2012 Presidential Primary Poll

[Warbird]

Newt and his very successful daughter Jackie both deny that. Both say his wife wanted the divorce, and before the cancer was diagnosed.

Just quoting for posterity so you can reflect back on that statement, comrade.

- OS

That is true. The story did start with a Mother Jones piece many years ago. It is true they were in the middle of a divorce when she had cancer. It is not true that he decided to divorce her when he found out she had cancer or that they knew of her cancer before deciding to divorce. It is true there was infidelity in the marriage.

Newt is very much a political animal. He can get things done and he isn't afraid to take on a fight, even with those in his own party. At times the majority as been to the left of him and at times to the right of him. He has a brilliant mind for strategy and tactics. He is one of the best I have seen at putting ideas into simple messages that are generally appealing. He is one of the ultimate masters at adding adverbs and adjectives to the simplest ideas to make it sound grandiose, intellectual and wonderfully logical.

He lead the republican and conservative drive to to congressional control in '94. He also had the help of a number of issue organizations which had had enough of the old guard and decided to push hard for a change as well.

Newt's problem comes in effective leadership once he has the ability to make those changes. He orchestrated the defeat of many of his own ideas, before allowing their votes as speaker. He became overly protective of members of his party that really shouldn't need to be protected, ie they weren't voting with him and they weren't going to get the support of the opposition groups on the other side either.

Newt allowed appeasement to take over the better part of discretion. As Churchill said, "An appeaser is one who feeds and alligator hoping it will eat him last". Clinton in his move to the right took advantage of Newt and Newt and the republicans took the brunt of the blame for the government shutdown, which by the way didn't save us any money. That combined with Newt's fallible belief that Lewinsky and that scandal would energize his base, cost him his leadership in the end.

[hornett22]

You shouldn't believe the story the media has given you on Newt.

I'm not attempting to change your opinion but the Mother Jones story that is the root of this lie was nothing more than a smear campaign on yet another conservative.

There's more to newt that just that. Research deeper. He's a dirtbag.

Plus I'm going on my gut. It's never been wrong. I have but my gut hasn't.

[kieefer]

There's more to newt that just that. Research deeper. He's a dirtbag.

Plus I'm going on my gut. It's never been wrong. I have but my gut hasn't.

They're all dirtbags.

Newt has the experience to get this economy moving and to make things happen in Washington. Most in the current field could too, except Paul. Dr No has some good ideas but he can't make it happen.

We have to fill the house and senate with representives that have conservative views and weed out these socialists. I think enough people have woken up and that maybe there's a slim chance that in a few more election cycles that we can get back to at least some of our roots.

[wjh2657]

Reagan's policy was peace through strength, Pauls policy is peace though friendship.

Dr. Paul's policy is for us to keep our nose out of foreign political affairs and stop trying to be the "Emperors of the World". Instead of our boys dying, let theirs die and make money out of selling them the weapons to kill each other with. Pretty much what Washington, Madison and Jefferson told us to do.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

They're all dirtbags.

Newt has the experience to get this economy moving and to make things happen in Washington. Most in the current field could too, except Paul. Dr No has some good ideas but he can't make it happen.

We have to fill the house and senate with representives that have conservative views and weed out these socialists. I think enough people have woken up and that maybe there's a slim chance that in a few more election cycles that we can get back to at least some of our roots.

Thanks for saying this. There are just not enough getting this point, and the problem, even with this point is that

not enough people are engaged in this. Complacency.

I also think we should have the Potomac River drained because of the disease it carries. It might expose the Metro,

but who cares? money once spent.

[Guest jackdm3]

Reagan's policy was peace through strength, Pauls policy is peace though friendship.

He'd pull out of foreign matters because it's usually NOT in our interests. But you can't be friendly if you pull away. And I'm OK with that.

[wjh2657]

Kieefer said:

"We have to fill the house and senate with representives that have conservative views and weed out these socialists. "

I agree with Kieefer mainly because he used the "little c" word. The Conservatives, "big C" word, are not, by any stretch of the imagination, conservatives. Both parties are Welfare parties. One is for Public Welfare and the other is for Corporate Welfare. Neither is going to stop giving away tax money to their cronies.

Mike.357said: "I will quit before voting for Newt. He is exactly what brought the country to this point."

I agree with Mike.357 because Newt is a douche bag professional bandit. He doesn't need the media to point that out, his own actions in the past shout it out.

Ron Paul is a true conservative (little c word) and neither party wants one of those"nut jobs" floating around invoking the Constitution and building a sensible but profit cutting government.

Edited December 5, 2011 by wjh2657

[Guest mikedwood]

They're all dirtbags.

