Quotes of the day

posted at 10:55 pm on December 7, 2011 by Allahpundit

“At the end of Gingrich’s first year as House speaker, his endless, nutty pronunciamentos — in addition to his plan to entrust Republicans’ legislative agenda to an old couple whose living room VCR continuously flashed ’12:00′ — had driven his public approval numbers into the dirt…

“It’s true that the liberal media attack Republicans unfairly. But that’s a fact to be dealt with, not ignored by nominating a candidate who keeps giving the media so much to work with.

“Gingrich has spent his years since then having an affair, divorcing his second wife and making money by being the consummate Washington insider — trading on access, taking $1.6 million from Freddie Mac, and palling around with Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton…

“Newt Gingrich is the ‘anti-Establishment’ candidate only if ‘the Establishment’ is defined as ‘anyone who remembers what happened the day before yesterday.’”

***

“Even as he surges ahead in the polls, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is struggling to get out from under a mountain of debt from luxury jets and other pricey expenses racked up in the early weeks of his campaign.

“Creditors say Gingrich has begun paying back nearly $1.2 million in bills he owed at the end of September, and his spokesman says most will be taken care of by the end of the year. Other debts — including $42,000 owed to Gingrich himself for the campaign’s use of a mailing list — have already been paid, ahead of those owed to other vendors, according to aides and disclosure records…

“Gingrich’s financial health could prove crucial in the coming weeks as he attempts to hold on to his sudden lead over Romney and other Republican candidates in many state and national polls. Romney reported raising $32 million through September — more than 10 times the amount Gingrich reported — allowing him to easily fund major advertisements and organizing efforts for early contests in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.”

***

“Mr. Gingrich has little or no campaign organization in Iowa and most other states. He didn’t file a complete slate of New Hampshire delegates and alternates. He is the only candidate who didn’t qualify for the Missouri primary, and on Wednesday he failed to present enough signatures to get on the ballot in Ohio. Redistricting squabbles may lead the legislature to move the primary to a later date and re-open filing, but it’s still embarrassing to be so poorly organized.

Organization truly matters, especially in low-turnout caucuses. Four years ago, for example, 118,917 Republicans turned out in Iowa—and only 424 votes separated the third- and fourth-place finishers. The total turnout was considerably less than the 229,732 Iowans who voted in the GOP primary for governor two years later. Being organized in all 99 Iowa counties means more people can be dragged to caucus meetings who might otherwise stay home on a wintery eve, believing their vote doesn’t matter.”

***

“‘I think Romney is going to win,’ a top Romney adviser said. ‘I can’t tell you exactly when he’s going to win or how he’s going to win.’

“Romney campaign has ‘a pretty good oppo package’ on Gingrich and is prepared to go nuclear, said a top GOP consultant familiar with the campaign.

“Many who know him best remain skeptical that Gingrich will have the discipline to avoid self-immolation.

“‘He’s a little bit like charcoal briquettes in the backyard,’ said Rich Galen, who was an aide to Gingrich on and off between 1982 and 1998. ‘When you first light them, there’s a lot of smoke and fire and a lot of stuff going on. But you can’t cook a steak on that.’”

***

“Something similar is happening with Gingrich and the image of the Master Debater. People see Gingrich handle himself well in eight-way debates (an easy task when no other candidate has even bothered criticizing you all year because you seemed so irrelevant), and they imagine that he’s the one to take the fight to Obama. Suddenly it doesn’t matter that he has always been not only anti-conservative on cap-and-trade, but has lied about what his position was. Suddenly it doesn’t matter that he said the profiteers at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be criminally investigated even though he was one of the profiteers — and that he, again, apparently has been prevaricating about what he did for Freddie. Suddenly it doesn’t matter that he has always been wrong on a health-care mandate, wrong on ethanol for all the years he’s been paid to be wrong on ethanol, wrong on entitlements and on Paul Ryan’s budget, wrong on amnesty for illegal immigrants, wrong as wrong could be on ethical issues and behavior aplenty, wrong on the TARP bailouts, wrong on liberal candidate Dede Scozzafava, wrong in the past on the Fairness Doctrine, wrong on leadership, weak at actual negotiating (actually, ‘melting’) against Bill Clinton, weak at actually running a government, and about as personally trustworthy as Joe Isuzu: He’s gonna pummel Obama, yesiree, and then all will be well!…

“The important thing is this: Even if Gingrich’s debating invincibility weren’t an utter myth, the notion that debates next fall will be tremendously important is a myth, and a much bigger one. The deal is this: General-election presidential debates rarely make a big difference. What makes a bigger difference is unpaid (establishment) media (Gingrich will get crushed), organization (Gingrich will get crushed), paid media (Obama’s $800 million campaign will crush him), and the voters’ sense of whether they would mind seeing and hearing the candidate on their TV screens for the next four years (not bloody likely, based on the Gingrich persona’s long-established propensity to wear out its welcome and become grating after a few months).”

***

“But when you’ve cheated on your first wife with your second and you’ve cheated on your second wife with your third, and your policy positions in the past decade have been all over the place, how do I first know you won’t cheat on me politically and how do I reconcile my desire for a President my kids can respect with your life?

“I feel guilty for feeling this way, but I just don’t know that I can support him in the primary. Over Romney? Sure. Newt won’t be nearly as devastating down ballot as Romney if things go wrong for the GOP. But over Bachmann, Huntsman, and Perry in alphabetical order?…

“But if Perry is not ready, I have to say I may have to seriously reconsider saying I’d never, ever, never vote for Jon Huntsman. He is more consistently conservative than either Newt or Romney, more pro-life than either, and a far more competent executive than either. He and Perry also are very real and sincere family men. Jon Huntsman clearly adores his family and I have concluded, despite my own misgivings about him, that he would govern more consistently to the right of Mitt Romney than even his campaign team would have us believe.”

***

“Gingrich has 30 years of history with most Washington pols, much of it bad blood – remember the attempted coup? Still, few are likely to go so overtly at Gingrich as Coburn. Instead, they’ll take the tried and true Washington path: anonymously leak every damaging and embarrassing story the Speaker has ever been even remotely involved in (see Politico story above). The question is this: Given his momentum with primary voters, will anything stick at this point? ‘A tough effort to push Romney through could backfire,’ says Norm Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. ‘The ‘establishment’ — it has been co-opted by the insurgent forces it tried to co-opt in 2010 — may fall back on plan B: try to keep anyone from winning enough delegates to claim a majority and take it to the convention to get [former Florida Governor] Jeb Bush or [former Indiana Governor] Mitch Daniels.’”

