Newt Gingrich

[Selene]

Carol/Peter:

I love it. Keep up the name calling. It just plays right into Mr. Newt's "I am going to be positive campaign and focus on my opponent President O'bama."

Adam

chuckling as the trap is baited

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

chuckling as the trap is baited

End quote

Want to bet ten thousand, jillion dollars? That was elitist of Mitt betting poor Governor Perry.

I can’t imagine anything more nerve wracking (or rewarding if you win) than being in charge of a campaign. Nobody knows what will be hot. Nobody knows what can change a “flow” of voters towards anything. It can be as stupid as promoting the newest bubblegum music pre-teen rage like The Bieber, The Hansen’s, Leif Garrison, or the Beatles. Or as intelligently nitpicking as mapping a workable campaign strategy, like, “If, in the debate, Mitt alludes to your infidelity, then you mention . . . “

A crooked debate moderator could probably pre-sell his questions to a campaign for millions of dollars. Would a rich, morally straight Mormon like Mitt Romney buy those questions? I don’t doubt that moderators are spied on as much as can be gotten away with too.

How about, T-Rex Gingrich? Anything but Newt. Is Mitt a short version from the apostle’s Mithew, Lark, Muke, and Yawn?

Peter

[Selene]

Peter/Carol/et al:

Just opened Drudge for the first time today and lo and behold...[how does one "lo" and "behold" anyway, sounds kinda kinky to me!]:

Ron Paul won't win the Republican presidential nomination, much less the White House, but he is primed for a potentially big run in Iowa and New Hampshire: states that can give a boost to underdog, outsider candidates. Should this happen, Paul can push the Republican Party further toward his libertarian views.

But Democrats and Republicans have an uneasy relationship with libertarians like Paul. Democrats tend to like their views on national defense and civil liberties. Republicans are attracted to their economic views and limited government stance, especially when it comes to free markets, tax cuts and federal domestic spending.

Paul presents himself as a man of principle and as an intellectual devoted to liberty, and his legions of fans love him for it. While his personal integrity is beyond reproach, his intellectual views on liberty are pretty amateur. He writes books on liberty, but they are little more than trite panegyrics to the nature of freedom, which he defines simply as the absence of government. Hardly Lockean.

Paul, however, is not without courage. He stands alone among Republican presidential candidates in his condemnation of American military intervention abroad and he has a long record of voting against it. He voted against both Iraq wars and the war in Kosovo. Although he voted for the Afghanistan war after 9-11, he now regrets that vote and says the money was wasted. He also rails against American foreign aid, even when the aid is humanitarian or in America's security interests.

Yet, Paul's brand of libertarianism is more popular than ever and his influence on today's conservative movement is easy to see. Although he's a White House long shot, his impress on today's conservative will likely continue for some time to come.

http://www.newsleade...has-GOP-worried

Adam

Shining his crystal ball

[Selene]

LOL...

Now for the fearful left's take on the looming Mr. Newt's lead in the polls...Salon.com's e-mil today verges on the hysterical:

Sunday, Dec 11, 2011 1:00 AM Eastern Standard Time

The Newt thing gets even more serious

His rivals came at the new front-runner hard on Saturday night, but Gingrich walked away as strong as ever

By Steve Kornacki

Republican presidential candidates former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, left, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, right, take part in the Republican debate, Saturday, Dec. 10, 2011, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall) (Credit: AP)

Topics:War Room

If you scored it on points, the outcome of Saturday night’s Republican presidential debate, the second-to-last before the January 3 Iowa caucuses, was muddled.

Each of the six participants had a strong moment or two. Rick Perry provided what was, by far, his best performance in a debate, Michele Bachmann memorably disparaged the race’s two front-runners as “Newt Romney,” Ron Paul received some unlikely praise from rivals who in the past have preferred to use him as a punching bag, and Mitt Romney addressed his privileged upbringing with surprising deftness. Even Rick Santorum managed to stand out by challenging his opponents’ support for a payroll tax cut extension

And yet there was a clear winner: Newt Gingrich.

