Gingrich is killing it in these debates

[Toro]

I'm not a huge fan, but I have to give credit where credit is due and he's wiping the floor with the republican field in these debates. I wish Paul was a little bit more articulate and less frenetic in his responses. He definitely offers the most substance in his replies, but a lot gets lost in translation. Romney is a milquetoast douchewagon who can't even give a straight answer to a simple question like 'do the states have the right to ban contraception?'

Get used to the idea of 4 more years of the Oh-Boy.

It was his performance on stage which dragged him back into relevance in the first place. He is very smart and articulate. But he's Newt Gingrich and has little chance.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not a huge fan, but I have to give credit where credit is due and he's wiping the floor with the republican field in these debates. I wish Paul was a little bit more articulate and less frenetic in his responses. He definitely offers the most substance in his replies, but a lot gets lost in translation. Romney is a milquetoast douchewagon who can't even give a straight answer to a simple question like 'do the states have the right to ban contraception?'

Get used to the idea of 4 more years of the Oh-Boy.

It was his performance on stage which dragged him back into relevance in the first place. He is very smart and articulate. But he's Newt Gingrich and has little chance.

Quite right. Let's push the guy the voters resoundingly rejected four years ago. And if he can't win honestly, cheat.

 

[Toro]

I'm not a huge fan, but I have to give credit where credit is due and he's wiping the floor with the republican field in these debates. I wish Paul was a little bit more articulate and less frenetic in his responses. He definitely offers the most substance in his replies, but a lot gets lost in translation. Romney is a milquetoast douchewagon who can't even give a straight answer to a simple question like 'do the states have the right to ban contraception?'

Get used to the idea of 4 more years of the Oh-Boy.

It was his performance on stage which dragged him back into relevance in the first place. He is very smart and articulate. But he's Newt Gingrich and has little chance.

Quite right. Let's push the guy the voters resoundingly rejected four years ago. And if he can't win honestly, cheat.

Gingrich has no money. He has no organization. Virtually nobody who worked with him in the 90s is supporting him let alone working for him. He's a walking repository for comedic material. And he has almost as much baggage as you have hatred. So he doesn't have much chance.

Sorry.

 

[editec]

I'm not a huge fan, but I have to give credit where credit is due and he's wiping the floor with the republican field in these debates. I wish Paul was a little bit more articulate and less frenetic in his responses. He definitely offers the most substance in his replies, but a lot gets lost in translation. Romney is a milquetoast douchewagon who can't even give a straight answer to a simple question like 'do the states have the right to ban contraception?'

Get used to the idea of 4 more years of the Oh-Boy.

He's glib, that's for sure.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The bar has been set so low by you nutters...........that Newt appears to be brilliant.

 

[JoeB131]

Gingrich has no money. He has no organization. Virtually nobody who worked with him in the 90s is supporting him let alone working for him. He's a walking repository for comedic material. And he has almost as much baggage as you have hatred. So he doesn't have much chance.

Sorry.

So essentially, for completely SUPERFICIAL reasons, we are rejecting the most qualified candidate and nominating a Ken Doll, hoping to God no one notices his religion is batshit crazy and he's flip-flopped on every issue out there.

Yup. Makes sense to me.

 

[JoeB131]

The bar has been set so low by you nutters...........that Newt appears to be brilliant.

Your guy can't get out a coherent sentence without a teleprompter.

 

[Sarah G]

The bar has been set so low by you nutters...........that Newt appears to be brilliant.

Your guy can't get out a coherent sentence without a teleprompter.

Newt is living in the past, he invokes the name Reagan in every other sentence. He is not as smart as Obama, not even close. Newt is a talking point has been and he is incapable of any ideas that will move this country forward.

 

[Toro]

The bar has been set so low by you nutters...........that Newt appears to be brilliant.

Your guy can't get out a coherent sentence without a teleprompter.

Newt is living in the past, he invokes the name Reagan in every other sentence. He is not as smart as Obama, not even close. Newt is a talking point has been and he is incapable of any ideas that will move this country forward.

I rarely watch these debates, but in one I did watch for a bit, Newt was asked the very first question and it took him exactly one second to say "Reagan."

 

[LoneLaugher]

The bar has been set so low by you nutters...........that Newt appears to be brilliant.

Your guy can't get out a coherent sentence without a teleprompter.

Would you like me to repost video of Obama destroying the entire GOP contigent at their meeting without using a teleprompter?

I will only do so if you promise to watch the entire video. Deal?

 

[Toro]

Gingrich has no money. He has no organization. Virtually nobody who worked with him in the 90s is supporting him let alone working for him. He's a walking repository for comedic material. And he has almost as much baggage as you have hatred. So he doesn't have much chance.

Sorry.

So essentially, for completely SUPERFICIAL reasons, we are rejecting the most qualified candidate and nominating a Ken Doll, hoping to God no one notices his religion is batshit crazy and he's flip-flopped on every issue out there.

Yup. Makes sense to me.

Those aren't superficial reasons. Gingrich is not a leader, at least not of the most important country on earth. The people whom he led in the past don't want him now, and his temperament is not suited to the Presidency.

Sorry.

 

[JoeB131]

The bar has been set so low by you nutters...........that Newt appears to be brilliant.

Your guy can't get out a coherent sentence without a teleprompter.

Newt is living in the past, he invokes the name Reagan in every other sentence. He is not as smart as Obama, not even close. Newt is a talking point has been and he is incapable of any ideas that will move this country forward.

You mean he wants to go back to a time when we were prosperous and powerful.

