Posted on 01/07/2012 1:21:48 PM PST by katiedidit1
GOP New Hampshire primary debate tonight on ABC at 9pm ET
By Nate, on January 7th, 2012
Tonight will mark the first of two debates this weekend focused on the New Hampshire Republican primary. This evening's debate will take place at Saint Anselm College and is sponsored by ABC News, Yahoo! and WMUR. Sunday morning will feature a GOP debate broadcast on NBC at 9am ET (yes, am) but look for more details on that later today.
Air Time: Saturday, January 7th at 9pm ET / 6pm PT on ABC
Live Stream: WMUR and Yahoo! News
Participants: Santorum, Romney, Paul, Perry, Gingrich, Huntsman
Report from WMUR:
(Excerpt) Read more at 2012presidentialelectionnews.com ...
I didn’t actually hear it though when he said it. I just found the text -
when he said it, did he say it like he was professing he was a democrat or did he say it like
I am the only one here or there type thing?
Those who are clueless about history are doomed to not be able to repeat it, since they have no idea what happened the first time.
Ignorance is not bliss, it’s just ignorance.
The Word of God is something. The Word of Dick Cheney? Haven’t read that one.
Would a Federal Court allow a citizen’s class action suit to be filed against the US House of Representatives for failure to Impeach Obama?
What do you think?
Got no time crazy people.
You claim you have no interest in historical facts, but in case you change your mind, here are a few.
1995 Republican majority: 230/204
1999 Republcian majority: 223/211
U.S. Budget, 1995: Taxes: $1351.9 Spending: $1515.9
U.S. Budget, 1999: Taxes: $1827.6 Spending: $1702.0
So during Gingrich’s term as Speaker of the House, we lost 7 seats, taxes went up almost $500 billion, Spending went up almost $200 billion, and we lost the “ethics” issue.
There was also the disastrous handling of the “government shutdown” fight in 1995, which can be laid squarely at Newt’s feet. If Boehner pulled a stunt like that, we’d all be attacking him as a pitiful RINO.
You make an assumption that all queers want to be married. I’m thinking that many of them have about as much use for marriage as many of us do. None.
Thanks. I caught the first two of those clips. Totally forgot their was a Sunday debate but was at work so didn’t get a chance to watch it.
Reluctantly, it looks like I may climb aboard the Newt machine, though I still don’t really trust him. I like Santorum a lot, but he won’t be able to last the whole contest.
However, I think we have somewhat of an advantage this year that we didn’t in 2008 in regards to vote-splitting. Someone will have to school me on the awarding of delegates, but assume Romney wins FL, Newt goes 2nd, and Santorum 3rd. From what I had thought, FL wasn’t winner take all because it was before March, or is it? If it’s not and Santorum drops out, my guess is that he would release his delegates to Newt, or at least a majority of those delegates would go to Newt.
You can place your sanctimonious opinions on a pedestal next to that of God, while talking crap against a solid conservative like Cheney, but in your crazy talk against Gingrich I noticed you left out the year 1994.
The fact is, in the 1994 campaign season Gingrich came up with a Contract with America. In the November 1994 elections, Republicans gained 54 seats and took control of the House for the first time since 1954.
That is what Cheney was referring to. There are some things that can be said against Gingrich, but let me be clear - your crazy postings against men like Cheney and Gingrich on FR is not going to change history.
I know you might be busy conferring with God about history for the rest of us - but you might want to learn a little bit about these numbers and the balanced budget Gingrich achieved:
May 1997, Gingrich reached a compromise with the Democrats and President Clinton on the federal budget. The plan included a total of $152 billion in Republican sponsored tax cuts over five years. President Clinton signed the budget legislation in August 1997.
In early 1998, with the economy performing better than expected, increased tax revenues helped reduce the federal budget deficit to below $25 billion. Gingrich then called upon President Clinton to submit a balanced budget for 1999—three years ahead of schedule—which Clinton did, making it the first time the federal budget had been balanced since 1969.
I’m glad you clarified things. Why you think a Cheney quote about Gingrich and the contract with America put out in 1994 has any bearing on a discussion of the FACTS regarding his 4 years as Speaker, well, you haven’t explained that one yet.