There are two reasons for this. The first is that Gingrich held up well under the spotlight and scrutiny — far better than Perry and Herman Cain did when they came to debates earlier this fall as newly minted front-runners. The attacks on Gingrich, who has opened up double-digit leads in Iowa (and in South Carolina, Florida and national surveys), started early and were leveled by all of his opponents. Romney, egged on by moderator George Stephanopoulos, went first, reeling off a list of criticisms.

“We can start with his idea to have a lunar colony that would mine minerals from the moon,” he said. “ I’m not in favor of spending money to do that.”

Romney further chided Gingrich for advocating the elimination of the capital gains tax, arguing in favor of changing child labor laws to allow inner-city children to do janitorial work in schools, and being a career politician. “I’ve spent my life in the private sector,” Romney boasted.

Gingrich’s response demonstrated why he may have a lot more staying power than Perry, Cain or any of the other Romney rivals who surged and faded this past year. He was calm, forceful and confident and methodically worked his way through each point. He also landed a real punch, something Romney’s foes have struggled mightily, and often comically, to do in debates.

Gingrich took the lunar colony shot and turned it into a spirited call for young people to pursue careers in science and a frustrated lament over the direction of NASA’s space exploration program. On the capital gains issue, he accused Romney — who says he wants cuts targeted to benefit the middle class– of favoring less relief than Barack Obama. On the child labor question, he proclaimed that “I’ll stand by the idea: Young people ought to learn how to work. Middle kids do work routinely. We need to give poor kids the same opportunity.” That won loud approval from the crowd. And he addressed Romney directly over the career politician attack: “Let’s be candid. The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is because you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994.”

Gingrich’s poise was in sharp contrast to the botched attacks, missed opportunities, and general awkwardness that marred Cain’s and Perry’s performances earlier this fall and helped end their surges. And his response to Romney’s early attacks was the rule for the night. For every criticism from an opponent Gingrich was ready with a snappy, confident explanation. His answers amounted to gobbledygook at times — like his insistence that conservatives of the early ’90s had only proposed an individual mandate in an effort to stop Hillary Clinton’s healthcare reform plan — but Gingrich is unusually effective at selling gobbledygook. There was plenty in his performance Saturday night to reassure the hordes of new supporters who’ve flocked to his campaign in recent weeks.

The other reason he was the big winner is that Romney screwed up and said something he shouldn’t have. It came when Perry, exhibiting a previously unseen prosecutorial flair, got under his skin by claiming that a line touting his Massachusetts healthcare law as a national model had been deleted from a new edition of Romney’s book. “Rick, I tell you what,” Romney replied. “Ten thousand bucks? Ten-thousand dollar bet?”

When you’re the richest candidate in the race and you made your fortune in venture capital and Democrats are already eagerly portraying you as the embodiment of the top one percent and you recently had trouble finding a non-$100 bill in your wallet, it’s probably not a good idea to casually offer a five-digit wager on national television. The ridicule from the press and pundits began immediately. Romney’s $10,000 bet may prove to be what most people remember from this debate. Which is bad for him, obviously, and good for his main competitor, who just so happens to be Newt Gingrich

----------------------------------------

The utter stupidity of plastic man Mitt arrogantly holding his hand out to Perry and offering to bet $10,000.00 on a "quote" will be remembered as the blunder of this campaign and this debate.

The Mormon Church has always opposed gambling in every form, including government-sponsored lotteries.

Mormon prophets

and leaders have counseled the members over time,

to avoid gambling of any type.

Doing so, leads one away from righteousness and into the hands of Satan. The

Mormon belief

is that it is an addictive behavior and leads only to destructive habits and practices. It undermines the value of work and motivates one to think that they can get something for nothing. In time, the gambler will deny themselves, as well as their family the basic needs of life. They will oft times steal from others to finance their addiction, which in turn leads to stealing, robbery, etc.

