• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Right Wing Media Launches All-Out Assault on Newt Gingrich

my sig is my heart and soul
 
American said:
That assumes the left owns independents, and the right has to win them over. Obama is a ****ing disaster even to extreme liberals. He wouldn't even be in the race if he weren't president already. His SOTU address was a FAIL, but it informed everyone about what his campaign will be all about.
Click to expand...

Here's the deal on Independents - Nobody owns them. Not the Left. Not the Right. That's why they are called Independents. Independents don't like extremes on EITHER side. If the GOP wants them, then the GOP is going to have to earn them. Running an extremist is not going to earn them. On the other hand, running Romney might do just that.
 
Last edited:
Some attacks are quite legitimate, namely the criticisms regarding his erratic and insistent behavior behind closed doors. It turned off many folks in the house. However, some of it is just another groundswell of primary combat. With enough time, regardless of which of the two is picked up, there will be enough amplification to get the base around the candidate. Primary season is brutal, but it is not without a decent amount of tolerance and forgiveness afterward.
 
American said:
That assumes the left owns independents, and the right has to win them over. Obama is a ****ing disaster even to extreme liberals. He wouldn't even be in the race if he weren't president already. His SOTU address was a FAIL, but it informed everyone about what his campaign will be all about.
Click to expand...

Obama is a "disaster" to extreme liberals because Obama isn't very liberal.

And no, it doesn't assume that liberals own independents.
 
danarhea said:
Here's the deal on Independents - Nobody owns them. Not the Left. Not the Right. That's why they are called Independents. Independents don't like extremes on EITHER side. If the GOP wants them, then the GOP is going to have to earn them. Running an extremist is not going to earn them. On the other hand, running Romney might do just that.
Click to expand...

I don't think Gingrich is an extremist. I think he's a brilliantly brutal rhetorician with a political philosophy that is fluid among the conservative branches, emphasizing one more some years than others, and then highlighting others in other years.
 
Is there anything more enjoyable in the world of politics than watching Republicans eat each other in public? I think not.
 
American said:
That assumes the left owns independents, and the right has to win them over. Obama is a ****ing disaster even to extreme liberals. He wouldn't even be in the race if he weren't president already. His SOTU address was a FAIL, but it informed everyone about what his campaign will be all about.
Click to expand...

State of the union a FAIL? Perhaps you need to get out a bit more and expand where you obtain your information.

Poll: High Marks for Obama's State of the Union Speech - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

An overwhelming majority of Americans approved of the overall message in President Obama's State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, according to a CBS News poll of speech watchers.
According to the poll, which was conducted online by Knowledge Networks immediately after the president's address, 91 percent of those who watched the speech approved of the proposals Mr. Obama put forth during his remarks. Only nine percent disapproved.
Click to expand...
9 out of 10 approve ...... that is the opposite of your FAIL.
 
Last edited:
Wiggen said:
Is there anything more enjoyable in the world of politics than watching Republicans eat each other in public? I think not.
Click to expand...

Obama and Hillary did the same thing 4 years ago, and guess what? Obama won the election.
 
And he'll win again.
 
haymarket said:
State of the union a FAIL? Perhaps you need to get out a bit more and expand where you obtain your information.

Poll: High Marks for Obama's State of the Union Speech - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

9 out of 10 approve ...... that is the opposite of your FAIL.
Click to expand...

It helped, but many of his suggestions were throwaways from previous years that he acknowledges were not going anywhere. The easy suggestion was the obstructionist party, but they had time prior with some of those same suggestions and couldn't get anything together.
 
Wiggen said:
Is there anything more enjoyable in the world of politics than watching Republicans eat each other in public? I think not.
Click to expand...

A close second would be watching the warrior of the far right post here that the State of the Union was a failure while 91% of Americans approved of it. ;)
 
danarhea said:
Here is the deal. The right now realizes how unelectable Newt is, and has decided to back Romney and wage war on Gingrich. It's not a bad strategy. If they really want to defeat Obama, it would be better to hold one's nose and back Romney than back someone who can't beat Obama. If your main goal is to defeat Obama, you embrace whoever can beat him, even if it it someone you do not want as president.

Discussion?

Article is here.
Click to expand...


Have always been a fan of voting for the candidate you want wiithout all the handwringing. Personally don't believe Gingrich is "unelectable".

Reality is that Obama (as the incumbant) has the odds on this side to win. GOP primary voters should choose who they like. And whoever gets the most "likes" will run against Obama....
 
Cole said:
Have always been a fan of voting for the candidate you want wiithout all the handwringing. Personally don't believe Gingrich is "unelectable".

Reality is that Obama (as the incumbant) has the odds on this side to win. GOP primary voters should choose who they like. And whoever gets the most "likes" will run against Obama....
Click to expand...

I love an honest answer. Thank you.
 
Cole said:
Have always been a fan of voting for the candidate you want wiithout all the handwringing. Personally don't believe Gingrich is "unelectable".

Reality is that Obama (as the incumbant) has the odds on this side to win. GOP primary voters should choose who they like. And whoever gets the most "likes" will run against Obama....
Click to expand...

