Posted on 01/26/2012 4:35:06 AM PST by icwhatudo
Anne Coulter pal Matt Drudge has declared all out war on the Gingrich campaign. As of 7am Eastern time he has 9 negative mentions about Newt (none on Romney):
NEWT FLASHBACK 1983: REAGAN RESPONSIBLE FOR NATIONAL 'DECAY'...
NEWT 1986: 'The Reagan administration has failed, is failing... President Reagan is clearly failing'...
NEWT 1988: 'If Bush runs as continuation of Reaganism he will lose'... VIDEO...
INSIDER: GINGRICH REPEATEDLY INSULTED REAGAN
R. EMMETT TYRRELL: William Jefferson Gingrich...
COULTER: RE-ELECT OBAMA: VOTE NEWT!...
CNN: Gingrich admits his ABC claim was false during debate...
Gingrich tells UNIVISION: No perjury during my divorce depositions...
Marianne Gingrich lawyer: 'He was never deposed'...
Clinton was disbarred by a woman federal judge in Arkansas who had been his law student and appointee for the US District Court over his perjury as to the Paula Jones case which, you may recall, involved merely an attempt at fellatio (oral sex to be performed upon him) which, if successful, would have constituted the forcible genital/oral rape of Ms. Jones since he had forced her to her knees and was apparently holding Ms. Jones by her hair and attempting to force, ummmm, the issue. Rape is something a bit less common in our presidents than mere adultery.
Would you describe Billy Jeff's behavior toward Juanita Broderick as a mere adulterous sexual affair of the exclusively genital sort or was it forcible rape? Her lip which he bit and injured to hold her down might not agree with you. I could go on with the stories of other victims but you probably know the history as well as I do.
If mere adultery IS a big deal when it comes to judging POTUSes, then I guess that reason alone will disqualify not only JFK but those exotic Lotharios Warren Harding, FDR, and Eisenhower for starters. AND although he was never POTUS, the original major money obsessive in American life, Alexander Hamilton will have to be disregarded as well.
Mercurial and egotistical are minor flaws and egotistical is practically part of the POTUS job description. Newt will only prove disappointing in the event that he fails to smite the Mittwit. Coolidge retired after a single elected term. Nixon imposed wage and price controls, traveled to China to kiss Mao's backside (Indeed, Mr. Chairman, this is truly a Great Wall!") and appointed Herod Blackmun, Warren Burger and Lewis Powell to SCOTUS and Gerald Ford as Vice President and then resigned (May God have mercy on his reprobate soul!) making Feckless Ford our POTUS . Gerald Ford was Gerald Ford and he also fled Vietnam and named abortion-loving tennis player John Paul Stevens to SCOTUS. Even Reagan raised taxes in 1986 and appointed Sandra Day O'Bortion to the SCOTUS, George Herbert Walker Bush was George Herbert Walker Bush and his, ummmm, lips moved and he appointed Swish Souter to SCOTUS. George W. Bush (the younger) supported TARP. Disappointing one's constituents is also part of the POTUS job description. With reprobate liberal Republicans (Ike, Nixon, Ford, Bush I, and Mittwit) betrayal of the base is the norm and the likes of Dole and McCain would have been no better. What else is new?
If you are not in the tank for the Mittwit, do you favor Santorum or Dr. Demento? Those being your only available Republican alternatives. If the noble Santorum, how does he get from where he is to the nomination? If Dr. Demento, buh-bye!
You will be absolutely flabbergasted to see the number of social conservatives who will refuse to vote for the serial liar Romney if he should (God forbid!) buy, bully and bribe his way to the nomination.
Also, lighten up. Take a walk. Get some exercise. Try not to be so angry. Life's too short, especially for people who have so much pent up anger and are getting up there in their senior years. God bless you for all you've done for our great country. Now take a nap and relax.
To Newt as to the LameStreamMedia:
Hit 'em again, Joey! And again and again and again ad infinitum until the final trumpet is blown. Ditto as to the Mittwit and all of his gang!
If you weren't so laid back, you would not be so soft on the Mittwit. Lighten up is for lightweights. Eventually, death will visit us all. Try not to go to yours with nothing better on your record than: Gingrich? Mittwit? Ey! What's the diff?
Stick around. There's another post coming.
You and I differ in nature and not in degree. Don't flatter yourself.
Is it your claim that ol' Mittwit (for starters) is :
1) Consistently pro-life?
2) Consistently favorable to legally confining marriage to one man and one woman per marriage?
3) Consistently an advocate of Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms and that those rights not be INFRINGED?
4) Consistently a protector of modest taxpayers from attempts to shift onto them the taxes of the elites?
5) An interventionist in foreign policy?
6) An opponent of such internationalist nonsense as putting American troops under the UN or subjecting American policy to approval or disapproval by the UN or other internationalist groups?
