ChrisWeigant.com

Pure Newtonium

[ Posted Monday, January 23rd, 2012 – 16:32 PST ]

What a difference a week makes, at least in the Republican primary contest.

Last week, I was (along with many other pundits) of the opinion that Mitt Romney was going to wrap things up quickly with a victory in South Carolina and Florida, and the rest of the primary season would be all but a foregone conclusion, as Republican voters lined up behind their assumed-nominee.

This, quite obviously, did not come to pass. Newt Gingrich won South Carolina by a commanding margin over Mitt, and it's now a whole new race. Gingrich appears to be the "last man standing" in the struggle to be the "I'm not Romney" candidate. Rick Santorum is now fast becoming an afterthought in this campaign, and right now I'd put his chances at dropping out before Florida votes as about even. Ron Paul is still Ron Paul, and is still in the race -- he's not going to drop out at all, and will be in the race until the very end, trying to scrape together enough delegates to be considered a power player at the Republican convention.

But the Republican race, for all intents and purposes, is now a true two-man contest between Newt and Mitt. In fact, if Newt wins Florida, he may have built up so much momentum that people start using the word "inevitable" to describe his nomination, rather than Mitt's.

Back in November, I began taking this possibility seriously, when I wrote an article titled "Newt? Really?"  Two weeks later, in a less-serious frame of mind, I offered up a "Call The Newtsplosion Contest" so people could predict when Newt will say something so outrageous that he essentially removes himself from the running. Call me ambivalent, I guess. Now, though, the prospect of Newt not just denying Mitt the nomination but actually walking away with it himself is a lot more concrete. Which means it's time to take the idea of "Newt Gingrich, Republican nominee," a lot more seriously.

The prospect is, no doubt, filling Democrats' hearts with glee across the land. You can almost hear the champagne corks a-poppin' in the White House from here, in fact. This joyousness is, not to put too fine a point on it, premature. Newt Gingrich would be (Democrats assume) a much easier candidate for Barack Obama to beat in the fall. There are some solid reasons for assuming this. Newt Gingrich's personal approval numbers are horrific -- the poll everyone's been quoting has him below 30 percent approval, and above 55 percent disapproval, in the public at large. Those are some serious headwinds against Gingrich. The polling for Republican candidates matched up head-to-head with Obama isn't quite as bad, but not by much (Romney-versus-Obama is neck and neck; but in the Gingrich-versus-Obama question, Obama wins handily, by double digits in some polls). But, as South Carolina has shown us all, poll numbers can change over time -- sometimes very quickly.

Newt may have some advantages over Romney as a candidate which aren't obvious at this time. To begin with, Newt won't be as easy to paint into the same out-of-touch elitist corner that the White House has been planning for Mitt Romney. That's going to mean a big change in strategy for them.

Newt may, in fact, have a better chance than Mitt with Hispanic voters. Newt has been doing Spanish-language radio for a while, and he actually put more of a human face on illegal immigration than I've heard from any Democrat in recent years. Of course, his immigration policy is only a tiny fraction of an inch different than most Republicans', seeing as how the criteria he usually lists for his proposed exemption are pretty stringent: lived here 25 years, not broken any other laws than the immigration violation, grandmother, and a member of a local church. The "grandmother" one is likely flexible, to be fair to Newt. Even if Newt supports an exemption for people who fit into this category, he would not give them citizenship, but he would allow them to stay here legally (somehow... he never really spells out what this would mean). The point is, if Newt could gain only ten percent of the Hispanic vote, it could spell problems for Barack Obama.

Newt also knows -- deep down in his bones -- a truism in American politics that Bill Clinton used to frame as: "strong and wrong beats weak and right, every time." Newt knows that his biggest selling point, at least for the moment, is his feistiness. And Newt isn't going to shrink away from doing battle with whomever he feels like, at any time, for any reason. Feistiness sells big these days, with a large portion of the electorate in a very angry mood. That right there is a big reason to fear a Newt candidacy -- for both Democrats and the Republican establishment, both of whom have been on the receiving end of Newt's tirades of late.

Newt also will benefit from the fact that during primary season, he can pretty much get away with fudging any facts he wishes. Who, after all, is going to call him on it -- that Republican primary voters will listen to? In the current environment in the Republican race, candidates can pretty much get away with saying just about anything without benefit of solid evidence to back it up (or even evidence which disproves it), and the crowd will still eat it up. This may be a problem for Newt later, in the general election, but whenever faced with glaring errors in what he says, he'll likely just fall back on attacking the media who question him about it. And, after South Carolina, we've all seen how effective that can be for him.

Newt has some definite weaknesses, however, the biggest of which was summed up by Peggy Noonan (former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan) as: "He is a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, 'Watch this!' " Because of his unusual first name, there are a number of ways I usually sum this up: the Newtroglycerine problem, the Newtron bomb, the fissile and radioactive nature of pure Newtonium. Whatever you call it, Newt is indeed so prone to saying outrageous things that I ran a contest to predict when it would happen last month. To put it another way: the only question in many people's minds is exactly what disqualifying thing Newt is going to say, and when he's going to pull that grenade pin.

This is one of the core reasons a Newt Gingrich nomination is terrifying the Republican Party establishment. This may actually be the determining factor in the race. Several prominent voices in the party -- some of whom worked with Newt when he ran the House -- have already strongly come out against him, and very publicly. A goodly number of respected conservative pundits (respected in conservative circles, in other words) are already denouncing a Newt candidacy and issuing dire warnings that it will kill the party's chances "down-ballot" to hold onto the House, or retake the Senate. A Newt nomination would be nothing short of a disaster, they are repeatedly telling anyone who will listen.

Of course, it didn't do them much good in South Carolina, did it? And that was when Newt was merely seen as a possible spoiler. Now that he's being taken seriously as a possible candidate, the Republican establishment is faced with a very tough choice: fall in line behind Newt in the interests of party unity, or continue to fight as hard as possible against Newt winning. So while the Republican race is now unquestionably more interesting in general, to me the most interesting thing is going to be the reaction of establishment Republicans in the next month or so to the possibility of Newt Gingrich running the primary tables. Because, like it or not, that's where Newt may actually be heading right now.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

77 Comments on “Pure Newtonium”

  1. [1] 
    Osborne Ink wrote:

    Oh, let Newt talk. And I hope he does well.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    It might be worth 4 more years of Obama, just to have the pleasure of seeing Newt wipe the floor with Obama in the debates...

