New Romney Florida ad: You don’t really want to nominate a disgraced Freddie Mac shill, do you?

posted at 5:00 pm on January 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

I understand why he’d want to hit Newt hard on Freddie in Florida, which has taken a beating from the housing downturn. What I don’t understand is what he’ll say when Newt reminds the world tonight that Mitt put more than $250,000 in mutual funds that invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among other government entities. Romney will come prepared with some sort of spin, but I think details are almost meaningless to most voters with tu quoques like this, especially with a candidate like Mitt who’s already perceived as two-faced. (Why is a guy who’s famously worth nine figures calling on anyone to give back some of their earnings, anyway? Terrible optics.) The takeaway will be Newt telling Mitt that his hands are dirty too and therefore he’s in no position to judge, and that’ll be that.

Question: If, like me, you’re clinging to the vaporous hope of a late entrant and/or brokered convention, how should you be rooting in Florida? For Newt, right? If Romney holds off Gingrich there, he’s back on track for the nomination, even if the slog will be longer than he first expected. If Gingrich upsets Romney, establishment Republicans will wet themselves in terror at the thought of an allegedly unelectable candidate becoming the nominee and will scramble to head Newt off. Maybe that means pushing someone new into the race or maybe it means propping the two of them up in various ways so that delegates split three ways between them and Ron Paul and no one has a majority at the convention. The Mitch Daniels fans are pleading with him again to reconsider, which makes sense insofar as Newt’s rise seems to have neutralized character attacks in the race. (In Daniels’s case, any attacks would be aimed at his wife, not at him, which makes them even more unlikely.) The problem with Daniels as a late entrant, though, is that he too would be seen as an “establishment” candidate, perhaps even more so than Romney. He’s a Bush guy, after all, and would have plenty of wealthy donors behind him, which Gingrich would frame as an attempt by “insiders” to rig the election twice at the expense of grassroots conservatives after having failed to do it once with Romney. If establishment Republicans really want to stop Newtmentum, they’d need a candidate with grassroots cred to blunt Newt’s pushback. Jindal seems like the most obvious option to me: He’s a free agent now that Perry’s out of the race and he’s universally respected among grassroots conservatives. But could he win a three-way race with Romney and Gingrich (or, rather, a four-way race with Paul) at this point? Hard to imagine. I think it’s brokered convention or bust.


Related Posts:

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 5

Classic Republicans picking whomever has the worst chance to win.

They picked Bob Dole over John McCain when the optics of running the wounded Vietnam vet over the hippie draft dodger could have easily won them the election.

They picked ole John McCain at the wrong time on another go around. Instead of picking Mike Huckabee, who would have destroyed Obama with his simple charm, and flat tax ideas – they pick McCain who couldn’t present any real reason for him to run.

Now, in the face of 4 more years of Obama, ever increasing spending and debt – instead of picking the turn around artist with the private sector experience, the Republicans pick the Washington Insider, former Congressman and Lobbyist who says inflammatory things, and sets up the race between the noble liberal in Obama vs the racist, corrupt Washington politician. What an F*ing train wreck.

joncoltonis on January 23, 2012 at 6:48 PM

pray tell and enlighten what Dumas did you have in mind and why :-) oh, back to the birtherism thing, may I remind you that the father of our current president was not an American citizen either (not only that, but he never became one, like Jindal’s parents, through naturalization), yet he is the president…like, seriously, are you going there again, I mean the birther thing??

jimver on January 23, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Add another “s” to Dumas.

Oh, silly me! I see now. The Constitution can be amended by violating it, even though that isn’t provided for in the document itself.

So, Obama was elected in violation of the Constitution, as you admit, so, what the hell – let’s do it again. Any other parts of the Constitution you want to amend by violation? Hey, start with the XVIth Amendment (That’s 16 in Roman numerals, btw)

“Obama did it” is not a link to a specific Amendment or SCT opinion amending Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

So, links sil’ vous plait. (FYI – Please in French.) Meanwhile, I patiently await your most considerate reply with links. Best regards

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 6:49 PM

That is precisely what Obama, Wasserman and the rest of the dems are doing: laughing histerically as they watch conservatives voting for the penultimate insider/Rhino. But never fear, don’t panic—Newt will implode, that’s what he does best.

Oracleforhire on January 23, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Indeed. And then the rest of us will be told it was the Establishment’s fault, or something.

changer1701 on January 23, 2012 at 6:50 PM

I think even Newt voters (if they were being honest) would acknowledge they would prefer a better “vessel” for their rage, this is more a vote against Mitt.

BradTank on January 23, 2012 at 6:39 PM

I’m not ever sure its against Mitt as much as against the clowns running the GOP.

Sultanofsham on January 23, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Hopefully Jeb Bush will stay the hell away from it

If a convention chose Jeb, O would win all 57 states. People who cannot even imagine voting Dem without feeling sick would pull the lever for O.

kunegetikos on January 23, 2012 at 6:51 PM

But in terms of his conservative credentials and conservative accomplishments, he absolutely blows Mitt away.

nicktjacob on January 23, 2012 at 5:39 PM

I’ve never said Mitt was a perfect conservative… but to act like Newt is any better is nuts. The biggest complaint about Mitt is that he instituted a mandate for health care in Mass. He never backed a national mandate, Newt did. Newt backed cap and trade legislation… his attacks on Romney on Bain are anti-capitalist, he actually said he wanted to see Romney’s tax returns so he “could see where Romney made his money.” One place Mitt didn’t make his money… lobbying for Freddie Mac. The idea that Newt is a tea party favorite is mind boggling.

PKinMI on January 23, 2012 at 6:52 PM

When Newt was Speaker of the House, US Congress had a Gallup approval 42%, Compare:w/Boehner who led coup in ’97 @ Gallup approval 12%.

andy85719 on January 23, 2012 at 6:54 PM

I’ve never said Mitt was a perfect conservative… but to act like Newt is any better is nuts. The biggest complaint about Mitt is that he instituted a mandate for health care in Mass. He never backed a national mandate, Newt did. Newt backed cap and trade legislation… his attacks on Romney on Bain are anti-capitalist, he actually said he wanted to see Romney’s tax returns so he “could see where Romney made his money.” One place Mitt didn’t make his money… lobbying for Freddie Mac. The idea that Newt is a tea party favorite is mind boggling.