Now just to show you how I would play this gaff, I would have a Mormon flyer on gambling with Mitts picture on it and the text - can you trust this man?

It would not be given out by the campaign, but it would be given out,

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

It just occurred to me who Newt Gingrich is. He is the Republican Dough Boy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dennis Hardin]

Adam,

I hope Dr. Paul remains a viable candidate as long as possible, because that will give him a platform to spread the economics of laissez-faire. I think most people are probably smart enough to separate his ideas about the economy from his foreign policy nonsense.

You are simply out-of-touch with reality if you believe he has any chance of getting the nomination. To begin with, the leader of the free world has to command a sense of confidence that Paul does not project. Like it or not, appearances matter, and Paul’s handlers have not seen fit to teach him how to project a commanding presence. In the debates, he looks old and feeble, like he could vanish inside his suit at any moment. Goldwater, Reagan and Obama all looked presidential. The best Paul can do is resemble G.W. during his first debate with John Kerry, when Bush’s meek, pathetic appearance provided Kerry’s campaign with tremendous momentum.

Even if he could manage to act the part, Republican conservatives will balk at Paul’s foreign policy, as well they should. They are far too powerful to let Paul get close to the numbers he needs to be the nominee. Personally, I would prefer another 4 years of Obama-style socialism to the prospect of seeing a major American city reduced to nuclear rubble by a rogue terrorist or Madman-deniwad. That city could be Los Angeles. I may be pushing a shopping cart along the street after a second Obama term, but at least I will (hopefully) be alive. And then the dismal state of the economy will be such that a free-market Republican could be elected by acclamation.

One more factor—many Americans may applaud Paul’s laissez-faire message, but how will they feel when it is pointed out that he opposes all the government hand-outs they have learned to rely on? It will take a truly gifted orator to convince voters that they will be better off without social security, medicare, antitrust laws, labor legislation, ad nauseum. It will be a monumental task. A supremely confident, smiling Reagan in his prime might have pulled it off. Ron Paul? I don’t think so.

But I truly hope Dr. Paul hangs around to the convention. He has a crucially important message, and the more Americans hear it, the better.

One addtional note: Regarding the comparisons to 1964, Romney does remind me a lot of Rockefeller. Other than that, I don't see many parallels. A major reason Goldwater was able to get the nomination was that the Republicans figured they had almost no shot of beating Johnson in the wake of Kennedy's assasination. There is no comparable widespread national mood of shock and grief today.

As to 1980, I think you will agree--Ron Paul is no Ron Reagan. Not even close.

[Selene]

Dennis:

I beleive that I said that you cannot count him out and you cannot count him out.

If he does well in Iowa, he will do well in New Hampshire and then he will have more than enough money raised to get to the convention. He is pretty close now in terms of money.

If the convention opens with Mr. Newt, Mitt "the unlikeable plastic man" Romney and Dr. Paul all under 60% of what is needed to be nominated, the economy in a shambles, O/biwan continuing his racist hate rhetoric, and the burgeoning scandals of:

1) the fast and furious gun debacle which killed two agents and countless innocent civilians;

2) the open fraud in money transfers, Corzine, Solyndra, etc.;

3) the festering issue that is brewing in Chicago with the deaths of three (3) of O'biwan's buds, execution style from 2008;

4) his increasing war mongering;

5) the increasing cost of health insurance which is sky rocketing as the very minor and first parts of the "Affordable" Health Care Law comes on line;

6) the Supreme Court declaring the law unconstitutional; and

7) open violence in the streets.

then anyone could emerge from that convention.

You might even see a truly bizarre ticket of Christie and Dr. Paul as a compromised unity ticket that is brokered. Or a Newt/Paul compromise ticket. If Mitt is still a factor, he may have to take Bachman or Dr. Paul.