    Because everyone here knows that THAT is exactly what would happen..

    It *MIGHT* be worth it.... :D

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Bring it!

    So far he's only got one trick. Play the victim card and blame the "liberal media" ... Sorry Newt, that one's getting old though I guess it still plays well in South Carolina.

    -David

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    that one's getting old though I guess it still plays well in South Carolina.

    It plays well all across the country...

    That's the point... :D

    It's one of the things that Newt has in common with the majority of Americans..

    The disdain of the Liberal Media... :D

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The disdain of the Liberal Media... :D

    Sure. But it's a message that sounds awfully odd from a party that wants to claim the personal responsibility and family values mantle.

    Not to mention the fact that liberals would love it if Newt ran.

    Not to mention that the media is owned by about 6 giant multinational corporations including Disney, ClearChannel, Comcast, Time Warner, and Gannett.

    After a while it just starts to sound a little unbelievable. In fact, it kind of sounds like whining.

    "Oh poor me! I didn't screw over my wives! It's the liberal media out to get me!"

    Ummm ... sure, Newt. Whatever ...

    -David

  6. [6] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I mean at least Herman Cain knew he couldn't lie his way through an entire election.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since ya'all love Polls so much.. :D

    Nearly half of Americans (48%) say the media are too liberal, tying the high end of the narrow 44% to 48% range recorded over the past decade. One-third say the media are just about right while 15% say they are too conservative. Overall, perceptions of bias have remained quite steady over this tumultuous period of change for the media, marked by the growth of cable and Internet news sources. Americans' views now are in fact identical to those in 2004, despite the many changes in the industry since then.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/143267/distrust-media-edges-record-high.aspx

    48% say media is too liberal...

    15% say media is too conservative...

    You can do the math...

    :D

    "Oh poor me! I didn't screw over my wives! It's the liberal media out to get me!"

    A broken watch is right twice a day... But it's still broken....

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't misunderstand me... My feelings on Newt's wife issues are abundantly clear...

    And different from yours, surprisingly enough.. :D

    But just because Newt is playing the victim card, doesn't mean that there ISN'T a liberal agenda within the media...

    "Of course I'm paranoid! Everyone's out to kill me!!"
    -Garak, DEEP SPACE 9

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean at least Herman Cain knew he couldn't lie his way through an entire election.

    Why not??

    Obama did....

    Maybe the reason Newt is so successful at it is the fact that he DOESN'T know it's impossible.. :D

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Maybe the reason Newt is so successful at it is the fact that he DOESN'T know it's impossible.. :D

    Or maybe it's because Newt would sell his mom into slavery if the price were right :)

    Notice how neither Newt or Romney or any of the conservatives for that matter are talking about their plans to fix the economy.

    It's all distraction, blame, paranoia, and who's the "true conservative".

    If I were the GOP, I'd be starting to wonder about this strategy. If you cry wolf long enough, pretty soon people are going to start wondering.

    -David

    p.s. You know why they're not talking about their plans to fix the economy? Because all they've got is "trickle down" theory :).

  11. [11] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And different from yours, surprisingly enough.. :D

    You mean you don't think he's an a-hole?

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or maybe it's because Newt would sell his mom into slavery if the price were right :)

    You just described every politician in the country... :D

    Notice how neither Newt or Romney or any of the conservatives for that matter are talking about their plans to fix the economy.

    Yep, just like Obama is not talking about his record... :D

    One goes with their STRENGTHS and try to ignore the weaknesses..

    p.s. You know why they're not talking about their plans to fix the economy? Because all they've got is "trickle down" theory :).

    As opposed to the "redistribution" theory?? :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    You mean you don't think he's an a-hole

    Class A... Any man who treats a wife like that is...

    I was referring to your claim before that personal matters are not important..

    Told ya I was gonna remind ya of it.. Just didn't think it would be this soon.. :D hehehehehe

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I was referring to your claim before that personal matters are not important.

    This is not quite what I was saying. I believe that you should judge a man for a position based on his skills for that position. Not on his personal life.

    This is why I place more emphasis on Newt's qualifications for the presidency.

    Does this make Newt any less of an a-hole? No.

    Told ya I was gonna remind ya of it.. Just didn't think it would be this soon.. :D hehehehehe

    Remind all day ... :)

    Remember the first commandment of religion: "Do as I say, not as I do."

    Maybe we could call that the Gingrich law. :)

    -David

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember the first commandment of religion: "Do as I say, not as I do."

    Once again, you are describing every politician in the country... :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    akadjian wrote:

    No, I'm pretty sure I'm describing Newt Gingrich ...

    http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/newt-gingrich-family-values.jpg

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, I'm pretty sure I'm describing Newt Gingrich

    Yea, and Newt is unique in this regard amongst politicians...

    NOT!!!! :D

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    dsws wrote:

    The "liberal media" thing is a sick joke. The liberal media actually consists of Mother Jones, The Nation, and New Republic. Of course, you can get foreign publications like The Economist that aren't liberal by the standards of the rest of the world but are at least sane, putting them light years to the left of US political discourse.

    The NY Times has a few sort-of-liberal op-ed writers, but it gives credibility to the big lies from the right in all its news coverage and half of its op-eds. Republicans could literally say that the earth is flat, and the US media would cover the disagreement with absolute even-handedness, never allowing any suggestion that there might be actual facts to creep into their coverage.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    The "liberal media" thing is a sick joke. The liberal media actually consists of Mother Jones, The Nation, and New Republic.

    NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, ABC....

    Shall I go on???

    Besides, I am just saying what the polls say..

    And since ya'all love the polls....... :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The "liberal media" thing is a sick joke. The liberal media actually consists of Mother Jones, The Nation, and New Republic.

    Agreed, dsws. There really is no mainstream "liberal" media. It's corporate media.

    Owned by a few companies: Disney, Comcast, Gannett, ClearChannel, NewsCorp, Scripps, etc.