PKinMI on January 23, 2012 at 6:52 PM

It is mind boggling. The fact he might actually win is, too. I don’t get it…the man was basically drummed out of Congress, and that is your standard bearer? Ugh.

changer1701 on January 23, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Looks like it’s heading that way. Not good.

rubberneck on January 23, 2012 at 6:04 PM

How is that not good? We might get someone better than one of these stiffs?

The Count on January 23, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Your argument has merit, but shows a true weakness in the party. That it’s divided.

rubberneck on January 23, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Mittens is 9 wins 16 losses in elections, 9/25 says Rush. Kind of kills the inevitable, only Mitt can win meme doesn’t it?

Of this Newt said,“It used to be pious baloney now its’ just desperate baloney” LMAO! Whoot Newt!

ConcealedKerry on January 23, 2012 at 6:56 PM

What I don’t understand is what he’ll say when Newt reminds the world tonight that Mitt put more than $250,000 in mutual funds that invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among other government entities.

sorry AP…couldn’t read past this. Like huh? Mitt Invested Money in FRE/FNM..etc. Everyone does that. GNMAs, MuniBonds, Treasuries.

Newt was TAKING money from these guys. Hello? Am i misreading…or do conservative now join in the economic illiteracy of the Left?

r keller on January 23, 2012 at 6:56 PM

…Newt reminds the world tonight that Mitt put more than $250,000 in mutual funds that invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among other government entities.

And Mitt should say, “Gee whiz Newt. I didn’t have another million to invest or I could have covered your fee to Fannie. I invested in the government, did you?”

But, he’ll just stammer and stutter and look like he is guilty of something.

BacaDog on January 23, 2012 at 6:56 PM

@ppppolls: Only 63% of Mitt’s 2008 voters in FL supporting him again…this is a recurring problem…doesn’t inspire passionate following

andy85719 on January 23, 2012 at 6:56 PM

@Jim_Banks: Historic moment at Indiana Statehouse. Senate passes Right to Work 28-22. #INLegis

andy85719 on January 23, 2012 at 6:57 PM

r keller on January 23, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Heh. Great minds think alike! :)

BacaDog on January 23, 2012 at 6:57 PM

When Newt was Speaker of the House, US Congress had a Gallup approval 42%, Compare:w/Boehner who led coup in ’97 @ Gallup approval 12%.

andy85719 on January 23, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Yes, but Clinton was calling the shots, and noot was on board with many of those shots. He had to be excised in order to take the congress back.

rubberneck on January 23, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Bmore

Andrew and Joseph are both in their late 20′s and have been through college, so Athens, GA would not be their flavor.

Besides, they already have a place, two play dates and a contract with a recording company in Charleston, so their plans are set.

Will be within hollerin’ distance of my Alabama relatives, so that is a plus to.

Full barrel here tonight, in case you haven’t noticed.

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 6:58 PM

@Jim_Banks: Historic moment at Indiana Statehouse. Senate passes Right to Work 28-22. #INLegis

andy85719 on January 23, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Wow. Will it get vetoed?

BacaDog on January 23, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Yes, but Clinton was calling the shots, and noot was on board with many of those shots. He had to be excised in order to take the congress back.

rubberneck on January 23, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Back to its old big government ways.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 6:58 PM

I think even Newt voters (if they were being honest) would acknowledge they would prefer a better “vessel” for their rage, this is more a vote against Mitt.

BradTank on January 23, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Its two-fold. First and foremost, it is anti-Mitt and anti-establishment. I know that the party can do better than Mitt Romney, and the establishment is to blame for rallying around that moderate, Massachusetts, financial-sector clown. Second, despite his unfavorable numbers, I think Newt will fare better in the general than Mitt Romney.

So yes, I would prefer somebody else, but out of the two options before us, I prefer Newt Gingrich. And if voting for Newt might trigger the establishment to bail on Romney and rally behind a candidate more conservative than either Newt or Mitt, then I’ll be thrilled. Voting for Newt is win-win.

Lawdawg86 on January 23, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Wow. Will it get vetoed?

BacaDog on January 23, 2012 at 6:58 PM

No, Daniels will sign it.

andy85719 on January 23, 2012 at 6:58 PM

O/T

Why is Bret Baier always signing off with “thanks for letting us into your homes tonight”? Its kinda… creepy.

Lawdawg86 on January 23, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Re the easily lead insecure child.

House ethics subcommittee found Saturday that Speaker Newt Gingrich brought discredit to the House by using tax-exempt money for political purposes, and by providing the committee with “inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable information” about the role of a political action committee in a college course he taught.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 5:32 PM

A slanderous puke continues to spew lies.

IT IS A CUT AND PASTE, IDIOT.

The dishonor this person brings to Romney is extraordinary indeed.

Again, you lying trash, you know nothing of honor. From your own link:
he agreed to pay a $300,000 penalty for his misleading statements to the ethics committee as it investigated the financing of the college course and other issues.

You are a liar shilling for a liar.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:03 PM

And Mitt should say, “Gee whiz Newt. I didn’t have another million to invest or I could have covered your fee to Fannie. I invested in the government, did you?”

But, he’ll just stammer and stutter and look like he is guilty of something.

BacaDog on January 23, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Yep. Thats the problem. He doesnt know how to fight and he better learn or he’s not even going to make it to face Obama.

Sultanofsham on January 23, 2012 at 7:04 PM

No, Daniels will sign it.

andy85719 on January 23, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Excellent. One down, 56 to go!! :-)

BacaDog on January 23, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Nobody had mentioned ‘Christian’ before, but it’s certainly not a universally excepted fact that Mormons are not Christians. Don’t the Mormons consider themselves Christians?