***

***

“He spent [1998] pre-emptively surrendering on anything of legislative consequence, but then, feeling bad at having abandoned another two or three of his ‘Fourteen Steps to Renewing American Civilisation’, he’d go on television and snarl at everybody in sight. . . . For Republicans it was the worst of all worlds: a lily-livered ninny whom everyone thinks is a ferocious right-wing bastard.

“That’s how it would go this time round. We’d wind up with a cross between Teddy Roosevelt and Alvin Tofler who canoodled on the sofa with Nancy Pelosi demanding Big Government climate-change conventional-wisdom punitive liberalism just as the rest of the planet was finally getting off the bandwagon . . . but the media would still insist on dusting off their 1994 ‘The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas’ graphics.”

Via the Daily Caller.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Easy Answer: Nuke the bastards.

UODuckMan on December 8, 2011 at 1:23 AM

You show me the candidate advocating for that. Of the plans actually offered by candidates, Ron Paul’s will be the most effective and sustainable.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 1:26 AM

The problem there is that you are the arbitrator of your version of conservatism only. Individuals have their own issues that are deal breakers, I would never presume to make mine the goal line of everyone else.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:24 AM

On that we disagree too. I am an atheist, yet I don’t presume that anyone should agree with me. I don’t presume that I know which stocks to buy or how to build things I don’t know anything about. I do believe that if you have a Constitution adhering to it literally is the only way to go.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:27 AM

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2011 at 1:21 AM platypus on December 8, 2011 at 1:22 AM

Yep, 5 to 7 is more reasonable. platypus, it is funny that you should say that. I was telling the Husband earlier this evening that normally the Left take care of their fallen but I don’t think that’s going to happen this time. I think Blago is going to be hung out to dry. They better hope he is a dumb as he seems and doesn’t have too much inside info.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:29 AM

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 1:26 AM

Ron Paul is also connected with Nazis. Honestly, he should go to hospice care, his career after this election is done.

UODuckMan on December 8, 2011 at 1:30 AM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/11/18/busted-proof-positive-that-gingrich-supported-healthcare-mandates/2/

Nice work if you can get it but not particularly useful if you are going to run for president on a platform that completely trashes what you had previously supported.

Now, one could argue that Newt’s proposal is somehow different from Obamacare because Gingrich exempts those who earn less than $50,000 from having to purchase coverage.

But that argument would fail miserably. In Newt’s book “Real Change”, published in 2008, Gingrich repeated his proposal that those making over $50,000 be required to purchase health insurance. But he also noted that those who earn below that level should receive tax credits or government subsidies to assist them in acquiring health care insurance coverage.

Sound familiar? It should. The proposal is pretty much Obamacare on the nose.

If GOP primary voters are paying attention, this should close the door on poor old Newt. After all, what’s the use of running a cranky old guy for President when he spends most of his time engaging in hypocrisy on steroids and running away from previously held positions for which he was paid magnificently to pursue.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:30 AM

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 1:25 AM

Releasing a comprehensive plan this early in the game is dangerous. Look what happened to Cain re: 999 and Perry with the flat tax. It doesn’t give you a huge boost with voters but it leaves you very open to attacks on your plan from other candidates/the left.

I think that Ron Paul knows deep down that he’s not going to win, and he’s just doing whatever he can to stay relevant, shape the discussion re: fiscal policy, and pave the way for Rand to eventually make a splash on the national level.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 1:31 AM

Newt has no credible plan to do the same in our current economic environment.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 1:25 AM

I do – default on paying T-bond interest. Instant dead market for US bonds, which also kills the Fed instantly.

The economy will explode as we will have to rebuild our manufacturing infrastructure very fast. All our food will stay right here because most of the countries who buy our food do so with credits, not cash.

We are the only country that can actually do this because we are able to be completely self-sufficient.

Oh yeah, there’s the side benefit of killing the whole crony capitalist one world order crap-pile.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 1:32 AM

“Something similar is happening with Gingrich and the image of the Master Debater. People see Gingrich handle himself well in eight-way debates (an easy task when no other candidate has even bothered criticizing you all year because you seemed so irrelevant), and they imagine that he’s the one to take the fight to Obama. Suddenly it doesn’t matter that he has always been not only anti-conservative on cap-and-trade, but has lied about what his position was.

Emphasis mine because that’s what I’ve been saying. The whole article by Quin Hillyer is absolutely brilliant.

I’ll add that not only have the other candidates not needed to attack Newtie, but the mods haven’t asked him ANY tough questions. They will now and his prickly temperment will shine through. He is a bigger flip-flopper than even ole Mittster.

That he has practically no ground game means the other candidates who do (Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul) really do still have a chance to “surprise”.

When I saw Allah’s caption, “Doubt”, I thought it was going to be because of things like this:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/06/gingrich-stop-movement-100-days/

http://theothermccain.com/2011/12/06/why-gingrich-will-lose-newt-wears-arrogance-like-a-zebra-wears-stripes/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285083/choice-two-temperaments-yuval-levin

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on December 8, 2011 at 1:33 AM

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:27 AM

Adherence to the Constitution should certainly be the goal but I don’t think you have any candidate that agrees on how that should be done. You say that you don’t expect people to agree with you but you obviously would like them to. I think that Rep. Bachmann and Sen. Santorum are the most consistently conservative candidates and I hate the “electability” argument so one of them may get my vote come primary time.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:35 AM

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 1:24 AM

No but think of the newbies, I don’t want my reputation ruined with them!!!!!!!!!! /

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:36 AM

We are the only country that can actually do this because we are able to be completely self-sufficient.

Oh yeah, there’s the side benefit of killing the whole crony capitalist one world order crap-pile.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 1:32 AM

I hate to break it to you, but the American economy has been closely connected with the rest of the world’s economy since its founding.

cpaulus on December 8, 2011 at 1:38 AM

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 1:32 AM

Wow, that’s a heck of a plan. Can you imagine anyone even considering that after the debt ceiling tantrum?

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:39 AM

Adherence to the Constitution should certainly be the goal but I don’t think you have any candidate that agrees on how that should be done. You say that you don’t expect people to agree with you but you obviously would like them to. I think that Rep. Bachmann and Sen. Santorum are the most consistently conservative candidates and I hate the “electability” argument so one of them may get my vote come primary time.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:35 AM

I agree other than Santorum is too weak on amnesty.