    -David

  21. [21] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Yea, and Newt is unique in this regard amongst politicians.

    Yeah, and when the character issue is in the favor of conservatives, you're all for it. (Bill Clinton)

    And when it isn't, you change your tune and yell "both sides do it". (Gingrich)

    -David

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, and when the character issue is in the favor of conservatives, you're all for it. (Bill Clinton)

    Ahem... I am clearly on record as being against Bill Clinton for lack of character as I am against Newt for the same... :D

    All I am saying is that you are slamming Newt specifically for things that ALL politicians are guilty of...

    Michale...

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Agreed, dsws. There really is no mainstream "liberal" media. It's corporate media.

    48% of Americans disagree with you...

    :D

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    akadjian wrote:

    All I am saying is that you are slamming Newt specifically for things that ALL politicians are guilty of.

    No. All politicians are not guilty of these things. You know how I know? Because Barack Obama isn't.

    There's plenty of others too. On both sides of the aisle.

    What I find interesting is all of those who went after Clinton (because of his character, this includes Newt btw), yet would still vote for Newt.

    -David

  25. [25] 
    akadjian wrote:

    48% of Americans disagree with you.

    And that's probably the best evidence against a "liberal media" you've shown yet.

    If we had a liberal media, 48% of Americans would have access to facts, not propaganda.

    What was the percentage of people who thought Obama was Muslim? Something like 30%?

    -David

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember the first commandment of religion: "Do as I say, not as I do."

    Maybe we could call that the Gingrich law. :)

    Obama is not guilty of "Do As I Say Not As I Do"????

    SERIOUSLY!!!???? :D

    As far as Newt's personal relationships??

    Can you say "Bus" and "Reverent Wright"??? :D

    You see, David... That's the problem that you and everyone else here have..

    You actually believe that there are politicians who are sincere, honest and have more than their own agenda at heart...

    I can't blame ya'all I guess... I used to believe the same way...

    Until I got con'ed by Barack Obama...

    Show me a good, honest decent and self-less politician and I'll show you a unicorn getting it on with a dragon.... :D

    Michale...

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    If we had a liberal media, 48% of Americans would have access to facts, not propaganda.

    So, in your mind, "liberal media" = facts???

    Again.... SERIOUSLY!!!???? :D

    Liberal media uses propaganda as much, if not more than conservative media....

    Michale.....

  28. [28] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Can you say "Bus" and "Reverent Wright"?

    Huh?

    Newt Gingrich was banging some woman while his wife was dying of cancer.

    Obama knew Reverend Wright ... and ... that's it. Other than some conservative pundits saw a conspiracy. But conservative pundits see a liberal conspiracy everywhere. In fact, it's about all they've got left (Get it! That's a joke, son. I keep a pitching 'em and you keep a missin' 'em). Notice how it all disappeared after the election. It just goes to show you can't really make rational decisions based on what conservative pundits think.

    -David

    p.s. Maybe Dems should start calling themselves the Family Values party. Obama is like Cosby compared to Gingrich's Midnight Cowboy :)

  29. [29] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ... I am clearly on record as being against Bill Clinton for lack of character as I am against Newt for the same... :D

    All I am saying is that you are slamming Newt specifically for things that ALL politicians are guilty of...

    i disagree with you completely on both individuals, but i agree that we have no business making an issue of the personal failings of one and not the other, especially this long after the fact. in spite of all the show, being a cheater didn't really do much to impede clinton's ability to govern, and it means very little to me regarding gingrich either. i don't need to respect someone as a human being to respect their work as a politician. in my book, the "values" line of attack is just silly. also, contrary to the popular opinion, i happen to think his willingness to ignore conventional wisdom and say whatever pops into his head is a good thing. so what, he can answer a serious policy question without drooling on the podium.

    that said, i think gingrich's policy ideas are generally flawed. i tend to doubt he even believes half of what he's saying. mentioning reagan every other sentence may help in the primaries, but it's no selling point for me. i'd rather address those issues than make an issue over who he was married to and/or sleeping with.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Huh?

    We're talking how a man handles personal relationships...

    Obama knew Reverend Wright ... and ... that's it.

    Wright was Obama's spiritual adviser for decades..

    Notice how it all disappeared after the election. It just goes to show you can't really make rational decisions based on what conservative pundits think.

    Just as you can't make rational decisions based on what liberal pundits think...

    :D

    The train (of thought) DOES go both ways... :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    that said, i think gingrich's policy ideas are generally flawed. i tend to doubt he even believes half of what he's saying. mentioning reagan every other sentence may help in the primaries, but it's no selling point for me. i'd rather address those issues than make an issue over who he was married to and/or sleeping with.

    I would agree with you in principle, but I think that a candidate for President requires a little more in depth analysis..

    How Gingrich treats his wife goes to character. And character IS important.

    My only point is that I feel the same, regardless of whether I am talking about a Republican OR a Democrat...

    If character is important when discussing Gingrich, it is equally important when discussing Obama...

    That's all I am saying..

    And, in this case, the overall concept of how a person treats their personal relationships *IS* important criteria in how I choose a president.

    If I could vote in the primary, would I choose Gingrich over Romney???

    Doubtful...

    Would I choose Gingrich over Obama???

    In a stone cold minute and twice on Sunday...

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Newt....

    "There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him that's their prerogative. I don't even think that's going to happen."
    -Nancy Pelosi

    Now, this is very interesting..

    If Pelosi really did know something that would utterly decimate a Gingrich candidacy, then it would be logical for her to keep it to herself until Gingrich is the nominee, thereby assuring (ensuring?? insuring??? Damn you, Joshua!!! :D) an Obama re-election...

    By making a big deal of this now, it seems Pelosi is pushing for a Romney win in the Primary...

    I have to ask....

    WHY???

    What scares the Democrats so much about a Gingrich candidacy???

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    dsws wrote:

    So, in your mind, "liberal media" = facts?

    No, media are the means by which the information are transmitted. Facts are part of what the media would transmit if they were liberal.

    Instead, we have media that insist on a bizarre sort of even-handedness when the nonsense favors the right, but gives no play to nonsense that comes from the left.