Oh, the horror.

 

[JoeB131]

Gingrich has no money. He has no organization. Virtually nobody who worked with him in the 90s is supporting him let alone working for him. He's a walking repository for comedic material. And he has almost as much baggage as you have hatred. So he doesn't have much chance.

Sorry.

So essentially, for completely SUPERFICIAL reasons, we are rejecting the most qualified candidate and nominating a Ken Doll, hoping to God no one notices his religion is batshit crazy and he's flip-flopped on every issue out there.

Yup. Makes sense to me.

Those aren't superficial reasons. Gingrich is not a leader, at least not of the most important country on earth. The people whom he led in the past don't want him now, and his temperament is not suited to the Presidency.

Sorry.

Given those people were a large part of the problem, and couldn't wait to get back to making deals with the other side, not seeing their objections as being the problem.

I look at the results- Balanced budgets (kind of), welfare reform and serious changes in the way Congress did business.

But, heck, no, we don't want any real reform. We want a guy who is going to cut more deals with the special interests, because that's worked so well for the country.

 

[Caroljo]

Does anybody here know anyone with a "perfect" past? If we had to wait for someone to run for president that had nothing wrong with their background, we would NEVER elect anyone. There's not a perfect person here on earth....so the best we can do is pick who we think would do the best job. Having affairs does not mean the person isn't capable of running the country (look at Clinton...or Kennedy...or most likely several others we hadn't heard about). I think Newt would do the best job. I could be wrong, but look how many people were wrong about Obama. It can't be worse! At least, as far as i know, Newt has never hung out with terrorists or went to a church filled with hate for America. We have to decide what our priorities are...what's the most important qualities in someone running our country...are they doing what is best for all of us? Ask that question about Obama and it's a resounding NO!

 

[Sarah G]

After this weekend's debates, Newt dropped even further in the polls. Jon Huntsman gained ground, he's now third.

 

[JoeB131]

After this weekend's debates, Newt dropped even further in the polls. Jon Huntsman gained ground, he's now third.

The real question is, why do Republicans keep letting NH have such a prominant role in this process, as they've only (barely) carried the state once in the last five elections.

But this whole system sucks, really.

 

[Claudette]

Does anybody here know anyone with a "perfect" past? If we had to wait for someone to run for president that had nothing wrong with their background, we would NEVER elect anyone. There's not a perfect person here on earth....so the best we can do is pick who we think would do the best job. Having affairs does not mean the person isn't capable of running the country (look at Clinton...or Kennedy...or most likely several others we hadn't heard about). I think Newt would do the best job. I could be wrong, but look how many people were wrong about Obama. It can't be worse! At least, as far as i know, Newt has never hung out with terrorists or went to a church filled with hate for America. We have to decide what our priorities are...what's the most important qualities in someone running our country...are they doing what is best for all of us? Ask that question about Obama and it's a resounding NO!

Couldnt' agree more.

I liked Newt when he was Speaker and I still like Newt.

Newt can reach across the aisle and work with the other side as he has proved in the past. He and Clinton worked well together and got a lot done. He's the smartest guy in the room and definetly the best debater of the bunch. He could wipe the floor with Barry in a debate.

Is he perfect? Hell no. But then who is.

He certainly didn't tell the Dems that he won and they should get in the back of the bus and STFU.

His personal baggage doesn't bother me at all in fact I could care less.

 

[Caroljo]

After this weekend's debates, Newt dropped even further in the polls. Jon Huntsman gained ground, he's now third.

The real question is, why do Republicans keep letting NH have such a prominant role in this process, as they've only (barely) carried the state once in the last five elections.

But this whole system sucks, really.

No kidding....the whole thing needs to be overhauled.

 

[JoeB131]

After this weekend's debates, Newt dropped even further in the polls. Jon Huntsman gained ground, he's now third.

The real question is, why do Republicans keep letting NH have such a prominant role in this process, as they've only (barely) carried the state once in the last five elections.

But this whole system sucks, really.

No kidding....the whole thing needs to be overhauled.

Another reason why I think we have a problem is the GOP has this mentality of "next in line". Or "it's his turn", the thinking that got us Bob Dole, John McCain and now, Mutt Romney.

In short, "Hey, GOP voters, we know you thought that guy sucked one or two election cycles back, but here he is with new packaging!"

The Democrats, bless their hearts, have a policy of shooting their wounded. If you came in second or third place, we don't want to see you again, and we'll slap you down hard if you try to show up. (Lieberman, John Edwards.)

 

[Caroljo]

The real question is, why do Republicans keep letting NH have such a prominant role in this process, as they've only (barely) carried the state once in the last five elections.

But this whole system sucks, really.

No kidding....the whole thing needs to be overhauled.

Another reason why I think we have a problem is the GOP has this mentality of "next in line". Or "it's his turn", the thinking that got us Bob Dole, John McCain and now, Mutt Romney.

In short, "Hey, GOP voters, we know you thought that guy sucked one or two election cycles back, but here he is with new packaging!"

The Democrats, bless their hearts, have a policy of shooting their wounded. If you came in second or third place, we don't want to see you again, and we'll slap you down hard if you try to show up. (Lieberman, John Edwards.)

Speaking of John Edwards...the dems are so worried about what Newt did (which is way screwed up because it's been proven the Newt didn't give his wife divorce papers when she was so ill) but yet they probably would have voted in Edwards no matter that he had a child with another woman, while his wife was riddled with cancer, and lied continually about it until he couldn't any longer. But it was most likely ok since he was a democrat