Re-Evaluating Newt..

[JoeB131]

All people have to do is watch Newt in a debate and the so-called likability problem will evaporate.

Newt is adorable on stage!

Obama is going to be sweating and huffing and Newt is going to be cute and charming as he smacks Obama around.

I wouldn't say he's adorable. I think he comes off kind of professortorial and sometimes a bit condescending, but it's fun because those reporters are such douchebags.

He also doesn't engage in the mudslinging at each other that Romney and Perry have engaged in. More than any of the others, he's been able to keep his eye on the ball of ridding ourselves of Obama.

again, I don't think likability is going to be the factor here. The main factor will be what it always is when an incumbant is involved. - Do people approve of the job he is doing?

 

[Cecilie1200]

All people have to do is watch Newt in a debate and the so-called likability problem will evaporate.

Newt is adorable on stage!

Obama is going to be sweating and huffing and Newt is going to be cute and charming as he smacks Obama around.

I wouldn't say he's adorable. I think he comes off kind of professortorial and sometimes a bit condescending, but it's fun because those reporters are such douchebags.

He also doesn't engage in the mudslinging at each other that Romney and Perry have engaged in. More than any of the others, he's been able to keep his eye on the ball of ridding ourselves of Obama.

again, I don't think likability is going to be the factor here. The main factor will be what it always is when an incumbant is involved. - Do people approve of the job he is doing?

I don't know that I'd describe him as "adorable", either, although I certainly find him amusing. I think his "competitors, not opponents" attitude toward the other candidates is actually doing a lot for his likability. He may not have the whole "I'd like to have a beer with him" thing that seems so dreadfully important to some people, but he's doing a masterful job of making himself appear as a pleasant interlude in the bickering.

 

[Amelia]

Newt has a twinkle!

I think more screen time will only increase the public's appreciation of his charisma.



While more screen time for Obama will just increase the overexposure Obama already suffers. Obama fatique is a real problem for that campaign.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm pondering whether Newt is sometimes 'condescending'. I personally don't see him that way but then I am also the type who doesn't qualify an opinion that I am confident about and so I too have been accused of being 'condescending', 'bossy', 'full of myself', etc. etc. etc. Of course I don't think I am at all condescending, bossy, or full of myself, but all of us are three people: the one we see, the one others see, and who we really are.]

Because my temperament type appreciates those who can state an opinion with conviction and defend it with supportable evidence, I therefore don't see Newt as condescending at all but simply a man who knows his own mind and can articulate it. To appease those who don't like my style, I've tried to soften my approach and discussion method in spirited discussions and miserably failed to do so. I don't know if Newt has tried to do that because I see when his certainty and confidence does irritate people, but I suspect we will have to just accept him as himself.

I'll put up with a lot of 'condescension' to get somebody who has a clue, who holds solidly conservative values when it comes to the economy, and who has a track record for getting things done.

Among those with the potential to get the traction to be elected and who also hold those conservative economic values and have a track record for getting things done are Romney, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich. I think any one are electable. I like all four for different strengths.

I won't have to hold my nose to vote for any one of them.

 

[SAT]

Newt's mind is for sale. Always has been.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gingrich is really nothing more than a standard issue late 20th century Republican whose entire 'plan' is based on the standard refrain:

1. Cut taxes

2. Increase defense spending

3. Balance the budget

How does he accomplish number 3 when numbers 1 and 2 are deadset against achieving number 3?

By the same 'magic' that didn't work for Reagan, or Bush I, or Bush II, and all of the rest of the above referenced crowd of GOP'ers who followed and/or continue to follow that fatally flawed fantasy.

They will either promise to make massive cuts in non-defense spending that will never ever happen, or,

they will make grandiose but ethereal references to how their revolutionary plan of tax cuts will unleash a dynamic economic explosion that will magically generate trillions of dollars of additional revenue out of thin air.

Fall for it at your own risk. You've been warned.

Conservative dogma is wonderful: no facts or truth required.

Have you actually listened to Newt recently?

Yes, I have – his ignorant comment about the Supreme Court was more than enough.