When I say I don’t expect people to agree with me on something, what I mean by that is that I don’t hold it against them if they disagree. Like I personally think Santorum is a religious nut, but that doesn’t even figure in my rankings of him. So is Bachmann to a lesser degree, but from the Conservative credentials standpoint she is almost perfect.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:39 AM

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 1:32 AM

N00t ain’t gonna do that. He’s as crony as they come.

Honestly, if a dark horse don’t come out of somewhere, I’m gonna be forced to write in Tom Selleck, Chuck Norris, or some other yahoo.

UODuckMan on December 8, 2011 at 1:41 AM

Ron Paul is also connected with Nazis.

UODuckMan on December 8, 2011 at 1:30 AM

“Connected with”? What kind of weaselly smear is that? Ron Paul has nothing to do with Nazis.

Ron Paul explicitly said “I don’t want white supremacists’ support”, but since some of them did anyway, that’s a point against him? That a**hat David Duke endorsed the Tea Party, and the MSM tried to claim that made the Tea Party racist. Congratulations, you’ve sunk to the level of the liberal media.

Here’s what Ron Paul thinks: “Racism is simply the ugliest form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.” And since Ron Paul is the ultimate individualist, opposed to all forms of collectivism, the conclusion is clear.

So, given that Ron Paul thinks racism is the worst type of collectivism, opposes all forms of socialism, and rejects the bad, aggressive form of nationalism, exactly how is he “connected” with National Socialism?

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 1:42 AM

I hate to break it to you, but the American economy has been closely connected with the rest of the world’s economy since its founding.

cpaulus on December 8, 2011 at 1:38 AM

The US would not be the first country to default. Other large countries found it useful to do quite a bit for their bondholders to restore their ability to borrow AND trade again. The US is nowhere near perfect self-sufficiency to do something like a permanent, “hard-stop” style default.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:43 AM

If it was North Europeans you would be all for amnesty. Be honest about.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:34 AM

You can’t defend the invasion of America by tens of millions, so you call other people racists. Be honest about it.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on December 8, 2011 at 1:43 AM

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:39 AM

I think Rep. Bachmann’s Achilles heel is her husband. If her polls trend seriously upward they will be all over him. Is it fair or right? Nope but I think we know how the Left works.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:45 AM

You can’t defend the invasion of America by tens of millions, so you call other people racists. Be honest about it.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on December 8, 2011 at 1:43 AM

He is not your regular illegal lover. He is just plain crazy and without any historical perspective to boot.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:45 AM

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 1:42 AM

Contributions from members of National Vanguard and other groups.

The fact that you believe what he says, when he’s a politician and supposed to be scrutinized.

Mostly, I don’t like Ron Paul because of his fans. And the fact he’s a Texas politician.

UODuckMan on December 8, 2011 at 1:47 AM

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 1:32 AM

I would like to politely tell you that that plan is madness and would destroy the Republic.

We must liquidate the debt in an orderly fashion, by paying it down. We must halt the structural imbalances in our economy and trade balance by letting the free market set interest rates. But we must not default on our sovereign debt.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 1:47 AM

I think Rep. Bachmann’s Achilles heel is her husband. If her polls trend seriously upward they will be all over him. Is it fair or right? Nope but I think we know how the Left works.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:45 AM

I doubt the left can seriously damage her by accusing him of things they generally support, but who knows.

They claim she lost her lead by attacking other Republicans or after the Gardasil thing, but that’s not how I remember it. Perry was the new kid on the block, and took over her support, and then disintegrated. That’s why she has some hope, but certainly not in the real short term sense.

And now I have to go. Good night!

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:47 AM

The US is nowhere near perfect self-sufficiency to do something like a permanent, “hard-stop” style default.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:43 AM

Right. No country is self-sufficient, especially not the United States. We became wealthy by engaging economically with the rest of the world and building faith in our bonds. Destroying that would cause much more harm than good.

cpaulus on December 8, 2011 at 1:48 AM

So is Bachmann to a lesser degree, but from the Conservative credentials standpoint she is almost perfect.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:39 AM

Bachmann has perfect conservative creds?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/01/michele-bachmann/rep-michele-bachmann-says-shes-never-received-penn/

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/15/michele-bachmanns-record-earmarks-farm-subsidies-and-pardons/

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 1:49 AM

If Newt was a Mormon and Romney was a Catholic, Newt wouldn’t even be in the race.

karlant on December 8, 2011 at 1:49 AM

Mostly, I don’t like Ron Paul because of his fans. And the fact he’s a Texas politician.

UODuckMan on December 8, 2011 at 1:47 AM

We’re in the middle of a debt crisis, the Republic faces potentially existential challenges, and this is what you’re basing your decision on?

Look, let me apologize on behalf of any Ron Paul supporters who may have cheesed you off in the past. Furthermore, let me advise you that Texas is a fine state and one of the few economic bright spots in the nation. Does that help?

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 1:50 AM

UODuckMan on December 8, 2011 at 1:41 AM

For you….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgUql7E7S-k

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:51 AM

I doubt the left can seriously damage her by accusing him of things they generally support, but who knows.

They claim she lost her lead by attacking other Republicans or after the Gardasil thing, but that’s not how I remember it. Perry was the new kid on the block, and took over her support, and then disintegrated. That’s why she has some hope, but certainly not in the real short term sense.

And now I have to go. Good night!

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:47 AM

What lead?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

Bachmann never had a lead. It’s been mostly Romney, a couple blips by Gingrich prior to his taking over the lead recently, the small run by Cain pre-implosion, and ditto for Rick Perry who took a lead when he entered the race then plummeted thanks to multiple gaffes.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 1:52 AM

I think that Ron Paul knows deep down that he’s not going to win, and he’s just doing whatever he can to stay relevant, shape the discussion re: fiscal policy, and pave the way for Rand to eventually make a splash on the national level.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 1:31 AM

You’re looking at it from the wrong perspective.

Ron Paul knows that, however long a shot he is, he can win. The thing is, he really doesn’t want to be POTUS. The man would be signing up for a four-year commitment, at age 77, in a town that he hates. He knows he only has 20, maybe 30 years left, and he wants to spend them with his grandkids, and great-grandkids, eating cookies, reading obscure economics literature, and writing a few books here and there.

And he wants to do so in a free America. Something that he knows is being put at risk by debt, fueled in no small part by a runaway foreign policy.

So, how does he do his part to ensure a free America? He tries to move the GOP, his political party, away from the edge of the abyss, and to take his country with them. And the best way for him to do that at this point is to run for POTUS.