DarkCurrent on January 23, 2012 at 5:58 PM

The Mormon Jesus is different from the normal Jesus in the Bible

social-justice on January 23, 2012 at 6:00 PM

The “Evangelical” or typical “Christian” Jesus is different from the normal Jesus in the Bible. The “Christian” Jesus came from the convoluted opinions mashed together in the Nicene Creed a few hundred years after Christ.

How about we use Christians (capitalized) to denote those christians (friends of Jesus) who believe in the Trinity of the Nicene Creed and lowercase christians to denote all those who believe Jesus Christ atoned for their sins, died on the cross, was resurrected, lives again, and provides eternal life for all who believe on his name? (christians includes Christians!)

And, would it just be possible, at all, to vote for the latter type of christian, or even a Jew, or Agnostic, etc., if we think he would be the best choice for president out of those running for the office? Is that too much to ask?

I can take other criticism of Romney, heaven knows I’ve offered it myself. But the banal discussion about religious beliefs and truths, mostly by people who know far less than they think they do, is truly getting tiresome.

robm on January 23, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Excellent. One down, 56 to go!! :-)

BacaDog on January 23, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Actually, 22 states are already right-to-work, so its 34 more to go.

andy85719 on January 23, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Yep. Thats the problem. He doesnt know how to fight and he better learn or he’s not even going to make it to face Obama.

Sultanofsham on January 23, 2012 at 7:04 PM

I wonder if it’s bad advice, or he just doesn’t have it in him.

I read somewhere today that he has a bunch of Charlie Christ’s old advisers on his staff.

Gee, Mitt. That worked out really well for Charlie. Not to mention Christ was a freak to begin with.

BacaDog on January 23, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Yes, but Clinton was calling the shots, and noot was on board with many of those shots. He had to be excised in order to take the congress back.

rubberneck on January 23, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Since when are we happier with the 1998-2006 GOP congress than the 1994-1998 GOP congress. It those bunch of pork-grabbing, medicare-expanding, amnesty-supporting, debt-increasing cowards felt they needed to kick Newt out, I consider this a point in Newt’s favor. When he was in charge, we had a Congress that could balance the budget, reform welfare, impeach a corrupt Dem president. Why would we want Boehner et al to “take congress back”?

joe_doufu on January 23, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Stayright on January 23, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Thank you, that was enlightening. Obviously as a Buddhist I don’t have your understanding of Jesus.

DarkCurrent on January 23, 2012 at 6:23 PM

BUWAHAHAHA!!!

Stayright, are you a newbie or you just don’t pay attention?

ladyingray on January 23, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Your comment makes no sense.

I’ve been around here 3-4 years. I don’t want to argue Scripture with anyone. I don’t want to beat anyone up over their beliefs, but I’m just zealous for my Savior, the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Scripture warns not to add, take away or change one jot or tittle. The Mormon Jesus is another Jesus. In Mormonism, Jesus is a created being. In biblical Christianity, Jesus is one person of the Godhead, He’s eternal, not a created being. The distinctions between biblical Christianity and Mormonism are vast. We use many of the same terms, but they have radically different meanings.

Stayright on January 23, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Add another “s” to Dumas.

Oh, silly me! I see now. The Constitution can be amended by violating it, even though that isn’t provided for in the document itself.

So, Obama was elected in violation of the Constitution, as you admit, so, what the hell – let’s do it again. Any other parts of the Constitution you want to amend by violation? Hey, start with the XVIth Amendment (That’s 16 in Roman numerals, btw)

“Obama did it” is not a link to a specific Amendment or SCT opinion amending Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

So, links sil’ vous plait. (FYI – Please in French.) Meanwhile, I patiently await your most considerate reply with links. Best regards

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 6:49 PM

hey, Einstein, have you exhausted wikipedia and the Alex Jones’s site that supply you with ‘valuable’ links :-)…So, what can I say, get your Dumas (with as many ‘s’ you desire) out of your derrière, and try to process that the term ‘natural-born citizen’ was left undefined by the founding fathers…it was broadly understood in English common law at the time as referring to one who possesses citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of their birth, which is still the general meaning of the phrase as it’s used today.

In the US there are two established legal principles based on which individuals are said to acquire citizenship at birth: jus sanguinus (is latin to much for ya, genius, here, it translates as the ‘right of blood’ :), meaning citizenship conferred by being born to parents who are US citizens, and jus soli (try English, to make sure you get it: ‘right of soil’ :), meaning citizenship conferred by being born on US soil. As per the 14th Amend, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” all individuals born on U.S. soil are considered ‘birthright citizens’ under the law regardless of the citizenship status of their parents…there?? feel better now?? and pls, don’t ‘abstain from linking to Alex Jones or the kind, will not be bothered…

jimver on January 23, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Actually, 22 states are already right-to-work, so its 34 more to go.

andy85719 on January 23, 2012 at 7:06 PM

I knew there were a bunch, just too lazy to google! I would have guessed less than 22 though.

We’re RTW here in Virginia.

BacaDog on January 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM

‘abstain’ that is :-)…

jimver on January 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM

OT:

We need a John Kerry double black eyes and a broken nose post.

/Someone shook him. Somehow I don’t think it was Tamale Mooch. Is Kerry “the Leaker”?

Key West Reader on January 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Classic Republicans picking whomever has the worst chance to win.

They picked Bob Dole over John McCain when the optics of running the wounded Vietnam vet over the hippie draft dodger could have easily won them the election.

They picked ole John McCain at the wrong time on another go around. Instead of picking Mike Huckabee, who would have destroyed Obama with his simple charm, and flat tax ideas – they pick McCain who couldn’t present any real reason for him to run.

Now, in the face of 4 more years of Obama, ever increasing spending and debt – instead of picking the turn around artist with the private sector experience, the Republicans pick the Washington Insider, former Congressman and Lobbyist who says inflammatory things, and sets up the race between the noble liberal in Obama vs the racist, corrupt Washington politician. What an F*ing train wreck.

joncoltonis on January 23, 2012 at 6:48 PM

You nailed it. We’re angry, so we’ll pick the guy who yells the loudest. Doesn’t matter that he’ll never be able to get elected, much less unite the party when the dust settles.

