wilson had 14 points, Heinz had 57 varieties, but Romney’s economic platform has 59 planks — 56 more than necessary if you have low taxes, free trade and fewer regulatory burdens. Still, his conservatism-as-managerialism would be a marked improvement upon today’s bewildered liberalism.

Gingrich, however, embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive. And there is his anti-conservative confidence that he has a comprehensive explanation of, and plan to perfect, everything.

Granted, his grandiose rhetoric celebrating his “transformative” self is entertaining: Recently he compared his revival of his campaign to Sam Walton’s and Ray Kroc’s creations of Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, two of America’s largest private-sector employers. There is almost artistic vulgarity in Gingrich’s unrepented role as a hired larynx for interests profiting from such government follies as ethanol and cheap mortgages. His Olympian sense of exemption from standards and logic allowed him, fresh from pocketing $1.6 million from Freddie Mac (for services as a “historian”), to say, “If you want to put people in jail,” look at “the politicians who profited from” Washington’s environment.

His temperament — intellectual hubris distilled — makes him blown about by gusts of enthusiasm for intellectual fads, from 1990s futurism to “Lean Six Sigma” today. On Election Eve 1994, he said a disturbed South Carolina mother drowning her children “vividly reminds” Americans “how sick the society is getting, and how much we need to change things. . . . The only way you get change is to vote Republican.” Compare this grotesque opportunism — tarted up as sociology — with his devious recasting of it in a letter to the Nov. 18, 1994, Wall Street Journal (http://bit.ly/vFbjAk). And remember his recent swoon over the theory that “Kenyan, anti-colonial” thinking explains Barack Obama.

Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how. Conservatism, in contrast, is both cause and effect of modesty about understanding society’s complexities, controlling its trajectory and improving upon its spontaneous order. Conservatism inoculates against the hubristic volatility that Gingrich exemplifies and Genesis deplores: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel.”

Obama is running as Harry Truman did in 1948, against Congress, but Republicans need not supply the real key to Truman’s success — Tom Dewey. Confident that Truman was unelectable, Republicans nominated New York’s chilly governor, whose virtues of experience and steadiness were vitiated by one fact: Voters disliked him. Before settling for Romney, conservatives should reconsider two candidates who stumbled early on.

Rick Perry (disclosure: my wife, Mari Will, advises him) has been disappointing in debates. They test nothing pertinent to presidential duties but have become absurdly important. Perry’s political assets remain his Texas record and Southwestern zest for disliking Washington and Wall Street simultaneously and equally.

Jon Huntsman inexplicably chose to debut as the Republican for people who rather dislike Republicans, but his program is the most conservative. He endorses Paul Ryan’s budget and entitlement reforms. (Gingrich denounced Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering.”) Huntsman would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Gingrich’s benefactor). Huntsman would end double taxation on investment by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. (Romney would eliminate them only for people earning less than $200,000, who currently pay just 9.3 percent of them.) Huntsman’s thorough opposition to corporate welfare includes farm subsidies. (Romney has justified them as national security measures — food security, somehow threatened. Gingrich says opponents of ethanol subsidies are “big-city” people hostile to farmers.) Huntsman considers No Child Left Behind, the semi-nationalization of primary and secondary education, “an unmitigated disaster.” (Romney and Gingrich support it. Gingrich has endorsed a national curriculum.) Between Ron Paul’s isolationism and the faintly variant bellicosities of the other six candidates stands Huntsman’s conservative foreign policy, skeptically nuanced about America’s need or ability to control many distant developments.

Romney might not be a Dewey. Gingrich might stop being (as Churchill said of John Foster Dulles) a bull who carries his own china shop around with him. But both are too risky to anoint today.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1087 on: December 03, 2011, 01:21:07 PM »

"Stupid.  I don't know what I was thinking."

I think we've found a slogan for Newt's campaign!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1088 on: December 03, 2011, 02:14:25 PM »

"I think we've found a slogan for Newt's campaign!"

Be nice now, you will be using those nose plugs soon.   wink
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1089 on: December 03, 2011, 02:19:12 PM »

Well, there are a lot of people who voted for Obozo in 2008 that are saying that as well. It could be a point of unity.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1090 on: December 03, 2011, 05:32:51 PM »

"(Gingrich denounced Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering.”)"

As I previously stated THIS SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE and shame on anyone of triple digit IQ who repeats this false meme.

 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1091 on: December 03, 2011, 06:01:36 PM »

"(Gingrich denounced Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering.”)"

As I previously stated THIS SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE and shame on anyone of triple digit IQ who repeats this false meme.

 

Unfortunately, Beltway Newt's many other skeletons are not so easily dispelled.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1092 on: December 03, 2011, 07:38:15 PM »

Maybe, but all the more reason to stick to accusations that have some sort of basis in fact.

Maybe, but then again for years he took the hit about divorcing his dying wife while she lay in the hospital, but only now with the daughter and the mother's permission we discover that the mother, over 20 years later is still alive, and it was she who wanted the divorce.  So why didn't Newt speak up?  Because he did not want to subject his family to the political firestorm.