    Part of the core of liberalism is integrity. Liberalism is an outlook that's based on believing in something. Conservatism (old-fashioned conservatism, that is, not the radical-right insanity that calls itself conservatism in the US these days) is an outlook that's based on respecting the organic development of institutions and traditions, with the humility to accept that you don't always know what to believe.

    Being a liberal isn't the same as being an advocate for liberalism. Advocacy, when it really is pure advocacy, involves a lack of integrity at least on a superficial level. An advocate's job is to do or say whatever will advance their cause, right or wrong. It is possible in good conscience to be an advocate, as long as one has reasonable confidence that it's part of a process where other sides will be represented and any side's BS will be refuted by some other side's advocates. Conservatism and advocacy fit together better, because they both involve trusting that some other part of the process knows better than you do.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, media are the means by which the information are transmitted. Facts are part of what the media would transmit if they were liberal.

    Now THAT's funny!!! :D

    Part of the core of liberalism is integrity.

    And THAT's even FUNNIER!!!! :D

    I could rattle off name after name of liberals that have absolutely NO integrity and wouldn't know a FACT if it came up and Gibbs' Slapped them upside down the head...

    And yes, there are conservatives who ALSO fit that as well...

    Almost be definition, liberal != facts....

    Conservatism and advocacy fit together better, because they both involve trusting that some other part of the process knows better than you do.

    Actually, you are describing liberal to a 'T' as the liberal believes that the government knows what's best as opposed to the individual..

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I have to ask .... WHY?

    Or maybe ... Pelosi is saying that to make you think she wants Romney when she really wants Gingrich.

    Or maybe ... Pelosi really wants Romney but says what she says because she understands that conservatives will see a conspiracy everywhere and think she really wants Gingrich when she really wants Romney.

    Think about it ...

    Watch out for these liberals, Michale. Their conspiracies are powerful indeed!

    But I digress. Question for you. You said you were conned by Obama. And you mentioned the Reverend Wright. All of the Reverend Wright stuff came out before the election. So, either you knowingly voted for someone you thought was a socialist, or something doesn't make sense.

    How do you feel you were "conned"?

    Wright was Obama's spiritual adviser for decades.

    Ummm ... Huh? Let's assume all your fears about Reverend Wright being the anti-Christ socialist devil are true. I don't believe this, but just for a second let's assume it's true.

    There's still no evidence that Obama shares any of those beliefs.

    Compare this to Newt. The evidence is overwhelming that, at least as far as his relationships, he's an a-hole. I don't even think he'd dispute it. Blame the liberal media? Yes. Dispute the fact. No.

    Now again, I don't really care. I just think it's funny that the Republican party is considering him as the face of the Family Values, Personal Responsibility party. A guy with zero family values who's completely incapable of taking any personal responsibility.

    It does fit with the true core of the Republican Party. But it certainly doesn't fit with their brand.

    -David

    "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or maybe ... Pelosi is saying that to make you think she wants Romney when she really wants Gingrich.

    Or maybe she is just being a political ass.. :D Never considered THAT possibility...

    Ummm ... Huh? Let's assume all your fears about Reverend Wright being the anti-Christ socialist devil are true.

    Now it's my turn..

    Huh???

    To the best of my knowledge, no one accused Wright of being an "anti-Christ socialist devil"..

    He was clearly anti-American, but that's as far as I would go..

    There's still no evidence that Obama shares any of those beliefs.

    Yes there is... Obama sat and listened to those beliefs for years and years and never once refuted them...

    Silence gives assent...

    Compare this to Newt. The evidence is overwhelming that, at least as far as his relationships, he's an a-hole.

    Which, according to you, has absolutely NO BEARING on his qualifications for president.

    Yer preaching to the choir here, David..

    I *AGREE* with you about Gingrich...

    I mean, let's get down to it...

    What exactly was so bad about what Gingrich did?

    He put his own needs and desires before someone else and, in doing so, betrayed a trust..

    Obama did the EXACT same thing....

    Now, you claim that that doesn't matter to you when choosing a President. OK, that's fine.. It does matter to me.. And that's fine too..

    My only beef is that you are not consistent in your condemnation..

    You blast Gingrich and make excuses for Obama...

    "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert.

    The bible is the word of god. How do we know? It says so in the bible... :D

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    dsws wrote:

    the liberal believes that the government knows what's best as opposed to the individual.

    No, you're talking about the right-wing-BS image of a "liberal". Actual liberals are all about ordinary individuals as opposed to corporations, religious authorities, traditional social hierarchies, and such. Liberals recognize a significant but limited role for government. Your side is the one that wants government in the bedroom, no civil liberties, and so on: the stuff that does involve the implicit premise that government knows best.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liberals recognize a significant but limited role for government.

    Sheeya right.... "Limited" my left arse cheek...

    Your side is the one that wants government in the bedroom, no civil liberties, and so on:

    Actually, *my* side wants no such thing.

    Independents and NPAs want a government that's barely noticeable.. A government that works within it's means and doesn't try to regulate everything to death... A government that doesn't FORCE equality and legislate acceptance...

    In short, a government that knows that it's place is to SERVE the people, not control them...

    That's what *MY* side wants...

    And that is so far from liberals as to be on a different planet...

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    no civil liberties, and so on: the stuff that does involve the implicit premise that government knows best.

    Sounds like the Obama administration to a "T"....

    :D

    Michale......

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, you're talking about the right-wing-BS image of a "liberal".

    I do agree with you somewhat on one point...

    The concept of "Liberal" today is a far far cry from the liberals 40-50 years ago..

    Liberals back then WERE all about peace and love and individual freedoms..

    So, you are correct... The idea of "liberal" has been twisted and perverted...

    But not by the Right Wing.... By the Left...

    Liberals these days are simply a mirror image of the Right... They use all the same methods to achieve all the same goals...

    The ONLY difference is the ideology...

