Newt Gingrich

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I believe we should look at everything, so here is one of the best cases I have seen against Newt in relation to preserving the Constitution--with Newt being one of the bad guys, of course.

It is by John F. McManus of The John Birch Society and it looks at Newt's voting record. This is an obviously biased presentation, citing The Communist Manifesto and things like that in an effort to establish a subconscious association, making selective ommisions, blaming Newt for things he did not do like not bashing Clinton to his face, and other such persuasion tactics, but I believe the facts McManus did present are accurate. I haven't checked them, but they are presented in such an easily checkable form that I cannot imagine someone of his position risking easy discredit by presenting outright falsehoods.

In other words, just like with almost everybody who is ideological these days, you can expect McManus to deliver ham-handed spin along with facts. How I wish these folks would present a persuasive discourse that addresses the best the other view has without distorting it (and consequently distorting reality).

To be clear, I have no problem with bias. Hell, the point of persuasion is to get people to change their minds. But why use bias to the point of distortion as a tactic when direct sunlight on the whole shebang would be far more devastating to the other side?

The main thing I can think of is that ideologues do not trust the people in their audience to think for themselves. Obviously they would prefer independently reasoned agreement with their views, but not trusting the minds of others, they opt for covertly induced compliance.

And that sucks.

It never works for very long unless the proponents attain massive political power and get their hands on the armed forces. Then they can simply imprison or kill off people who voice views they don't like.

(How's that for a subconscious association by proximity--John Birch Society plus police state oppression? If I didn't say this just now, I bet few would notice it. But the image would be implanted as I innocently bat my eyes and claim I was only stating an obvious truth. See? It's easy to come up with that stuff. )

Back to point. McManus has made a very intelligent video, one well worth watching if anyone is interested in Newt Gingrich. Just keep in mind that there is a lot more out there you need to look at if you want the whole picture.

<div><center><object width="427" height="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.jbs.org/plugins/hwdvs-videoplayer/jwflv/mediaplayer.swf"></param><param'>http://www.jbs.org/plugins/hwdvs-videoplayer/jwflv/mediaplayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="flashvars" value="file=embed|http://www.libertynewsnetwork.tv/?p=351|src&linktarget=_blank&link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jbs.org%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_hwdvideoshare%26Itemid%3D331%26task%3Dviewvideo%26video_id%3Dembed%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertynewsnetwork.tv%2F%3Fp%3D351%7Csrc%2Chttp%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2Fplay%2FhZ0Bgen4cgI%7Ctype%2Capplication%2Fx-shockwave-flash%7Cwidth%2C640%7Cheight%2C400%7Callowscriptaccess%2Calways%7Callowfullscreen%2Ctrue%7C&bufferlength=5&volume=60&autostart=false&displayclick=link&fullscreen=false&quality=high&backcolor=333333&frontcolor=cccccc&lightcolor=ffffff&screencolor=000000&type=video&image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jbs.org%2Fhwdvideos%2Fthumbs%2Fl_tp-923.jpg&plugins="></param><embed src="http://www.jbs.org/plugins/hwdvs-videoplayer/jwflv/mediaplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="427" height="320" wmode="transparent" flashvars="file=embed|http://www.libertynewsnetwork.tv/?p=351|src&linktarget=_blank&link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jbs.org%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_hwdvideoshare%26Itemid%3D331%26task%3Dviewvideo%26video_id%3Dembed%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertynewsnetwork.tv%2F%3Fp%3D351%7Csrc%2Chttp%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2Fplay%2FhZ0Bgen4cgI%7Ctype%2Capplication%2Fx-shockwave-flash%7Cwidth%2C640%7Cheight%2C400%7Callowscriptaccess%2Calways%7Callowfullscreen%2Ctrue%7C&bufferlength=5&volume=60&autostart=false&displayclick=link&fullscreen=false&quality=high&backcolor=333333&frontcolor=cccccc&lightcolor=ffffff&screencolor=000000&type=video&image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jbs.org%2Fhwdvideos%2Fthumbs%2Fl_tp-923.jpg&plugins="></embed></object><br /><a href="http://www.jbs.org/index.php?option=com_hwdvideoshare&Itemid=331&task=viewvideo&video_id=embed|http://www.libertynewsnetwork.tv/?p=351|src,http://blip.tv/play/hZ0Bgen4cgI|type,application/x-shockwave-flash|width,640|height,400|allowscriptaccess,always|allowfullscreen,true|" title="John Birch Society">John Birch Society</a></center></div>

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So long as there is a rash of negative stuff about Newt, here is Jon Stewart weighing in.