The blue blood Republicans may have to make the first ticket and third ticket as a compromise because they are terrified of losing the House which is where the cash cow is for their power brokers. They know that Mr. Newt knows how to put a winning coalition campaign together.

Adam

[Backlighting]

Take the best of Newt, Ron & Michelle. Now that would be an exciting candidate.

[BaalChatzaf]

Take the best of Newt, Ron & Michelle. Now that would be an exciting candidate.

A Frankenkandidat. Its alive! Its alive!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Today:

The Illinois African American Libertarian Alliance (IAALA) is home to hundreds of Chicago African American conservatives and has decided to endorse Newt Gingrich for the upcoming 2012 election. “Newt Gingrich represents the values of many conservatives—White, Latino, or Black. He is honest about who he is and is the perfect person to turn a falling country around,” says IAALA President David Lemar.

http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-chicago/chicago-conservative-african-americans-to-support-newt-gingrich

[Selene]

Newtzilla - the monster candidate - conventional weapons will not be effective against NEWTZILLA!

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

Newtzilla - the monster candidate - conventional weapons will not be effective against NEWTZILLA!

end quote

I like it. NEWTZILLA! Conservative talk show host, Michael Savage has offered Newt one million dollars to drop out because Newt cannot beat Barack in the general election. He thinks though, that Mitt can win the Presidency, even though he is not as conservatively desirable as Newt.

I have seen a Democrat attack ad against Newt on The Five on Fox and it was quite affective. They could beat Newt. The one liberal also mentioned that the 60 or so House and Senate people up for reelection in 2012, AND who are associated with the Tea Party are in danger of losing their upcoming elections. I presume that is because of the Independent voters.

After seeing that attack ad against Newt I am worried. The right wing conventional wisdom is that Obama is so terrible even a cave man can see it. Or that the “unemployment / underemployed / wrongly employed rate” is so high they won’t vote for Obama. But he is the one most likely to buy their votes with extended benefits and free medical care. Polls still show Obama as an underdog but that can change with one Republican misstep.

It is time to worry. It is time to start shelling our time and money to the candidates most likely to triumph in the primaries.

Peter

[Selene]

I have seen a Democrat attack ad against Newt on The Five on Fox and it was quite affective effective. They could beat Newt. The one liberal also mentioned that the 60 or so House and Senate people up for reelection in 2012, AND who are associated with the Tea Party are in danger of losing their upcoming elections. I presume that is because of the Independent voters.

After seeing that attack ad against Newt I am worried.

It is time to worry. It is time to start shelling our time and money to the candidates most likely to triumph in the primaries.

Peter

Peter:

As usual, we are our own worst enemy.

The O'biwan campaign has already begun the re-election campaign. Apparently, it is already beginning to work on you.

First, stop watching main stream media.

Second, forget about giving money to campaigns unless it is very local to you.

Third, you are the most effective person in defeating O'biwan. Start by networking in your own election district.

Take the time to go down to your local County Board of Elections and copy the list of registered voters in your election district. Begin knocking on their door and introducing yourself. Retired military. Family man. Retired law enforcement officer. Talk to them about changing the centralized Washington government that is intruding in our local neighborhood.

Ask them to become involved in your local effort to produce votes next November to change the folks in Washington, starting with the President. Be positive. Explain that O'biwan is a fine man, but he has made the wrong choices about the direction of the country. Additionally, his policies have failed and we have to return the country to its citizens...you and I.

Ask them for their vote. Make it personal.

All politics is local.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Check this out from The Blaze:

Gingrich Flashback: ‘Progressive’ FDR Was ‘Greatest President of the 20th Century’ (Plus – SEIU’s Andy Stern Is Visionary Union Leader!)

Here are the videos. Glenn is using his standard technique of presenting a person's views in his or her own words.

<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?embedCode=M5Ym40MzoHl7iiX9QcxHsPG9Rlo0C4Hi&deepLinkEmbedCode=M5Ym40MzoHl7iiX9QcxHsPG9Rlo0C4Hi"></script>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/T76lD4zV1bo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That's about as progressive as it gets.

