OFFLINE

November 19, 2011|By Lawrence Lessig, Special to CNN

The Gingrich campaign has now confirmed a longstanding business relationship that enabled his consulting group to receive between $1.6 and $1.8 million from mortgage giant Freddie Mac. But it wasn't for "lobbying," Newt Gingrich insists. It was for "strategic advice on a wide range of issues."

OK, but then doesn't the payment, AP's Tom Beaumont asked the former House speaker, just remind people that "your background comes from being a Washington insider?"

"It reminds people," Gingrich corrected Beaumont, "that I know a great deal about Washington." And as he continued, "If you want to change Washington, we just tried four [sic] years of amateur ignorance and it didn't work very well, so having some-body who knows Washington might be a really good thing."

Ok.  So NEwt is now leading many of the polls.  (Toldya he wasnt finished.  Lol).  And now that he's in front, he's sure to draw the fire of everyone who hopes to knock him off.  It happened to Romney, Cain and Bachman.  Now it's Newt's turn.  

But here's the deal with Newt.  There are (so far) very few surprises other than his resiliency.  We already know about his marriages.  We SHOULD know the man was a paid consultant.  So this thing with Freddie Mac should come as no surprise.  And its not like he was working for Freddie after the bailouts.  Furthermore, anyone who DIDN't know Newt was a Washington insider would have to be a complete moron.  I mean...Newt was the Speaker of the House for crying out loud.  He is an insider.  He knows the ins and outs of Washington.  To me, this only means he knows how to get things done in that cesspool.  Lol!

I've said it before...I think Newt is the smartest, most capable person in the race.  I think he's the most qualified conservative candidate and he's got my vote.  

(I also think a Gingrich / Romney or a Gingrich / Santorum or Gingrich / Bachman ticket would be good).

OFFLINE

Why would you want Bachmann or Santorum on the ticket?  They're both fanatics.

As for the Newt, I don't think his being an insider makes him any more qualified.  The man may be quite intelligent and very well connected, however he's too cynical and self serving to ever make a decent President.  Besides, the man's ethics make Nixon look like a boyscout.  

I just hope that Huntsman can hold in there long enough to make it the the CA primary so I can actually have someone to vote for!

OFFLINE

Huntsman's a RINO.  Rino's are why the GOP got in this mess to begin with.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
Huntsman's a RINO.  Rino's are why the GOP got in this mess to begin with.

No, Huntsman's just sane.  The whole RINO act is getting old.  You know who the real RINO's are?  Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, and the religious right.  The traditional Republican may have typically been Christian, but Christianity didn't used to be the foundation of the party.  The fundies have basically hijacked the GOP.

OFFLINE

anyway, i'd vote for newt before i'd vote for romney, the waffler in chief. and i'd vote for either one of them over this pathetic excuse of a "president" we have now.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
anyway, i'd vote for newt before i'd vote for romney, the waffler in chief. and i'd vote for either one of them over this pathetic excuse of a "president" we have now.

  The Newt isn't any more consistent than Romney.  Look at his past statements about climate change and medical coverage.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
anyway, i'd vote for newt before i'd vote for romney, the waffler in chief. and i'd vote for either one of them over this pathetic excuse of a "president" we have now.

  The Newt isn't any more consistent than Romney.  Look at his past statements about climate change and medical coverage.

well that may be true, the man has been in politics longer than i've been alive. yet he doesn't come across as disingenuous like romney does. he's at least a trusted conservative, perception wise, whereas romney comes across as trying look and be conservative enough.

either way, they're both a little too establishment for my liking, but what are you gonna do?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
anyway, i'd vote for newt before i'd vote for romney, the waffler in chief. and i'd vote for either one of them over this pathetic excuse of a "president" we have now.

  The Newt isn't any more consistent than Romney.  Look at his past statements about climate change and medical coverage.

well that may be true, the man has been in politics longer than i've been alive. yet he doesn't come across as disingenuous like romney does. he's at least a trusted conservative, perception wise, whereas romney comes across as trying look and be conservative enough.

either way, they're both a little too establishment for my liking, but what are you gonna do?

Really?  I haven't heard a word from the man that sounded sincere (I suspect there isn't an honest bone in that man's body), but I suppose we're viewing him from different perspectives.  I still don't understand the resistance to Huntsman, the only skeleton he's got that I'm aware of is that he outsourced jobs.  As bad as that is, I don't see that hurting a Republican candidate.  As for establishment, Mitt was born into the establishment and grew up with one foot in, one foot out.  Newt is the establishment.