I wasn't going to post this, but Ayn Rand made a Norman Rockwell-like appearance kicking Jimmy Carter in the balls. (Right in The Fountainhead. )

Heh.

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:404454" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-15-2011/indecision-2012---the-great-right-hope---newt-gingrich">The Daily Show</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>

Here's part 2:

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:404455" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-15-2011/intervention-2012">The Daily Show</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>

I'm not negative on Newt, though. I think he scares the living bejeezus out of the powers that be (you know, the ones behind the scenes). And anyone who scares those nasty folks can't be all bad.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

I heard the self hating Jewish comedian, Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz's clip on the radio today, but the visual is hilarious.

Let's see Joe Scarboro who sold out his conservative/libertarian principles to get a pay check from MSLSD!

John Sununu, who gave us Bruce Souter, one of the worst Supreme Court Justices of my lifetime.

These guys hate Mr. Newt! Fine by me. He goes up in my estimation with these two as his detractors.

Peter King bothers me because I know him and I respect him.

Guiliani strongly supported Mr. Newt today.

Mr. Newt just will not fit into their little Republican box. Remember, he personally engineered the first Republican conservative libertarian Congress in 1994.

No one thought that anyone could break the forty-four year monoploly that the Democrats had maintained.

Adam

[Peter]

Adam, Obama is leading the field in spite of his disapproval ratings.

The Realclear averages as of today, December 17th, are:

Obama 46.4 Romney 44.6

Obama 50.0 Gingrich 41.6

Obama 50.2 Perry 39.5

Obama 49.7 Paul 35.7

The other Republican candidates fare even worse.

Michael wrote:

I'm not negative on Newt, though. I think he scares the living bejeezus out of the powers that be (you know, the ones behind the scenes). And anyone who scares those nasty folks can't be all bad.

end quote

Your clip of The John Stewart show is a fine example of the beating Newt would get from the left wing and from the right wing. Oddly, the Republican establishment appears to be part of your scared, nasty folks who are criticizing Newt. I just heard the shrill Ann Coulter on Fox say she supports Mitt over Newt because of Mitt’s elect-ability. Glenn Beck supports Romney over Gingrich.

What an honor, Michael. Rush Limbaugh must have listened to you and agreed with you on his Friday show. Maharushi Limbaugh says the Republican establishment is full of crap when it says a conservative can’t win. It is debatable how truly conservative Mr Newt is, but he “could be” more conservative than Mitt. Several political cartoonists are praying that Newt gets the nomination because he is fun to caricature. Though Rush will not endorse anyone openly I would say he clearly leans towards Newt over Romney.

That clip of Newt saying he could not trust a politician who did not pray is disturbing. I can’t imagine Mitt Romney saying that. Mitt’s flip flops could be viewed as thoughtful, deliberate changes of mind.

As Michelle Bachmann mentioned in the debate I am also disgusted to think Newt accepted over a million dollars to keep the Fannie and Freddy scam going. Both Bachmann and Ron Paul made it clear they would support Mitt over Newt.

Both Newt and Mitt now claim to be more conservative. So, who to trust? Let the voters decide. January 3rd is the Iowa primary, January 10th is the New Hampshire primary, January 21 is South Carolina, January 31st is Florida’s, March 6 is Super Tuesday: Alaska (caucus) Georgia (primary) Idaho (caucus) Massachusetts (primary) North Dakota (caucus) Ohio (primary) Oklahoma (primary) Tennessee (primary) Texas (primary) Vermont (primary) Virginia (primary.

It is 17 days until January 3^rd. The field will have cleared out by March 6^th.

Peter

[Selene]

Adam, Obama is leading the field in spite of his disapproval ratings.