 

[Amelia]

Gingrich is really nothing more than a standard issue late 20th century Republican whose entire 'plan' is based on the standard refrain:

1. Cut taxes

2. Increase defense spending

3. Balance the budget

How does he accomplish number 3 when numbers 1 and 2 are deadset against achieving number 3?

By the same 'magic' that didn't work for Reagan, or Bush I, or Bush II, and all of the rest of the above referenced crowd of GOP'ers who followed and/or continue to follow that fatally flawed fantasy.

They will either promise to make massive cuts in non-defense spending that will never ever happen, or,

they will make grandiose but ethereal references to how their revolutionary plan of tax cuts will unleash a dynamic economic explosion that will magically generate trillions of dollars of additional revenue out of thin air.

Fall for it at your own risk. You've been warned.

Conservative dogma is wonderful: no facts or truth required.

Have you actually listened to Newt recently?

Yes, I have – his ignorant comment about the Supreme Court was more than enough.

I guess I know which SC comment you mean. Wasn't ignorant.

The SC became the SC as we know it in 1803 when Marshall's court claimed the power of judicial review.

Which you know.

 

[BenNatuf]

All people have to do is watch Newt in a debate and the so-called likability problem will evaporate.

Newt is adorable on stage!

Obama is going to be sweating and huffing and Newt is going to be cute and charming as he smacks Obama around.

You can't be serious.

Anyhow, the economy--GDP growth, job creation etc.--was mediocre after the Clinton administration pushed through a big tax increase in 1993. But when Gingrich and company pushed through a major tax CUT in 1997 along with welfare reform, and held Clinton's feet to the fire until he signed it, the economy really took off and boomed allowing a semblance of a budget surplus to be achieved.

There is a good discussion on that here:
Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom

The effects of a tax increase are usually a more sluggish economy. The positive effects of properly structured permanent tax cut are well documented. The effects do top out and level out after a period of time, but the economy then settles in at a stronger place than when it started.

Nobody has a better grasp on these concepts than Newt Gingrich.

Then how does Newt explain the economy since the huge tax cuts put in place by Bush the Lesser?

I'm not sure how anyone can rationally be in favor of corruption on Wall Street.

Voters are aware of GOP intransigence. That factors into how they see the economy.

Newt's likability problem is more than his serial infidelity.

Yeah, it was intransigent for a majority of the house GOP to vote against providing the bailouts the OWS is protesting and really looking out for the little guy for the democratics to vote almost unanimously for the bailouts the OWS are protesting.

Fucking liberals... what a bunch of lunatics.

You mean the '08 bailout?

Certainly I do... and before you blow a gasket screaming BOOOOOOSSSSHHHHHH!!!!!

Bush is not the president any longer, their are however plenty of politicians still in washington who did vote for the bailout. Odd that the OWS doesn't seem to want to hold them accountable?

Does it make any sense to you at all for OWS to be protesting banksters like turbo tax timmy taking the money the government offered (which by the way has been mostly paid back with interest), while they clamor for more free shit for themselves? Are bailouts OK if the right people get them?

The OWS argument is completely devoid of any logical reasonning. They complain about the government LOANING money to banks who paid it back by protesting the banks, while they demand the government give them shit for free they'll never have to pay back. At the same time they don't appear to be outraged at all about the governments fascist takeover of a private company (GM) by taking it from it's rightful owners and completely disregarding 200 years of bankruptcy law in order to bail out their union buddies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gingrich is really nothing more than a standard issue late 20th century Republican whose entire 'plan' is based on the standard refrain:

1. Cut taxes

2. Increase defense spending

3. Balance the budget

How does he accomplish number 3 when numbers 1 and 2 are deadset against achieving number 3?

By the same 'magic' that didn't work for Reagan, or Bush I, or Bush II, and all of the rest of the above referenced crowd of GOP'ers who followed and/or continue to follow that fatally flawed fantasy.

They will either promise to make massive cuts in non-defense spending that will never ever happen, or,

they will make grandiose but ethereal references to how their revolutionary plan of tax cuts will unleash a dynamic economic explosion that will magically generate trillions of dollars of additional revenue out of thin air.

Fall for it at your own risk. You've been warned.

Have you actually listened to Newt recently?

And what is Newt saying, lately, that contradicts any of the above?

Does he not want to cut taxes? Does he want to cut defense? Is he not promising to balance the budget?