Now, he can hand the keys to the kingdom to someone who wanted to lift his banner high enough. I had hoped that would be Rick Perry. Unfortunately… well, we know how that story goes. So he is stuck fighting a battle he is honor-bound to wage, that his loyal supporters will fund to generous levels…oh, and by the way, puts him in at least a pretty good position to win Iowa. And if that happens… who the hell knows?

JohnGalt23 on December 8, 2011 at 1:53 AM

Furthermore, let me advise you that Texas is a fine state and one of the few economic bright spots in the nation.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 1:50 AM

Yeah. But they don’t know Jack Shiite about football.

/ducks

JohnGalt23 on December 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:47 AM

Gov. Perry’s entry timing obviously hurt her and I think she took far too much heat for repeating that woman’s claim that the vaccine chronically impaired her child. The things that have ruined campaigns this year are very odd. Good night!

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM

Something similar is happening with Gingrich and the image of the Master Debater. People see Gingrich handle himself well in eight-way debates (an easy task when no other candidate has even bothered criticizing you all year because you seemed so irrelevant), and they imagine that he’s the one to take the fight to Obama. Suddenly it doesn’t matter that he has always been not only anti-conservative on cap-and-trade, but has lied about what his position was.

Emphasis mine because I’ve been saying exactly this. The whole article by Quin Hillyer is brilliant.

That he has practically no ground game in IA means that candidates who do (Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul) have a good chance of pulling off a “surprise”.

When I saw Allah’s caption, “Doubt”, I thought it would be because of things like this:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/06/gingrich-stop-movement-100-days/

http://theothermccain.com/2011/12/06/why-gingrich-will-lose-newt-wears-arrogance-like-a-zebra-wears-stripes/

BTW, if this posts twice, the first one was “eaten” and I had to post again…

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on December 8, 2011 at 1:58 AM

Still don’t understand why Bachmann never took off. She’s obviously conservative enough and her vaccine statements aren’t any worse then some of the bonehead stuff Newt or Romney have said and done. With all her flaws I’d vote for her above them.

lowandslow on December 8, 2011 at 2:01 AM

I will say this, if Newt remains in the lead it sure won’t be because people don’t know everything bad about him. Both sides are going after him hammer and tongs.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 2:01 AM

I would like to politely tell you that that plan is madness and would destroy the Republic.

We must liquidate the debt in an orderly fashion, by paying it down. We must halt the structural imbalances in our economy and trade balance by letting the free market set interest rates. But we must not default on our sovereign debt.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 1:47 AM

Well, I disagree. There is nothing in what I said that prevents us from renegotiating terms that are more to our liking. The important thing would be the act itself, which would say loudly that our sovereignty is paramount and cannot be corroded.

Right now, our sovereignty is subservient to our debt terms. And please believe that the enemies of the USA are already extracting political concessions from us in order to allow the scheme to continue.

The number one T-bond holdre in the world is the Fed. We (just like Greece, Italy, and even Germany) have been unable to service our own debt for quite awhile now.

Because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency, we can get away with printing it. But that has a limit and that limit is about 17 trillion dollars of hard debt. Once we reach that, we can’t print it fast enough to service the interest increases which will out run the revenues coming in within a year after 17 trillion is reached.

Then the madness will be upon us, and we will have nothing we can do but wait for the dust to settle. At least now, we have some wiggle room. But we have to crash the system to begin to heal. Nothing less can make enough difference.

This cannot have a “Sully” landing. The math says so.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 2:03 AM

lowandslow on December 8, 2011 at 2:01 AM

It’s a mystery.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 2:03 AM

I’m hitting the hay! Good night everyone, sweet dreams!!!!

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 2:07 AM

Night, y’all.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 2:09 AM

It’s a mystery.
Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 2:03 AM

Funny thing about it, I think she would have a good chance in the general. I’ve been a harsh critic of Palin but Bachmann shares one positive attribute Palin has, optimism. Both Bachmann and Palin do come off as very upbeat and positive people most of the time. I think that goes a long way in pushing a message and appealing to people.

lowandslow on December 8, 2011 at 2:10 AM

lowandslow on December 8, 2011 at 2:10 AM

Maybe the country just isn’t ready to elect a woman to that office? Especially after this last “historic” election and how well that’s gone.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 2:14 AM

The important thing would be the act itself, which would say loudly that our sovereignty is paramount and cannot be corroded we welch on our debts when we feel like it and thus can never be trusted ever again.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 2:03 AM

FTFY.

JohnGalt23 on December 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM

Yeah. But they don’t know Jack Shiite about football.

/ducks

JohnGalt23 on December 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM

Eh, you folks can keep your football squabbles. I’ll stick with our national pastime, thank you very much. ;)

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 2:24 AM

I’ll stick with our national pastime, thank you very much. ;)

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 2:24 AM

What? Our national pastime of reality TV?

Because if so, have I got a debate for you!!

JohnGalt23 on December 8, 2011 at 2:38 AM

OK, I am convinced. I am not voting at all. Worst possible field ever. Attacks on each other galore. Some old guy in a sear sucker suit whining about iran needing levi’s and some screeching broad complaining that vaccines cause retardation.

I am done

You guys enjoy Obama II.

JP1986UM on December 8, 2011 at 2:59 AM

The saddest part is how so many people have become hoodwinked in to believing that:

1) Newt Gingrich is a conservative.

2) Newt Gingrich has the answers to our problems and,

3) Newt Gingrich is an honest man.

We’re going to get what we deserve.

Ruiner on December 8, 2011 at 3:21 AM

O/T,Intell Alert!
==================

HilRod,Unleash’s her Vast Extreme LeftWing Conspiracy Cabal!!
————————————————————–

More: Putin says some protesters pursuing selfish political aims, criticizes Sec. Clinton for giving ‘signal’ to opposition – Reuters
10 Mins.ago
===========

Russian PM Vladimir Putin says most Russians do not want a repeat of political unrest that occurred in Kyrgyzstan & Ukraine – Reuters
19 Mins.ago
============

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on December 8, 2011 at 3:54 AM

As anyone thought about what I consider is the HORROR situation.

Neither one can dominate or three stay in and we wind up with a Brokered Convention. What RINO could the RNC try to slip in?

Old Dog on December 8, 2011 at 4:45 AM

Balanced budget, welfare reform, tax cuts, can take on the media with a smile, establishment hates him… do I need to go on?