The Realclear averages as of today, December 17th, are:

See below****

As Michelle Bachmann mentioned in the debate I am also disgusted to think Newt accepted over a million dollars to keep the Fannie and Freddy scam going. Both Bachmann and Ron Paul made it clear they would support Mitt over Newt.

This is just flat out incorrect.

Are you aware of what year(s) that Mr. Newt's firm received the monies?

Are you aware of what the contract was for? What the contract's clauses were?

Glenn Beck supports Romney over Gingrich.

Source please.

****As to the Real Clear Politics Average, it is, fundamentally meaningless. For example, in the number you posted, Real Clear takes eleven (11) polls over a time period of 11/08/2011 and 12/15/2011 to come up with that aggregate number of +1.8.

No attempt is made to evaluate the quality, methodology, statistical analysis, total numbers and whether they are prime voters or not - in coming up with that final number.

Additionally, that number is well within the margin of error.

The only fair and balanced statement about Romney versus O'biwan is that it is too close to call.

Finally, these are raw national numbers and explain nothing about the where these numbers come from.

For example, O'bama could be +8.4 over Mr. Newt and lose in an electoral landslide. Or, lose in a close electoral contest while winning the popular vote a la Bush v. Gore 2000.

Rasmussen had, and has, one of the most reliable Presidential polls out there. Here is their report from today:

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney who now has

edged to the front of the Republican pack in Iowa

remains slightly ahead of President Obama for the second week in a row. He remains the only GOP presidential hopeful to lead Obama in more than one survey to date. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds Romney earning 43% support to Obama’s 42%, meaning that the two men remain neck-and-neck as they have been in surveys for months.

It seems you selectively retain information that supports your point of view my friend.

Adam

[blackhorse]

How embarrassing it will/would be if Romney got the GOP nom. and he had to somehow (god know's how) repudiate Obama for Obamacare when Romney himself is the original architect of the individual mandate? yikes. Newt will not have that problem and it is a, if not THE, major issue as the GOP candidate precisely because it ties in so many other area's of government control vs. personal liberty.

[caroljane]

This is hilarious. The "Return to school with financial aid - do you qualify?" Ad at the top of the page has a row of pics that look just like Newt!

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

It seems you selectively retain information that supports your point of view my friend.

end quote

My point of view is based on more evidence than yours. Your big picture is too rosy, selectively reflecting what you are hoping will happen. When I started the thread, “My Man Mitt,” I meant to give him a fair hearing. He has flopped in the right direction in the years after he was Governor of Massachusetts. We have a bumper sticker, saying “Romney” but it is on our refrigerator, not my car (which has a license plate number that starts, “GWB.”) My wife likes Mitt. I have always jokingly called him, “Big Love,” after the defunct HBO series about the group known as The Fundamentalist Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints who are polygamists. I like Newt and Mitt. My disagreements with Newt are for transgressions that happened recently. Mitt’s are mostly in the past and I believe his conversion. But if you listen to that Glenn Beck interview, you KNOW Mr. Newt is not a viable Tea Party Candidate.

Adam wrote:

For example, O'bama could be +8.4 over Mr. Newt and lose in an electoral landslide. Or, lose in a close electoral contest while winning the popular vote a la Bush v. Gore 2000.

end quote

Putting your faith in just Rasmussen is dangerous. Currently, the composite electoral vote is:

For Obama

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Dist of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont

Leans Obama

Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington

For a Total of 201 electoral votes

Toss ups

Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin

146 electoral votes

For GOP

Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming

Leans GOP

Arizona, Indiana, Missouri

191 electoral votes

So the Democrats are leading 201 to 191, and you need 270 electoral votes to win. The battleground states, as always, are crucial.

My source showing Glenn Beck favors Mitt over Newt is Glenn Beck. He unequivocally said so.

On a scale of 1 to a hundred (the best), I would give Obama a 25 around where I would put European Socialist leaders. I would put Newt at about 79. I would put Mitt at about 85. Once again, I am using what Mitt has done and said since he left Massachusetts, and Newt is lower because of his disgusting, recent lobbying and his Glenn Beck interview.

