My prediction

12/31/2011 | Nikos1121

[nikos1121]

I've been on FR for several years. Dropped out temporarily when the dialogue turned pretty ugly a few months ago. I'm back now with a new found energy. For this reason I feel compelled to share my thoughts with fellow FRers here.

About 5 weeks ago, I decided to throw my support into Newt. As of yet I have no remorse, but I must admit there were times when I thought the world as I used to know it, was upside down when the likes of Ann Coulter, Mark STeyn and many many others, whose opinions I respected, came down hard against Newt even before the first primary. Coulter especially has run four consecutive columns blasting Newt. Think about that for a moment. She thinks we should all go home and give the nomination to Romney before there's been any primaries.

The lady is clearly not what we all thought. But this article is not about Ann Coulter, (whose CDs I might add have been donated to Goodwill this past week.)

Therefore, I had extreme joy when Jim Robinson came out recently for Newt, and expressed his own metamorphesis. Then came Thomas Sowell, Michael REagan and J. C. Watts.

YOu get the picture that the people with real courage are backing him, because they and we know in our hearts he will back us.

EVerything Newt says, I agree with. Most of time, it's a learning experience, as he brings up something that I hadn't thought about, for example that it would be far better for us to declare a war on finding a cure for Alzheimer's than to put money into "treating" the disease, similar to how we found cures for Polio and Small Pox. His thoughts on the Middle East and Asia are also profound.

But, I digress. I'm worried, Folks. I really don't see people coming around to Newt when one considers the money and backing Romney has. At least not in the short term. I see him taking third or fourth in Iowa, which actually might be a good thing, and as you will read, Newt is in good company as REagan also lost Iowa.

Therfore, here is my prediction:

I think we will see a situation very similar to what happened when Reagan was in the primary 1980. As many will recall, on Novmenber 4, 1979, 52 Americans were held hostage by a group of Islamist students and militants who took over the American Embassy in Tehran in support of the Iranian Revolution.

But did you know that one month later on December 29, 1979 the Soviets invade Afghanistan? It woke a lot of people up. We realized that we had a milk toast president who was the cause of all of it, similar to how we see the economic crisis in the world most likely the result of Obama's policies.

The Iowa Caucus was won by George H. W. Bush, not Reagan. Going into NH, Reagan paid for a debate among himself and the candidates at the time. Bush refused to participate at first. It was the famous debate when REagan said, when they turned off the microphone, "I paid for this microphone, now turn it on!"

Reagan won SC and swept the South although he lost 5 Southern Primaries to Bush. Kennedy was also competing against CArter.

HOwever, I think it was the Iranian crisis that showed us then that Reagan was the man for the times.

I think the same thing will happen early next year. A crisis will occur overseas or at home. It will show not only Obama's weakness as a leader, but also the weakness of the other candidates most notably Santorum, who will find a renewed hope in doing well in Iowa, and Romney. If Perry stays in the fight he will rise too, but most of all so will Newt.

Reagan had the nomination wrapped up by the Summer. He stumbled frequently along the way, and like Newt was constantly hit by the media. Here's one example when he told an ethnic joke off the record to some reporters.

From the book REndevous with Destiny----

Always fond of a good laugh, he, (Reagan) told an ethnic joke to several aides and then was asked by a reporter — off the record — to repeat it. Reagan did: “How do you tell the Polish one at a cockfight? He’s the one with the duck. How do you tell the Italian? He’s the one who bets on the duck. How do you tell when the mafia is there? The duck wins.” The reporters all laughed, but the joke earned the condemnation of several sanctimonious elements in the national media, including ABC, which incredibly aired the off-the-record gag. Ed Meese quipped, “There goes Connecticut,” an allusion to the state’s heavy Italian population.

The New York Times surprisingly defended Reagan in an editorial, saying the joke reflected his “geniality” and not “bigotry.” The whole thing became ridiculous when the president of Yale, Bart Giamatti, released a statement calling on Reagan to apologize to everybody, “including the ducks.” Reagan did a bit of tap dancing for the media, apologized, and promised to tell only Irish jokes in the future."..... [end excerpt]

IN summary, I predict that circumstances that are soon to occur will show us all that Newt is the right man for the time.