But there's a caveat. Glenn often talks about a person having a turning point. Newt has said that his conversion to Catholicism was a big turning point for him. His behavior certainly is not like it used to be. And some of his views have changed.

So I wonder if he has also assimilated the new mainstream understanding (thanks to Glenn) of what being a progressive means. I did see him mention that a mandate to buy healthcare is unconstitutional while he was explaining why he used to support it. His excuse was that The Heritage Foundation was searching for an alternative to Hillarycare and arrived at a mandate. But over time, they all concluded that this was unconstitutional.

Frankly, I believe Newt when he calls himself a Reagan conservative.

And I still hold to my opinion that Newt is a philosophical follower, not a leader. If all the people around him talk small government, he will walk on the small government path. Because of the Tea Party, I believe most of the people around him are now talking small government, so I don't see him as much of a threat as Glenn Beck does.

I think he would make an excellent transition-to-small-government President if the current drift keeps up.

But then again, that's a big if...

Michael

[Selene]

USA today has a wonderful visual interactive race tracker that will be perfect for children and other O'biwan supporters....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/presidential-poll-tracker?loc=interstitialskip

Watch as you sweep from left to right [now there is a message] - Romney's numbers hardly move. The ebb and flow of Cain and Perry and their falling back into the pack.

Dr. Paul and Mr. Newt making this a three person race.

Adam

[Selene]

The famous or infamous "Swing States:"

But these battlegrounds — chosen based on their voting histories, the results of the 2010 midterms and demographic trends — are up for grabs. Obama carried all of them in 2008 and needs to claim half of their electoral votes this time to win a second term.

In swing states, Obama trails former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney among registered voters by 5 points, 43% vs. 48%, and former House speaker Newt Gingrich by 3, 45% vs. 48%.

O'biwan's "semi-solid" states and D.C. amount to about 197 EV right now. Counting another 59 in the swing state group at best - Nev. Col. Mich. Va. NC - leaves him short by about 14 EV's.

They are:

Nevada 6 Electoral Votes [EV]

Colorado 9 EV

New Mexico 5 EV

Iowa 6 EV

Wisconsin 10 EV

Michigan 16 EV

Ohio 18 EV

Pennsylvania 20 EV

New Hampshire 4 EV

Florida 29 EV

Virginia 13 EV

North Carolina 15 EV

Along with a few more states will decide the election.

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

Be positive. Explain that O'biwan is a fine man, but he has made the wrong choices about the direction of the country. Additionally, his policies have failed and we have to return the country to its citizens...you and I. Ask them for their vote. Make it personal. All politics is local.

end quote

That is good advice Adam. I may do a bit of that but I think letters to the editor, or to the candidates or to the RNC would also be effective. Knocking on our local doors could get you dog bit by “Old Yeller.” I have come close to getting bit just by jogging along our country roads.

You seem to have your head in “campaign mode,” Adam. Rush Limbaugh always says we should follow the William Buckley, National Review maxim that right thinking people support the most conservative and elect-able candidate in the primaries and then any republican primary winner over all Democrat or third party candidates, for our own good and for the good of the country.

Michael wrote:

Frankly, I believe Newt when he calls himself a Reagan conservative.

end quote

Amen, brother. Of course, the glaringly wrong Republican candidate would be someone who puts their religious views over their reason like Michelle Bachmann. I can say this because she does not accept any scientific facts as the truth if they contradict the bible, such as Evolution does. She says pooh, pooh to geologists who say the earth is four billion years old because the bible clearly states that the earth is six thousand years old.

Can you imagine a Bachmann / Palin ticket being elected and then the first international crisis erupts on the scene? A small, dirty nuclear device has gone off in the Gaza strip killing as many Palestinians as Israelis. President Bachmann calls together the joint chiefs of staff and her major cabinet heads to a midnight meeting.