Blackhorse wrote:

. . . Romney himself is the original architect of the individual mandate . . . .end quote

It is a reputation that can’t pass muster with the Tea Party but I accept his word when Mitt says he will never again do such a thing and he will abolish Obamacare as his first order of business. Would he do as he did in Massachusetts and make the uninsured have insurance. No. And he will still go along with hospital policies that accept and treat people who do not have insurance and have no way of paying. That makes costs rise and we pay for it. Many hospitals have done away with emergency rooms for this very reason.

Mitt is not perfect but I could vote for him. Or the ancient Mr. Newt.

Peter

[Peter]

I saw country and folk artist Suzy Bogguss last night. We sat in good seats on Row E. She was a star back in the 90’s, was a collaborator with Chet Atkins and knows and sings Ian Tyson’s songs (He is one of my all time favorite song writers and artists. I have two albums of this Canadian’s when his group was “Ian and Sylvia,” his wife. Some of their songs are “Four Strong Winds,” “Early Morning Rain” and “You Were On My Mind”)

Two of Suzy’s hits were the beautiful “Letting Go” and my favorite, “Drive South.” Wow, I like those two. I bought her folk CD after the concert so that my two year old granddaughter could hear America’s musical heritage.

Next, we will probably go see Johnny Counterfeit, a comedian and impressionist who can mimic dozens of country legends. Then in the early spring a Johnny Cash impressionist who I have seen before and who is really good. I am not a big country and western guy but I like the classics from when I spent time in Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee when I was a kid. And I am mentally a yankee, too! “On the wings of a snow white dove he sends his pure clean love, a sign from above, on the wings of a dove.” “Martha White self rising flour” “Rockabilly Rockabilly Rockabilly pig” are some of the songs, commercials and jingles I used to hear.

I haven’t decided if I will see the Christmas Pageant at the Methodist Church this year. It is a real extravaganza using the same church going actors year after year and the up and coming kids – lots of music and usually a Frank Capra / Hallmark style story line. It’s quite good. Maybe I will go. I don’t whisper to people, “Psst! I’m an atheist.”

Huh? Fox is re-broadcasting the last Presidential debate. Huntsman is talking but I have the sound down.

Peter

[Selene]

Peter:

In the twelve (12) battleground states, O'biwan is losing to both Mitt and Mr. Newt.

Hawaii and New Jersey are definitely not leaning O'biwan.

The famous or infamous "Swing States," or "Battleground States" are: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin, 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.

Right now, O/biwan will not carry Michigan, or Virginia or North Carolina (44) EV's which leaves the above "59" number at 15 EV's amd his total electoral votes at best added to your 201 equals 216, or with my base of 197 + 15 equals 212.

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.

[caroljane]

I saw country and folk artist Suzy Bogguss last night. We sat in good seats on Row E. She was a star back in the 90’s, was a collaborator with Chet Atkins and knows and sings Ian Tyson’s songs (He is one of my all time favorite song writers and artists. I have two albums of this Canadian’s when.....

Peter, what great taste you have. I have loved Ian and Sylvia since first hearing. I actually saw them once, before they became really famous. I don't remember the year but it was just after their first album came out, they were touring the northeast US and the Maritimes. my dad had called from work and mentioned that they had just crossed the border and were waiting for the vehicle check, so I tore down there to gawk at them, I didn't approach them or tell them how I loved their music, of course. I was too shy and anyway it's unCanadian.

I thought Ian Tyson was the handsomest man I had ever seen, and Sylvia (then Fricker, they weren't married yet) the loveliest woman. They looked to me the way their voices had sounded,a uniquely beautiful blend of masculine and the feminine.

[Selene]

Putting your faith in just Rasmussen is dangerous.

Peter:

When you are right, you are right.

When you are wrong, you are wrong. Here you are wrong:

The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection

polls (as reported on pollster.com).

1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)** Rasmussen and Pew were virtually tied.

1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**

2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)

3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)

4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*

5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*

5. ARG (10/25-27)*

6. CNN (10/30-11/1)

6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)

7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)

8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)

9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)

10. FOX (11/1-2)

11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)

12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)

13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)

14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)

15. Marist College (11/3)

16. CBS (10/31-11/2)

17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)

18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)

19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)

[Peter]

Duance wrote:

Peter, what great taste you have.

end quote

It's the egg nog talking when Groucho said, “I bet Carol tastes good and is less filling too.” What a cool story. They are extraordinarily good looking, loaded with talent, people. When you wrote, “a uniquely beautiful blend of masculine and the feminine,” those were eloquent, electric words. Thank you!