Nothing I have said has in any way been against Dick Cheney. It’s a nice deflection though, but you aren’t Dick Cheney. The only thing I said about Dick Cheney is that your appeal to the “Word of Cheney” had no bearing on the FACTS of what happened during the Gingrich years as Speaker.
Of course I didn’t mention 1994, because I wasn’t talking about before he became speaker. On the other hand, I did obliquely reference that when I mentioned how he became speaker to begin with.
Gingrich is a man who has a lot of “smart” ideas, and some not-so-smart ideas, can’t tell the difference, assumes everything he thinks of must be great, and has trouble with implementation.
None of that has anything to do with how the republicans won the house, realising that success has many fathers. Rememeber Rush Limbaugh becoming an “honorary member” of the house in acknowledgement of HIS contributions to the majority? Remember Herman Cain who, according to some here, single-handedly dismantled Clinton’s health care initiative, which itself was the MAJOR factor in the republicans winning the house?
Your argument was a meaningless one, confronting history with some appeal to some (unspoken and unreferenced by you) statement by someone who you presume must be immediately and forever accepted as speaking absolute truth.
You gave no link, gave no quote, gave no context. You said NOTHING about what was said by your authority, or why what was said was applicable to the discussion, or would in any way discount the facts.
At least now you have explained to some minor degree what you meant, and shown it’s irrelevance to the discussion.
The economy was booming in the 1990s, which of course drove up government revenue. The stock market bubble also contributed billions to the tax revenue.
This allowed us to have tax cuts AND spending increases (remember, spending increases in a time with no war, and with very little need for welfare or stimulus spending since unemployment was low). We got a “balanced budget”, but it was short-lived because it didn’t come from serious spending restraint.
Once we had attacks on us, we had to ramp up defense spending. Once the stock market bubble burst, revenues dropped. When we went into a recession, government spending shot back up, and the deficit was back.
The balanced budget also has many fathers, because it was “good”. Hell, some even claim Clinton’s tax increases were the deciding factor. The idea that we take a single man, and cloak him with all of the good that happened while he happened to be around is absurd of course, as if being in the room conveys full responsibility.
I won’t try to minimize his contributions, if people will wake up from their selective amnesia and remember what we all knew about Gingrich 7 months ago.
You should take a look at this:
Gingrich is by far is the conservative FR favorite.
When Perot dropped out, the Republicans grabbed Luntz and smartly ran with it.
Wikipedia - The Contract with America was a document released by the United States Republican Party during the 1994 Congressional election campaign. Written by Larry Hunter, who was aided by Newt Gingrich, Robert Walker, Richard Armey, Bill Paxon, Tom DeLay, John Boehner and Jim Nussle, and in part using text from former President Ronald Reagan’s 1985 State of the Union Address, the Contract detailed the actions the Republicans promised to take if they became the majority party in the United States House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.
you missed the point I was making.
no I am saying that nearly all homosexuals want marriage to further their agenda.
Selective amnesia is a powerful thing. So is the herd mentality — and there’s no other rational way to explain each candidate’s meteoric rise in the polls followed by their disastrous falls, other than the group dynamic. insects flitting from candidate to candidate, looking for a place to rest, and finding none.
Anyway, I was talking about what we all “knew”, not what we all “know”. That’s a pretty important distinction. What we knew led to people posting pictures of Romney and Gingrich together like they were peas in a pod, and nobody complaining about it. Of course, that was back in the spring, when Gingrich wasn’t our last and only hope.
When people get desperate, it is surprising what they will see as desirable.
Anyway, now we are talking opinions, and I’m not going to change yours. I just wanted to nip the whole false charge that I was attacking Dick Cheney in the bud. Not that Dick Cheney hasn’t been attacked here before for good cause, but not me here now.
Correct...not to take anything away from those guys, just remembering the buzz going around at that time, I think it is an interesting tidbit.
The 94 elections were the most exciting time in politics for me, still have the TIME mag with the elephant stampede on the front!
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.