President Bachmann begins by saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, we have all been briefed by Press Secretary Adam Selene, the CIA, FBI and military intelligence about the crisis in the middle east. I am now passing out New Testament bibles for those of you who don’t carry them with you at all times as I have suggested, and I want you to scour your copies for any relevant passages.”

General Petraeus raises his hand and says, “Thank you Madam President for keeping me in your cabinet as Secretary of Defense, but I think we should first look at the probability analysis I have provided, concerning the advisability of you going immediately to the nuclear bomb bunker at Camp David . . .”

“Shut up with that kind of talk, General,” the President interrupts. “God is on our side. He will protect us. Everyone? Let us pray for the answer. What would Jesus do?”

Peter

[Selene]

Adam wrote:

Be positive. Explain that O'biwan is a fine man, but he has made the wrong choices about the direction of the country. Additionally, his policies have failed and we have to return the country to its citizens...you and I. Ask them for their vote. Make it personal. All politics is local.

end quote

That is good advice Adam. I may do a bit of that but I think letters to the editor, or to the candidates or to the RNC would also be effective.

You seem to have your head in “campaign mode,”

Peter:

Neither Palin, nor Bachman have brought their personal religions into their secular government positions. Quite the contrary, as Michael continues to remind folks of Palin's public stance in Alaska, in reality, where she took the pro-freedom choice and supported a position that her church did not endorse.

Secondly, both these women have presented a much more principled and consistant position on issues than many of the male Republicans that are running with the exception of Rick Santorum and Dr. Paul.

Additionally, the letters to the editor and the power broker is, frankly, a complete waste of time. I understand that you enjoy the exercise of writing them, but do not confuse it with effectiveness.

Finally, the confidence of walking up to your fellow citizen's door and talking with them is the essence of citizenship. It makes for better communities. You may find out that your neighbor is persuadable.

Remember the scene from Meet John Doe where the grumpy neighbor was just hard of hearing? The other man that had been selling off his possessions because he was too proud to go on "relief?" The seasoned citizens who needed a helping hand?

We are a nation of individuals who need to remember what it feels like to be neighbors with common purposes. Neighbors with common desires. Neighbors who will stand shoulder to shoulder with you for a better future for themselves, their children and their grandchildren.

Politics is personal.

Adam

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

Neither Palin, nor Bachman have brought their personal religions into their secular government positions. Quite the contrary, as Michael continues to remind folks of Palin's public stance in Alaska, in reality, where she took the pro-freedom choice and supported a position that her church did not endorse.

end quote

I typed in “Michelle Bachmann religion.” I like your “fairness doctrine” Adam, but it would be easy to become a spin-meister too soon. After the primary process, OK. I probably will put the best spin on for our candidate. But Not during the primary process.

I stopped cutting and pasting before the story about the High School student named Zack who demolished her argument that 43 Nobel laureates endorsed Creationism and were anti evolution. That was when Bachmann was supporting a stealth attempt to infiltrate Louisiana High Schools by placing Creationism right up there with the other sciences taught.

Peter

From the Deseret News:

Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman Jr. aren't the only Republican presidential hopefuls whose religious beliefs are subject to scrutiny.

After Sunday, Rep. Michele Bachmann's faith sits squarely in the mainstream media's cross hairs. Appearing Sunday morning on CBS' "Face the Nation," Bachmann opened up about how her Christian faith shapes her political career. "I became a Christian when I was 16 years old," Bachmann said. "I gave my heart to Jesus Christ. Since that time, I've been a person of prayer. And so when I pray, I pray believing that God will speak to me and give me an answer to that prayer.

"That's what a calling is — if I pray, a calling means that I feel like I have a sense from God. … It means that I have a sense of assurance about the direction I think that God is speaking into my heart that I should go."

Ah, this must be what Adam is talking about. She quit her kookier Lutheran Church of ten years or more, for it likening the Pope to the AntiChrist.