Back to the trenches. “Don’t you want to go where everybody knows your name and everybody’s glad you came?” Come on Adam. Have a beer on me. I am not going to put my faith in The One and Only Rasmussen or Pew polls however they might reflect my bias.

The Iowa caucuses are an interesting experiment. In a primary you can hide who you voted for in the privacy of the voting booth, but in a caucus everyone knows who you are voting for, even all your neighbors. You are an advocate for a candidate.

Senior moment. Was it Adam who posted something about the potential Supreme Court challenge of Mark Rubio as a Vice Presidential candidate? Born in America to Cuban parents who were not citizens is the beef against Mark. Does anyone have the latest on that? Mitt or Newt could use a Florida, Hispanic connection, that is in no way, pandering. Put the kettle on, Babe. Rubio is authentically worthy of a Tea Party.

If Mitt were the primary winner, a good Veep for him would be Michelle Bachman who could bring in the Midwest, Evangelical Christian voter to counteract Mitt’s Mormonism which says religions after a certain date lost authenticity because the chain of “laying on of hands” was broken. (Hence the name, “Latter Day Saints.) I don’t think Michelle is a “flake,” although I have lampooned her. Have you noticed that Sarah Palin has silenced herself? What’s with that?

Adam. Predict what is going to happen up to Super Tuesday, in writing, so I can say, “Ha!” or “Wow!” on un-super Wednesday.

On the home front I have put a new door on my shed with a small cat door with flap, on the bottom. One cat has figured out how to use it so far. I tried to push all gray 10 month old Sookie (named after the Anna Pacquin character on HBO’s “True Blood”) through it and she scratched me. I also have cats named Eric and a Bill. Ouch. It’s $125 to have them spayed or neutered.

Peter

[Selene]

Peter:

Yes, I posted about Rubio and Bobby Jindal. They will both face a rabid challange by elements of the left in the Democratic Party. What is going to be hilarious is when the pro-Rubio, pro-Jindal folks respond by saying, that they are as qualified as O'biwan and the left will continue to attack and not respond.

Pure Alinsky play book. Stay focused on the isolated big lie and attack.

As to running mates for Mitt, Bachmann would work. Perry would also. He might even pull the governor of South Carolina in, but that would be a mistake, she will get a cabinet position for her early endorsement.

Sarah has no reason to endorse yet. Her power increases as we move towards August.

Iowa will be meaningless as far as either delegates, or momentum, unless Romney wins by more than five (5). Iowa for the Republicans has rarely been predictive of a Republican nominee.

I will make my general predictions the night before Iowa, I will e-mail to myself my final gut numbers at about 12:00 or 1:00 AM of cauci day.

The lack of secrecy in the balloting is one major reason why Iowa is not predictive. It generally eliminates candidates and sometimes provides momentum.

Remember, NH loses 1/2 of it's delegates because they moved their primary up and both Iowa and N.H. are under the proportional system.

My point about Rasmussen was purely in response to your blanket statement that O'biwan leasds in ALL the polss, but that is not accurate.

That was all.

Adam

[caroljane]

.

"On the home front I have put a new door on my shed with a small cat door with flap, on the bottom. One cat has figured out how to use it so far. I tried to push all gray 10 month old Sookie (named after the Anna Pacquin character on HBO’s “True Blood”) through it and she scratched me. I also have cats named Eric and a Bill. Ouch. It’s $125 to have them spayed or neutered.

Peter"

At least you could get one cat to learn something. Others are not so lucky. We had a cat , ostensibly male, who presented us with five kittens as an early Christmas present. We thought we had just been feeding him too much. Three litters later (he managed to disappear and get pregnant before we could get him to the vet) we were a permanent unsuccessful Adopt-a-Kitten site, with a rotating population of at minimun four cats in the house (the neighbour cats freeloaded at mealtimes) for at least a decade.