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If Pelosi really did know something that would utterly decimate a Gingrich candidacy, then it would be logical for her to keep it to herself until Gingrich is the nominee, thereby assuring (ensuring?? insuring??? Damn you, Joshua!!! :D) an Obama re-election...

    i'm of the opinion that gingrich is a lot like bill clinton, and not just because they're both a bit ethically challenged. both are very bright, great at reading a crowd and exceptional at making a point in the simplest terms. they also share the quality of consistently getting up one more time than opponents can knock them down. remember what the clinton/bush(41)/perot polling was in march of '92? bill wasn't even in second place.

    romney has a more disciplined campaign organization and may poll better right now, but when the pressure has been on, the candidate himself has been snippy, made major gaffes, and generally failed to perform. gingrich, for all his baggage, brings his A game under the highest pressure situations. lacking both the money and institutional support of other candidates, he has stayed in the game on pure grit. dems can laugh right now, especially since republicans tend to fall in line behind their establishment candidate, but in my opinion they ignore newt's general election chances at their peril.

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    by the way michale, you could use either A-ssuring (to obama) or EN-suring (democratic victory). IN-suring is the only one that would be wrong there.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    dems can laugh right now, especially since republicans tend to fall in line behind their establishment candidate, but in my opinion they ignore newt's general election chances at their peril.

    Couldn't have said it better myself..

    I think Dems give a lot of false-bravado lip service to "Gingrich?? Yea, we would LOVE him to be the candidate...

    But, deep down in places they don't talk about at parties, they WANT ME ON THAT WALL!!.... er.... I mean... They're scared crapless of a Gingrich candidacy...

    As I said... I don't know how well Newt will fair in the general...

    But to see him take Obama to school in the debates??

    Might just be worth the price of admission.. :D

    by the way michale, you could use either A-ssuring (to obama) or EN-suring (democratic victory). IN-suring is the only one that would be wrong there.

    :D

    Michale.....

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71941.html

    Looks like I was right..

    It's Pelosi just acting like a horse's ass... :D

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Awww. You didn't answer the question I was most interested in.

    If you knew about Obama's connection to the Reverend Wright before the election and thought Obama was anti-American, how exactly were you taken in?

    I mean if you knew he was anti-American, and voted for an anti-American, then the only way you could be disappointed would be if he were actually pro-American.

    -David

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you knew about Obama's connection to the Reverend Wright before the election and thought Obama was anti-American, how exactly were you taken in?

    I never thought Obama was anti-American.. Not then and really not now...

    I merely bring up Wright in the context of you slamming Newt for how he dealt with his personal relationships..

    I pointed out that Gingrich is not the only one who does that...

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I never thought Obama was anti-American.. Not then and really not now...

    But you did say the Reverend Wright was anti-American. And Obama was silent. And silence equals consent.

    If you're not saying Obama is anti-American, I have no idea what you're saying.

    I merely bring up Wright in the context of you slamming Newt for how he dealt with his personal relationships.

    Sure. Except there's no comparison.

    Newt screwed his wife. Err ... wives.

    Obama Reverend Wright. Fill in the blank. It looks to me like "knew". Could be "befriended". Whatever it was, it doesn't seem bad.

    I pointed out that Gingrich is not the only one who does that.

    Does what? Forgive me if I'm missing something.

    Gingrich is the only one who screwed over his wives. I know that. The rest of your argument sounds pretty specious.

    Also, you said you were conned by Obama. How were you conned? You mentioned in the context of Reverend Wright. I don't see the connection. Are you sure you voted for Obama?

    -David

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure. Except there's no comparison.

    Newt screwed his wife. Err ... wives.

    And Obama screwed Wright.. And so many others...

    Again, I fail to see the difference... Unless you are saying that the gender difference makes ALL the difference???

    Also, you said you were conned by Obama. How were you conned?

    Simple..

    Obama said that he would change how things are done in Washington.

    He lied..

    Obama said he would unite this country.

    He lied..

    I believed all Obama's lies...

    And THAT is how he conned me..

    And, apparently you as well..

    The only difference is, I see my mistake..

    :D

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Obama screwed Wright.. And so many others...

    Not to mention, the entire country....

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Unless you are saying that the gender difference makes ALL the difference?

    No. I'm saying that I've never seen an instance anything like Mr. Gingrich's.

    It doesn't appear you have either.

    Obama said he would unite this country.

    Well, you can't unite people who have no interest in compromising. I'm ok with that.

    Obama said that he would change how things are done in Washington.

    I think he's worked towards this goal. Though again, it's impossible to work together when one side simply refuses.

    There's been progress. One war has been ended. The economy is better and looks like it's starting to come around. All in all, I'd give him a B+. Perhaps even an A- for having to work with zero help from the party across the aisle.

    Sorry he's disappointed you. But then again, I don't think there's anything he could have done which would have pleased you.

    -David

  51. [51] 
    dsws wrote:

    [47] David wrote:
    But you did say ... silence equals consent.

    Assent. In [36] he said silence gives assent. Consent would be reasonable. If you go to a church where the pastor says thought-provoking things that sometimes cross the line into shocking, and you continue to go to that church without making a fuss, then you really are giving consent. You're saying in effect, "Keep on trying to come up with thought-provoking sermons. I understand that sometimes you'll wind up with stuff that you thought would be thought-provoking but the ramifications turn out to be not as interesting as you thought, and you wind up with just shock value. That's ok. You don't have to be perfect. If you want to score a lot of baskets, you have to take a lot of shots."

    The Michael Jordan slogan is a message that Michale fully endorses when it happens to support a Republican talking point, but of course he doesn't take that line of reasoning here because the implications don't favor the side he advocates for.

    Anyway, there's a huge difference between giving consent to put a lot of questionable statements out for people to think about, and giving assent to every last one of them.

    Though again, it's impossible to work together when one side simply refuses.

    It's a matter of giving them the right incentives. You can't make them work with you the first time. You can just meet them a bit more than halfway, with the situation set up so that they'll lose if they don't. If he has succeeded in doing that, he'll win this year and set the pattern for future Democrats to keep winning until Republicans decide to be at least somewhat pro-US, instead of being anti-Democrat to the exclusion of any other considerations. If he wins and sets that pattern, he'll have changed Washington DC even if it doesn't happen until 2017 or 2021. So far, it doesn't look as though that's what's happening. Instead, he met them 110% of the way (until they doubled their demands), and they won big in 2010.

    The friggen Bush/Obama tax cuts are permanent. If he couldn't or wouldn't get rid of them when he had 60 members in the Senate Democratic Caucus, there's no way anyone ever will.