He who get's the most "likes" wins the nomination? Sounds like the Facebook version of the GOP nomination. :lol: But I agree, choosing a candidate that you don't wholeheartedly support just because the other guy MIGHT be able to beat Obama seems like poor decision making and one they might end up regretting. I mean, if you want real change, why would you vote for anyone that is is most like the current President?

I can't see Newt getting the nomination. Yeah he talks a great game, but good luck beating the MSM. Ask Palin how that worked out for her.
 
Now we get to see once and for all who rules the Republican Party... Is it the right wing media conglomerates that profit off working them up into crazy conspiracy theory driven rages? Or have the inmates taken the asylum? Is the monster the right wing media created finally going to break free of the chains they have on it and start rampaging through town?

Either way, it's good drama for the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
Chaddelamancha said:
He who get's the most "likes" wins the nomination? Sounds like the Facebook version of the GOP nomination. :lol: But I agree, choosing a candidate that you don't wholeheartedly support just because the other guy MIGHT be able to beat Obama seems like poor decision making and one they might end up regretting. I mean, if you want real change, why would you vote for anyone that is is most like the current President?

I can't see Newt getting the nomination. Yeah he talks a great game, but good luck beating the MSM. Ask Palin how that worked out for her.
Click to expand...

Yet, that has been what the GOP establishment in DC has been shoving at the grass roots for what...4 presidential election cycles now? Since Dole basically.
Why the hell do they think we primaried so many of their worthless butts in 2010?

Screw the establishment, they havent been "representatives" of their constituents for quite a while.
Go along to get along is dead, come back with your shield or on it needs a revival. I want someone that will show some fire in causes they purport to believe in; that isn't Romney.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Yet, that has been what the GOP establishment in DC has been shoving at the grass roots for what...4 presidential election cycles now? Since Dole basically.
Why the hell do they think we primaried so many of their worthless butts in 2010?

Screw the establishment, they havent been "representatives" of their constituents for quite a while.
Go along to get along is dead, come back with your shield or on it needs a revival. I want someone that will show some fire in causes they purport to believe in; that isn't Romney.
Click to expand...

But here is the problem. Gingrich may have the fire, but he will never have the votes to unseat Obama. This is a year where the GOP is going to have to either show a little pragmatism or just plain lose. This means choosing Romney.
 
So "establishment" means being dull, boring, and cookie-cutter, rather than well-connected and firmly grounded within the party apparatus. If that's the way it goes, then yes, Romney is the "establishment" and Gingrich is not. If it is the latter definition, my definition, Gingrich is the establishment, and there's nothing wrong with that.
 
danarhea said:
But here is the problem. Gingrich may have the fire, but he will never have the votes to unseat Obama. This is a year where the GOP is going to have to either show a little pragmatism or just plain lose. This means choosing Romney.
Click to expand...


1 - Stop being a drama queen....and


2 - I'll be glad when the ****ing election is over and we can all go back to whining about the usual ****.
 
danarhea said:
But here is the problem. Gingrich may have the fire, but he will never have the votes to unseat Obama. This is a year where the GOP is going to have to either show a little pragmatism or just plain lose. This means choosing Romney.
Click to expand...

The GOP is going to rally behind the eventual nominee, right? At this point, I would find it hard to believe that a large portion of Republicans would ever vote for Obama. So look at the independent voting numbers in the primaries. Ron Paul has consistently pulled in the most. Is it too far of a stretch to say that he could defeat Obama with the help of the independent vote, more so than Romney or Newt?
 
ric27 said:
1 - Stop being a drama queen....and


2 - I'll be glad when the ****ing election is over and we can all go back to whining about the usual ****.
Click to expand...

If you are going to continue to be a troll, then I would greatly appreciate it if you trolled someone else's thread instead of this one.

Thanx in advance.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Some attacks are quite legitimate, namely the criticisms regarding his erratic and insistent behavior behind closed doors. It turned off many folks in the house. However, some of it is just another groundswell of primary combat. With enough time, regardless of which of the two is picked up, there will be enough amplification to get the base around the candidate. Primary season is brutal, but it is not without a decent amount of tolerance and forgiveness afterward.
Click to expand...

personally, i think his behavior behind closed doors has been quite consistent. that aside, his attitude seems to be that of a king. i seriously can't stand to hear him talk to people as though they are miles below him. he's has no humility, and that's dangerous.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Yet, that has been what the GOP establishment in DC has been shoving at the grass roots for what...4 presidential election cycles now? Since Dole basically.
Why the hell do they think we primaried so many of their worthless butts in 2010?

Screw the establishment, they havent been "representatives" of their constituents for quite a while.
Go along to get along is dead, come back with your shield or on it needs a revival. I want someone that will show some fire in causes they purport to believe in; that isn't Romney.
Click to expand...

I love that kind of talk! Keep it up! Ideological purity is way more important than winning tacky things like elections. Besides which, if you win an election you actually have to govern! I know! Don't compromise, don't expand your base, keep that wacky 25%!
 
Pointy said:
I would dearly love to be able to say I agree with your prognosis, however what you propose is far too generalized.

Why not say what you really mean:-
It is all the fault of the Jews as by and large they represent / are the Liberal Media?
Click to expand...

That's it!

(You realize I was being sarcastic and making fun of the idiots who cry "liberal media" at the drop of a hat, I hope).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom