Ignorant and opinionated? Nice. I guess it's not ignorant to think Newt was just kidding when he said he believes in global warming and that we must do something to stop it. He was only bluffing about amnesty. It was really important for him to be paid over a million dollars for “consulting” fees for Fannie and Freddie. He didn't really mean to say the era of Reagan was over or endorse Dede Scozzafava.
I'm not sure you should be calling ignorant.
[I'm not sure you should be calling ignorant.]
I would say the the one who is most ignorant, is the one who has to repeat the same 3 old, tired MSM talking points, which have already been successfully rebutted, clarified and exonerated for months now, and who repeats them word for word, like they were just recently discovered. (Which in your case, is probably true.)
He did testify against Gore on the “Cap and Trade” hearings. He has walked much of that back. Not as much as I would like be he has! Newt has always been interested in environmental issues. Has always advocated that there is a conservative position on this and that political playing field should not be ceded to the Rats. If we let that happen there is no counter to Rats claiming that conservatives want dirty water and air. Newt is often too uncritical of environmental claims and claims coming from the academic community even more so. (Remember he does come from that community!). He needs to realize this and be doubly skeptical, particularly since his training is not in the sciences but in history. He needs to realize that he can be conned by “well crafted environmental story”. I think he has been burned enough on it that he is realizing his limitations on that issue and he is now marching down the right path on that.
Now the Fannie & Freddi stuff, he has explained that more then adequately and he did nothing wrong. If you choose to believe otherwise in spite of the facts then too bad! The Dede thing, much of that blame is due to the short comings the local New York State GOP officials. There have been several NY Staters on here who know the local politics and have said how locally corrupt it is. Newt's main problem here was jumping in too quick before he had any facts and he trusted the local GOP mavens. Of course his politician's ego wouldn't let him walk it back before he started to look foolish. The “Reagan era is over” statement was taken out of context. Basically he was arguing that saying Reagan Reagan Reagan like Dorothy (of Oz fame!) tapping her shoes together to leave Oz is not sufficient. Reagan was the greatest expositor of conservative principles in my life time. However he didn't invent them, he stood on the shoulders of giants as did others all the way back to the founding fathers. Conservative need to remember that connection and test candidates in light of that connection with present day issues. Anyway Nancy Reagan did make a public statement saying something about passing the torch to Newt. Newt has zigged & zagged at times with it, but if you average all that out he is still heading in the right Conservative (Reagan-like)direction.
Anyway Reagan wasn't even Reagan his last 2 or 3 years in office! He kind of admits that in his biography, he let himself be conned on a tax increase and on illegal immigration amnesty. Newt was there saw it, and I think has learned from that.
I like Santorum, but he needs to go back and take his Senate seat back. He is not ready for this many of his statements are just conservative platitudes. Now he does have a conservative record unlike Romney who also utters platitudes. I listen to him and I say OK fine I agree and then go back to whatever I was doing nothing grabs me and makes want to go “Over the Top” (To use a WWI saying!). When he is specific they are primarily “half measures”, much better then Romney whose solutions are quarter, 1/8 or 1/16 measures if he evens offers a solution. These just continue to kick the can down the road. The problems we have need bold measures. There are only two candidates that do that Gingrich & Paul. Paul is very very right on some things and very very wrong on others. Unfortunately what he is wrong on is potentially nationally cataclysmic and wipes out his positives. Just about everything Newt cites as national economic problems I have personally either experienced professionally or seen it in action professionally where either a corporation reacts bureaucratically (usually because of USG regulations!)or the USG reacts unthinking bureaucratically.
I don't really care that it took Newt three tries to find apparent marital bliss. I just hope he did. And don't cite Clinton, Clinton's problem was not the sex but lying under oath to a grand jury. (Merely potentially undermines the whole federal grand jury process!)
Maybe Rick later with some more seasoning.