From CNN

Michele Bachmann officially leaves her church

By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Washington (CNN) - Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has long been a darling of conservative evangelicals, but shortly before announcing her White House bid, she officially quit a church she’d belonged to for years.

Bachmann, a Minnesota congresswoman, and her husband, Marcus, withdrew their membership from Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater, Minnesota, last month, according to church officials.

The Bachmanns had been members of the church for more than 10 years, according to Joel Hochmuth, director of communications for the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the broader denominational body of which Bachmann’s former church is a member.

The church council granted the Bachmanns’ request to be released from their membership on June 21, Hochmuth said.

After declaring at the CNN/WMUR/New Hampshire Union Leader presidential debate that she would seek the nomination, Bachmann formally announced her presidential bid June 27 in Waterloo, Iowa.

. . . The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has come under criticism from some Catholics for its views on the papacy, an institution that the denomination calls the Antichrist.

From The Daily Beast. I know, Adam, The Daily Beast as a source, for God’s sake!

In April 2005, Pamela Arnold wanted to talk to her state senator, Michele Bachmann, who was then running for Congress. A 46-year-old who worked at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design, Arnold lived with her partner, the famed Arctic explorer Ann Bancroft, on a farm in Scandia, Minnesota. Bachmann was then leading the fight against gay marriage in the state. She'd recently been in the news for hiding in the bushes to observe a gay rights rally at the Capitol. So when members of the Scandia gay community decided to attend one of Bachmann's constituent forums, Arnold, wanting to make herself visible to her representative, joined them.

A few dozen people showed up at the town hall for the April 9 event, and Bachmann greeted them warmly. But when, during the question and answer session, the topic turned to gay marriage, Bachmann ended the meeting 20 minutes early and rushed to the bathroom. Hoping to speak to her, Arnold and another middle-aged woman, a former nun, followed her. As Bachmann washed her hands and Arnold looked on, the ex-nun tried to talk to her about theology. Suddenly, after less than a minute, Bachmann let out a shriek. "Help!" she screamed. "Help! I'm being held against my will!"

Arnold, who is just over 5 feet tall, was stunned, and hurried to open the door. Bachmann bolted out and fled, crying, to an SUV outside. Then she called the police, saying, according to the police report, that she was "absolutely terrified and has never been that terrorized before as she had no idea what those two women were going to do to her." The Washington County attorney, however, declined to press charges, writing in a memo, "It seems clear from the statements given by both women that they simply wanted to discuss certain issues further with Ms. Bachmann."

. . . On Monday, Bachmann didn't talk a lot about her religion. She didn't have to—she knows how to signal it in ways that go right over secular heads. In criticizing Obama's Libya policy, for example, she said, "We are the head and not the tail." The phrase comes from Deuteronomy 28:13: "The Lord will make you the head and not the tail." As Rachel Tabachnick has reported, it's often used in theocratic circles to explain why Christians have an obligation to rule.

Indeed, no other candidate in the race is so completely a product of the evangelical right as Bachmann; she could easily become the Christian conservative alternative to the comparatively moderate Mormon Mitt Romney. "Michele Bachmann's a complete package," says Ralph Reed, the former Christian Coalition wunderkind who now runs the Faith and Freedom Coalition. "She's got charisma, she's got an authentic faith testimony, she's a proven fighter for conservative values, and she's well known." She's also great at raising money—in the 2010 cycle, she amassed a record-breaking $13.2 million in donations. (Bachmann's office didn't respond to requests for comment.)

[Selene]

[Selene]

Adam wrote:

Neither Palin, nor Bachman have has not brought their her personal religions into their her secular government positions. Quite the contrary, as Michael continues to remind folks of Palin's public stance in Alaska, in reality, where she took the pro-freedom choice and supported a position that her church did not endorse.

end quote

Peter:

I had a feeling I should have just stuck with Palin's proven track record.