PKinMI on January 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Freddie Mac agreement is now online.

andy85719 on January 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM

joncoltonis on January 23, 2012 at 6:48 PM

+10

GOP. The party of screwed..

BacaDog on January 23, 2012 at 7:12 PM

It’s fascinating to watch the Romney campaign and their camp flounder. They seem incapable of honestly looking at their candidate and reflecting on why voters are not flocking to him. All they know how to do is attack the other candidates and hurl insults at the voters.

Skynet has more self-awareness than Romney.

Y-not on January 23, 2012 at 7:12 PM

andy85719 on January 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Got a link, Andy? Or is it on Newt’s site?

BacaDog on January 23, 2012 at 7:13 PM

The “Evangelical” or typical “Christian” Jesus is different from the normal Jesus in the Bible. The “Christian” Jesus came from the convoluted opinions mashed together in the Nicene Creed a few hundred years after Christ.

How about we use Christians (capitalized) to denote those christians (friends of Jesus) who believe in the Trinity of the Nicene Creed and lowercase christians to denote all those who believe Jesus Christ atoned for their sins, died on the cross, was resurrected, lives again, and provides eternal life for all who believe on his name? (christians includes Christians!)

And, would it just be possible, at all, to vote for the latter type of christian, or even a Jew, or Agnostic, etc., if we think he would be the best choice for president out of those running for the office? Is that too much to ask?

I can take other criticism of Romney, heaven knows I’ve offered it myself. But the banal discussion about religious beliefs and truths, mostly by people who know far less than they think they do, is truly getting tiresome.

robm on January 23, 2012 at 7:05 PM

So you’re one of those Romans 1:22 types, huh?

Stayright on January 23, 2012 at 7:13 PM

So, links sil’ vous plait. (FYI – Please in French.) Meanwhile, I patiently await your most considerate reply with links. Best regards

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 6:49 PM

and btw, it’s ‘s’il vous plaît’ :)…sending you links in French would mean to confuse you even more, your purist American mind can’t take more than one language at a time lol :-)…

jimver on January 23, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Wow, this agreement was a bunch of nothing. What is Romney going to attack Gingrich with now?

andy85719 on January 23, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Now that Miriam and Sheldon Adelson have donated $10 million to Newt’s superpac, do you think they have naming rights to the White House if he somehow gets elected?? Will it be the Adelson House?

PKinMI on January 23, 2012 at 7:16 PM

“And Charlie Rangel is different. Splain that to me lucy.

Key West Reader on January 23, 2012 at 5:35 PM”

Huh? If you think I would ever vote for Rangel you are kidding yourself. He should have been booted out of congress.

Ignore the whole cult thing and focus on marriage.
Gotcha.

You-Eh-Vee on January 23, 2012 at 5:37 PM

They accept Christ as their savior. Regardless, I’ve never met one that I wasn’t impressed with. I was raised a Presbyterian and now go to a Baptist church. I can’t say the same.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:17 PM

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 5:27 PM

I see you’re till repeating the same lie you were spreading yesterday, even after you were shown the truth by numerous people.

Flora Duh on January 23, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Again, it’s cut and paste from reliable newspapers. Calling what you don’t want to hear “lies” isn’t going to get votes in the general election.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 5:58 PM

No, the Progress and Freedom Foundation was cleared, not Gingrich. If you read your own quote again you will see that Gingrich admitted that he gave the committee false information, but he said that it was unintentional.

Here is the important paragraph:
In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to committee, but I did not intend to mislead the committee,” he said.

So he either didn’t read what he signed or …

Gelsomina on January 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

“No reimbursement for expenses will be payable under this Agreement.”

No perks like free limos and whatnot.

andy85719 on January 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

So your saying that conservatives have less IQ then moderates?

Sultanofsham on January 23, 2012 at 6:46 PM

let’s put it this way, they compensate with their ‘conviction’ :-)…

jimver on January 23, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Now that Miriam and Sheldon Adelson have donated $10 million to Newt’s superpac, do you think they have naming rights to the White House if he somehow gets elected?? Will it be the Adelson House?

PKinMI on January 23, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Should be, though I thought Super PACs were bad?

changer1701 on January 23, 2012 at 7:20 PM

OT:

We need a John Kerry double black eyes and a broken nose post.

/Someone shook him. Somehow I don’t think it was Tamale Mooch. Is Kerry “the Leaker”?

Key West Reader on January 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Wha chew talkin ’bout Willis?

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Again, you lying trash, you know nothing of honor. From your own link:
he agreed to pay a $300,000 penalty for his misleading statements to the ethics committee as it investigated the financing of the college course and other issues.

You are a liar shilling for a liar.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:03 PM

How often do you dig up the charges of the Duke LaCross players rape charges and copy paste things that were meant to make them look like rapists? How often? Would that be an honorable thing, especially after you have already been provided with the context that they were later dropped? You are a disgusting human being and so long as this is the only line of attack you have, I will strip you bare in front of god and country, or more accurately, all these other people here who are at least debating with some honor! What you are doing with this charge is just as disgusting.

Context has meaning.

Newt failed to catch one error on one sheet of paper out of thousands presented for review on charges that were fully found to have no merit. He took responsibility for that failure and said: ”In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to committee,“ Which I see as a very honorable action for such a trivial mistake. He could have sued his lawyer. he could have drug out the ethic investigation another two years to fully be exonerated, what did he do instead?

Due to that mistake which he took full blame for he then also offered: “I brought down on the people’s house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their government.” which is true. If he would have caught that error, the controversy would have not been so severe, so his failure did bring on a controversy. He did not want to harm his country by dragging the investigation out over years, as is the wont of all the corrupted Democrats to do, so he settled with the House and took responsibility for his trivial failure. He was exonerated on all charges, and was only guilty of having not vetted every single sheet of paper his lawyers presented in his name.