[Peter]

Daunce wrote:

. . . we were a permanent unsuccessful Adopt-a-Kitten site, with a rotating population of at minimum four cats in the house (the neighbor cats freeloaded at mealtimes) for at least a decade . . . We thought we had just been feeding him too much.

End quote

Ours are all fat. We usually have a lot of whole milk on hand because we give it to our granddaughter, so the cats get about three cups a day and they all have “chukkers.” Their bellies nearly scrape the ground. When our local raccoon population was decimated by our County who trapped and shot them just in case they had rabies the cat population tripled. I leave a bit too much dry food out and idiots drop their excess cats off which equals, “Please have your cats spayed or neutered.”

It’s 11:55pm EST and the last US troops are crossing the border into Kuwait and Fox is broadcasting it live - well they stopped a few minutes ago, oh, now they have started again at 12:02. As a veteran (with the good conduct medal – no joke - Irreverent me got one of those, and a couple more) and I say, “What a profound thrill.”

I had Stanley Steamer do my living room rug today, (they work on Saturdays) mostly to get rid of the metal stain left from my old lazy boy, and one of them mentioned one of their army reserve workers was scheduled to go back to Afghanistan in 2012 and then again in 2014, so the perpetual war is not over. I am not a Ron Paul enthusiast, but I want our boys home. Three or more tours is too much, even in an Up / Armor humvee.

Our returning Veterans will need jobs and deserve our profound respect. Marines, Soldiers and Sailors - Thank you. If I see a person in uniform at a restaurant I pay their bill, as was done for me in South Philly when I was in the army. Italian Americans are the most heart warming, patriotic, and generous people in America.

And so to bed.

Peter

[Selene]

As Michelle Bachmann mentioned in the debate I am also disgusted to think Newt accepted over a million dollars to keep the Fannie and Freddy scam going. Both Bachmann and Ron Paul made it clear they would support Mitt over Newt.

This is just flat out incorrect.

Are you aware of what year(s) that Mr. Newt's firm received the monies?

Are you aware of what the contract was for? What the contract's clauses were?

Peter:

One More Newt Comparison: 2011 vs. 2007

John on December 1, 2011 at 10:26 am

Just over two weeks ago, Newt was asked a question during the CNBC debate about his work for Freddie Mac. Here’s his answer, a portion of which I’ve transcribed below:

I said to them at the time this is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible. It turned out unfortunately I was right and the people who were doing exactly what Congresswoman Bahmann talked about were wrong. And I think it’s a good case for breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and getting much smaller institutions into the private sector to be competitive and to be responsible for their behavior.

If Newt warned Freddie about their irresponsible behavior he must have done so privately because publicly he was making the case for the GSE model in creating a “stable” housing finance system. Here’s a bit of what he said

in 2007

on Freddie Mac’s website:

I like the GSE model because it provides a more efficient, market-based alternative to taxpayer-funded government programs. It marries private enterprise to a public purpose. We obviously don’t want to use GSEs for everything, but there are times when private enterprise alone is not sufficient to achieve a public purpose.

Obviously, hindsight is 20-20. Newt can’t be faulted for failing to predict a bubble that almost no one predicted, certainly not Barack Obama. And I don’t fault him for changing his mind about the wisdom of GSEs in light of what happened. That said, I do think Newt can be faulted for claiming he warned Freddie Mac about their “insane” business model when he was publicly defending them just months before the bubble burst.

The above text was taken from the article below at the Verum Serum website http://www.verumserum.com/.

WSJ Editorial Rehashes Issue of Newt’s Work at Freddie Mac

John on December 17, 2011 at 11:05 am

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial today in which they essentially rehash all the points we made two weeks ago in light of the 2007 interview Newt Gingrich gave to Freddie Mac’s website. Here’s what the Journal says today:

In his first response after news broke that he’d made $300,000 working for Freddie, Mr. Gingrich claimed he had “offered them advice on precisely what they didn’t do.” As a “historian,” he said during a November 9 debate, he had concluded last decade that “this is a bubble,” and that Freddie and its sister Fannie Mae should stop making loans to people who have no credit history. He added that now they should be broken up.

A week later Bloomberg reported that Mr. Gingrich had made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in two separate contracts with Freddie between 1999 and 2008. The former Speaker stuck to his line that “I was approached to offer strategic advice” and had warned the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to stop lending to bad credit risks.

