I'm sorry, but I really want to hate this guy...But Damn he can debate... He'll make Obama piss his pants.
Posted on 12/11/2011 6:24:20 AM PST by libertarian neocon
Last night's debate was very contentious and it was amazing how everyone kept piling on Newt Gingrich, even on issues in which they agreed with him. Take the discussion about Newt's comments on the "Palestinians". For example, Newt had previously said that the "Palestinians" were an "invented people" (not that individual "Palestinians" were invented but that there has never in history been a distinct culture or group known as "Palestinians"). The big criticism there was that he was telling the truth but maybe he shouldn't have. So now even Republican candidates have to be politically correct? They can't say something that is completely true because it could ruffle some feathers? I think non-establishment Republicans will be more behind Newt than ever after this exchange on this issue. They want someone who will stand up and tell the truth about the world, about our economic situation and our fiscal future and not let political correctness guide our narrative:
{Video on website}
Anyway, here is my take of how individual candidates did:
Gingrich - Definitely the winner despite constant attacks by everyone else. He really defused Romney's career politician schpeel by pointing out that Romney would be in his 17th year as Senator right now if he had defeated Ted Kennedy in 1994 (i.e. Romney wanted to be a career politician but just couldn't do it). Also, Gingrich probably cemented a lot of the pro-Israel vote with his performance last night, standing up for his very true comments despite a barrage of attacks.
Romney - Wanna bet $10,000 that he doesn't win? Who the heck bets $10,000 over anything? Either you bet $10 or you bet $10 billion (if you're really sure). Also, he came across as very wishy washy in the Israel discussion with the only definite difference between Obama and Romney being that he would criticize Israel is private instead of in public. Once again, I get the feeling that Romney is a pretend hawk.
Perry - Had a good debate. For Perry. I think people have become used to his senility because I haven't seen anyone mentioning his confusion of whether Obama had 2 or 3 choices of what to do about the drone that was captured by the Iranians (it was just as painful as when he forgot about the Department of Energy and got lost listing Romney's flip-flops in previous debates). But the substance of what he said still was pretty good and he was honest enough to defend Newt when he agreed with him in the "Palestinian" segment. If only his IQ was about 20 points higher he would be running away with this thing.
Bachmann - Did a very good job with her "Newt Romney" speech saying how neither are true constitutional conservatives. Unfortunately, I felt any momentum she was gaining was shot down by Santorum's comment that she never actually achieved anything in the house, losing all of her battles. In other words, she is as ideological and consistent as Ron Paul but with a similar record of legislative achievements: zero.
Santorum - Did a pretty good job but never really shined. Also, I didn't think it was wise to take Mitt's side on the Israel issue. We know he completely agrees with Newt but chose Mitt's side due to political expediency.
Paul - He really is seeming senile recently. He always seems to need things to be repeated. Also, he doesn't seem as sharp as usual. I remember at the Huckabee Forum when he couldn't name a constitutional amendment he doesn't like (not even the one allowing a federal income tax???).
I'm sorry, but I really want to hate this guy...But Damn he can debate... He'll make Obama piss his pants.
I'll take Gingrich's voting record over his statements any day. When in office, he kept his promises and led the GOP to do the right things (cut welfare and balance the budget). Once his leadership was gone, the GOP screwed up.
And the same FactCheck article says Bachmann lied about Obamacare job losses.
Exactly. Just look at what happened to the GOP after Gingrich left.....they spent like crazy, passed Medicare Presciption Drug Plan and abandoned conservatism.
Gingrich kept them on track.
Exactly. Just look at what happened to the GOP after Gingrich left.....they spent like crazy, passed Medicare Presciption Drug Plan and abandoned conservatism.
Gingrich kept them on track.
Exactly. Just look at what happened to the GOP after Gingrich left.....they spent like crazy, passed Medicare Presciption Drug Plan and abandoned conservatism.
Gingrich kept them on track.