    Of course, any Republican is far worse, but the blame goes to Obama. If a rabid dog bites someone after a supposedly-responsible adult had had a clear shot and could have killed it, you don't blame the dog for biting. It's a rabid dog; that's what they do. You blame the person for not shooting it. On the other hand, you don't hire the rabid dog to become the new constable either.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    No. I'm saying that I've never seen an instance anything like Mr. Gingrich's.

    Yes you have..

    You just refuse to admit it, because it's Obama.

    Well, you can't unite people who have no interest in compromising.

    First off, that accusation is total BS. The Left has only paid lip service to bipartisanship and compromise..

    Secondly, even if it were true, Obama didn't say "I am going to unite this country, except if the other side is not interested in compromising."

    He said, "I am going to unite this country"..

    He didn't...

    According to the Hysterical Left's Definition Of Lieing.....

    Obama lied..

    I'm ok with that.

    Of course you are ... :D

    I think he's worked towards this goal.

    Once again, Obama did not say, "I am going to WORK to change things in Washington."

    He said, "I will change how things work in Washington"..

    He hasn't.. Partisanship is worse under Obama than at any other time in the last hundred years.

    Though again, it's impossible to work together when one side simply refuses.

    This refusal to compromise did not come about until after it was clear that Obama and the Democrats had absolutely no real interest in working together...

    But then again, I don't think there's anything he could have done which would have pleased you.

    He could have kept his word...

    It's my fault. I was expecting a Jack Ryan, but all I got was a Richard Nixon...

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Instead, he met them 110% of the way (until they doubled their demands), and they won big in 2010.

    And why did the GOP "win big" in 2010??

    Because your average American has seen thru Obama and the Democrats, just like I have...

    They know that Obama's "Hope And Change" was nothing more than a campaign slogan.. The only change that Obama brought to this country is change that helps the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party only..

    NPAs and Independents are royally pissed at Obama and the Democrats.

    THAT is why Democrats got shellacked in 2010 and THAT is why history will repeat itself in 2012.

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    akadjian wrote:

    This refusal to compromise did not come about until after it was clear that Obama and the Democrats had absolutely no real interest in working together.

    Yes, Michale. It's true. Everything is the fault of Democrats. Republicans are incapable of taking any responsibility. Look at Newt.

    When in doubt, nothing is your fault. Not even how you screwed your wife while she was dying of cancer. It's the fault of Democrats.

    It's my fault. I was expecting a Jack Ryan, but all I got was a Richard Nixon.

    You were expecting a Republican? I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

    Actually, your analysis is pretty spot on though. As much as you like to yell about "the Left", he's really a moderate conservative with a skill for foreign policy.

    BTW- Bloomberg hands Newt a gift ...
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-26/-stop-newt-republicans-confront-base-unwilling-to-take-orders.html

    -David

  55. [55] 
    akadjian wrote:

    sponsible adult had had a clear shot and could have killed it, you don't blame the dog for biting. It's a rabid dog; that's what they do. You blame the person for not shooting it.

    To some extent I would agree. Obama underestimated Republican's willingness to double down on crazy. What I don't agree with is that the rabid dog is claiming it's a responsible adult.

    On the other hand, you don't hire the rabid dog to become the new constable either.

    Yes.

    -David

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Yes, Michale. It's true. Everything is the fault of Democrats.

    No.. SOME of the problem lies with the Republicans..

    But you want to blame Republicans for everything..

    In essence you are accusing me with regards to Democrats of the EXACT attitude YOU have with regards to Republicans.

    Ironic, eh?? :D

    You were expecting a Republican? I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

    No, I was expecting a leader with principles who would put the needs of the country before the needs of himself or his Party...

    For the record, Jack Ryan is an NPA. Like me... :D

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_%28Tom_Clancy_character%29

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    What I don't agree with is that the rabid dog is claiming it's a responsible adult.

    Apparently the vast majority of Americans disagree with you...

    As evidenced by the shellacking they gave the Democrats in 2010.... :D

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But you want to blame Republicans for everything..

    Just the things they're responsible for ...

    1) Trickle down theory
    2) 2 wars
    3) "Deficits don't matter"
    4) Party of "No"

    There's a few.

    For the record, Jack Ryan is an NPA. Like me... :D

    Oh, the fictional Jack Ryan. I thought you meant this Republican ...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_%28politician%29

    No, I was expecting a leader with principles who would put the needs of the country before the needs of himself or his Party...

    You know who fits this bill perfectly ... Newt Gingrich :)

    -David

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just the things they're responsible for ...

    1) Trickle down theory
    2) 2 wars
    3) "Deficits don't matter"
    4) Party of "No"

    There's a few.

    Can you give me ONE policy/issue that you agree with the Republicans on and disagree with the Democrats??

    Just one...????

    You know who fits this bill perfectly ... Newt Gingrich :)

    Then I guess you'll be voting for Newt over Obama, right??? :D

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Just one...?

    We had this discussion before and you've apparently forgotten. I can tell you again, but I'm not sure what purpose it serves. It didn't seem to dent your view that we're all anti-Republican, Obama-loving lefties.

    I will say that there used to be more I liked about the Republican party, but the Republican party used to talk about ideas.

    Today's Republican party is no longer about ideas, but about suspicion, calling people liberals, or ranting about big government w/o really saying anything.

    For example, can you tell me what Romney or Newt would do differently than in the past? Or are they just better than Obama?

    No one wants to talk about ideas in today's Republican party. It's all about anger. Lots of anger. And government bad. Very bad.

    If the Republican party would return to some good ideas instead of feeding the paranoia and xenophobia, I'd be much more interested.

    Instead, it's all: Obama's a Muslim socialist ... it's the liberal media ... it's the illegal immigrants ... it's the Iranians ... it's big government ... etc, etc, *yawn*.

    My two cents ... If you'd like me to re-list some of the areas where I find common ground with Republicans, I will, but it didn't seem to do much the first time.

    -David

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Today's Republican party is no longer about ideas, but about suspicion, calling people liberals, or ranting about big government w/o really saying anything.

    Much like the Democrats were in the Bush years, calling people "war criminals" or ranting about torture w/o really saying anything...

