Outed you as a troll, your posting history has.
Posted on 01/16/2012 11:27:01 AM PST by VinL
Why do you say that? Is it because of this?:
Gingrich: My Credential Is 4.2% Unemployment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=349DpnEm4Lo
.
Following Constitutional legislation?
Newt Gingrich: Super Committee Is Washington's Dumbest Idea
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN8GPQgIusc&feature=related
.
Or because he's a historian...
VIDEO: CHRISTMAS DAY 1776 - "VICTORY OR DEATH"
http://www.newt.org/news/video-christmas-day-1776-victory-or-death
Obviously you didn’t read my post.
The only candidate who has even a remotely possible chance of ending Romney's momentum in S.C. is Newt Gingrich.
Post #35.
And if he stops Slick Willard, then what ? He cannot win a general election. How do you get around that ?
Actually I did. But it doesn’t matter. Santorum has no chance at beating Romney so any discussion of the general election against 0bama is irrelevant at best.
Santorum is the only one, period. Newt will give you the same results as McCain. A large percentage of conservatives simply will not vote for newt. Where did the go from Bachmann dang sure was not newt.
What? If you keep repeating this, that makes it true?
Newt Gingrich can absolutely win the general election against 0bama.
And Rush ended the show with a Newt caller.
Unethical capitalism? Easy— Bailouts for the plutocracy, foreclosures for the unconnected. How else can that be defined-—ethical?
I think the distinction Newt is really grasping toward (and may have said well somewhere -- I don't have cable) is that between what Codevilla in his essay between the Ruling Class and the Country Class. The Ruling Class starts with gov't, which gets it tentacles into everything, including Big Finance, Big Education, Big Business (Big Pharma supporting ObamaCare ring a bell?), Big Science (AGW) -- they all think the same way -- they and the gov't know better than the rest of us what should be done. And what should be done is gov't subsidies, gov't bailouts, etc.
Surely you've noticed that big business, a lot of time, doesn't really mind heavy regulation -- it's a nuisance to them, but devastating to upstart competitors.
There seems to be a widening gulf between Wall Street and Main Street; instead of the phrase "ethical capitalism" (are all Republicans awful at catch phrases?), I would prefer Newt hammer on the difference between actual free market competition and companies vying for gov't's favor and subsidies and bailouts.
If Newt could do this successfully and get the nomination, he could slip effortlessly into showing Obama as the Wall Street candidate he is, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding!
It is the only relevant issue. What does it matter to win a primary with a candidate who cannot win the general ?
There is a lot of truth in what you said, but I hope every candidate still there sticks it out so that every primary voter in every state gets a chance to participate in the selection of presidential nominee through the convention system. The system is truly being exposed as rigged if the nominee is decided after only 3 or 4 of 50 states have participated. We are being told it is ok if it’s over before the party of every state gets to vote, but it is not.
So what, if Gingrich won’t be on the ballot in Missouri or Virginia - his home state. This shows that the system is rigged to prevent the voters of those states from having a voice also.
Is it not obvious to you that the one person who is most adept at gaming the financial system is also most adept at gaming the electoral system?
The only way for our system to regain credibility after what happened in 2008, is for all the remaining candidates to stay in and let all 50 states speak through the vote, and allow the convention system to work as designed, and not be cheated.
Newt’s right. Too many political people are dependent on government debt for their incomes, and they present too many stealth candidates from the left. Most of those candidates have no voting records and have been full of nothing more than dishonest rhetoric.
Geez, ngat- don’t jump down my throat. -:) In re-reading, I don’t know if his/her intent was to be “funny” or not— I just took it as written. Usually, there’s that “/s” after ironic statements.
If I mis-read it, I sincerely apologize to anyone I offended. If you, me and Grayfox think Rush is in he bag for Mite, then we’re obviously kindred spirits. Peace.
-:)
I was speaking solely with regard to Rick Santorum. Santorum is polling at 7% and 9% in South Carolina and Florida, respectively. Anyone who votes for Santorum in either state is conceding the general to Willard.
I’m going to keep repeating it until it gets through to you. Ideally, we’d like to believe ANY GOP nominee can win. That’s not true. Look at Harry Reid. A highly unpopular incumbent. But who did the party nominate ? Someone whom some of us tried to warn would be the ONLY GOP nominee who would lose based on her baggage, track record, and high unpopularity. But, nope, all her cheerleaders kept insisting she could win. She lost.
Thankfully as one who has studied thousands of political figures and candidacies, I can tell you of one iron rule in politics. You cannot defeat an unpopular incumbent with an even more unpopular challenger. To make it even easier, let’s put it this way with this scenario... It’s Election Day in November. Zero has a 55% disapproval rating. Newt has a 60% disapproval rating. Take a wild guess who wins ?
You ignored the central point again. This is the core problem with Newt supporters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.