7) Dependably opposed to undermining the military by forcing open gay participation in same?
Bravissimo!
Gaskell and George got back to the US to serve as Teddy Roosevelt's campaign manager(s) except perhaps when he ran as a Bull Moose in 1912. George's maternal grandfather Helamon Pratt, having been born in 1846 was too young to have managed Abe Lincoln's two Congressional campaigns (1W and 1L) in the 1840s, and also his losing Senate campaign in 1858 and winning POTUS campaigns of 1860 and 1864 unless old Helamon was one awfully precocious teenager and more so than anyone knows.
BTW, speaking of credentials, what is YOUR political resume, if any? I did not think so.
George was an awful candidate for POTUS. Ohio's legendary Governor Jim Rhodes perfectly described the POTUS campaign (in which George starred as a sort of combination MLK, JR., and Malcolm X or at least tried to outdo them on civil rights) as one in which George resembled nothing more than a duck trying to make love to a football." Grace and charisma run in the family along with the square jaw.
See if this sounds recently familiar. George presided over HUD when its Federal Housing Authority forced a program of inducing the poor to buy overpriced homes whose federally guaranteed mortgages they could not re-pay. The government had to eat the losses. Mittwit is heavily and quite voluntarily invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which nearly destroyed the economy by trying to realize (through Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd) the dreams of George Airhead Romney.
Before you note that Newt is also invested in Fannie and Freddie, bear in mind that those are among diversified mutual fund assets which are not under his management.
Who is more likely to have a generous and understanding attitude toward such impenetrable "financial products" as derivatives? Mittwit or Gingrich?
Who is more likely to support the next TARP outrage? Mittwit or Gingrich?
Who has a more receptive ear and spaghetti spine for the trust fund-American and corruptocrat investment communities? Mittwit who is a member in good standing of both or Newt Gingrich?
Mittwit was realistically too young (at 25) to manage George McGovern's campaign in 1972 but there would have been few ideological differences separating the two of them.
Remember that, if Romney is nominated, Obozo wins again and when you are expressed to Gitmo, you will have only yourself and the trust funders to thank. Never to be libre again!
You have a unique talent. Rarely do I find someone whom I fundamentally agree with to be so incredibly weird and obnoxious. Do you act this way all the time or did you think I could be impressed by such inane scolding?
2. I will thank you for henceforth refraining from libelously suggesting that I am in "fundamental agreement" with you when you are clearly willing to vote for the Mittwit.
3. Now it is weird to oppose under any circumstances the pro-abort, pro-perversion, anti-gun, tax-hiking Mishball that is the Mittwit, even on America's premier conservative website??? Right!
4. Obnoxiousness is in the eye of the beholder. To Mittwit's love slaves, I seem obnoxious. that is quite understandable. Proud of it!
5. Unlike the Mittwit and his pals, I tend to be consistent.
#309 Paragraph 3: Mishball = Mushball
What drugs are you taking?
“Rand Paul for POTUS in 2016 is not likely a similar end.”
I see political candidates are a means to an end, not an end in themselves unless of course you’re talking about demagogues and charismatic tyrants.
“Aren’t pierogis primarily associated with Poland, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, all Latin Rite Catholic countries?”
They’re also associated with Ukraine, Russia, and the transcarpathian region which have a mix of Orthodox, Eastern rite Catholics and to a limited extent, Latin rite Catholics. I go to an Eastern rite Catholic church.
And I’m very familiar with the Spanish Inquisition and their savage use of the Comfy Chair. At one time, I think it was a rule that to be a FReeper you had to have in depth knowledge of Monty Python.
Thanks...Mittwit! THat is funny...hehe
I find it disturbing that long term FReepers are buying into the Newt candidacy with so little reservation and are then turning on other long term FReepers when they refuse to buy into his candidacy as well.
Newt’s flaws are numerous, well known, and commented on more sharply and with far more vitriol on other conservative websites than you’ll see from his detractors on FR. Yet those of us who aren’t buying tickets on the Newt Express are castigated as traitors, dupes, trolls, or worse. It’s a shame. At one time FReepers were a lot more tolerant of the views of conservatives who didn’t buy into the orthodoxy du jour.
“Many of us have said for years that character matters. I’d prefer we could be consistent in this belief.”
I would as well. A lot of FReepers seem to be missing the irony of castigating the moral conduct of democrats on the one hand, while rushing to defend the character of Newt Gingrich on the other.
The thing is I think we give up a lot of leverage if we don’t ride herd on these guys — ALL OF THEM — NOW.
There’s seems to be some idea that if someone expresses non-praise for a candidate, that will somehow damage his candidacy beyond repair and he can’t possibly win unless everyone is only expressing praise for him 24/7.
Good grief, if freepers were that powerful, there never would have been a McCain candidacy!
