I don't think Newt is electable either. He's been as big a whiner as Obama this past couple of weeks. It's a CAMPAIGN and he thinks they should all be positive about their opponents - that's just infantile.
And I hate to say it, but I absolutely couldn't stand to look at his wife as much as we've seen of Michelle Obama for 3 years. Seriously - she is one plastic and scary-looking woman! On Dec 31 2011, 12:23 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't agree with Newt on a number of issues, and I would like for him to > adopt a more "Limited Government" attitude; by his actions and not > just words....(Newt talks a good game of limited government now) > > I do think that Gingrich looks for solutions to a number of problems that > this Nation faces, from a conservative viewpoint, and that he could be an > inspiration to this Nation, just as Reagan was after Carter. I cannot > think of any major issue where Gingrich does not have a conservative point > of view or policy. Example? > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > "*Thou shalt not speak ill of fellow conservatives*". > > > I think of Romney as a liberal and Newt as a fence sitter or moderate at > > best. Newt is too fast to compromise. It is truly time for a true > > conservative hard liner based on the bill of rights.....especially the > > tenth amendment. > > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Keith In Tampa > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> Good Morning Perp and Mark! > > >> I agree with both of you......Sorta....... > > >> I am one that believes the Republican candidates should adhere to the > >> Republican 11th Commandment: "*Thou shalt not speak ill of fellow > >> conservatives*". Ron Paul broke this rule in Iowa, as he blasted both > >> Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney in Iowa with false, misleading and > >> prevaricate commercials. We've seen Paul's legions here in PF inundate > >> the board with many of these false assertions. (*See* MJ and PlainOl). > > >> Just as important, for months, the Paul supporters all had their panties > >> in a wad, claiming that the media was ignoring Paul; that Paul wasn't > >> getting his fair share of press coverage. Well, once Paul's numbers went > >> up in Iowa, the press did in fact start covering Paul, and the light got a > >> little brighter on Paul's past record. Just as it did on Gingrich and > >> other candidates who have been raked over the coals by pundits; > >> (*See*John Sununu, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and a number of pseudo RINO > >> assholes who are in Romney's camp and who have attacked Gingrich > >> unmercifully and unfairly). You don't see Gingrich supporters crying like > >> women, the way that Paul supporters are crying! I was listening to Rush > >> Limbaugh and several other talk show hosts yesterday, and the barrage of > >> Paul supporters crying foul was unbelievable! > > >> The truth is Paul has a number of skeletons in his closet and his legions > >> of crackpot supporters are now pissed that the truth is coming out about > >> Crazy Uncle Ron. > > >> Paul is not electable on a national scale, but as both of you pointed > >> out, *IF* Paul chooses to break away and run as a third party > >> candidate, it will no doubt cost the Republicans the election, and we will > >> see another four years of socialist/communist presidential directives and > >> executive orders, of which our Nation may not be able to recover. > > >> I trust that Paul has enough sense and wisdom to know that his running as > >> a third party candidate will do serious damage to our Nation and that his > >> candidacy would be an open ticket to a second Obama Administration. > > >> I'm all for throwing Paul a bone.....Give him a prominent night for a > >> speech at the Convention here in Tampa in August, and I would whole > >> heartedly support "Secretary Of The Treasury Paul". > > >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:39 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE > >> <[email protected]>wrote: > > >>> Perplexed has it right... if he cuts and runs as an independent Obama > >>> will win... he has 15% of the vote in his pocket. > > >>> On Dec 31, 7:35 am, Perplexed <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > Keith, I agree with you that a lot of his views are those of a > >>> > crackpot. But I noticed yesterday watching some discussion on one of > >>> > the Fox News shows that the pundits are being downright stupid in how > >>> > they are stepping up the talking points of "he's not electable". To > >>> > say he couldn't win in a general election is likely very true, but > >>> > that's not what they were doing. The person actually referred to his > >>> > candidacy as a "joke". > > >>> > Personally I think that kind of nonsense will backfire and encourage > >>> > Paul to run as an independent and republicans can kiss any chance of > >>> > defeating Obama good-bye. These ignorant assholes who make up the > >>> > "GOP establishment" and their mouthpieces in the media are apparently > >>> > too stupid to realize they should be respectful and leave room to > >>> > encourage Paul to join whoever the eventual nominee is - because > >>> > without him AND his supporters voting for whoever that is, republicans > >>> > stand no chance of winning, and