I'm not saying there isn't quite a bit there that is not concerning (e.g. if it turns out he was advocating for the FMs) but there be alert for plenty of slander and libel too.

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2011/12/03/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+daybydaycartoon%2FkUnt+%28Day+by+Day+Cartoon+by+Chris+Muir%29#006340
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 07:46:48 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #1093 on: December 03, 2011, 08:11:54 PM »

Woof,
 Santorum, is starting to look a lot better to me here lately.
                   P.C.
Logged

G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1094 on: December 03, 2011, 08:27:18 PM »

Woof,
 Santorum, is starting to look a lot better to me here lately.
                   P.C.

I like Santorum, but odds are it'll be either Mittens or Newt.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1095 on: December 04, 2011, 03:49:49 AM »

As I previously mentioned, I first noted Santorum in his farewell speech in the Senate, after he lost PA.  Very, very good on the dangers of the Islamic Fascism.  There are many, many points on which we agree.  Still, when he announced for the nomination I rolled my eyes.  Since then I have come to respect how he has handled himself in the debates; he has shown substance.

That said, IMHO he simply does not resonate and inspire in the way that will be necessary to win the presidency.  I think he would do very poorly in debate with Baraq.  I think his chances of winning the Rep nomination to be next to none, and against Baraq even less.

The simple fact is that Newt impresses- A LOT.  He can kick Baraq's ass in debate.  The many impure, imperfect statements he has made over the years can also be seen by independents as signs of a man who can reach across the aisle to a President Clinton and reform welfare as we knew it, get capital tax gains to boot, and get a budget surplus.

He is outstanding in his grasp of the deep challenges that face the US in the world today.  I have commented here that Republicans have been weak to non-existant on Baraq's disastrous handling of foreign affairs-- to the point will be able to strut and posture how he ended Iraq, Afg, killed Awlaki and OBL, overthrew Kaddaffy without using US troops on the ground, is supporting the Arab spring, and more.  Foregin Affairs has been a traditional area of Rep respect with voters, yet which of the current candidates will not lose to Baraq on this point?  Romeny has been taking a hard line recently, but do you think he can handle Baraq on this? I don't.    Newt won't. He will kick Baraq's ass.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #1096 on: December 04, 2011, 06:17:56 AM »

Second post:

I have only seen some news reports on it, but last night's "debates"/seriatim interviews by three state attorney generals with the candidates on the Mike Huckabee show seemed like a very good thing.

I like the idea of an uninterrupted flow with each candidate, with each candidate getting an equal amount of time, with questions by intelligent, educated questioners.

Anyone have any comments and what was said?

Anyone have the URL of the whole thing?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1097 on: December 04, 2011, 11:28:35 AM »

I am a day behind here but I dug back through the right wing social engineering question yesterday.  I know this happened back in 2011 so maybe it is no longer relevant.   wink  

Here is the passage, full context, on Meet the Press Sunday 5/15/2011:  
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43022759/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/meet-press-transcript-may/#.TtrtZ3JK0QY

MR. GREGORY: What about entitlements? The Medicare trust fund, in stories that have come out over the weekend, is now going to be depleted by 2024, five years earlier than predicted. Do you think that Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare, turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors...

REP. GINGRICH: Right.

MR. GREGORY: ...some premium support and--so that they can go out and buy private insurance?

REP. GINGRICH: I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors. But there are specific things you can do. At the Center for Health Transformation, which I helped found, we published a book called "Stop Paying the Crooks." We thought that was a clear enough, simple enough idea, even for Washington. We--between Medicare and Medicaid, we pay between $70 billion and $120 billion a year to crooks. And IBM has agreed to help solve it, American Express has agreed to help solve it, Visa's agreed to help solve it. You can't get anybody in this town to look at it. That's, that's almost $1 trillion over a decade. So there are things you can do to improve Medicare.

MR. GREGORY: But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting, which is completely changing Medicare.

REP. GINGRICH: I, I think that, I think, I think that that is too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose upon the--I don't want to--I'm against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.
-------------------------
Summarizing the Ryan Plan:  (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/April/05/ryan-plan-for-medicare-vouchers-vs-premium-support.aspx)

... convert Medicare into a premium support program for which the government will spend a specific amount for beneficiaries' care, a fundamental shift from the current fee-for-service program....limiting the amount of money the federal government spends...the government would pay a percentage toward the insurance premium for each individual; there would likely be more help for low-income and sicker people. And enrollees could kick in more money to get better coverage. (It is the plan described in Gregory's question.)
------------------
(Doug:) Gingrich did not say Ryan’s Medicare reform is right-wing social engineering.  He was asked what he thought of Ryan's plan and said he didn't like right wing social engineering.