As I’ve said, supporting a candidate doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) mean pretending his perfect, all the while proclaiming that “all the candidates have flaws, so I don’t give a damn.”
The irony is the other guy, supporting the other candidate, apparently doesn’t give a damn about his candidate’s flaws, either. So hoping that “further vetting” will do the trick is probably not in the cards.
Next, instead of kvetching about Gingrich's flaws or about what a sad situation we find ourselves in or how somebody stole the Easter Bunny or whatever:
1) Who would you each of you two care to nominate this year?
2) If it is Ron Paul, you do understand that he will never in any of our lifetimes or in God's lifetime be nominated for POTUS by the GOP, being disqualified on the grounds of his actual positions on foreign policy, military, drugs, abortion, sexually perverted everything, etc., don't you?
3) If it is the thoroughly sensible, honorable and moral Rick Santorum, how DO you envision him gaining enough traction to be nominated (believable specifics please!)?
4) You both seem to reject Gingrich for dallying with and then marrying his mistresses (unlike FDR, Ike, JFK, LBJ, and BJC, each of whom dallied with without marrying theirs). Granted that he deserves no gold medals for morality or loyalty to wife #1 or wife #2, are you so eager to have the soap opera and the lamestream media and the megabucks boys in the board rooms of Manhattan opportunistically pour zillions into nominating as the GOP candidate an absolute POS (and a second-generation one at that) who is pro-abortion, pro-perversity posing as "marriage," a gun grabber, the unrepentant father of both Taxachusetts and therefore federal Obamneycare, tax-hiking, Demonrat smooching SOB who will fill SCOTUS with Souter and Blackmun and O'Connor and Stevens types? I'm not.
Personally, I have no problem with the mere fact that some folks refuse to don their cheerleader miniskirts, shake their pom poms and do cartwheels over Newt Gingrich. Hey, this is America and anyone of that mind is absolutely entitled. What no one, including Ann Coulter, Matt Drudge, Elliott Abrams, John Thune, Bob McDonnell, Crispy Creme Christy, John Sununu, Connie Mack IV, National Review's pathetic new (and likely last) generation of editors and a host of others who used to have conservative street cred, is entitled to do, ummm, morally speaking, is solemnly pretend that the Mittwit is some sort of worthy conservative or anything but a serial lying McGovern Demonrat in GOP drag with a bit of unMcGovernite passion for the uber wealthy and comfortable snobby/American community, at the expense of the rest of us.
I don't know about you two but I am thoroughly fed up with this cycle's media manipulation, mountains of Wall Street money for slander/libel of every conservative candidate declared or otherwise, 19 debates of which only one (the one in SC months ago run by Jim DeMint) asks relevant questions or features non-leftist Demonrat questioners. If that means we have to choose the only viable conservative left despite his cornucopia of personal flaws, so be it with gusto. If you want to go another way, hey, go for it! However, not with my vote or silence now or ever. The rest of us have rights too.
I think it would be a thoroughly practical end to the Mittwit's candidacy if Sarah Palin would allow circulation of third party POTUS petitions, choosing a creative and solidly conservative running mate, in every state in the Union and run if Mittwit is nominated and promise to withdraw candidacy if a suitable conservative IS nominated.
A suitable conservative must be pro-life, pro-marriage as we have known it, pro-gun, pro-military, military interventionist w/o internationalist consideration by any group, dedicated to complete ravaging of SCOTUS's social issue arrogance, willing to cut every unnecessary fedgov function to slash a minimum of $1 trillion in actual (not merely anticipated spending) per year from our bloated budgets, for starters.
Call it: Rule or ruin! or call it perfectly legal blackmail or political extortion. If it is actually tried, you will call it successful whether you sympathize or not. If that does not secure the surrender of the elitists, then commit the party to punishing them by selective tax treatment until they do surrender and get the hell out of the way. Our system is one man, one vote not one million bucks of lying PAC advertisements per vote. End the system of elitists buying, bullying and bribing their way to their Promised Land of tyranny over the rest of us. Restore the sovereignty of the American people.
The Federalists died of upper class greed and were replaced by the Whigs. The Whigs died of upper class greed and were replaced by the Republicans. Tea Party has a nice ring and brand name to it about now especially if it were a rampagingly populist party of the Right.
If neither Newt Gingrich nor my solutions are up your alley, then you have some responsibility for coming up with a viable plan rather than just complaining about the plans of others. Let's see yours!
Conservative principle and Reality. You should try them sometime.
And, BTW, not that I am surprised, I haven’t seen any part of YOUR resume of actual conservative achievements as yet.
And I’m not surprised you that you won’t shut up about yours. Modesty doesn’t seem to be one of your traits. You know you should see a doctor. Maybe he can help you with your logorrhea.
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.