that's just a fact. > > >>> > On Dec 31, 12:49 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 11:00 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > > Posted on Thu, Dec. 29, 2011 > >>> > > > *GOP Establishment wrong to ‘disenfranchise’ Ron Paul supporters > >>> > > > *BY COLIN MCINTOSH > > >>> > > > Don’t tread on me. > > >>> > > > Recently, something’s been amiss in the mainstream media when > >>> discussing > >>> > > > Ron Paul’s candidacy. As the Texas congressman’s support has > >>> surged to 15 > >>> > > > percent nationally in the latest Washington Post poll, the “Very > >>> Serious > >>> > > > Republicans” who write columns and give their opinions on TV and > >>> radio > >>> > > > shows have changed their tune. They aren’t as confident, as cocky > >>> or as > >>> > > > arrogant as they used to be when predicting the 2012 presidential > >>> election. > > >>> > > > Now, they sound scared; they sound nervous; they sound shaken. But > >>> most > >>> > > > important, they sound resolute that they, and not their audience, > >>> represent > >>> > > > the opinions of mainstream America. They are wrong, and their > >>> gamble will > >>> > > > be costly. > > >>> > > > In the absence of facts to support the Establishment candidates, > >>> the media > >>> > > > have turned to personal insults, childish mockery, and deliberate > >>> > > > misinterpretation of Dr. Paul’s lessons. Their goal, quite > >>> shamefully, is > >>> > > > to convince Ron Paul supporters that the candidate that they > >>> believe in has > >>> > > > no chance of winning the nomination, let alone the general > >>> election. Here > >>> > > > are some recent headlines from around the web: “Huckabee slams Ron > >>> Paul, > >>> > > > says he has ‘no chance’ to win Republican nomination” The Hill > >>> “Ron Paul > >>> > > > can’t be allowed to win Iowa” Daily Caller “Why Ron Paul Can’t > >>> Win” > >>> > > > Wall Street Journal “If Ron Paul wins Iowa, does that make the > >>> state > >>> > > > irrelevant?” Christian Science Monitor > > >>> > > > This type of overt pressure from our media to change your vote > >>> because > >>> > > > “your candidate can’t win” constitutes a form of > >>> disenfranchisement. > >>> > > > Despite Paul’s rise to the front of the pack in Iowa, the media > >>> still > >>> > > > ignore that his national support from Republicans has risen from 9 > >>> percent > >>> > > > to 15 percent in a month (Washington Post/ABC poll, Dec. 18). They > >>> refuse > >>> > > > to report the fact that he would lose only by 49-44 in a > >>> hypothetical race > >>> > > > against Obama, down from 52-42 just one month ago. > > >>> > > > They will never tell us that 21 percent of Americans polled chose > >>> to vote > >>> > > > for Ron Paul as a third party candidate over the hypothetical > >>> choices of > >>> > > > President Obama or Romney/Gingrich. > > >>> > > > This last statistic leads me to my main point: if the GOP > >>> nominates anyone > >>> > > > besides Ron Paul, Barack Obama will win the 2012 election. > > >>> > > > Why? > > >>> > > > Currently, Establishment Republicans are issuing an obvious > >>> warning to > >>> > > > Paul’s base: vote for Romney, or the Democrats will win in > >>> November. > >>> > > > Clearly, they hope this ominous bit of advice also reaches the > >>> millions of > >>> > > > Americans who are still learning about Ron Paul’s views. Well, Dr. > >>> Paul’s > >>> > > > supporters have a retort: we don’t give a damn. > > >>> > > > There are worse things than having a Democrat in the White House, > >>> and > >>> > > > disenfranchisement is among them. We will not vote for whom we are > >>> told. We > >>> > > > will not vote for a candidate who espouses a policy of preemptive > >>> war. We > >>> > > > will not vote for the continuation of a flawed, costly, > >>> discriminatory drug > >>> > > > war. We will not vote for the circumnavigation of the U.S. > >>> Constitution. We > >>> > > > will not vote for a candidate (Romney) who has received just 10 > >>> percent of > >>> > > > his campaign donations from actual people (from opensecrets.org). > >>> And we > >>> > > > will not feel remorse for a Republican Party that has abandoned us. > > >>> > > > I am a registered Republican, but when I listen to my so-called > >>> party > >>> > > > leaders, I become infuriated and despondent. When did preemptive > >>> war become > >>> > > > our national defense? When did the desire to police the world > >>> become so > >>> > > > mainstream that we forgot that our nation was birthed from a > >>> repugnance to > >>> > > > imperialism? When did we concede that the federal government has > >>> the right > >>> > > > to regulate our lives to the point of quiet despotism? > > >>> > > > And most important, when did we become convinced that our votes > >>> and voices > >>> > > > only matter if we support the perceived frontrunner? > > >>> > > > As an advocate of liberty, I will vote on principle over party, > >>> every > >>> > > > time. If the Republican Party took the time to educate its members > >>> on the > >>> > > > issues, rather than simply bullying them into submission, their > >>> party > >>> > > > wouldn’t be so splintered right now, and perhaps Dr. Paul would > >>> have a > >>> > > > unified force behind him heading into > > ... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