Punchenko on December 7, 2011 at 11:15 PM

You’re praising him for things he did 16 years ago, how about something more recent hmmmm? Recently he supported the liberal Scozzafava, sat on the couch with Pelosi and supported Cap and Trade, told John Kerry at a “debate” that he agreed with him on AGW, yesterday on Beck he repeated his support (strongly!) the individual mandate, suppports amnesty-in-everything-but-name, lobbying that he pretends/lies about not being lobbying,. I could go on because there’s plenty more.

Aslans Girl on December 8, 2011 at 4:57 AM

So abortion and partial-birth abortion sat well with him for all those years, but it was stem cell research that pushed him over the top and changed his mind? REALLY!? Now I dislike Romney even more. :-(

Punchenko on December 7, 2011 at 11:28 PM

Newt supported/supports embyonic stem cell research.

Aslans Girl on December 8, 2011 at 5:05 AM

cynccook on December 7, 2011 at 11:38 PM

Since when is Mark Steyn “Establishment”?

Aslans Girl on December 8, 2011 at 5:07 AM

Zcat on December 7, 2011 at 11:51 PM

I can’t click links to the Daily Mail (I once picked up a virus from them), but is this Cain 2.0 but with named women? Uh-oh.

Aslans Girl on December 8, 2011 at 5:11 AM

Newt is getting strong tea party support which is not from people who get fooled easily. They obviously see something in him.

platypus on December 7, 2011 at 11:41 PM

I dunno. The Tea Party was unfortunately fooled by Cain, big time. The Tea Party is made up of a lot of people who have never been political followers before, therefore they do not know the REAL Newt. They weren’t wonks before 2009 and weren’t following all of Newt’s problems since the ’90s. They are fooled for now by his smooth talking. When the REAL Newt shows up (and he’s beginning to), the Tea Party will wake up — if they’re as smart as I think they are. In the meantime, they should remember that when they were busting their butts trying to get Hoffman elected, there was Newt on FNC repeatedly pushing Scozzafava. Some Tea Partier that Newtie is, huh?

Aslans Girl on December 8, 2011 at 5:18 AM

Look, Newt is a progressive liberal if you really research him.
Newt supports the mandate, global warming, amnesty crony capitalism.
In addition Newt had an affair and left one of his wife. How can you trust him if he can’t even keep his vows.

There is only one true proven consistent constitutional conservative candidate that has the record to back it up and has the experience – Rick Perry.

Rick Perry 2012

Sean Hannity Freedom Concert 03 (taken in August 2010)
http://youtu.be/aZCorLNHrwE

bzip on December 8, 2011 at 5:24 AM

Newt is getting strong tea party support which is not from people who get fooled easily. They obviously see something in him.

platypus

They are too busy looking for that good speech maker that is why they were fooled by Cain now it is Newt’s turn.

They don’t bother really looking at or accepting the serious flaws of there chosen candidate if he/she debates good as they only look at those 30 second sound bytes.

Newt has supports the mandate ever since Hillarycare (18 years)
Newt supports global warming.
Newt the lobbyist
Newt the guy who had ethic violations and was kick out of the house by his own party.
What more could you ask from in a liberal corrupt progressive.

There is only one hope for a true conservative: Rick Perry

bzip on December 8, 2011 at 5:30 AM

Bill Clinton: Don’t underestimate Romney.
LOL, Romney’s only won one election in his life, the guy does not know how to win or come off as likable at all. If Newt does well in the debate Saturday against Romney attacks which he probably will, he can very likely go to the primary. I would like Perry to do well but I’m a not-Romney guy and Perry needs to stop tripping over his dick.

Flapjackmaka on December 8, 2011 at 5:37 AM

Mika flabbergasted that newt is doing so well in the polls…

Good Morning HA!

cmsinaz on December 8, 2011 at 6:11 AM

newt is beating dear leader in ohio via quinnipiac….

they don’t know what to do with themselves on MJ

priceless :)

cmsinaz on December 8, 2011 at 6:14 AM

“It’s true that the liberal media attack Republicans unfairly. But that’s a fact to be dealt with, not ignored by nominating a candidate who keeps giving the media so much to work with.

This is just so much crap.

What in the blazes is Obama? Ted Kennedy? Or any of a host of Democrats or liberals?

I am so sick of this garbage. Newt will make a great President. Will he do everything perfect? No. That’s why we have this thing called..”self government.” We’re not electing Newt or any other President to just do it all for us. We are electing a person who will follow the will of the people, who loves America, loves it’s constitution and loves liberty. Give me a person like that, who is a patriot first and I will live with all their other flaws.

Yeah, our candidates are all so flawed but Obama and the Democrats are so perfect.

JellyToast on December 8, 2011 at 6:46 AM

After listening to Mark Steyn, I’m reminded of the accepted wisdom about Churchill in the 1930′s. He was seen as brilliant and mercurial. Someone who never played nice with other members of the team (he kept changing parties). He loved big schemes, which got himself and the nation into big trouble. Gallipoli and later Narvik were his operations when he was First Sea Lord in WWI and WWII respectively. He was obsessed with the Balkans. The establishment in Whitehall hated him and didn’t trust him. He only became prime minister because parliament was desperate in May 1940. Churchill’s wild enthusiasms were not unlike those of Fidel Castro’s. The British even dumped Churchill at the first chance they got.

Winston made lots of mistakes, but he was the essential man at a critical moment in history. So who should we go for at this critical moment? Churchill, or Halifax?

MichiCanuck on December 8, 2011 at 7:03 AM

Wow, the establishment GOP is getting desperate.

stenwin77 on December 8, 2011 at 7:04 AM

Oh boy, lets do our best to tear up all our guys…after you all get through….Sarah Palin looks the best.

tinkerthinker on December 8, 2011 at 7:06 AM

My theory:

We are so screwed at this point, at least with Newt, we’d get some great debate action between him and the Communist in th oval office!

stenwin77 on December 8, 2011 at 7:10 AM

A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality. -John Lennon

In honor of the late, great singer/songwriter.

lynncgb on December 8, 2011 at 7:17 AM

newt is beating dear leader in ohio via quinnipiac….

they don’t know what to do with themselves on MJ

priceless :)

cmsinaz on December 8, 2011 at 6:14 AM

I listened to Joe’s babies crying all morning CM. Workin’ on a Greenroom post about the “meltdown”.

The “Caining” of Newt Gingrich is now officially in season, with no limits on the defecation of another Republican front-runner, while the Washington elites and media pundits pick your candidate. And the John McCain Romney supporters have the lemmings right where they want them.

Rovin on December 8, 2011 at 7:19 AM

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NEWT!