Then on December 2 our colleagues at the Journal reported that as late as April 2007 Mr. Gingrich had defended Fannie and Freddie as examples of conservative governance. “While we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself,” Mr. Gingrich said in an interview at the time.

Mr. Gingrich added in that interview that there are times “when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development.” He cited electricity and telephone network expansion. “It’s not a point of view libertarians would embrace, but I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism,” he said, adding “I’m convinced that if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today.”

It goes on to make the same points we made at the beginning of the month about Newt’s candor and how his public statements don’t square with what he claims he was telling Freddie Mac at the time. All of this is fine fodder for discussion, especially now that six of the top bosses at Fannie and Freddie are being charged with fraud by the SEC. What bothers me is that the casual reader of this story would assume the Journal did all of this reporting. I emphasized this section above but here it is again:

Then on December 2 our colleagues at the Journal reported…

To their credit the initial story from Dec. 2 did mention the blog by name (no link but that’s a stylebook issue apparently). However this flashback simply credits the Journal’s reporting. Would the WSJ have written that sentence if the source of the material had been, say, the Washington Post or National Review or the Nation? Maybe, but it seems more likely they’d have mentioned the real source of the story in their summary. But blogs get stripped from stories like this all the time.

This is the kind of thing that makes a blogger tear his or her remaining hair out. Even when you publish something that is worthy of an editorial in the WSJ (and the Post) chances are your contribution (which in this case is nearly everything) gets dropped out along the way.

At some point the relationship between blogs and mainstream news outlets is going to have to change. It’s no secret that most blogs are dependent upon the original reporting of major outlets like the WSJ. But increasingly the flow of information is going in two ways.

The rules for crediting bloggers still haven’t caught up to the reality of their contributions to the debate.

____________________________________________________

I think that it addresses the issue fairly.

Adam

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

I think that it addresses the issue fairly.

end quote

Is it SO tough to be principled and say no to “influence money” that could later be used to question your suitability for the Presidency? A million bucks helps to buy a shot at a Presidential run but I wish Mr. Newt could have earned it on the free market like Mitt. Rush Limbaugh’s Two If By Tea Company is a good example of a principled use of celebrity.

We will need to accept his version until and unless he is charged or sued like those Fannie Mae executives. But it tarnishes his reputation. Mr. Newt should swear he will put his assets into a blind trust if elected, and stop being a Boardroom “wise guy.” Do his character flaws magnify with age? Perhaps not but we will see, because he would be 69 if sworn in as President. Did you just hear a small, “Yea Newt?” That was me.

Peter

[caroljane]

Adam wrote:

I think that it addresses the issue fairly.

end quote

Is it SO tough to be principled and say no to “influence money” that could later be used to question your suitability for the Presidency? A million bucks helps to buy a shot at a Presidential run but I wish Mr. Newt could have earned it on the free market like Mitt. Rush Limbaugh’s Two If By Tea Company is a good example of a principled use of celebrity.

We will need to accept his version until and unless he is charged or sued like those Fannie Mae executives. But it tarnishes his reputation. Mr. Newt should swear he will put his assets into a blind trust if elected, and stop being a Boardroom “wise guy.” Do his character flaws magnify with age? Perhaps not but we will see, because he would be 69 if sworn in as President. Did you just hear a small, “Yea Newt?” That was me.

Peter

I wouldn't worry about Newt either way. As he sings, "I got some friends I could go to workin' for".

[blackhorse]

Rick Santorum looks REALLY good right now.

[Peter]

Blackhorse wrote:

Rick Santorum looks REALLY good right now.

End quote

There are a lot of “Tractor Counties” in Iowa that are evangelical Christian and they won that contest for Mike Huckabee in 2008. I think Santorum or Bachmann could do better than expected there, because of their religious conservatism. I could reluctantly vote for Santorum or Bachmann if they were the choice against Obama but I would prefer Newt or Mitt.

Will those Iowan farmers vote for a Latter Day Saint?