However, if it came down to Bachman vs. O'biwan, knowing that her personal religious beliefs would be tempered by our checks and balances system, who would you vote for?

One aspect of her that I admire is that she has been on the front lines of fiscal responsibility and she has refused to vote for the continuing resolutions, TARP and other false measures from Weeping Willie Boehner's agenda. Moreover, she has been a solid leader of the Tea Party.

Adam

Post Script: Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment...Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. In the past, I found that quote to be a bit much, but in this election cycle, it works.

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

One aspect of her that I admire is that she has been on the front lines of fiscal responsibility and she has refused to vote for the continuing resolutions, TARP and other false measures from Weeping Willie Boehner's agenda. Moreover, she has been a solid leader of the Tea Party.

end quote

I agree. Bernie Goldberg is on Fox now at 1:48pm saying there should be no tolerance of people who insist the earth is 6000 years old and people once walked around with dinosaurs, but he is very tolerant of Tim Tebow.

I see an official in Newt’s campaign has resigned after calling Mormonism “a cult.” He should go see an enlightened, tolerant, Objectivist envisioned Broadway show, like “Book of Mormon.”

I received an ad from the GOP Store in my inbox. Interesting. They have the usual, “I miss Reagan” or “Nobama” type buttons, GOP calendars, blow up elephants, and special mint coins. I did not see any Bary M. Goldwater stickers or memorabilia, probably because “Ba Au H20” lost the election to that socialist, warmongering boob LBJ.

I really liked two things. One was the Tee shirt which looks like a No Nukes peace symbol on it but it is really a circle with a bomber inside the art work forming the vee and the words, “Peace Through Strength.” The other was a bumper sticker that says, “1 /20 /13 The End of an Error.”

And there were limited edition items and stuff from ”the attic,” which was relics from past elections or things that have no dated meaning like generic inaugural ball champagne flutes – and New Years is approaching. We will still be celebrating after the January 3rd Iowa caucus or Super Tuesday in February? Support the GOP!

Peter

[Selene]

Well, the Republican establishment is starting to take it's toll on Mr. Newt...

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/poll-dramatic-drop-gingrich-support-iowa/258131

The next person they will begin to concentrate on is Dr. Paul. If Dr. Paul wins Iowa or finishes second, watch what comes out about his newsletter that he has had for a decade or more.

The Romney powers to be may not even wait until the vote in Iowa, they may try to take out both Mr. Newt and Dr. Paul.

Sad, but the Republican party has become as dysfunctional as the Democratic Party.

Adam

[Peter]

Ask not what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive... then go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive. - Howard Thurman

Adam wrote:

Well, the Republican establishment is starting to take it's toll on Mr. Newt...

end quote

Mr. Newt does sound better than “The Wind in the Willows” Mr. Toad. I am sorry that Romney called Gingrich, “zany.” It reminds me of when Chris Wallace asked Michelle Bachmann if she was a flake, which was uncalled for and rude

(even though I think her born again Christianity is about the worse kind. A kid raised that way is one thing but a person who at a mature, supposedly more rational age, has a divine revelation or is “born again” is a flake but that is beside the point. I just don’t trust irrational zealots. I don’t think it is “coming alive” like my thought of the day says. It’s more like getting stupid.) Anyway, “zany” is beneath Mitt.

As a commentator said, “The most dangerous place in America is on top of the Republican poll.”

And how about Obama’s goon Axelrod saying about Newt Gingrich, "The higher a monkey climbs on the pole the more you can see his butt." Damn but this election could get nasty.

Well we have another debate tonight. I hope it doesn’t turn into a Taiwanese style free for all.

Maybe our dumbest guy in the room, Rick Perry, can make a comeback. All of the Republican “potential candidates” are trailing Obama. No candidate should do anything that will hurt the potential primary winner.

Peter

[Selene]

All of the Republican “potential candidates” are trailing Obama. No candidate should do anything that will hurt the potential primary winner.

Peter

No they're not.

Adam