I got tired of waiting for you guys. Here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaMqDJ0zZbc
Saving for later
I got tired of waiting for you guys. Here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaMqDJ0zZbc
Saving for later
I got tired of waiting for you guys. Here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaMqDJ0zZbc
Saving for later
The bar is so low for Rick Perry that if he gets through the night without getting his ____ caught in the lectern he’s had a good night.
Some of the commentary on this debate reminds me of the foolishness that goes on in children’s sports where everyone gets a trophy simply for showing up.
Perry, Bachmann, Santorum and Paul haven’t a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the nomination.
Newt is the only one that can stop Romney and wipe the floor with the incumbent Marxist turd.
That’s why I’m pulling for Newt.
BTW you left off Newt stopping Hillarycare when people like Dole were caving and getting the first GOP majority in decades elected.
Your rants are pathetic, uniformed and desperate sounding.
Newt ruled last night. Perry came in second. Its beginning to look a lot like Newt.
But of course, our boarders needs to be secured to keep the boat afloat.
The only thing helping Newt (and whoever gets the nomination after his mouth blows up his campaign) is that Obama is in office. ABO: Anybody but Obama.Really? Because ABO--as you put it--is the operational premise of the entire Romney campaign. The problem is that a lot of us have an elastic limit. I could vote for Gingrich. I can even get excited about Gingrich. And while I can also get excited about Romney, it is not the kind of excited that Romney wants: I get really excited about voting for anyone but Romney should he become the GOP nominee by buying off the entire party establishment.
“Newt is the only one that can stop Romney and wipe the floor with the incumbent Marxist turd.”
“That’s why I’m pulling for Newt.”
“Newt is the only one that can stop Romney and wipe the floor with the incumbent Marxist turd.”
“That’s why I’m pulling for Newt.”
Ditto
“...Perry’s words will for sure resonate with Christians.”
I’ll have to listen to that part. As of now though, Newt seems more like answered prayer than not.
I agree. I’ve always thought we send the smartest guy out there to make the case, educate the electorate while doing it, and once elected have folks like the Tea Party apply pressure to keep Newt on the conservative side. As we see, he seems pretty saavy of who he is apealing to and who is supporting him so I would hope he stays true to his supporters. We know we don’t have to worry about him when it comes to foreign policy and if the conservatives can understand Newt’s a big thinker and he’s going to throw some ideas out there we may not be used to. I would advise them to hear him out and explain why he feels it might be a better idea than from the typical conservative playbook. I always thought that once he was elected, he would eventually meet with Paul Ryan and let them hash out whatever differences there might be. You would have to believe, Newt would love to talk to Paul Ryan and sees him as a young bright energetic up and coming Republican who only lacks some experience the Speaker has. I would bet this would result in an even better plan than the one originally proposed.
Very well put. Lot of small minds around here can’t accept that creative folks come up with all kinds of goofy stuff, and Newt certainly has. But those ideas never went anywhere but the idea stage.
Most of what he has actually DONE is good for conservatism - and he has done a helluva lot. Apparently, he was the conservative influence in Rick Santorum’s early career in fact. He was for a lot of folks who entered congress in the 80s and 90s. He was the professor long before anyone knew his name.
>> Mostly I like Newt, and Rick, if I can use the familiar. I think that when Newt speaks on immigration, he is only being realistic at best; it will not be the case that the US government will deport (nor even ever identify) all illegal aliens. >>
Yep. Never gonna happen - so it’s foolish for folks to get so exercised about who would claim to want it to happen versus those who simply know it won’t.
Secure the border and allow the states to deport folks as they are arrested and as they apply for hand outs - and in 5-10 years - this problem will more or less be handled and without any economic or societal disruption.
Folks need to understand than none of the GOP candidates started the immigration problem. It’s been building for 60 years. Kind of foolish to get too angry at their prescriptions, since they all agree on the single most important solution. SECURE THE BORDER.
Everything else will take care of itself, but ONLy after the bleeding is stopped.
Thats just logic and reality. Not asking anyone to like it, just accept it.
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.