X1,000!!!!

Please TP Conservatives no big haired old soft glove Progressives leasing the GOP!!!!!

PappyD61 on December 8, 2011 at 7:28 AM

Looking forward to it Rovin

:)

cmsinaz on December 8, 2011 at 7:35 AM

Maybe the country just isn’t ready to elect a woman to that office?

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 2:14 AM

I’ve thought this for sometime now Cindy. Even with all of the barriers that women haven broken through over the years, there are still those in the citizenry, and especially in the “Good Old Boys Club” of the GOP, who still feel that a woman’s place is in the home.

And there’s no way on God’s green earth the Left and the media (redundant, I know), would let the first woman POTUS be from the GOP.

That was glaringly obvious from the way they viciously went after Governor Palin during the 2008 campaign and continued to do so even after Obama had been elected. They want to make sure she’s damaged goods – permanantly.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 7:42 AM

Wow, the establishment GOP is getting desperate.

stenwin77 on December 8, 2011 at 7:04 AM

Funny, it wasn’t the “Establishment” whom Newt stabbed in the back when he endorsed Scozzafava, it was the TEA PARTY. The TP came out for Hoffmann, and thanks to ole Newtie, DeDe-the-gun-grabbing-RINO won.

Aslans Girl on December 8, 2011 at 7:47 AM

Rovin on December 8, 2011 at 7:19 AM

Whatever happened to Reagan’s 11th commandment?

lynncgb on December 8, 2011 at 7:52 AM

Whatever happened to Reagan’s 11th commandment?

lynncgb on December 8, 2011 at 7:52 AM

Good question. We’ll have to see how it’s followed in these next two “real” debates on ABC and Fox.

Rovin on December 8, 2011 at 8:07 AM

Axelrod may have shot his wad with Cain.
Americans finally get tired of that stuff and begin not to believe anything these “leakers” say. If that is true, Gingrich might be bulletproof to the sort of smears that usually work. The ironic part is, the Democrats have so insulated Americans to things like adultery when Clinton was their guy, this time it might not work for them.

gordo on December 8, 2011 at 8:07 AM

Neither one can dominate or three stay in and we wind up with a Brokered Convention. What RINO could the RNC try to slip in?

Old Dog on December 8, 2011 at 4:45 AM

I hope the operative word is try but not succeed in slipping in.

It’s a good question. I believe they don’t want to put Jeb (next in line after Mitt) in the mix too soon, so hmmm, anyone wanna throw out some names?

Fallon on December 8, 2011 at 8:08 AM

Whatever happened to Reagan’s 11th commandment?

lynncgb on December 8, 2011 at 7:52 AM

It wasn’t written in stone.

Fallon on December 8, 2011 at 8:08 AM

ANYONE.BUT.ROMNEY

Pragmatic on December 8, 2011 at 8:10 AM

I’m so stinkin mad at Sarah for leaving us high and dry. I still can’t listen to her.

stenwin77 on December 8, 2011 at 8:11 AM

Creditors say Gingrich has begun paying back nearly $1.2 million in bills he owed at the end of September, and his spokesman says most will be taken care of by the end of the year. Other debts — including $42,000 owed to Gingrich himself for the campaign’s use of a mailing list — have already been paid, ahead of those owed to other vendors, according to aides and disclosure records…

Of course the campaign’s debt to himself was the first one paid.

$42K for a bunch of names?

It seems that Newt was in this to live high-on-the-hog for several months, & to get his name in the news so he could sell more books.

itsnotaboutme on December 8, 2011 at 8:12 AM

ANYONE.BUT.ROMNEY

Pragmatic on December 8, 2011 at 8:10 AM

You are ANYTHING.BUT.PRAGMATIC.

Romney is certainly the only one who could beat Obama.

itsnotaboutme on December 8, 2011 at 8:13 AM

Wow, the stink of desperation is thick!

deadrody on December 8, 2011 at 8:15 AM

Funny, it wasn’t the “Establishment” whom Newt stabbed in the back when he endorsed Scozzafava, it was the TEA PARTY. The TP came out for Hoffmann, and thanks to ole Newtie, DeDe-the-gun-grabbing-RINO won.

Aslans Girl on December 8, 2011 at 7:47 AM

Yes, and Sarah endorsed freaking John McCain.

No, I don’t like it. But you have to admit, the establishment cronies (Rove, etal) are pushing Mitty.

stenwin77 on December 8, 2011 at 8:16 AM

Anybody but Mitt, the occupy wall street poster child.

tinkerthinker on December 8, 2011 at 8:17 AM

O/T … Does anyone know what’s wrong with Free Republic? For days, can’t get through about 70% of the time.

stenwin77 on December 8, 2011 at 8:18 AM

Selecting someone to vote for as President means finding someone you will personally be comfortable in knowing that they will be able to keep their integrity and uphold the Constitution and oversee one-third of the government’s sovereign powers. That first part is the hardest especially if they take the government, as it is now, as being fully in line with the structure outlined by the Constitution. The siren’s song of money, power and passing off hard work to keep a restricted federal government tend to work opposite the upholding of the Constitution, itself.

The tools to uphold the Constitution from the Executive are the hats worn by the Executive: Head of Government, Head of State, Commander of the Armies and the Navies, and the one holding the final Pardoner of crimes.

In the Head of Government comes the naming of the heads of departments, getting a budget formed up to give to Congress, and the veto power. A President can propose legislation but it must actually get sponsors who will present it as their own in Congress. A Congress has traditionally helped out for a short ‘honeymoon period’ which varies, but has been heading downward over time as Presidents propose more and more to be done by Congress. Obama gets an extended honeymoon because of his leftist support by Congresscritters in his own party. No Republican will get that and no President should get that as it blurs the lines between Executive authority and Legislative authority. Thus, outside of fervent base adoration for more government by Congress, if you want a ‘legislative agenda’ to reduce the size of government it had better be short, sweet, pithy and FIRST. And if you want to shut down parts of government then one of the first actions is to state which parts need to draw up closure plans and find some Congresscritters willing to back you on that. And if you truly believe that a part of government is not in line with the Constitution, then it is time to start getting cases moved up through the courts to abolish them. The ability to propose SCOTUS Justices falls in the ‘Head of Government’ area as it is a part of the government where a long-term mark can be made.

Just on that, alone, one must be extremely careful on who they pick as President.

