Ok, so now what? Three states, three different winners.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The only problem I have about that AR is I have been saying this long before the media or other candidates have taken it up.

The only thing I am hoping for now is that Newt and Santorum will stay in the race as long as possible splitting up the delegates. I wouldn't mind seeing a brokered convention. We have some very strong conservatives within the GOP. Unfortunately, none of them decided to run for president. We need someone like a Jim DeMint to go up against Obama.

I don't know enough about how a brokered convention works, but I do know if it happens,

it could end up either way, good or bad. When the people are involved in the process and

it's taken out of their hands, that could make for an even more unhappy voting block.

Jim Demint would be a good choice in my mind, also. A Tea Party favorite.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There are several around here who keep saying Obama is going to be re-elected

anyway. Just how do you know that? If any halfway conservative is against him

Obama's poll numbers don't show it. It all depends on whether or not conservatives

turn out at the polls on the only day that counts.

[mav]

It all depends on whether or not conservatives

turn out at the polls on the only day that counts.

I can only speak for myself, but I will be voting on election day. I will more than likely be wearing nose plugs voting for the GOP nominee.

[Guest ThePunisher]

From what I read on RedState, one explanation about Newt's win there, is that the

People are getting extremely frustrated with the GOP elite sending "their" candidate

and forgetting what the Tea Party movement did in 2010. Makes sense to me, since I'm

inclined to back the Tea Party movement.

This entire election cycle will either kill our country or keep our heads above water.

There's your choice. Make it count. I'm still for the last man standing on the right side.

This whole election is nothing more than beating Obama. That being said, someone with an IQ of 50 would be a better choice for President than Obama. Newt is the more polished politician to turn this country away from the Marxist/Socialist direction our country is heading. He's got his faults, but who doesn't. And do you think the Libs are concerned about moral upright living in our society. I'd rather have a president who's been married three times than a president who's been involved with Marxist cronies intent on destroying Americas capitalistic society. The MSM still will not vette Obama, and are equally complicit in destroying our liberty and freedoms. People are getting behind Newt because he is the only one taking on the commie MSM.

The primary elections will determine whom the R candidate will be, and it is going to be left up to the people of this country to determine if they want to go along with Democrats and completely transform our great nation into a Marxist/Socialist commie nation, or return to the great America values and traditions that has made our country so great. This is the chance for Americans to prove they are not brain dead idiots by getting firmly united behind the R candidate no matter what baggage they carry.

[Guest lostpass]

They don't seem to be doing a very good job at it.

While an outright ban on firearms isn't going to happen, I could see further gun controls, including banning certain types of firearms via execuctive orders. This president is so out of control, I wouldn't put anything past him. In a lame duck term, what has he really got to lose? Boehner and company certainly don't have to stones to impeach him.

They'd impeach him tomorrow if they had the votes. They don't and I don't see them getting them. Though I'm kind of unsure for what they would impeach him for...

I guess that part doesn't matter, they don't have the votes and that is the deciding factor.

[mav]

They'd impeach him tomorrow if they had the votes. They don't and I don't see them getting them. Though I'm kind of unsure for what they would impeach him for...

I guess that part doesn't matter, they don't have the votes and that is the deciding factor.

Actually, the House does have the votes to impeach the president. However, he would most assuredly be acquitted in the Senate. They wouldn't dare proceed with it because the president is still popular, and the congressional approval rating is almost in single digits. They would have to endure an attack along with charges of racism like nothing we would have seen before.

In regards to Newt attacking the media, am I the only one that sees this as nothing more than political theatre?

[bigwakes]

In regards to Newt attacking the media, am I the only one that sees this as nothing more than political theatre?

That seems to be effective and in my opinion warranted. That's why I like him so much, he is a fighter and is not afraid to tell someone to get out of his face. That's what we are missing with all the wussy republicans we have.

[Oh Shoot]

Actually, the House does have the votes to impeach the president. However, he would most assuredly be acquitted in the Senate....

Yeah, the House's only say in the process is to call for an impeachment trial. Only takes a majority vote there (of those present - if they don't show they don't vote). The trial is handled in the Senate and takes a 2/3 vote there for conviction.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

NRA will appeal yesterday’s decision by a federal court in Texas, which held that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect any right to keep or bear arms outside the home.

