I t would seem as though you have misunderstood what I was saying & maybe it’s due to the whole cyberspace thing that I’m not really that good at, at least in relation to face to face.
As I’ve stated, I actually agree w/ some of the points you make. They’re valid points. The reason I indicate the seeming bias is that I don’t seem to see you going after the other candidates, some of which have been front runners from time to time, as you have Newt. Maybe I just haven’t followed your posting history enough, but it seems you spend an inordinate amount of time on Newt.
Both Romney & Cain are current front runners as well & yet I don’t seem to see the same scrutiny, even though both of them have significant baggage themselves. It just give the appearance of a bias whether real or not.
As far as the whole AGW argument is concerned, don’t interpret talk radio & talking heads’ treatment as consensus among OVERALL Republican’s. True blue conservative & political junkies like you & I have known the truth for some time, but the public overall, including many Republicans, have just come around, & really only after the email scandal.
Listen, I’m not thrilled w/ his decision. It’s one of the things that really pissed me off. But again, Reagan really pissed me off w/ amnesty, gun control, etc. Pragmatically, we’re just not always going to agree w/ even the most conservative of our elected officials.
Much like you & I. I suspect if you & I were to sit down for a lunch, we would find agreement on vastly more than what we disagree with. Yet here we are hammering out Newt. That’s ok in my book. At least we’re having a reasonable conversation, unlike others here.
You may very well be right in your assertions. I think the odds are in my favor however. Absolutely nothing is a given for any of these candidates. As I stated, it’s a crap shoot for any of them.
Once again, I’m looking forward to the debates tomorrow. I’m sure we’ll be touching base again here. Have a great week.
>> “Both Romney & Cain are current front runners as well & yet I don’t seem to see the same scrutiny” <<
.
Romney is like Newt, likes Cap&Tax, so will support it.
Cain has completely rejected AGW and Cap&Tax.
Why aren't you talking about them? For the same reason I'm not, I suppose. There is nothing left to say at this point while we are waiting to see where their campaigns go from here. And at the same time Newt is the new frontrunner and his campaign has yet to be vetted at all.
This only makes sense. It's not evidence of bias.
As far as the whole AGW argument is concerned, don’t interpret talk radio & talking heads’ treatment as consensus among OVERALL Republican’s. True blue conservative & political junkies like you & I have known the truth for some time, but the public overall, including many Republicans, have just come around, & really only after the email scandal.
Even if true, it's a problem when a conservative politician doesn't get what the conservative base is thinking. This is no different than when Bad Newt endorsed Dede in New York. He seemed shocked and blindsided by the fact that the conservative base got extremely angry at him over that.
As I see it, you're arguing that there's NO risk of Bad Newt showing up and I'm saying there's at least some risk and, if Bad Newt shows up, it won't be pretty. Let's leave it at that and see what rolls out here in the next weeks and months.
And, yes, I do appreciate the civil discussion. Except for the fact that you imply I'm spending all my time posting on Newt when you are the one inviting me to engage in extended debates on Newt's fine points! :) Which invitation, of course, I have accepted because that's the best of FR: civil debate on substantive points.