Newt has the experience to get this economy moving and to make things happen in Washington. Most in the current field could too, except Paul. Dr No has some good ideas but he can't make it happen.

We have to fill the house and senate with representives that have conservative views and weed out these socialists. I think enough people have woken up and that maybe there's a slim chance that in a few more election cycles that we can get back to at least some of our roots.

So you are saying Newt can get a buncha stuff started, make things roll and fix things cause he's your kind of conservative.

Dr. Paul is incapable of putting the brakes on a buncha stuff to carry out the plan to get this country on a firmer foundation for a possible future.

They call him Dr. no because he won't vote for things he believes are unconstitutional, so he votes no a lot. You have a problem with that? It seems you have a huge problem with that.

You and I have a vast difference in the definition of conservative.

[Guest mikedwood]

It often confuses me that the Republican party has the lock on the word "conservative" when so few have a clue as to what it means.

[kieefer]

So you are saying Newt can get a buncha stuff started, make things roll and fix things cause he's your kind of conservative.

Dr. Paul is incapable of putting the brakes on a buncha stuff to carry out the plan to get this country on a firmer foundation for a possible future.

They call him Dr. no because he won't vote for things he believes are unconstitutional, so he votes no a lot. You have a problem with that? It seems you have a huge problem with that.

You and I have a vast difference in the definition of conservative.

I want the most conservative candidate THAT CAN WIN to be elected. Newt is not my first choice but it looks like a lot of people see him as a potential and he would mop the floor with BHO in a debate. It's also STILL TOO EARLY, things could change.

The population is divided and Pauls conservative views are not mainstream, little has changed since 2008. IF he becomes the nominee or polls show him to be the one up against BHO, I'll vote for him, but I think he will loose against BHO. I like a lot of his ideas but a lot of people don't.

Things are libel to be stagnant with whoever gets in office until we get the tables stacked on our side. As I said, I think Paul would make LESS of a difference because he won't get his ideas through the Congress and his foreign policy could make things worse. (Bush wanted SS reformed too)

I'm all for cutting spending including entitlements, reducing governments size, personal freedom and liberties and giving power back to the states but looking at the big picture the single most important goal at this time is getting this idiot out of office and defeating future liberals. Which again goes back to electing representatives both local and state to stack the house in our favor. This is also why we are going to have to settle once again on the MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE THAT CAN WIN.

It also doesn't matter what yours or my definition of conservative is, this is politics and we are not going to have rebirth of what the Founding Fathers intended with the current batch of dirt-bags crawling all over Washington.

We actually need to get rid of them all and start over, and that ain't gonna happen.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It often confuses me that the Republican party has the lock on the word "conservative" when so few have a clue as to what it means.

They don't have a lock on it, but they are the only ones that seem to occasionally come close. A lot of

cleaning is required in that party.

I agree with you about Dr. Paul, so we don't need to go there. I'm left with a lot of disgust in the politics

like most of us are. Ideas and principles are what we are looking for out of a candidate, and all we see are

smear campaigns by one or both parties.

The trouble is, Thomas Jefferson has been alone for so long facing the White House. He needs some help

up there. I will vote for Paul if he is it. We better fill the House and Senate with a lot of Tea Partiers, too.

It takes all of it, remember.

[mikegideon]

It's not just the politicians. It's a very large part of the voting public. You can't fix government as long as half the population wants to turn this place into France.

[kieefer]

It often confuses me that the Republican party has the lock on the word "conservative" when so few have a clue as to what it means.

Be sure to scroll all the way down,

Ron Paul on the Issues

and look Newt up while you're there.

[Glenn]

Thank you, Glenn. Have you had it stuck in your head all these years, too? At least I got Motown right.

No not really. But it is stuck there now.

Really good song.

Glenn

Edited December 6, 2011 by Glenn

[Guest mikedwood]

Be sure to scroll all the way down,

Ron Paul on the Issues

and look Newt up while you're there.

Checked it out. Some neat stuff there, still a Paul fan

I just really can't get passed the others wanting to go so full force in the war on terror, and whatever else they feel needs warred upon, and I'm really afraid they feel that which needs warred upon is us.

I guess a real blunt way of putting it is that I'm over war.

I'm also over debt.

I'm also over regulations. If I knew how to write I'd spend some time and write a book on how over regulations I am.

BUT I've been doing some thinking and I don't know if America can handle freedom again,,,

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Benjamin Franklin

"Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppresive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people."

George Washington

"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea."James Madison

"A nation as a society forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society."

Thomas Jefferson

So freedom takes virtue, if you believe the guys who wrote the stuff. Well that's concerning.

[Guest jackdm3]

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Benjamin Franklin

Man, is that ever rich. The corrupt ARE the masters!