Head of State hat gets the entire foreign policy of the US. Do note that this can be used and the Law of Nations cited along with other Presidential work (Washington and Jefferson at least on this) to get rid of ‘sanctuary cities’ by taking them to court as intruding on the Executive mandate via the Constitution. Forming up foreign policy is wholly in the President’s arena save for making war, approval of Ambassadors and ratifying treaties. Everything outside the US is this domain and it is huge as it contains everything from Nation State foreign policy to our stance on non-Nation State actors going after sovereign power anywhere on the globe. Cronyism for Ambassadors has been rampant here for generations and a serious candidate must be one who can choose far outside a crony circle to get good and decent representatives of the US for a foreign country and know that Nation’s ways. Doesn’t matter if it is China or Luxembourg.

Commander of the Armies and the Navies. Not the militia, which is a State function, but the US Armies and Navies. The formulation of this power is straight from Law of Nations as it is the power to direct the military branches in peace time, war time and to direct them against hostile non-nation state powers under the area of Private War. The 20th century has seen a resurgence of the last and yet no one can actually state it in a way that makes any sense beyond terrorism, and so we get ineffectual leadership on this realm of power since at least JFK. Yes if a person makes war without a sovereign power of a Nation State allowing them to, then they are hostile not just to their stated enemies but all mankind. Progressives hate such clear and decisive terminology… and it shows by the rampant, multiple threats against the Nation State system by non-Nation State actors in the military, economic and civil realms. To back that up requires a distinctly drawn foreign policy to name enemies by the actions they do and the profile they fit. I’m still desperately looking for a candidate who understands this.

The Chief Pardoner. Some of the worst actors on the planet with political connections have gotten away with fraud, theft and even had worse pardoned. Fujitives from justice have gotten a nod when political connections were pulled, even though there was no exonerating circumstances for crimes they did. Worse still is that a few of these had turned over no new leaf in their lives and went on to more and worse criminal deeds, usually abroad. A sober President must see exonerating circumstances as the litmus test for the pardon power: not political payoffs and backroom dealing.

With these four hats we trust one person for four years.

We have been making mistakes on this for generations by allowing government and cronyism to usurp our choices not only via redistricting but via SCOTUS decisions that make no sense in the context of personal liberty. Most of the federal government’s current scope of powers have not even been contested Constitutionally… and I want a President who will do that and tell Congress to tie everything back to the Constitution and then take those parts of government that are not tied strongly to the actual verbiage to get court action taken by helping individuals bring cases and let the agency or department know that THEY have to defend their existence for you as President.

Got someone willing to take this up?

Someone you can TRUST with these powers?

I’m running out of options and the Republicans appear set to do a final kamikaze for Progressivism on our Nation in the name of political parties and partisanship. Of the couple who I can trust there are those not running and those who are untested but game to at least uphold the banner of the republic and question every thing the government does from front to back and start pulling at its roots. Thus if the top of the ticket continues in the Titanic direction, it is time to start addressing the crew, which is Congress, and the passengers that we are headed into desperate times. I will call the field of icebergs for what it is and that going full steam ahead is not only not wise, but lethal. And if the crew can’t do it, then I’m headed to the lifeboats: women, children and the willing able-bodied men first. I get stuck on the ship by that credo… so be it.

Your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honor are up for grabs this time around. It has nothing to do about politics, and everything to do about saving this last, best hope of mankind. I will be marking a name down in the voting booth, yes, even if I have to write it in myself. Because that is my personal choice at that point in time to say what I think is best for the Nation… not for partisans and politicians, but the Nation as a whole.

ajacksonian on December 8, 2011 at 8:20 AM

I’m so stinkin mad at Sarah for leaving us high and dry. I still can’t listen to her.

stenwin77 on December 8, 2011 at 8:11 AM

And, I still say you are mad at the wrong people. Where was the RNC/GOP when the Giffords tragedy was being hung around her neck and various other bizarre attacks on her and her family. Having been the VP choice in the previous election, she should have been the next RNC/GOP pick and yet, they threw their early, loud and monied support behind Mittens.

Nah. She didn’t leave us high and dry. The fix was in and she saw it before we did. If your are mad at anyone it should be at the RNC/GOP insiders, who really don’t give a crap about what we think.

Fallon on December 8, 2011 at 8:32 AM

And, I still say you are mad at the wrong people. Where was the RNC/GOP when the Giffords tragedy was being hung around her neck and various other bizarre attacks on her and her family. Having been the VP choice in the previous election, she should have been the next RNC/GOP pick and yet, they threw their early, loud and monied support behind Mittens.

Nah. She didn’t leave us high and dry. The fix was in and she saw it before we did. If your are mad at anyone it should be at the RNC/GOP insiders, who really don’t give a crap about what we think.

Fallon on December 8, 2011 at 8:32 AM

There’s something to be said about FIGHTING. Which is why I’m going to vote for Newt. He FIGHTS.

stenwin77 on December 8, 2011 at 8:37 AM

I will be marking a name down in the voting booth, yes, even if I have to write it in myself.

ajacksonian on December 8, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Let me guess: Ron Paul, right? Every time see the words ‘sovereign’ and ‘law of nations’, I know I’m looking at the work of a Ron Paul true believer.

troyriser_gopftw on December 8, 2011 at 8:53 AM

There’s something to be said about FIGHTING. Which is why I’m going to vote for Newt. He FIGHTS.

stenwin77 on December 8, 2011 at 8:37 AM

Unless, of course, you’re talking about actual fighting, in which case Newt heads in the other direction with a quickness. (See Gingrich, Newt: unprincipled draft evasion, Vietnam War, abject cowardice.)

And you would nominate this yellow, draft-dodging POS to the office held by the likes of Washington, Jackson, Taylor, Grant, Eisenhower. Unbelievable.

troyriser_gopftw on December 8, 2011 at 8:58 AM

stenwin77 on December 8, 2011 at 8:11 AM

Fallon on December 8, 2011 at 8:32 AM

A few weeks before Governor Palin said she wasn’t going to run, I started to notice a change in her.

In her television appearances she seemed distracted and disheartened. There was a sadness in her eyes and her voice that I had never seen before.

I can’t remember where I read it, but supposedly her sister begged her not to run. I don’t know if that was just a rumor, or, if it was the deciding factor for her.

IMHO something happened that shook her to the core.