OFFLINE

I'm going by their platform.  Not by where one was born.  Or who he may have made a commercial with.  I'm going by what I've read in 2 of Gingrich's books and by his debates and by his stance on the issues (issues which have changed in the past 20 yrs btw).

Bachman has little chance no matter how much I like her.
Same for Santorum.  Its a money issue mostly.
Ron Paul has his vocal supporters, but most of the country really thinks the guy is looney tunes.
Herman Cain is likable but weak on foreign policy.  Plus he's the victim of a plot to destroy his credibility.  that woman who most recently claimed she had an affair with him was the limit.  She said "I didnt want to do this but I just HAD to".

Yeah...she had to.  Right.  

Perry has some clout but has hurt himself in the debates.  I'm afraid he in incapable of debating Obama.

And no one will give huntsman the time of day (place him in the same group as Bachman and Santorum).

Romney and Gingrich are the only 2 who have the moxie, the clout and the ability to debate Obama and beat him imo.  And Gingrich would run circles around him.  His past affairs and tv commercials and past with Freddie Mac wont hurt him.

I like both Romney and Gingrich's stance on the issues as well as their electability.  And that's the bottom line with me.

As for those who are RINO's.  A RINO is a republican moderate.  The name came in the 1920s.  It re emerged after the GOP had lost consecutive terms to the Bill Clinton machine.  And GOP leaders began to think we (I was a Republican at the time), needed to moderate our conservative stance in order to achieve power again.  It was all about power...not what was right for the country.  GOPers began to change their stance on the issues.  The flip flopped.  they began to spend more and more in Congress...exactly what Republicans were previously against.  Tax and Spend used to be the label attached to Democrats.  But during the Bush administration, Republicans began to cave into demands to tax and spend in Congress.  And the result was that we funded bailouts which led to the mess we are in now.

Obama has claimed that he inherited a mess.  He's right to a degree.  He did inherit the mess created by RINO's and Democrats.

THAT...is why I am scared to vote fr a RINO.  The GOP needs to purge itself and vomit out the RINOS.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

Herman Cain is likable but weak on foreign policy.  Plus he's the victim of a plot to destroy his credibility.  that woman who most recently claimed she had an affair with him was the limit.  She said "I didnt want to do this but I just HAD to".

Yeah...she had to.  Right.  

Well, looks like Cain is in a bit more trouble now:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/cain-reassessing-candidacy-as-new-allegations-emerge/?emc=na

Another allegation? Are we still in "Plot" territory then, or is it getting to the point of "no smoke without fire"?

The fact that he's "re-assessing his candidacy" would say to me that there has to be something in it. If he was totally innocent then he'd fight his corner, saying he's thinking of quitting says to me that he knows that there's something behind the allegations and he's looking to jump before he's pushed. Plus, whether or not he is innocent, the sign that he's wavering on continuing because of this doesn't bode well on his  temperament as potential commander-in-chief - there aren't any "do-overs" at 4am when the red phone rings...  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
Huntsman's a RINO.  Rino's are why the GOP got in this mess to begin with.

No, Huntsman's just sane.  The whole RINO act is getting old.  You know who the real RINO's are?  Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, and the religious right.  The traditional Republican may have typically been Christian, but Christianity didn't used to be the foundation of the party.  The fundies have basically hijacked the GOP.

Can I give an amen.....no......oh well.

I could never bring myself to vote for Newt. He is a typical big money, big government Republican. Basically he is a progressive in sheep's clothing....ala Bush I & II as well as Reagan. While Reagan was needed at the time, we do not need Newt. We need a true Conservative to oversee the austerity that needs to happen.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:


Well, looks like Cain is in a bit more trouble now:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/cain-reassessing-candidacy-as-new-allegations-emerge/?emc=na

Another allegation? Are we still in "Plot" territory then, or is it getting to the point of "no smoke without fire"?

I'm beginning to wonder.  Lol!  Its sad really.  And I'm hearing reports now that the blond accuser who gave a presser with that woman lawyer, is now in trouble and getting evicted from her "lavish townhouse".  Sounds like she may have needed money.

And the latest accuser...the one who supposedly had a 13 year affair with Caine...well, turns out she has a history of filing sexual harassment suits.  