As for paying $300,000, it was paying for part of the investigation, the part that was increased by his failure to catch that one sheet of paper out of thousands. That was a very magnanimous thing Newt did. He took a hit to save the country continued banana republic style investigations that you see in countries like Russia and Haiti and other lawless lands. He could have paid that $300,000 out of election funds and other accounts he had available, he chose to pay out of his own bank account, taking the entire hit on his own.

At the end of the day, the IRS, under President Bill Clinton, found that the tax charges were wholly without merit and that Newt Gingrich fully complied with the law.

Now, if you want to refute what I just wrote and say that is not how it went down, fine. Try to do so.

Your method of debate is dishonorable. Mine is fair and just.

I am perfectly happy to slap you around this place as long as it takes on this issue as long as you want to keep allowing yourself to look a total fool and an extremely dishonest puke.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Horace
Good deal on the boys. Remind again what genre of music. Happy fishing. Debate thread tonight?

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 7:22 PM

That is all you have? That is political payback. Nothing more
or less.

Amjean on January 23, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Where he admitted guilt? Maybe we be so willfully blind to this guys crimes and misdemeanors on Hot Air, but the rest of the USA isn’t going to buy it. Nor should they.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:23 PM

No, the Progress and Freedom Foundation was cleared, not Gingrich. If you read your own quote again you will see that Gingrich admitted that he gave the committee false information, but he said that it was unintentional.

Here is the important paragraph:
In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to committee, but I did not intend to mislead the committee,” he said.

So he either didn’t read what he signed or …

Gelsomina on January 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Lawyers have powers of attorney and can sign for their client. Feel free to keep bringing up the Duke La Cross rape charges if you must. I am sure you feel superior doing so.

The ethics panel chose to state that they would not make the determination of if Newt had violated tax law, and punted it to the IRS, and those specific statements by the IRS are what exonerates him. It is that simple.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 7:24 PM

If Gingrich upsets Romney, establishment Republicans will wet themselves in terror at the thought of an allegedly unelectable candidate becoming the nominee and will scramble to head Newt off.

Can’t conservatives describe establishment Republicans as some kind of varmint or infectious disease? When the time comes, (and it will) for establishment Republicans to seek support from Tea Party Americans, do these ER’s think they will have forgotten the attempt to crucify Newt Gingrich—“an allegedly unelectable candidate“? This narrative is getting comical in my opinion.

Rovin on January 23, 2012 at 7:24 PM

They accept Christ as their savior. Regardless, I’ve never met one that I wasn’t impressed with. I was raised a Presbyterian and now go to a Baptist church. I can’t say the same.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Many who claim Christ will be cast out on that frightful day of judgment. There are false converts in every denomination, even those with sound biblical doctrine. Some denominations are heretical.

Matthew 7:

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Stayright on January 23, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Newt was “Palinized” before she was. He was sold out by his
own party because they wanted the power Newt was giving to the
people back in their own little dirty hands. It was a crock then
and it is a crock now.

Amjean on January 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM

+100

The question you have to ask:

What has Mitt Romney EVER done for the conservative cause?

Anything at all?

nicktjacob on January 23, 2012 at 5:05 PM

I have been challenging Romney supporters with this question for months. I have yet to have even one of them even attempt to reply. They just attack anyone who questions their boy.

29Victor on January 23, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Neutron Newt was given documents from his lawyer that he knew would be presented to the committee. He reviewed the documents and signed them as fact.

His statements were in fact lies. The entire congress agree that Gingrich meant to lie so they sanctioned him and forced him to pay a $300,000 fine. They then drummed him out of the speakership in disgrace where upon he resign his congressional seat.

That is the context and you idiotic “Newt made a mistake” diatribes are irrational rants.

csdeven on January 23, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Where he admitted guilt? Maybe we be so willfully blind to this guys crimes and misdemeanors on Hot Air, but the rest of the USA isn’t going to buy it. Nor should they.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:23 PM

He admitted he failed to fully vet the documents. Feel free to call that admitting guilt. I know you hold yourself to an even higher standard in your dealings with everyone. The rest of your statement was the framing of the indictment to get the highest degree of political effect, but had nothing to do with the outcome.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Neutron Newt was given documents from his lawyer that he knew would be presented to the committee. He reviewed the documents and signed them as fact.

His statements were in fact lies. The entire congress agree that Gingrich meant to lie so they sanctioned him and forced him to pay a $300,000 fine. They then drummed him out of the speakership in disgrace where upon he resign his congressional seat.

That is the context and you idiotic “Newt made a mistake” diatribes are irrational rants.

csdeven on January 23, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Feel free to provide the evidence to back up the claim.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 7:29 PM

They accept Christ as their savior. Regardless, I’ve never met one that I wasn’t impressed with. I was raised a Presbyterian and now go to a Baptist church. I can’t say the same.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:17 PM

“As man is, God once was; as God is man may be.”
–LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.24, p.430 – p.431

They believe God is a created being, that Jesus is a separate created being from God and that man can become a god co-equal with God (the same lie Eve was told in the garden).

29Victor on January 23, 2012 at 7:30 PM

As for paying $300,000, it was paying for part of the investigation, the part that was increased by his failure to catch that one sheet of paper out of thousands. That was a very magnanimous thing Newt did. He took a hit to save the country continued banana republic style investigations that you see in countries like Russia and Haiti and other lawless lands. He could have paid that $300,000 out of election funds and other accounts he had available, he chose to pay out of his own bank account, taking the entire hit on his own.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 7:21 PM

hahaha :-), and you buy his BS spin? :-)…and how utterly honorable of him to pay with his own money for his ethic violations, when he could have just stuck the taxpayer with the bill :-)…that puts old Newt in a whole new light, I mean all his past hypocrisy fades when you think about this noble gesture…I wish I knew this before I decided to never vote for him :-)…

jimver on January 23, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Harbingeing on January 23, 2012 at 5:52 PM

He has, frequently. Just because it’s not on hotair doesn’t mean it didn’t happen

bluealice on January 23, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Scripture warns not to add, take away or change one jot or tittle.