You tell us.

 

[Foxfyre]

And Newt was one of Bush's most thoughtful critics on some of the indefensible leftist policy that Bush signed off on during his eight years. Bush was a fiscal conservative when it came to taxes, but not when it came to spending. And he was no conservative on immigration, energy, environment, or education, or when he pushed the Senior prescription entitlement. Nor was the majority of the Republican Congress during the first six years of his administration.

Bush and the Republican Congress, however, were far FAR more conservative than the Democratic congress that took over in January 2007 though.

 

[SAT]

]Certainly I do... and before you blow a gasket screaming BOOOOOOSSSSHHHHHH!!!!!

Bush is not the president any longer, their are however plenty of politicians still in washington who did vote for the bailout. Odd that the OWS doesn't seem to want to hold them accountable?

Does it make any sense to you at all for OWS to be protesting banksters like turbo tax timmy taking the money the government offered (which by the way has been mostly paid back with interest), while they clamor for more free shit for themselves? Are bailouts OK if the right people get them?

The OWS argument is completely devoid of any logical reasonning. They complain about the government LOANING money to banks who paid it back by protesting the banks, while they demand the government give them shit for free they'll never have to pay back. At the same time they don't appear to be outraged at all about the governments fascist takeover of a private company (GM) by taking it from it's rightful owners and completely disregarding 200 years of bankruptcy law in order to bail out their union buddies.

Yes, OWS makes sense. You lack information.

The government lent money, and then held no one responsible for the crisis.

Bankers created risky financial instruments for short-term profit. The same banks creating the instruments bet against them.

As for fascist takeover, be serious.

And Newt was one of Bush's most thoughtful critics on some of the indefensible leftist policy that Bush signed off on during his eight years. Bush was a fiscal conservative when it came to taxes, but not when it came to spending. And he was no conservative on immigration, energy, environment, or education, or when he pushed the Senior prescription entitlement. Nor was the majority of the Republican Congress during the first six years of his administration.

Bush and the Republican Congress, however, were far FAR more conservative than the Democratic congress that took over in January 2007 though.

Bush merely implemented more of Reagan's policies. Cut taxes, but keep spending.

 

[Amelia]

Gingrich is really nothing more than a standard issue late 20th century Republican whose entire 'plan' is based on the standard refrain:

1. Cut taxes

2. Increase defense spending

3. Balance the budget

How does he accomplish number 3 when numbers 1 and 2 are deadset against achieving number 3?

By the same 'magic' that didn't work for Reagan, or Bush I, or Bush II, and all of the rest of the above referenced crowd of GOP'ers who followed and/or continue to follow that fatally flawed fantasy.

They will either promise to make massive cuts in non-defense spending that will never ever happen, or,

they will make grandiose but ethereal references to how their revolutionary plan of tax cuts will unleash a dynamic economic explosion that will magically generate trillions of dollars of additional revenue out of thin air.

Fall for it at your own risk. You've been warned.

Have you actually listened to Newt recently?

And what is Newt saying, lately, that contradicts any of the above?

Does he not want to cut taxes? Does he want to cut defense? Is he not promising to balance the budget?

You tell us.

You gave your bullet list as Gingrich's entire plan.

If you think that is his entire plan, my suspicion was that you hadn't listened to him lately. I'll take your deflection as confirmation that you have not. I don't know his entire plan, but I know enough to know that you don't have it right.

I'm still learning about him. I'll let someone else address your details, if they're interested in talking to someone who would pigeonhole Gingrich without listening to him.

 

[SAT]

I listened to him enough over the last twenty years. He lies like a rug, he panders to your prejudices, and he's interested in nothing more than Newt.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Remember also that what conservatives perceive to be ‘wonderful’ and ‘intelligent’ with regard to things Gingrich says is not perceived as such by non-conservatives.

And that’s the trick: fielding a candidate whom is attractive to a majority of voters, and that’s certainly not Gingrich, with regard to democrats in particular.

Bush is not the president any longer…

Thank goodness.

But we’ll be living with the disastrous consequences of his failed administration for years to come. Consequently, the concerns of OWS or any other American as to current economic issues are relevant with regard to criticism of Bush, and their concern that the failed economic policies of the GOP not be repeated.