Sorta makes ya wonder if these women really were harassed...or if they were hoping to get more "hush" money.

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:
The fact that he's "re-assessing his candidacy" would say to me that there has to be something in it. If he was totally innocent then he'd fight his corner, saying he's thinking of quitting says to me that he knows that there's something behind the allegations and he's looking to jump before he's pushed. Plus, whether or not he is innocent, the sign that he's wavering on continuing because of this doesn't bode well on his  temperament as potential commander-in-chief - there aren't any "do-overs" at 4am when the red phone rings...  

Eh...thats not always the case.  I certainly quit my job after being unfairly accused.  Its a no-win battle.  Someone accuses you and no matter what the eventual outcome...you always have that label hanging around your neck...dragging you down like a millstone.

Maye Cain did have affairs and maybe he did sexually harass some women.  I dunno.  But when I hear these things, I immediately look to see if there is some other motive for these women waiting 15 YEARS to pounce.  Waiting until Cain has amassed millions in campaign contributions.

Seems weird they got quiet after a payoff long ago when Cain was just another private citizen most people didnt know.  But when he got high profile and lots and lots of money (by most people's standards), they come crawling out of the woodwork.

I tellya...though there were parts of his platform that bothered me a little...I feel sorry for the man.

OFFLINE

What's a true Conservative and Whats a Progressive?

Whats a real Republican and Whats a RINO?

And what is a Libertarian?

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.  There are admittedly variants, but for the most part, when we speak of Conservatism today, we often hold up Ronald Reagan as the ideal.

RINO (Republican In Name Only) is a pejorative term that refers to a member of the Republican Party of the United States whose political views or actions are considered insufficiently conservative or otherwise not conforming to party positions.  Imo, John McCain and Arlen Specter were good examples.  John Huntsman is probably as nice a fellow as you could ever meet.  But he is certainly not a true conservative.

Huntsman has been linked as being on board with some of Obama's policies.  As governor Huntsman promoted programs intended to reduce carbon emissions, including the Western Climate Initiative, which included six states and three Canadian provinces, had a cap-and-trade provision and encouraged fuel-efficient vehicles, renewable energy use and energy conservation. He also appeared in an advertisement sponsored by Environmental Defense, where he said, “Now it’s time for Congress to act by capping greenhouse-gas pollution.”  (So if we are gonna criticize Newt for his commercial with Pelosi, we gotta include Huntsman for his going along with Obama's Cap and Trade policy).

In 2007, when asked about a healthcare mandate, Huntsman said, “I’m comfortable with a requirement – you can call it whatever you want, but at some point we’re going to have to get serious about how we deal with this issue”.

Huntsman also, as Governor, backed bills providing civil rights protections to gays and lesbians, and threatened to veto a measure repealing in-state college tuition for the children of illegal immigrants.

Certainly not a traditional conservative stance.  And this is why I say Huntsman is a RINO.  

While Newt did appear in that commercial...(which he has admitted was a huge mistake), he rejects a lot of what Huntsman and those like him stand for.

Now on Ron Paul.  Paul does have some Conservative views.  

But then there are things about him that are bothersome.  Ron Paul has stood up for the founder of WikiLeaks, going against many of his Republican colleagues by defending Julian Assange's leaks of secret American documents.  Many of Paul's Republican colleagues, as well as many Democrats, have voiced their outrage towards Assange.  I personally think the website is anti American and had a dangerous agenda.

He also stood with Uber Liberal Barney Frank on the effort to legalize Pot.  But Paul takes it even further, saying he would like to legalize all drugs.  Coke, Meth, LSD...the works.  

Furthermore Paul is ok with Iran developing a nuclear bomb.  He doesnt think the US should be involved in trying to prevent this and doesnt appear to care what danger this may pose to the region.  Listen, forget the jewish holocaust for a second.  I appeal to your pocketbooks.  If you think gas prices are high now, wait until Iran gets the Nuke.  We'll be riding horses then coz we wont be able to buy gas.  And you all know what this would do to the price of groceries and energy.  EVERYONE wold be on welfare then.  

OFFLINE

Ok, now to the term Progressive.  What is a Progressive?

It began in 1912 by Teddy Roosevelt.  But today it is used to describe people who embrace concepts such as environmentalism and social justice.  Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, John Conyers, John Lewis, and Paul Wellstone...and Hillary Clinton.