A distinction lost in ALL reporting:

Washington Post: Gingrich: Ryan budget plan ‘right-wing social engineering’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/gingrich-ryan-budget-plan-right-wing-social-engineering-sunday-talk-shows/2011/05/15/AF4OtE4G_blog.html  11:57 AM ET, 05/15/2011

PBS News Hour: Gingrich Calls GOP Budget 'Right Wing Social Engineering'
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/05/gingrich-keeps-ryan-budget-at-arms-length.html

CBS: Gingrich slams GOP Medicare plan despite the fact he once said he'd vote for ithttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20063202-503544.html  

Slate: Gingrich on Ryan Plan: "Radical" and "Right-Wing Social Engineering"
 http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/05/16/gingrich_on_ryan_plan_radical_and_right_wing_social_engineering.html

Fox:  Gingrich Calls GOP Medicare Plan 'Right-Wing Social Engineering'
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/gingrich-calls-gop-medicare-plan-right-wing-social-engineering/

Wall Street Journal:  Gingrich Blasts House GOP's Medicare Plan
Presidential Candidate Calls It 'Right-Wing Social Engineering,'
Agrees With Obama About Need for Insurance Mandate
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576325350084379360.html?KEYWORDS=Gingrich+Calls+GOP+Medicare+Plan
-----------------------
Then in the aftermath:

Ryan argued Monday that his proposal is not “radical,” as Gingrich alleged in the interview over the weekend. And he questioned why Gingrich was choosing to align himself with Democratic critics of the GOP budget proposal.  "With allies like that, who needs the left?" Ryan quipped

Gingrich went "On the Record" with Greta van Susteren Tuesday night to respond to criticism over his comments.  He told van Susteren. "I made a mistake and I called Paul Ryan today, who's a very close personal friend, and I said that."  (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/17/gingrich-apologizes-paul-ryan-right-wing-social-engineering-criticism/)

In a conference call Tuesday with conservative bloggers, Gingrich said that he was unprepared for a series of “gotcha” questions on individual mandates and the Ryan budget, both of which had been major stories for days before the interview.  “I didn’t go in there quite hostile enough, because it didn’t occur to me going in that you’d have a series of setups,” Gingrich said, according to the Washington Examiner. “This wasn’t me randomly saying things. These were very deliberate efforts to pick fights. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/newt-plays-the-palin-card-i-wasnt-ready-for-those-gotcha-questions.php)

In a live interview with Rush Limbaugh Thursday afternoon, Gingrich said he hadn’t actually criticized Ryan’s plan in his Sunday appearance on “Meet the Press,” and that he wasn’t referring to the Wisconsin congressman when he said those words.

Hotair later Thursday:  It’s true that Gregory didn’t mention Ryan’s name in his first question, but he did reference Republican plans to change Medicare and cited “premium support” — a hallmark of Ryan’s plan, which Gingrich surely would have known. Even if you cut Newt some slack there, Gregory did explicitly mention Ryan’s plan in his follow-up, which Gingrich proceeded to describe as a “too big a jump” and an example of “radical change.” But we needn’t quibble with the semantics. Plain and simple: If this was all a big misunderstanding about who he was talking about, why didn’t he say that three days ago? (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/19/gingrich-to-rush-limbaugh-my-right-wing-social-engineering-comment-wasnt-directed-at-paul-ryan/)
------

(Doug:)  There is no reference in the top 100 Google results to 'Right Wing Social Engineering' that is not attributable to Newt.  It's not in the lexicon. Social engineering is what the other side does.  He made it up the term, it's inflammatory IMO, and he was dying to use it - to boldly be a different kind of Republican - on who can jump right over the fence like the person who sat on the bench with Nancy.  This is a guy who at the top of his career had his lunch stolen by a triangulator, and he was trying something.

He made a mistake, I get it, but what was he trying to do?  Forget about Ryan.  What in the top 100 threats our republic faces right now is the problem of right wing social engineering, that a focused and disciplined candidate kicking off his campaign needed to draw to my attention?  My moderate friends would say right wing social engineering is the insistence on gender roles for bride and groom or the stubborn belief that a small life with a heartbeat is a life.   But no.  This was about spending restraint that could come out of Washington if Republicans exert too much power.  He landed a hard punch on the only Republican in the country at the time who was getting any traction.  Good grief.  Then he apologized, said he didn't mean it, then he said it didn't happen.  He meant something else.  

Triangulators do not have coattails.  Another way, with a dozen years in the solutions business, would have been to work with his friend Paul Ryan so the plan would NOT be too radical.

I wonder if this is something that Jon Stewart could try to run with...
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/jon-stewart-lets-gingrich-be-his-own-punchline-video.php
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #1098 on: December 04, 2011, 12:04:30 PM »

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2011/12/video-watch-the-entire-huckabee-gop-presidential-forum/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #1099 on: December 04, 2011, 01:06:56 PM »

"electronic medical records, something in which he believes."

There are hundreds of EMR vendors.  It is like the tech craze before the tech crash of the late 90's.  It is predicted in a few years that the number will fall to a few dozen through consokidation and bankruptcy.

Realistically they are not ready for prime time yet CMS is pushing and bribing us all to jump on board.

And no doubt there are thousands out there vying to cash in on it all.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 42 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!