We understand that to mean not to take away or add to the truths that God has revealed. Since that verse of scripture was actually written hundreds of years before the bible was compiled, we don’t think it can refer to the compilation of the bible itself.

The Mormon Jesus is another Jesus. In Mormonism, Jesus is a created being. In biblical Christianity, Jesus is one person of the Godhead, He’s eternal, not a created being. The distinctions between biblical Christianity and Mormonism are vast. We use many of the same terms, but they have radically different meanings.

Stayright on January 23, 2012 at 7:07 PM

There certainly are differences in our beliefs – Mormons don’t deny that. And if you really think we don’t belong in the “friends of Jesus” club, and it is an affront for us to think of ourselves as followers of Jesus Christ, then of course you have the agency to believe and think as you will.

Did you know that the LDS believe Jesus is Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, who created the earth and countless other worlds? Does that sound like a difference in belief that actually makes it difficult for us to worship him with proper reverence?

So you’re one of those Romans 1:22 types, huh?

I hope I do not think I am so wise that I am actually a fool.

I have no desire to force my beliefs on anyone – I only wish to be able to declare what it is I believe and not have someone else tell me what I believe, or worse, tell other people what it is I believe if they don’t really know.

robm on January 23, 2012 at 7:33 PM

ConcealedKerry on January 23, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Um, Newt only ran for congress. Lasted four years. He was booted out by his own members.

bluealice on January 23, 2012 at 7:33 PM

hahaha :-), and you buy his BS spin? :-)…and how utterly honorable of him to pay with his own money for his ethic violations, when he could have just stuck the taxpayer with the bill :-)…that puts old Newt in a whole new light, I mean all his past hypocrisy fades when you think about this noble gesture…I wish I knew this before I decided to never vote for him :-)…

jimver on January 23, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Never said tax payer. Of course, he could have stuck the taxpayers with the bill by allowing the investigation to go on another 2 years. He chose to honor America by just taking responsibility for his mistake and allow congress to get back to the We The People’s business.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

What I don’t understand is what he’ll say when Newt reminds the world tonight that Mitt put more than $250,000 in mutual funds that invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among other government entities.

Hilarious. So having shares in a mutual fund that invests in Freddie Mac is the equivalent of taking $1.7 million to promote Freddie Mac and protect it from possible GOP inspired regulations. In the tank, or what.

Basilsbest on January 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

astonerii

How often do you dig up the charges of the Duke LaCross players rape charges and copy paste things that were meant to make them look like rapists?

Idiot.

especially after you have already been provided with the context that they were later dropped?

He provided misleading info to congress and paid 300,000 for it. You can’t lie your way out of that.

You are a disgusting human being

You are trailer trash who is having a tantrum.

and so long as this is the only line of attack you have,

Nope, there are many more.

I will strip you bare in front of god and country,

You can’t speak for either.

all these other people here who are at least debating with some honor!

You are a liar who is lying to excuse a serial cheat, crooked politician/lobbyist who left in disgrace, you know nothing of honor.

Newt failed to catch one error on one sheet of paper

Bull. Not even HE claims that.

He took responsibility for that failure and said: ”In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to committee,“

Gee, sounds like an admission of guilt.

Which I see as a very honorable action for such a trivial mistake

Lying to congress isn’t a trivial mistake and your characterization of what his “error” is false.

he could have drug out the ethic investigation another two years to fully be exonerated, what did he do instead?

Admitted guilt and paid a fine.

Due to that mistake which he took full blame for he then also offered:

Thanks for regurgitating his spin. Second hand BS is even better.

As for paying $300,000, it was paying for part of the investigation,

It was a fine, not something innocent people do.

That was a very magnanimous thing Newt did.

You sound like Comical Ali lying for Saddam.

he chose to pay out of his own bank account, taking the entire hit on his own.

IT WAS A FINE. HE HAD TO PAY IT BECAUSE HE ADMITTED GIULT.

… and that Newt Gingrich fully complied with the law.

Pont out where the IRS said “he fully complied with the law”

Your method of debate is dishonorable. Mine is fair and just.

Spinning, mischaracterizing what people wrote and claining up is down isn’t honorable, then again, you aren’t honorable and neither is your candidate. Water meets it’s own level.

I am perfectly happy to slap you around this place …

Again, bet you would be nice and polite face to face. You are a perfect representation of your candidate.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:38 PM

let’s put it this way, they compensate with their ‘conviction’ :-)…

jimver on January 23, 2012 at 7:20 PM

So then that is a yes. You think that conservatives have less IQ then moderates.

Kind of a microcosm of one of the reasons why people want to use Newt as a club on the GOP elite.

Sultanofsham on January 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Wow, this agreement was a bunch of nothing.

andy85719 on January 23, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Neutron Newt lied again, there is no mention on “Historian” but there is mention of “consultent”. Which means “lobbyist”.

csdeven on January 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Of course, he could have stuck the taxpayers with the bill by allowing the investigation to go on another 2 years. He chose to honor America by just taking responsibility for his mistake and allow congress to get back to the We The People’s business.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

come think about it, maybe Maxine Waters and Charlie R should have chosen to do the same, pay the darn fee and move on…so that we, the People don’t pay for the prolonged investigations, no? I mean all that taxpayer’s money going down the gutter…whoever came with this bizarre idea anyways, to actually investigate the congress men and women, and their senate colleagues over potential wrong doings and ethic violations…what, are we some sort of a banana republic, or Russia? :-)…

jimver on January 23, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Many who claim Christ will be cast out on that frightful day of judgment.