NRA-ILA :: NRA Will Appeal Texas Concealed Handgun Case

Ah, thanks.

Well, that's all about 18 year olds getting permits; they used 2A "bear" part as the justification. I see that as not even being heard by the Supremes who have already ruled by not ruling on the carry part in both Heller and McDonald. But anything's possible, I guess.

- OS

[Guest lostpass]

On Obama: you're the best kind of correct. That's technically.

Yes, if you're running on the republican ticket you can play to the voters by attacking the media. People have been beat over the head with the idea that the media is biased. Say a lie enough and people think it is true. So it is a good tactic. The truth is different. Newspapers want to sell ads, TV types want to sell ads, radio folks want to sell ads. Fox news is conservative not because of some belief system but because they want to sell ads.

The sooner that everyone realizes that the media isn't there to inform people and is just there to sell ads the sooner everyone will see the truth. When you say "OMG, the news sentinel published a hugely biased article today" you should be say "OMG, the news sentinel thinks this will sell papers?"

The media isn't there to tell you the truth, they are there to make money.

[Guest ThePunisher]

On Obama: you're the best kind of correct. That's technically.

Yes, if you're running on the republican ticket you can play to the voters by attacking the media. People have been beat over the head with the idea that the media is biased. Say a lie enough and people think it is true. So it is a good tactic. The truth is different. Newspapers want to sell ads, TV types want to sell ads, radio folks want to sell ads. Fox news is conservative not because of some belief system but because they want to sell ads.

The sooner that everyone realizes that the media isn't there to inform people and is just there to sell ads the sooner everyone will see the truth. When you say "OMG, the news sentinel published a hugely biased article today" you should be say "OMG, the news sentinel thinks this will sell papers?"

The media isn't there to tell you the truth, they are there to make money.

And how do explain that alot of these liberal media sources are nearly bankrupt or have gone completely out business. The Libs are total failures in the talk radio medium. I have not subscribed to the Tennessean in over 15 years. New York Times is barely staying afloat. I hope they all go bankrupt.

Edited January 23, 2012 by ThePunisher

[Guest lostpass]

And how do explain that alot of these liberal media sources are nearly bankrupt or have gone completely out business. The Libs are total failures in the talk radio medium. I have not subscribed to the Tennessean in over 15 years. New York Times is barely staying afloat. I hope they all go bankrupt.

Why would I explain it when you are making my point for me?

[kieefer]

Ok, Gingrich is predicted to win South Carolina. Santorum actually won Iowa. Mitt won New Hampshire. Ron Paul has yet to win a state, but is consistently 2nd or 3rd.

What does this mean? What do you think will happen now?

Presently, I think it shows Mitt as the media darling. Santorum as the Religious Right darling. Gingrich as the flavor of the month (too many bad issues, from House Ethics Violations and fines, to having an affair while slamming the then President for his adultery, to Freddie Mac $$$) And Ron Paul as the favorite of this forum and others, like the military.

What are your thoughts on this?

I say it's still wide open, people are tired of Mitt and with his and RP's negative ads have turned off voters. Newt started out with a positive campaign but the others didn't want to go along.

Mitt is a another moderate fake and a MSM favorite, Newt is standing up and saying it like it is and people like it. Poor ole Santorum is probably more conservative than any of them but on the debate forum he's not getting his message out. He spent a lot of time in Iowa and ended up wining. He was also ahead of RP in SC.

RP, as we stated here in other posts won't win, he's just not mainstream enough to win the majority.

FL will be interesting since it's a closed primary but Super Tuesday could define the real winner.

[Mike.357]

I dunno who the winner will be but there is no doubt who the losers will be.

[kieefer]

In regards to Newt attacking the media, am I the only one that sees this as nothing more than political theatre?

Of course it's political theatre, both of them have to appeal to everyone and Mitt's doing a better job of it than Newt.

Paul could care less and Rick is just being honest.

Another debate/show tonight, we'll see who steps it in this time but I'm betting you'll see the same wimpy Mitt, another arrogant Newt, Paul will be waving his arms like the robot in Lost in Space and Rick will get the least amount questions.

[Oh Shoot]

NM, I misread something I found.

- OS

[kieefer]

There are several around here who keep saying Obama is going to be re-elected

anyway. Just how do you know that? If any halfway conservative is against him

Obama's poll numbers don't show it. It all depends on whether or not conservatives

turn out at the polls on the only day that counts.