Progressives want a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government, from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty to one whose ends and scope would change to take on any and all social and economic ills.

Our founders understood that our national government must have the capacity to be strong  (this is why the Articles of Confederation were failing), they also were very clear that this strength must always be confined to very limited ends or areas of responsibility; government, in other words, while not weak or tiny, was to be strictly limited.  

Progressives, are quite the opposite; Progressives had an “evolving” or a “living” notion of government (yes, we get the term “living constitution” from the Progressives), and thus wanted government to take on whatever role and scope the times demanded.

The Progressives reasoned that people of the founding era may have wanted a limited government, given their particular experience with George III, but they argued that people of their own time wanted a much more activist government, and that we should adjust accordingly.

Quite simply, the Progressives detested the bedrock principles of American government.  They detested the Declaration of Independence, which enshrines the protection of individual natural rights (like property) as the unchangeable purpose of government; and they detested the Constitution, which places permanent limits on the scope of government and is structured in a way that makes the extension of national power beyond its original purpose very difficult.  “Progressivism” was, for them, all about progressing, or moving beyond, the principles of our founders.

This is why the Progressives were the first generation of Americans to denounce openly our founding documents.  Woodrow Wilson, for example, once warned that “if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface”.  And Theodore Roosevelt, when using the federal government to take over private businesses during the 1902 coal strike, is reported to have remarked, “To hell with the Constitution when people want coal!”

Sound familiar?  Govt bending the rules to take over companies?  

  

OFFLINE

Wish I'd have opened a separate topic for this now.  Oh well.

Libertarianism.  What is it?

Libertarianism, in the strictest sense, is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society. In the broadest sense, it is any political philosophy which approximates this view.  And there are varying degrees of Libertarianism.

Glenn Beck is a Libertarian.  So is John Stossel (FOX NEws).  And So is Ron Paul.

Glenn Beck is on one end of the spectrum and I submit that Stossel and Paul are on the other end.

Here's my fear of Libertarianism.

Libertarians often point to the Constitution as their Bible when it comes to political and social policy.  They aren't the only ones mind you.  Conservatives do too.  I do too!  But the problem comes when some Libertarians use this document to limit the things that our nation should be allowed to do...REGARDLESS of the effect it has on our country.

For instance, Stossel and Paul are (imo) UBER Libertarians who feel that because our Constitution doesnt specifically ban Marijuana, then our govt shouldnt either.  Because **** and Meth arent stated in the document, then our govt has no right to interfere.  They often like to point to the Prohibition experiment as a way to justify their belief.

But the problem comes when they dont consider the effect legalization would have on American society...and our pocketbook.  According to CNN, health care costs for a family of four have doubled in less than a decade from $9,235 in 2002 to over $19,000 in 2011.

Per family.

Estimates of the total overall costs of substance abuse in the United States, including productivity and health- and crime-related costs, exceed $600 billion annually. (Nat. Institute on Drug Abuse).

And Paul and Stossel want to hit our already overtaxed Healthcare with even more costs by legalizing addictions???

Ron Paul and John Stossel are UBER Libertarians who generally shrug off these numbers, saying that if people get addicted, its their own problem.  They hold fast to the idea that our Constitution prevents our govt from restricting access to or regulating drugs.

However...its funny how they omit that our Preamble of the Costitution says:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Note that boldface bit.

Promote the General Welfare.

What does that mean?

Quite simply it means that the US government will promote the state of well being, happiness and prosperity for the whole.  It will...create conditions where the people can flourish.  It will NOT cause harm to the people.

Glen Beck gets it.  Ron Paul and John Stossel dont.  They really dont address this because it doesnt fit their worldview.  So their stance would cost us a helluva lot more money.  But it gets worse.

Ron Paul, if elected, has stated that he doesnt think the US should intervene in any way with Iran on the subject of Nukes.  He has said he doesnt believe they are trying to create nuclear weapons despite Iran's claim they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.  He said he wouldnt intervene.  

Now, if Iran gets nukes, what does this mean for our own national security?  What if Iran sells these Nukes?  How will that affect us?  Does Paul consider this?  And what if, despite Paul's claims, Iran does exactly what they say they will do and try to destroy Israel?  What of the holocaust that would follow?  What of the destabilization of the region?  How will war in the Mideast affect the price of oil?

Doesnt matter to Paul coz it wont happen.