Stayright on January 23, 2012 at 7:25 PM

I’ll take it over Reverend Wright. Or over someone who has broken the pledge to love honor and cherish twice.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:41 PM

I don’t get the fuss over the weekend. Mitt won NH by about the same margin as Newt’s win in SC. Both were practically favorite sons from adjoining states. Both got a considerable bounce right after their wins–interpreted as “momentum”. In other words, what we’re seeing is a regional, not an ideological, difference between the candidates. All this will shake out as other states have their say.

writeblock on January 23, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Neutron Newt lied again, there is no mention on “Historian” but there is mention of “consultent”. Which means “lobbyist”.

csdeven on January 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM

consultant is the short for ‘historian’, doncha know :-)

jimver on January 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM

jimver

Links, please. Specific Amendment or SCT opinion that amended Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Waiting…waiting…(looks at pocket watch)…waiting…(taps fingers on desk)…waiting…waiting…

BTW – term “natural born” was taken by the Founder and main writer of the Constitution, James Madison, from the tome, “The Law of Nations.”

Ever read it? No? I didn’t think so. Defines “natural born” as someone born on native soil to citizens of a particular country.

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Lawyers have powers of attorney and can sign for their client. Feel free to keep bringing up the Duke La Cross rape charges if you must. I am sure you feel superior doing so.

The ethics panel chose to state that they would not make the determination of if Newt had violated tax law, and punted it to the IRS, and those specific statements by the IRS are what exonerates him. It is that simple.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 7:24 PM

No, he didn’t violate tax law, be he wasn’t accused of violating tax law. You just said it yourself. “The ethics panel chose to state that they would not make the determination of (sic) if Newt had violated tax law …”

He was accused of giving false information. That’s what he admitted and that’s what he paid $300,000 for. He was not cleared.

Gelsomina on January 23, 2012 at 7:45 PM

hahaha :-), and you buy his BS spin? :-)…and how utterly honorable of him to pay with his own money for his ethic violations, when he could have just stuck the taxpayer with the bill :-)…that puts old Newt in a whole new light, I mean all his past hypocrisy fades when you think about this noble gesture…I wish I knew this before I decided to never vote for him :-)…

jimver on January 23, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Never said tax payer. Of course, he could have stuck the taxpayers with the bill by allowing the investigation to go on another 2 years. He chose to honor America by just taking responsibility for his mistake and allow congress to get back to the We The People’s business.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

In other words, he admitted guilt, which is what you have repeatedly called me a liar for stating. It wasn’t some big favor to the taxpayer to pay $300,000, that’s spin and only the brain-dead believe something THAT stupid. He paid a fine. Why? Because he was guilty.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Brokered convention? Only one man would win the general in a landslide if given a chance–Rudy.

Rudy/Rubio 2012.

writeblock on January 23, 2012 at 7:46 PM

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Anyone ever notice how everything that allows him to see himself as honest inside is based on cutting tiny parts of a whole and dissecting them fully out of context? Does that require conscious effort or can that really be happening behind the scenes in his brain to protect him from the truth?

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Links, please. Specific Amendment or SCT opinion that amended Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Waiting…waiting…(looks at pocket watch)…waiting…(taps fingers on desk)…waiting…waiting…

BTW – term “natural born” was taken by the Founder and main writer of the Constitution, James Madison, from the tome, “The Law of Nations.”

Ever read it? No? I didn’t think so. Defines “natural born” as someone born on native soil to citizens of a particular country.

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM

dude, I explained it to you already…now, pls, go and start a petition to unseat the current president because he is not a natural born citizen, as defined by you and…Alex Jones :-)…

jimver on January 23, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Anyone ever notice how everything that allows him to see himself as honest inside is based on cutting tiny parts of a whole and dissecting them fully out of context? Does that require conscious effort or can that really be happening behind the scenes in his brain to protect him from the truth?

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 7:47 PM

I have gone through your posts line by line and debunked them. Anyone (else) can see this. Congratulations, you have been completely toxic. I’m considering 3rd party so I don’t pick up any of your sleaze by proxy.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Hilarious. So having shares in a mutual fund that invests in Freddie Mac is the equivalent of taking $1.7 million to promote Freddie Mac and protect it from possible GOP inspired regulations. In the tank, or what.

Basilsbest on January 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

In the fantasy land of the Newt drones, yeah, it’s the equivalent. Or worse.

changer1701 on January 23, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Newt’s (alleged) tax cheating was just a form of capitalsm.

Capitalism is the ultimate good!

Romney is against capitalism!

Romney is against all things good!

/Rombot logic off

29Victor on January 23, 2012 at 7:57 PM

There’s plenty of fantasy going around for everyone.

Cindy Munford on January 23, 2012 at 7:57 PM

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:23 PM
V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:38 PM
V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:45 PM

I like the cut of your gib, V7_Sport. I really do. I’m not crazy about all the name calling, but I’ve read a good bit of the available online materials regarding Newt’s ethics violations and the resultant fine, and you’re right about the fine.

Slainte on January 23, 2012 at 7:58 PM

I have tasted the desperation of the Rombots and I find it delicious. It feeds my soul. I’m thinking that after Florida my soul is going to be so well fed it’ll need to spend an extra half hour at the gym every morning.

29Victor on January 23, 2012 at 7:59 PM

It’s time to rumble! Corrupt Newt Gingrich is toast.

No more Mr. Nice Mitt.

Republicans will never nominate that loser Newt Gingrich, who would lose in a landslide to Obama. Newt had his little moment last week, but the story will change next Tuesday.

Vote for Corrupt Gingrich = Vote to ReElect Obama!

bluegill on January 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Newt called the Ryan budget “right wing social-engineering”, defended the concept of a living wage – something that even socialist European countries are abandoning -, attacked Goldwater conservatism as too strict and unfashionable, called for government programs and an “active conservatism” in the mold of Theodore Roosevelt (who was actually a progressive liberal), voted to establish Jimmy Carter’s Department of Education, try to bring back the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”, after Ronald Reagan ended it, co-sponsored the Global Warming Prevention Act (the most extremist and radical pro-global warming alarmism piece of legislation in the history of the union) and teamed up with Nancy Pelosi to pass liberal legislation that infringed on gun owners’ rights, including the Lautenberg gun ban.

He’s been in Washington for almost 40 years, as a congressman first and as a millionaire lobbyist later. Always promoting his big government agenda.