Might add that not only conservatives need to turn out but also those that don't agree with what he has done. That may be a given but some of those are democrats truly disappointed in the lies and damage BHO has done, some of these are the folks that find Mitt.... sadly more appealing.

Hopefully more than ever will be showing up to express their disgust.

[Guest HvyMtl]

In regards to Newt attacking the media, am I the only one that sees this as nothing more than political theatre?

Well, I think it is valid, but he should point to the fact the Media is still saying this is "in the bag" for Mitt. No matter Mitt has won only 1 out of 3 so far, and that was in his backyard. They simply state, Mitt has the money and the organization, so he will win. Not exactly an unbiased reporting by the media.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Just what is other than political theater during a campaign? I thought all of this was.

The media and the left want Mitt. Could that be more obvious?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Might add that not only conservatives need to turn out but also those that don't agree with what he has done. That may be a given but some of those are democrats truly disappointed in the lies and damage BHO has done, some of these are the folks that find Mitt.... sadly more appealing.

Hopefully more than ever will be showing up to express their disgust.

I hope you are right.

Man, if they're stupid enough to sit this one out, we don't deserve to be a country any way.

[mav]

Let me see if I can explain the political theatre I was referring to. First off, everybody know that media has a liberal bias. It has been that way a long time (longer than I have been alive), and it is not going to change. Having a candidate attack the media accomplishes what exactly, outside of allowing people to give a collective "Hell yeah."? Since there is no way they are going to change, and it doesn't prove anything that we didn't already know, I don't think it accomplishes anything.

In regards to the original complaint Gingrich made against CNN's John King, I think it was nothing more than feigned outrage. Newt never answered the question. He deflected the question by attacking the media, which I believe was well rehearsed. Newt is not an idiot, and he is a very experienced politician. He knew that this question would be brought up, and since it was the topic of the week, he more than likely knew it would possibly be the first question asked.

Whether you like him or not, Santorum made a good point that this topic is fair game. He stated that it is an issue of character. As I stated earlier, Newt dodged this issue by appealing to our (conservatives) loathing of the media. I said it was feigned outrage because after the debate, Newt was all chummy with John King. Hence, this was nothing more than political theatre.

It took me a while, but I have finally learned that politicians and the MSM have a symbiotic relationship. They both need each other for their survival. The media's benefit is obvious, scandals and conflicts sell. A politician benefits when they can't stand behind their record or have said or done something in their past; they can cry foul against the media. They have an immediate scapegoat for their actions and/or words.

Personally, I couldn't care less about the ex-wife issue with Gingrich, and I absolutely abhor the MSM. However, when a candidate gets asked a question, they should answer it and not demagogue the one asking the question in hopes of deflecting the issue. The MSM sucks and they are certainly biased, but they aren't always wrong.

[Oh Shoot]

....The media and the left want Mitt. Could that be more obvious?

The country is right about center. The center is far left of where it used to be.

We need better than Mitt, but we need Mitt because much of the center and somewhat left, disenchanted with O, will vote for him. So will most of the right, because we have no choice if we want to see O deposed.

I won't say a true conservative could NOT win this election, but any that could ain't running. A true conservative has to be charming, Reaganesque, smooth the message with likeability. We don't have anyone like that right now.

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Poll: 33 Percent of GOP Voters Want New Candidate | The Weekly Standard

According to the way the poll was structured, as far as I can tell, 33 percent want more candidates to choose from.

It would be interesting how the percentages would go if the question had been asked other ways.

I never learned card games, but recall many movie scenes where a guy says, "I've got nothin" tosses his hand down, and hopes he gets better on the next deal.

It wouldn't hurt my feeling to toss out all these candidates like bailing on a bad hand of cards. Start out with a new bunch. The only one I like can't win, and am pretty certain the others either can't win, or would be bad news if they do win.

[Guest ThePunisher]

It wouldn't hurt my feeling to toss out all these candidates like bailing on a bad hand of cards. Start out with a new bunch. The only one I like can't win, and am pretty certain the others either can't win, or would be bad news if they do win.

The only one who will be bad news if he wins is Obama. If you think his three years has been bad, yov've not seen anything if he gets 4 more.

Anybody but Obama.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Is there someone else up there we can talk to?