Posted on 12/08/2011 11:51:17 AM PST by Bigtigermike
No, we have Rush to thank for that - else we'd have Hillary in the WH now.
Any of these guys could have run themselves.
They didn’t.
Next time try leading from the front.
Probably referring to this exchange:
At the 27:45 minute mark where they went back and forth about the individual manadate.
I wouldn’t say he “crucified” him
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X61J-5sW288
I have no idea if Newt is correct about this or not but I fail to see how deliberately losing to Democrats is ever a principled stand.
no matter what they say about Newt, HE IS BETTER THAN ROMNEY
Thanks!
Here, let me see if I can top it.
You did.
Using your characters it would go more like this:
Newt recommended that Eve get more fruit in her diet to avoid constipation. Eve ate an apple, did not suffer from constipation but caused women to be cursed with menstruation. Is Newt to blame for "cramps, headaches, suspension of sex, bloating and on and on?"
Please note how I phrased the example and my original post as a question.
“They gave Newt a standing ovation when he left... was this fact left out or is it buried at the end of this?”
It was at the beginning of the article, not the end:
“That wasn’t a standing ovation, we were all getting up to leave,” said an attendee who requested anonymity. “It was a very skeptical audience, there were at least three very tense exchanges. It was anything but an endorsement meeting.”
” - - - Newt kept trying to change the subject, but Cuccinelli wouldn’t back down.”
Way to go Ken! You have hit Nanny-Newt’s soft spot! Keep it up!
“Nanny-State Newt” has never met a BIGGER Government Program that he did not like.
OMG Sorry about the link; It’s the full CNN Western Debate, unfortunately it’s a Paultard that put it up on YT. Why can’t normal people post the debates?
Nice try, but you stepped in it. I want you to know that you did make me laugh... in both posts. So, thanks for the laughs.
“.......who requested anonymity.”
A clue. LMAO
Exactly so! Newt will jettison anything and anyone in order to win.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
later, gator.
Dang it....
Why is it that “winning” beats out doing the right thing for the right reasons?
Seriously! Sometimes it is worth losing the battle in the pursuit of maintaining moral integrity! Kicking Moral integrity to the curb for any reason is an automatic loss!
Why is it that Politicos cant see that?
And then they wonder why we don’t trust them? Come on! You wouldn’t trust a slimeball like that to rake the leaves in your backyard with a moral compass such as this!
Seriously, this is just another example of the qualities inherent in the (political) Establishment class. It really IS the Establishment (made up of Democrats and Republicans) vs. the rest of us.
Newt is brilliant, but also without a moral compass as far as I am concerned. PLEASE America, we can do BETTER than this!!!!!!!!
Another heated exchange occurred when the American Conservative Union’s Donald Devine challenged Gingrich’s support of President George W. Bush’s prescription drug benefit.
It was my understanding that the prescription drug program was paying for itself from all those who bought the insurance and if the program started to take in less than it was spending there was a provision in the program to raise rates or review the cost. I also understand after the democrats took over the house they threw that provision out.So now it has the potential to be a big money loser if it isn’t already
Um, who? And where is he now? And where was he in 2008 -- or 2000, for that matter?
I really think our most intractable problem stems from the very nature of things: people who think gov't is the answer to everything (a/k/a liberals) are far more eager to get into politics than people who think gov't is the problem (a/k/a conservatives), who would rather be left alone by the gov't.
We have some conservatives (more with the Tea Party movement), but it's a far more unpleasant task to go into gov't with the aim of cleaning it up (think Augean Stables) and reducing it than to skip happily into it promising everyone heaven on earth.
We're probably lucky to have as many conservatives as we do.
First of all, ACORN stole the Democrat caucuses from Hillary.
Second of all, Rush's "Operation Chaos" was about Republicans crossing over and voting for Hillary in the Democrat primaries.
How you get "Rush gave us Ubama" out of that is puzzling.
I'd be really interested in your explanation.
>> I wouldn’t say he “crucified” him
Thanks so much for posting the link and the timestamp so we could easily listen and decide for ourselves! Good on you; would be wonderful to see more replies like yours.
I tend to agree that Romney did not “crucify” Gingrich there.
“Kerry, would have defeated Bush in the 2004 election had the new Medicare drug benefit not been pushed by the president and approved by a Republican Congress.”
Nonsense! That reasoning was wrong when Bush was pushing his “kinder, gentler conservatism,” and it is still wrong. This is where Newt bothers me. Will he apply the same reasoning to global warming policies or socialized medicine, amnesty? We need clear messages from Newt and solid promises that he won’t reason himself into destructive progressive policies that grow an already unaffordable government.
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.