 

[BenNatuf]

]Certainly I do... and before you blow a gasket screaming BOOOOOOSSSSHHHHHH!!!!!

Bush is not the president any longer, their are however plenty of politicians still in washington who did vote for the bailout. Odd that the OWS doesn't seem to want to hold them accountable?

Does it make any sense to you at all for OWS to be protesting banksters like turbo tax timmy taking the money the government offered (which by the way has been mostly paid back with interest), while they clamor for more free shit for themselves? Are bailouts OK if the right people get them?

The OWS argument is completely devoid of any logical reasonning. They complain about the government LOANING money to banks who paid it back by protesting the banks, while they demand the government give them shit for free they'll never have to pay back. At the same time they don't appear to be outraged at all about the governments fascist takeover of a private company (GM) by taking it from it's rightful owners and completely disregarding 200 years of bankruptcy law in order to bail out their union buddies.

Yes, OWS makes sense. You lack information.

odd how you can't explain how?

The government lent money, and then held no one responsible for the crisis.

The people responsible for the crisis are the government, the FED, mortgage brokers, Fanny and freddy (more of the government) and the deadbeats who took out loans and couldn't pay them back.

Bankers created risky financial instruments for short-term profit. The same banks creating the instruments bet against them.

and if the deadbeats they bet against had paid the mortgages they would have lost the bet... would you be upset about that? I do agree that the derivitive market is screwed up. I would make one change (possibly others), in that I would regulate that to hold the derivitive of a security, you also have to hold the security. Then it's no different than insurance. The way it is now, it's more like a casino.

As for fascist takeover, be serious.

Really? What sort of policy do you call it when the executive has the power to take control of a private company from it's rightful owners by converting a loan into common stock after pushing the secured bondholders to last in line for recoupment of thier investment, removing board members and replacing them with thier chosen agents without a vote if the shareholders, replacing the CEO with their own puppet, and having a czar dictate to the company what they must do... all while keeping "inept CEO's and greedy corporate executives" around to play the jew when it fails?

We used to call that "fascism".

 

[BenNatuf]

Have you actually listened to Newt recently?

And what is Newt saying, lately, that contradicts any of the above?

Does he not want to cut taxes? Does he want to cut defense? Is he not promising to balance the budget?

You tell us.

You gave your bullet list as Gingrich's entire plan.

If you think that is his entire plan, my suspicion was that you hadn't listened to him lately. I'll take your deflection as confirmation that you have not. I don't know his entire plan, but I know enough to know that you don't have it right.

I'm still learning about him. I'll let someone else address your details, if they're interested in talking to someone who would pigeonhole Gingrich without listening to him.

Newt Gingrich 2012 | Leadership Now

 

[SAT]

odd how you can't explain how?

The people responsible for the crisis are the government, the FED, mortgage brokers, Fanny and freddy (more of the government) and the deadbeats who took out loans and couldn't pay them back.

I did explain how, and you responded to it. Wall Street bankers are responsible for the crisis. Government is responsible for the lack of oversight.

You need to read up on fascism. It is NOT entering into a lawful agreement with a company and its union members so that the company can survive and then pay back the loan.

 

[Synthaholic]

I find it interesting that Obama is getting away with record payoffs for his re-election bid from the 1% ers and Democrats embrace it..... I dislike the word h y p o c r i s y...

Why do you equate #OWS with Obama supporters?

Easy--because Obama supports OWS.

Hate at Occupy Wall Street - YouTube

Wow, you are really fucked up.

 

[Synthaholic]

I find it interesting that Obama is getting away with record payoffs for his re-election bid from the 1% ers and Democrats embrace it..... I dislike the word h y p o c r i s y...

Why do you equate #OWS with Obama supporters?

Easy--because Obama supports OWS.

Hate at Occupy Wall Street - YouTube

Mitt Romney supports #OWS:


Romney Says He Understands Occupy Wall Street - YouTube

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Why do you equate #OWS with Obama supporters?

Easy--because Obama supports OWS.

Hate at Occupy Wall Street - YouTube

Wow, you are really fucked up.

Someone who totes PeeWeePervert as his avie and claims another poster is fucked up??