This is the guy who’s supposed to represent the Tea Party and conservatives.

joana on January 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Newt’s (alleged) tax cheating was just a form of capitalsm.

Capitalism is the ultimate good!

Romney is against capitalism!

Romney is against all things good!

/Rombot logic off

29Victor on January 23, 2012 at 7:57 PM

What did that innocent little strawman every do to you that you felt like you had to knock him over like that? Poor little fella…

alchemist19 on January 23, 2012 at 8:03 PM

They accept Christ as their savior. Regardless, I’ve never met one that I wasn’t impressed with. I was raised a Presbyterian and now go to a Baptist church. I can’t say the same.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:17 PM

“As man is, God once was; as God is man may be.”
–LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.24, p.430 – p.431

They believe God is a created being, that Jesus is a separate created being from God and that man can become a like god to some degree co-equal with God (the same lie Eve was told in the garden).

29Victor on January 23, 2012 at 7:30 PM

I appreciate your using actual quotes. You almost got it right, up until that last part where you offered your own interpretation.

Our belief is is more like what is found in Romans 8:16-17

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

By the way, does this belief, supported by the New Testament, disqualify a person from being able to worship and accept Christ as their Savior? I mean, other than obviously being different from the more currently understood nature of God, does it somehow prohibit a person from praying to God, and following his Son?

And, of course, more to the point, does such a belief disqualify a person from public office? You are certainly entitled to your opinion – but luckily, each person only gets to vote once. :)

robm on January 23, 2012 at 8:03 PM

I have gone through your posts line by line and debunked them. Anyone (else) can see this. Congratulations, you have been completely toxic. I’m considering 3rd party so I don’t pick up any of your sleaze by proxy.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Funny, I just verified that your last line by line was missing 60% of the text and items taken out of context. So much for your honor system of doing what you say you do. Go the hell away, it is people like you that make the (R) party one that the people of the United States of America rejected in 2006 and 2008. People like you getting your way will lead right back to the (R) party being out in the wilderness again, and who knows, maybe the (D) party will have learned something from Obama and go slowly as to not spook the people into the (R) party’s hands so soon as it did this last time.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Re. Slainte

I like the cut of your gib, V7_Sport. I really do.

Thanks, I put a lot of work into that gib. :-)

I’m not crazy about all the name calling,

My sincere apologies to you and anyone other then the intended target. In my defense, it’s only been in response to a lot of abuse.

but I’ve read a good bit of the available online materials regarding Newt’s ethics violations and the resultant fine, and you’re right about the fine.

And all of that is going to be presented to the US public in the most damning way possible.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Newt has no chance of winning. He isn’t a conservative. He can only appeal to people who think that television preachers are sincere and/or that porn actresses are having a good time.

aloysiusmiller on January 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM

El lameo … If it comes to me, and the choices are Newt or Romney, no hesitation it’s Newt.

tarpon on January 23, 2012 at 8:09 PM

This is the guy who’s supposed to represent the Tea Party and conservatives.

joana on January 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM

No this is the best club around to beat the GOP establishment about the head. If there was a better one laying about they’d be using it instead.

Sultanofsham on January 23, 2012 at 8:13 PM

No this is the best club around to beat the GOP establishment about the head. If there was a better one laying about they’d be using it instead.

Sultanofsham on January 23, 2012 at 8:13 PM

One should identify “the GOP establishment” and what’s to be gained by beating them (whoever they are) about the head before one commences with the act.

alchemist19 on January 23, 2012 at 8:16 PM

robm on January 23, 2012 at 8:03 PM

I wasn’t trying to beat you up or make you mad earlier. I can’t convince you and you can’t convince me. Only the Lord can change a heart. I strongly urge you to listen or watch this sermon:

Satan’s Method of Deception

I have recommended it to other Mormons, but it’s not some anti-Mormon screed. It’s been a while since I listened to it, but I don’t believe Mormonism is mentioned at all. If it’s mentioned, it’s mentioned in passing. The truth is, I recommend that sermon to anyone and everyone who believes he is saved, regardless of denomination, age, or education.

In Philippians 2 Paul wrote, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. The Bible is full of warnings about pride and presumption. I warn every reader of my words to take the matter of your eternal soul, and your eternal destination seriously. Examine the Scriptures to find out what is true for yourself. Don’t take the word of someone just because they are your preacher, parent, or professor. Eternity is too long to be wrong.

Another sermon I would suggest: I Never Knew You

Stayright on January 23, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Funny, I just verified that your last line by line was missing 60% of the text and items taken out of context.

Just because you are in love with your own words doesn’t mean I have to quote them in their entirety.

Go the hell away,

No.

it is people like you that make the (R) party one that the people of the United States of America rejected in 2006 and 2008

Really? I gave money. I made phone calls, handed out signs and campaign literature. I rented a van, drove to a battle ground state (where I am still registered) and lured geriatrics out of their nursing home to the polling place with the promise effing pudding cups. (seriously) I did whatever I could in the primaries and the election to keep Obama out. My guess? You whined online. Enough is enough.

“People like you getting your way will lead right back to the (R) party being out in the wilderness again”

The choice of candidates is there. There is no Reagan or Goldwater. It wasn’t my idea. As always, I am trying to make the best of a bad situation because this is too important to toss away, because the country is too important to toss away on some display of anger because Newt can growl at Juan fricking Williams. And the idea that Gingrich of all people is your savior is a sad joke.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Jindal, Pawlenty and Santorum are all fine conservative men, and good husbands, but they’re all metro sexuals, that are not “comforting” to me, when going into this epic battle.

When we needed to take out Al Capone and Frank Nitti, I want to hire Sean Connery’s Frank Malone, as in, “The Untouchables” not the accountants.

Jindal, Pawlenty and Santorum are the “accountants” doing a fantastic job where they are right now.

It’s why we want the Newt-a-nator.
It’s why we want Palin.
She’ll fight for us.

“If he brings a knife, you bring a gun.” – Frank Malone, The Untouchables

Typicalwhitewoman on January 23, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5