Realclearpolitics has it 21.7 for Paul in Iowa

20.3 for Romney

15.7 for Gingrich

12.0 for Perry

9.7 for Bachmann

6.3 for Santorum

4.3 for Huntsman

And Rasmussen, where many seem to put their trust, has Romney at 23 percent Gingrich at 20 and Paul at 18.

Wow. If Romney could win Iowa and New Hampshire, as he is expected to do, that would be like a jet taking off. My wife thinks Gingrich will continue to suffer the fate of Herman Cain and will be forced to bow out.

Romney has been running for so long, I don’t think there is a scandal associated with his name, nor will his business dealings hurt him with undeclared independents. Romney’s religion will be attacked by the left if he gets the nomination but Reverend and Governor Huckabee has made his peace with Mitt.

Peter

[caroljane]

This is just flat out incorrect.

Are you aware of what year(s) that Mr. Newt's firm received the monies?

Are you aware of what the contract was for? What the contract's clauses were?

Adam

Unlike you to be naive, Adam. How would you expect such a contract to read? "pork-barrelling services?" It would specify communications planning, historical research, strategic relationship building and blah blah blah like all contracts with unregistered lobbyists.

[BaalChatzaf]

Iowa is not the determiner of the outcome of the major primaries. It is a straw poll and no more.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Realclearpolitics has it 21.7 for Paul in Iowa

20.3 for Romney

15.7 for Gingrich

12.0 for Perry

9.7 for Bachmann

6.3 for Santorum

4.3 for Huntsman

And Rasmussen, where many seem to put their trust, has Romney at 23 percent Gingrich at 20 and Paul at 18.

Peter:

I am not sure where you got the above numbers, they are somewhat accurate.

The latest poll referred to by the media and Real Clear is by Public Policy Polling which is a Democratic polling firm. Now this does not make them dismissable, but you have to look more carefully at their internals because they have a tendency to "weight" their base numbers with more Democrats and more Democratic Independents.

However, there are some important revealations in their release http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1218925.pdf :

Here is one of those revealations:

Paul's base of support continues to rely on some unusual groups for a Republican

contest. Among voters under 45 he's at 33% to 16% for Romney and 11% for Gingrich.

Paul is also cleaning up 35-14 with the 24% of voters who identify as either Democrats or

independents.

Romney is actually ahead 22-19 with GOP voters.

This is why Dr. Paul's vote in Iowa is not reflective of his support in the Republican Primary. This open caucus truly fudges the strength of a candidate, but it has a tremendous effect on the public and on momentum.

As a Boston commentator and political consultant explained today, Dr. Paul's followers have complete passion and they will sit through the three hours (3 hrs.) of speeches to cast their cauci choice. He continued explaining that they obviously patience and passion because they all read Atlas Shrugged at least once!

Now that was a clever line. He has spoken highly of Atlas explaining today that he had read it two (2) or three (3) times himself.

Dr. Paul's and Mitt's media carpet bombing on Mr. Newt has succeeded. As the survive noted:

Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row. His share of

the vote has gone from 27% to 22% to 14%.

And there's been a large drop in his

personal favorability numbers as well from +31 (62/31) to +12 (52/40) to now -1 (46/47).

Negative ads over the last few weeks have really chipped away at Gingrich's image as

being a strong conservative-

now only 36% of voters believe that he has 'strong

principles,' while 43% think he does not.

As to methodology, they explain that:

PPP

surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews. PPP

*** is a Democratic polling company, but polling expert Nate

Silver of the New York Times found that its surveys in 2010 actually exhibited a slight bias toward Republican candidates.

*** This is one of the solid promising trends in polling. It seems that people are more open to a machine with phone key pad input than actually speaking to another human being. When it is personal, people tend to be much more cautious in their responses and you experience a higher rate of no opinion type of choices.

Adam

[Selene]

Unlike you to be naive, Adam. How would you expect such a contract to read? "pork-barrelling services?" It would specify communications planning, historical research, strategic relationship building and blah blah blah like all contracts with unregistered lobbyists.

Carol:

Not naive at all. I just believe in being as certain as possible when someone has been decllared the designated evil person by the establishment and the main stream media.

Neither you, nor I, know any details about his firm, how many people were employed, what years the contract covered and what the terms were.

It could be just as you say, but I would prefer to know.

Adam