That may sound a bit like tin-foil hat territory, but my take is that the Sarah Palin during the last few weeks before her announcement date, was not the same Sarah Palin we had seen previously.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 9:03 AM

You know what I find interesting? What if after all the stuff they through at Newt, and we’re just getting started, he wins the nomination? What does that do to the media? Wouldn’t it be at least somewhat exciting if the Fourth Estate found out that they have been hit by the the “economy” of diminishing returns during our little recession? I’m a dreamer.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 9:25 AM

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 9:03 AM

Others mentioned here also. I’m not that attuned but maybe there is an illness in the family or she became privy to opposition info that made her run with McCain look like a picnic. I know I wouldn’t put up with again.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 9:28 AM

I know I wouldn’t put up with again.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 9:28 AM

I wouldn’t either. And I am appreciative of those who do choose to throw their hat in the ring. But I also can understand why some choose not to put their families through that wringer, such as Governor Daniels and if that’s the reason, Governor Palin.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 9:55 AM

But I also can understand why some choose not to put their families through that wringer, such as Governor Daniels and if that’s the reason, Governor Palin.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 9:55 AM

I understand their reasoning well enough but don’t think the reasons are good enough. Capable leaders such as Palin and Daniels and Christie chose family over higher office: fine. However, there are members of the military who not only risk life and limb for the sake of their country, but whose families also know hardship, uncertainty and loss, especially with seemingly endless tour rotations.

So no, declining to run or serve and saying they are ‘doing it for the kids’ just isn’t good enough, not in these times. Time to man (or woman) up.

troyriser_gopftw on December 8, 2011 at 10:03 AM

However, there are members of the military who not only risk life and limb for the sake of their country, but whose families also know hardship, uncertainty and loss, especially with seemingly endless tour rotations.

So no, declining to run or serve and saying they are ‘doing it for the kids’ just isn’t good enough, not in these times. Time to man (or woman) up.

troyriser_gopftw on December 8, 2011 at 10:03 AM

As the proud wife, sister and aunt of members of our military, one of whom didn’t make it home, and one whom is now serving in Afghanistan, I know well the sacrifices they and their families endure.

I do however, venture, though at times fail, to not judge someone’s decisions unless I’ve walked a mile in their shoes.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 10:14 AM

As the proud wife, sister and aunt of members of our military, one of whom didn’t make it home, and one whom is now serving in Afghanistan, I know well the sacrifices they and their families endure.

I do however, venture, though at times fail, to not judge someone’s decisions unless I’ve walked a mile in their shoes.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 10:14 AM

I wasn’t denigrating you or the comment you made. I was disagreeing with it. Insofar as walking a mile in another’s shoes, I got that, too, but again: if my country is at a dangerous turning point or confronted by an imminent threat and I thought I could make a palpable difference by running for office and–if I won–then placing myself in a position where I could effect an outcome favorable to my country, then I would, and I’d like to think I’d do so regardless of personal cost.

The essence of patriotism is sacrifice. What’s a little character assassination by the MSM compared to the well-being of the Republic? An infantry private in Afghanistan puts it on the line every day and for him the stakes are infinitely higher. That ‘I’m not running for the sake of my family’ business just doesn’t cut it.

troyriser_gopftw on December 8, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Something just occurred to me…

…maybe after 3+ years of criticism 24/7 in every medium possible, she finally came to believe what her critics have been saying.

Although I disagree with their assessment, maybe after being constantly told, even by those she believed would stand up for her, that she just didn’t have what it takes to handle the overwhelming task it will take to right this ship and put her back on course, they wrongly convinced her they were right.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 10:52 AM

An infantry private in Afghanistan puts it on the line every day and for him the stakes are infinitely higher.
troyriser_gopftw on December 8, 2011 at 10:39 AM

As the mother of a son who served in Iraq, I’m sure Governor Palin is keenly aware of how high those stakes are.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 10:55 AM

No Fence, just man power. Not so cheap is it? What happens in a real war? Do we have unsecure our borders to fight it?

astonerii on December 8, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Yeah, I read your whole post. You imagine that having huge numbers of spies in their countries and tons of targeted killings is not going to upset them much.

We have unsecured borders right now. We are at war right now. Paul wants us to have a smaller military. Me are already stretched thin now. Math is hard, logic apparently is far harder for people like you.

Right now we are getting the tens of thousands of created Jihadists to commit suicide attacking our troops in their home turf. Do you think that spies and targeted killings can get enough of them that they will not be shooting down airliners with Americans on board, or working to enter the US through our porous borders, which Paul is perfectly happy to leave porous because he thinks people from other countries deserve a fair chance to live the American dream. Paul says many thing, many of which contradict, but this much is certain about the man, you are not going to be able to paper over his total disregard for the security of this nation, if it is not disregard, then it is the worst possible level of stupidity on the subject anyone has ever uttered while trying to become commander in chief.

astonerii on December 8, 2011 at 10:58 AM

As the mother of a son who served in Iraq, I’m sure Governor Palin is keenly aware of how high those stakes are.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 10:55 AM

I know about Palin’s son, and I’m sure Sarah Palin feels a great deal of anxiety regarding his health and safety. I know my own mother did under similar circumstances. That isn’t my point and–if you’re confused on this score–I’m not attacking Palin, Christi, Daniels, Ryan, Jindal, et al. I’m criticizing their decision. Each of them–Palin especially–often explicitly or implicitly refer to patriotism as one of their primary motivations for public service.

Well, here’s where the rubber meets the road. The GOP field is weak, and there’s no getting around it. And the reason it’s a weak field possibly/probably unable to beat an incumbent president with favorability numbers in the mid-to-low 40′s is because the strongest potential candidates–Palin, Christie, Daniels–chose not to run because of family considerations. ‘Familiy considerations’ is simply not a good enough reason not to do all they can to beat the hardcore, old-school socialists attempting to transform our country into yet another failed socialist superstate.

troyriser_gopftw on December 8, 2011 at 11:12 AM

troyriser_gopftw on December 8, 2011 at 11:12 AM

I do not feel you are attacking Mrs. Palin, nor did I feel you were denigrating me in your comment at 10:03 AM.

I understand your frustration, I feel it too. I look at my children and young grandchildren and it terrifies me to think about what kind of country they will be left with if we get 4 more years of Obama.

I had such optimism before this primary season began, but every day that optimism grows dimmer. The only thing I’m holding onto now, is that there are millions more in this country who have the same apprehension for their family’s future, that I have for mine.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Anybody but Mitt, the occupy wall street poster child.

tinkerthinker on December 8, 2011 at 8:17 AM

Newt and Obama both have far more lobbying connections and wall street stink than Romney. This just shows that you are a being a hack.

Ruiner on December 8, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Bump..I do not like the numers ending in 99..:)

Dire Straits on December 8, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4