[RegulatorCountry]

Being on Newsmax might skew it just a little, lol.

[JAKraig]

I still like Michelle Bachmann - I know, “not a snowballs’ chance. . . . . . .

___________________________________________________________

Newt is probably the smartest candidate in the race. There is a lot to like about newt Gingrich. I used to love him, but, I have no time for an adulterer especially a serial adulterer, period. That he made millions off Fannie and Freddie is horrible but it is not adultery (although close). Immigration, give the people who have been here a long time a path to citizenship? So the longer you break the law the less you get punished or the more you get rewarded? Making ads about global warming with the likes of Pelosi, I'm sorry Newt you and I are done.

There is nothing to dislike about Michelle Bachmann. I don't know why the FR isn't all over her helping her to get the noination, she is the real deal in her personal life, professional life and in her political life.

As far as beating Obama, any of the Republicans running could easily beat him. I'm not so sure that Obama will be running. Hitlary has an election committee, we may have to beat her. That will not be nearly as easy as Obama. Hitlary will get female votes that Obama couldn't touch. People will vote for her because she is a woman just like many people voted for Obama simply because he was black. With Ron Paul as a third party candidate she will win hands down just like her husband did without a plurality. Neither of Clintons wins gained even 50% of the vote.

I will vote for whomever the Republicans put up, not because they will necessarily represent me well but because they will work best with the Republicans in congress.

The Press hates Newt. They hate all Republicans but the absolutely despise Newt. Newt has a lot of history not all of it good, the press will bring up every word he has ever said that can hurt him.

We all have different reasons for who we like. I have a nephew who voted Obama and says he will again. I don't hate the kid, I just think he is stupid. Being stupid is not a crime. Stupidity deserves our pity not our hate.

[Chickensoup]

I knew Reagan, Newt is no Reagan.

[DouglasKC]

Doesn’t matter. Both Newt and Romney are sure losers against Obama. Both have been in politics so long that there’s tons of dirty laundry to be brought out and Obama and the MSM won’t hesitate to do so.

[Windflier]

"Would I vote Romney? Has hell frozen over?"

I'll say to you what I feel every time I read this same type of drivel day after day on FR.

So, you're going on record as defending the big government liberal? Why is it "drivel" to call a liberal a liberal, when his record in public service proves it beyond a shadow of doubt?

[show]

Exactly. Newt nails Romney in every debate.

[McGruff]

Newt is no Sarah Palin. But since she’s not running Newt is the best of the ones currently running. He has made some mistakes but nobody else has anything like The Contract With America on their resume.

[2nd Bn, 11th Mar]

Newt is a legislator who has a gift of gab and can employ the buzz-paragraphs.

I’ll take a guy/gal with executive experience over that every time, even if they may not articulate as well.

[kiltie65]

“...but I think Newt jinxed himself a few weeks ago when he declared that he would be the nominee.”

Maybe, maybe not. Remember Obummer many times (and Moochelle) declared Obummer would be the next President...like they knew something we didn’t, and it happened. I was amazed at their presumption, and equally amazed when he won the election (by hook and by crook).

[muawiyah]

Here's the deal with Newt. Although no one can be all things to all men Newt thinks fast enough to have more than yesterday's warmed over commentary from the NYT Op Ed page on his mind.

He's actually written real books, and read real books, and done research. He knows what polls are about ~ and he also understands auguries ~ and I'd just bet NONE of the candidates we've had for the last century knew what an augury was!

If called upon, he's prepared to examine the entrails of a sheep and identify the principal organs and give us a fair description of their condition and function.

He also figured out how to make some real money ~ and I mean REAL MONEY. This guy is dripping with bucks.

Your typical retired politician will make some money by peddling his influence. Newt left Congress on a sour note. He peddled his knowledge ~ not his influence ~ he had none left.

Still, those things are no reason to vote for the guy, but try this one ~ he's the first politician in a century to figure out how to come up with a balanced budget!!!!

He stands apart from the common herd.

[muawiyah]

We already know all of Newt's "dirty laundry".

So what?

[Hot Tabasco]

My prediction

Screw politics, we want your prediction on the Super bowl..........

