Posted on 12/12/2011 11:12:28 AM PST by Clintonfatigued
So the Republican race – in a year when President Obama is totally beatable -- has come to this: Newt Gingrich, serial philanderer, liar, hypocrite, secret Rockefeller Republican, back-stabber and megalomaniac versus Mitt Romney, the Supreme Panderer, the man-with-no-principles, an utter phony who will say anything and flip-flop at any time – and someone who was not a Reaganite until he ran for president in 2007.
How can the GOP have sunk so low?
Two candidates so flawed, so inherently fraudulent and so phony.
It is almost as if the Republican Party wanted to help Obama get re-elected.
Clearly the GOP primary voters and caucus attendees do not want Mitt Romney. After six years of running, we have seen enough. We don’t buy Mitt. Period. Even while all his flavor-of-the-month opponents have come and gone, Mitt never goes up. The others come and go – and Mitt just keeps steady with about 20% of the GOP vote. Period.
How can a party end up nominating someone who only has tepid support from a disbelieving party base? How can that party support someone with 80% of the voters wanting someone else?
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It is a self serving industry $$$ (most of it rigged/crooked/and or lame-O).
Talking heads/media figures get wealthy.
People write books and bookstores sell them.
MSBBC is able to barely stay on the air..whereas if it were not for their nitch audience they would be be qualified to sell enlargement pills on infomercials at 3am.
It people like Anderson Pooper a multimillion job whereas he isn’t qualified to be a Lottery Girl.
Or, Micheal Moore would be working at a Taco Bell or some such.
Not to mention g’mint itself is a pot-O-gold for the schysters,scammers, and otherwise lazy or shiftless.
Yes, Gator, go Newt!
In the dictionary, under Obama's picture, one can find these exact words of definition!!!
There are only 8 horses in the race (at this point). There are two that are the clear front runners ahead of the rest of pack. One of these two will now win the race. So you will be left with two choices to pick the nominee. That’s the way it is. Me? I would have voted for Palin. But, as it stands now, (I can barely say the words) the best choice would be Newt.
Then, stay home on election day and allow the adults to render a decision. Have fun playing with your toys alone.
When Newt was in his GOPac and Contract salad days, Rolling Stone (yeah, really) ran a profile article on his career -- from a liberal POV of course -- that pointed out that Newt had originally, in the early 1970's (when I lived there) run in his Cobb County, Georgia, Congressional District (District 3 back then) as a Rockefeller Republican (aka "Me Too'er" for their unwillingness to challenge FDR's popular Socialist programs), that era's version of a "kinder, gentler" conservative. Newt lost to the more conservative candidate.
The point Rolling Stone was trying to make to their hoper-doper Lefty readership was that Gingrich's midcareer conservatism might fade, that he was an opportunist above all (in their opinion), and that things might happen later on that would give liberals something to be glad, or at least relieved, about. Newt might, in other words, "grow" in office, to use that special liberal lexicon of conservative moral and political compromise, decay, and failure.
Looks like they were right, judging by the fact that many on the Right now have a similar perspective of Newt the politician after the last 10 years.
The ACU voting averages only count certain votes people cast while in office, so that Newt's record will reflect more his Contract days as Speaker and his bombthrowing conservative firebrand career before that. The averages change slowly, year by year, and they tend (in my opinion) mathematically to mask the impact of a politician's decision to "run to the middle" as Orrin Hatch, John McCain, and now John Thune have all done as people have begun to whisper the toxic words "national office" in their ears, with the suggestion that they need to reposition themselves for the greater purpose and blah, blah, blah.
I can’t afford toys, but you should make out well with your 30 pieces of silver.
Newt called Romney a "Rockefeller Republican" when he himself had been the Southern Regional Director for Rockefeller's campaign way back in 1968.
I don't know about the ACU or his voting record, but chutzpah like that shouldn't pass uncommented on.
If Newt gets the nomination that will probably be what wins him the election. The left will hammer away at his infidelity but Newt is linked in history to Clinton. Both take credit for the budgets and welfare reform of the 90's. Many Americans, particularly independents, look back favorably at what was accomplished. They will probably conclude that both Clinton and Gingrich are sleazebags but can politically get things done. The comparisons to Clinton may actually help Gingrich.
How much more obvious could it be that the fix is in, neither of these clowns will beat Obama. Its a repeat of the last election. I held my nose and voted for McShame but won’t do that again and I doubt many other conservatives will either.
On the Savage Nation today Mike is expected to announce an offer of 1 million to Gingrich if he drops out of the race, Savage seems to think Mittens has the best shot at beating Obama.
Yes, it has - and Fox News helped.
Rather than comment on this opinion directly here is a couple of threads for you to checkout:
The best of those three is running again, and everyone else on the primary ballot is better than him. I agree, big improvement.
The GOP elite has set this up and we are at the mercy of their decisions. They have gone out of their way to take down anyone who got in their path along the way.
It only will come to Romney and Gingrich, if we allow it. We haven’t even voted in a single primary yet, so let’s vote for the most CONSERVATIVE candidate.
Yeah, then there’s that... Drive off the bridge at 40MPH or 75MPH. We can’t have a RINO or someone that can’t lead and execute on a conservative platform.
From what I observe M. Bachman would have the best likelihood of pushing a conservative policy but I’m not certain she would execute as well as others, such as Gingrich or Perry. Two candidates who are soft on some issues, but seem capable leaders.
Jesus would never get the nomination.
Take a look at what happened to Herman Cain, not to mention the shots being fired in the debates, and it’s pretty clear why it’s difficult to get good candidates. Who would want this done to their families?
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.