    My two cents ... If you'd like me to re-list some of the areas where I find common ground with Republicans, I will, but it didn't seem to do much the first time.

    I just want one issue where Dems and GOP are on opposite sides and you agree with the GOP and not the Dems..

    Just one.... :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    dsws wrote:

    There are at least two wrong sides to every interesting issue.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am just asking, in fact BEGGING ......

    Your honor, these are the telephone records from GITMO for August 6th. And these are 14 letters that Santiago wrote in nine months requesting, in fact begging, for a transfer. Upon hearing the news that he was finally getting his transfer, Santiago was so excited, that do you know how many people he called? Zero. Nobody. Not one call to his parents saying he was coming home. Not one call to a friend saying can you pick me up at the airport. He was asleep in his bed at midnight, and according to you he was getting on
    a plane in six hours, yet everything he owned was hanging neatly in his closet and folded neatly in his footlocker.
    You were leaving for one day and you packed a bag and made three phone calls. Santiago was leaving for the rest of his life, and he hadn't called a soul. And he hadn't packed a thing.
    Can you explain that?
    The fact is there was no transfer order. Santiago wasn't going anywhere, isn't that right, Colonel."

    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    ..... for you guys to show me that you can think objectively, outside the Party Box..

    Because if ya'all can't find just ONE issue where the GOP is right and the Dems are wrong, then ya'all are (in effect) saying that Democrats are always right and Republicans are always wrong.

    And I *KNOW* that ya'all really don't believe that...

    I am just asking ya'all to re-assure me... :D

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    akadjian wrote:

    ...for you guys to show me that you can think objectively, outside the Party Box

    Your error in logic comes from assuming that if we agree with something Republican, this equals objectivity.

    Objectivity is looking at the facts and deciding based on the facts.

    For example, let's look at economics. In particular, let's look at the capital gains tax. The original thinking behind reducing the capital gains tax went like this:

    Taxing capital gains will hurt returns on investment which will subsequently reduce the amount of investment in the economy.

    At the time (around 2003), it seemed like there might be some truth to this and so the capital gains tax was reduced.

    But in the years following, this didn't happen. People weren't investing more in our economy and so reducing the capital gains tax further was merely taking money out of the economy and giving it to people who had very little need for additional money. In effect, it was, like the Dire Straits song said, money for nothing. We gave them money and they didn't create additional jobs or stimulate the economy. It didn't trickle down.

    Looking at this objectively, the conclusion would then be that their is a point on the capital gains curve where you no longer see any benefit in reducing the tax further. This invalidates the original premise.

    This isn't Republican or Democratic. It's economics.

    At this point, I'd look around and say, who's saying what? Republicans are arguing for reducing the capital gains tax further. Democrats aren't talking about raising it, but they don't want to lower it.

    Which fits in more with the objective picture described?

    This is how you look at things objectively. Objectively has nothing to do with saying I agree with Democrats half the time and Republicans half the time.

    I agree with the positions which fit the facts.

    If you really want to find out if something is objective or not, don't start by looking at the party first and working backwards. Start by looking at the situation on the ground.

    Again, the problem I have with conservatives is that they don't believe in even this fundamental picture. To them, everything is politics. They start with what they believe, and everything that may contradict their belief is "liberal" or "socialist" or some other name.

    Take Keynes, for instance. His economic theories are not in dispute in the field of economics. But in the field of politics, he is a socialist.

    I'll admit that Milton Friedman, for example, made significant contributions to the field of economics. But so did Keynes.

    I have friends will talk about Friedman as if he were God, and ignore any economists who have made contributions which don't fit their political belief.

    This is what objectivity is, Michale. Start from facts, work outwards. You can't start by saying "Well, I should agree with one party 60% of the time and the other 40%"

    -David

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your error in logic comes from assuming that if we agree with something Republican, this equals objectivity.

    Objectivity is looking at the facts and deciding based on the facts.

    Exactly...

    So, if you look at ALL the facts vis a vis issues where Dems are on one side and GOP are on the other and you objectively come to the conclusion that the Dems are always on the right side and GOP are always on the wrong side....

    Well, what could a reasonable objective person conclude??

    If you claim that on every issue the Dems are always right and the GOP is always wrong, then I would have to question your view of the facts or your objectivity...

    You say that the Dems aren't always right and the GOP aren't always wrong??

    Fine... Give me an example... Point to an issue where the Dems are on one side and the GOP are on the other and you feel, after objectively assessing the facts, that the GOP is right and the Dems are wrong..

    Just one...

    That's all I ask... :D

    Again, the problem I have with conservatives is that they don't believe in even this fundamental picture. To them, everything is politics. They start with what they believe, and everything that may contradict their belief is "liberal" or "socialist" or some other name.

    Again, I can make the same claim about liberals.. To them, everything is politics. They start with what they believe and everything that may contradict their belief is "evil" or "war mongering" or "fear mongering"...

    Don't get me wrong. I 1000% agree with your argument with regards to the Right...

    Because it's the SAME argument I make with regards to the Left..

    And, in BOTH cases, it's dead on ballz accurate.... :D

    Michale.....

  66. [66] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You say that the Dems aren't always right and the GOP aren't always wrong?

    Not at all. We're talking about objectivity.

    Don't get me wrong. I 1000% agree with your argument with regards to the Right.

    I'm talking about objectivity. Not Right or Left.

    Here, maybe this will help.

    Pick an issue. Any issue. I'll pick global warming because I know it's one of your favorites :)

    Here I tease, but I do think it's a good example.

    You know the scientific theory, right? CO2 in the atmosphere let's in light but traps heat. It acts very similar to the glass in your car on a hot day. The light comes in, but the heat does not radiate out. You can prove this with CO2.

    So scientists proposed that this might be happening to the earth because of rising levels of CO2. That CO2 is rising is measurable. It's a fact.

    http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-carbon-dioxide-and-other-kinds-greenhouse-gas-already-atmosphere

    It's also a proven fact that CO2 traps heat. So if an observable rise in average temperature occurs, then this would tend to support the theory.