[Georgia Girl 2]

Newt was a good choice. He is going to go neck and neck with Willard and he has a good chance to win.

[Just another Joe]

I'll say to you what I feel every time I read this same type of drivel day after day on FR. I am literally stunned when I read some of the vicious unfounded attacks on GOP candidates here on FR.

Where is the unfounded attack? I see an expression that this voter will not vote for Romney. That's it. Where is the unfounded attack?

Why are you so high on Newt? Not an attack, a serious question.

While I am not a Newt supporter (yet) I am willing to be convinced.

And before you ask, at the moment I am leaning toward supporting Huntsman if it looks like he has a chance.

In support of the initial poster, there are politicians that I would not cast a vote for, under ANY circumstance.
It just happens that none of them are in the race this time.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

I am tired of voting for the lesser of evils, NEWT is no Reagan. Why can’t we get a candidate with moral courage that can keep his pants zipped? Is it too much to expect a candidate with serious character flaws?

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

I am tired of voting for the lesser of evils, NEWT is no Reagan. Why can’t we get a candidate with moral courage that can keep his pants zipped? Is it too much to expect a candidate with serious character flaws?

[LMAO]

My prediction..
BHO wins by a nose.

This is not 1979 to 1980. Economic conditions were much worse. Yeah,yeah, I know, they’re cooking the books on unemployment and inflation. Our short term and long term prospects are dismal but it isn’t as bad as it was then yet.

Demographics and the make up of the electorate was different then, also.

With more people than ever on the dole, conservatives would be in a better position when the day of reckoning comes verse just trying to nominate a Republican just to get President Cloward-Piven out of office

[nikos1121]

“My memory is that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan on Christmas day, 1979, not when this guy decided they did.”

I found December 29, 1979 listed as the day, but it seems there were more headlines for December 27, 1979. So, I guess we’re both wrong, but of course your agenda is to discredit everything I say.

(Please see: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADFA_enUS444US444&q=russian+invasion+of+afghanistan+December+27 )

[Windflier]

Most salient, and on point post of the thread.

[PieterCasparzen]

This is not 1979 to 1980. Economic conditions were much worse.

Federal Debt to GDP was < 50% in 1980, it's now over 100%, with both being just over $15 trillion.

What this means is that unless the Federal government starts running large annual surpluses and paying down debt then it is basically not going to be able to ever pay back the principal; it's actually just rolling over principal, paying interest only - and even borrowing more principal every day. The key is that it is not rolling over by choice, but because it can't repay principal. There is no way to justify lending to such an entity, as it is only a matter of time until interest payments can't be made. At that time, ALL holders of the debt will see their bonds default and they will lose almost all of their principal. This is what is already happening in Europe.

Federal debt is increasing more than twice as fast (8%) as GDP (2%), so in less than 10 years the ratio would hypothetically reach 150%, an utterly nonsensical level.

And the major Western nations are all in the same boat.

There are not enough buyers of sovereign debt or even enough money in the world to continue to expand the worldwide sovereign debt bubble.

Almost nothing is said on most of the news about this, except some sheepish blabbering.

The combined balance sheet of the largest 3 French banks is 3 times the size of the GDP of France. That would be like the top 3 American banks having combined assets of $45 trillion. That's insane.

The assets of most major banks around the world include far too much worthless sovereign debt - which must be written off at some point - and they in truth are insolvent. It wouldn't actually be as bad to let most major banks simulaneously go bankrupt as it would be to let the bubble continue to grow. But politicians continue expanding the bubble full speed ahead, not wanting a collapse to occur on their watch.

New laws and regulation continue to be created at an ever-increasing pace in the U.S., which is what causes non-consumer businesses to offshore jobs and therefore a US structural unemployment problem. As long as that persists, US GDP growth will be slim to none.

The 1970's economic problems were just the start of a long slide downhill. The computer boom and the Reagan effect of the 1980's created prosperity, but the underlying problems of regulation, outsourcing and big government continued to mount.

We've had a problem since about 1960 but we've continued to march in the wrong direction economically, governmentally and politically. The time is coming to pay the piper but the entire planet is whistling past the graveyard.

If the charade can be extended to November 2012 Obama has some sort of chance, but it IMHO that's unlikely.