[Warbird]

I think Rammesh Ponnuru has a pretty solid article on Gingrich today. He reinforces some of my experiences with Gingrich and expands in other areas.

For those of you who think Gingrich is a far better choice than the more moderate Romney, you should read it.

Heartbreak Awaits Republicans Who Love Newt: Ramesh Ponnuru - Bloomberg

[mav]

I think Rammesh Ponnuru has a pretty solid article on Gingrich today. He reinforces some of my experiences with Gingrich and expands in other areas.

For those of you who think Gingrich is a far better choice than the more moderate Romney, you should read it.

Heartbreak Awaits Republicans Who Love Newt: Ramesh Ponnuru - Bloomberg

Good article, thanks for the post. One of the things I have been trying to tell people jumping on the Newt bandwagon for political strategy (i.e. he is the most electable candidate) is that he will have a difficult time defeating Obama. Personally, I believe it will be harder to defeat Obama with Newt as the candidate versus some of the other candidates.

[kieefer]

Well, it's still early. The attack machine is cranking up against Newt and no doubt RPaul will likely pile on.

Who knows the attack machine might turn it's sights toward Paul and he'll finally get his due attention.

[Warbird]

Well, it's still early. The attack machine is cranking up against Newt and no doubt RPaul will likely pile on.

Who knows the attack machine might turn it's sights toward Paul and he'll finally get his due attention.

Well I don't think there's anything new under the sun being said about Newt. It's a rehashing of many of the same things that were said about him in the 90's. However, there were I guess, quite a few things people who didn't pay attention to these things then or were not old enough to remember are just hearing about.

It is a catch 22 really. No one wants to pay media attention to someone not being considered as a serious candidate. Then they get all sorts of attention when they become the flavor of the month and plummet. Romney does not get the same thing because, as a former front runner, he went through all of this 4 years ago. Part of the problem of being a new guy on top you start getting all of that attention and criticism and fall back down, with little time to rehab your campaign and make another run.

Paul just doesn't have a lot negs that haven't already been said. He pretty much is what he is. You either like his ideas or you don't. Of all of the people running he is the most principled. He won't tell you what he thinks you want to hear. He is thoughtful and well reasoned and can explain to you why thinks the way he does on his issues. He is very well read and adheres most always to his basic beliefs. I have known him for many years and have a very high opinion of him as a person. I know many of the people working for him. For me to say I have a high opinion of a long sitting politician does mean a lot to me, as I cannot say that of most of them.

I will also note that I am not making an endorsement of him as president either. It is simply my experience in 20+ years of doing this.

[hornett22]

I find it difficult to buy the war on terror hype while our southern border is basically wide open and our idiots in the district of criminals are shipping guns down paid for with our tax dollars.

[Oh Shoot]

The GOP really blew it by not grooming a new, younger candidate or two and throwing resources behind them. Rubio, Ryan, or similar.

Basically a dynamic "Hope and Change" entry of our own, from somewhat right of center, as most of America claims to be.

- OS

[eapking]

...But I'm also to the point where I feel it needs to be anyone but the big O.

This.

[kieefer]

The GOP really blew it by not grooming a new, younger candidate or two and throwing resources behind them. Rubio, Ryan, or similar.

Basically a dynamic "Hope and Change" entry of our own, from somewhat right of center, as most of America claims to be.

- OS

The GOP establishment appears to care less what the voters want, they are seldom out there standing for a cause or backing a candidate, maybe it's just the media shunning them? Who knows.

Both of those young fellows you mention will hopefully have a brighter vision and future than the current batch of geezers. Those two and maybe a few more are just the kind of men we need to elect at the state level.

I had hoped Mike Pence would have gotten into the "P" game but once again hope and change will remain a lame slogan.

[Guest mikedwood]

The GOP establishment appears to care less what the voters want, they are seldom out there standing for a cause or backing a candidate, maybe it's just the media shunning them? Who knows.

Both of those young fellows you mention will hopefully have a brighter vision and future than the current batch of geezers. Those two and maybe a few more are just the kind of men we need to elect at the state level.

I had hoped Mike Pence would have gotten into the "P" game but once again hope and change will remain a lame slogan.

I think the GOP is desperately seeking Reagan through old guys, plus there is an old guard and you gotta pay the dues and probably give up your soul and agree to things that would make a grown man full of disgust to get to play in the big leagues.

Years ago I heard an interview with Jerry Doyle who ran on the Republican ticket for house of Reps. It was before his radio show. I don't remember whos show it was but he gave a long and great interview on what it was like to run and what he was expecting and how the new blood is treated (not that good at all) he was expecting an opportunity to help America but he found out it was basically a telemarketing position for getting the party money.

It's all about special interest, very special interest.