    If glaciers and global ice caps are melting, this would also tend to support the theory. If plants (such as poison ivy) are being found at latitudes where they weren't previously found, this would tend to support the theory. If more powerful storms are being observed (because there is more energy in the atmosphere) this would also support the theory. All of which have been documented by climate scientists.

    Is there still debate about global warming? Sure. The questions are largely how fast and what will be the effect. But the fundamental theory is widely accepted.

    This theory came from a scientific community that didn't have anything to gain or lose other than trying to figure out how things work.

    Ok, a non-objective approach looks more like this. Certain industries (oil & gas) feel threatened in their core business by the implications of global warming (namely, that we should work to lower CO2 or risk damaging the ecosystem which is our planet).

    So they find a few outlier scientists and mount a marketing campaign to dispute the results of the scientific community. Why? Because it threatens their business model.

    As part of this marketing campaign, they attack scientists as "liberal" or Left or whatever the evil flavor of the day is. And many people believe this because they'll believe what they hear on tv or on the radio.

    These are a couple examples of an objective approach vs. a non-objective approach.

    It's not Right or Left.

    For example, I know many conservatives who believe in the theory of global warming.

    So give me an issue and I'll walk you through my reasoning. Dispute it if you want, but calling it "liberal" or Left or conservative or Right is not an argument. It's name calling.

    Does this help?

    -David

    p.s. Help me out! Show me an objective argument which Republicans believe in that you like. I'm having trouble finding a good one.

    To some extent, I believe in supply side economics. The trouble I have is that I think it was taken too far. I feel this way about some other conservative theories. For example, I consider myself economically conservative and am not a big fan of running deficits. The trouble is is that during a recession is not the time to cut back on spending - this sinks the economy even further. Ask an economist.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't want to go thru all the issues where the Dems are on one side and the GOP are on the other, in hopes of finding an issue where you agree with the GOP and disagree with the Dems..

    I want you to tell me if such an issue exists...

    Is there ANY issue where you would say, "The GOP is right and the Democratic Party is wrong"??

    ANY issue....

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is there ANY issue where you would say, "The GOP is right and the Democratic Party is wrong"??

    I don't want to appear to be picking on David alone. :D

    Anyone feel free to jump in and address this.. :D

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I want you to tell me if such an issue exists.

    I know what you want. It's a shame you don't always get what you want, no?

    Perhaps it's because the GOP platform isn't based on anything objective. Or perhaps if you said "pretty please" ... :)

    -David

  70. [70] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Ok, ok. Apologies for the crack.

    But your premise is flawed. You look at the arguments first and judge on a case by case basis.

    You don't look at here's what the GOP says and here's what Democrats say, now I have to believe parts of both.

    If it so happens that one party doesn't have many solid arguments, then perhaps that's a flaw with that party. As I've said, I liked the GOP much better when they focused on ideas and not on who's the most horrible liberal in the world.

    -David

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ok, ok. Apologies for the crack.

    's OK.. It was funny... :D

    Here's my point in all this..

    You accused me of saying that everything is the fault of the Left/Liberals..

    Now, it's completely on the record that there are many MANY issues where I think the GOP is wrong and the Democrats are right..

    Therefore, such an accusation is utterly and completely baseless..

    However, when I ask they same of ya'all, not ONE single person could name ONE single issue that they feel the GOP is right and the Demcorats are wrong...

    Not ONE person...

    Not ONE issue....

    So, tell me??

    Who is dealing in absolutes whereas one Party is always right and everything wrong and bad is the fault of the other Party???

    Certainly not me...

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    However, when I ask they same of ya'all, not ONE single person could name ONE single issue that they feel the GOP is right and the Demcorats are wrong...

    In other words, ya'all START with the conclusion that the Democratic Party is right and the Republican Party is wrong..

    THEN you look for evidence to support that pre-determined conclusion and ignore evidence that would dispute that pre-determined conclusion..

    In short, it's position-based evidence, not evidence-based positions.

    Which is exactly the process used in the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) con...

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    dsws wrote:

    Because if ya'all can't find just ONE issue where the GOP is right and the Dems are wrong, then ya'all are (in effect) saying that Democrats are always right and Republicans are always wrong.

    There are at least two wrong sides to any interesting issue.

    There are at least two wrong sides to any interesting issue.

    There are at least two wrong sides to any interesting issue.

    There are at least two wrong sides to any interesting issue.

    Republicans are basically always wrong. Democrats are very far from always right.

  74. [74] 
    dsws wrote:

    And if every last commenter here (other than Michale) posts that statement a thousand times, Michale will still keep right on saying that we think Democrats are always right.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans are basically always wrong.

    Like I said..

    Ya'all start with a conclusion and ignore any evidence that would dispute that conclusion..

    Michale will still keep right on saying that we think Democrats are always right.

    Fair enough..

    Most everyone here thinks that the GOP is always wrong...

    So, WHO is dealing in absolutes whereas everything wrong and bad is the fault of the one Party and one Party only???

    It STILL ain't me... :D

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You accused me of saying that everything is the fault of the Left/Liberals.

    Ah, now I see where you're coming from.

    I don't think you believe everything is the fault of the Left. Just like I don't believe everything is the fault of the Right.

    Sorry if that's what you heard. Seriously. If I said it, it was said with sarcasm.

    But you want to blame Republicans for everything.

    I never said that either.

    I really just think it's funny how Republicans are looking to Newt because it conflicts with their brand of family values and personal responsibility.

    Really. That was my argument. Then somehow we got on Obama and next thing you it's Left/Right Left/Right Maaaarch.

    Perhaps it is bad of me to poke the bear and push the issue, but I still remember how Newt was so sanctimonious going after Clinton while the whole time he was really no better. I'll stop.

    Don't get me wrong though. I can see why people like Newt better than Romney. Like Hermann Cain, he's more likable. He's not as polished or as much of a stuffed shirt as Romney.

    -David

  77. [77] 
    dsws wrote:

    Ya'all start with a conclusion and ignore any evidence that would dispute that conclusion.

    My conclusions disagree with your beliefs, therefore (by your "reasoning") I ignore all evidence that would cast doubt on my conclusion.

    But the "reasoning" would work just as well in reverse: your positions differ from mine, therefore by your "reasoning" I would be justified in believing that you disregard all evidence.

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]