world

Newt Gingrich joins 2012 presidential race

94 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

94 Comments
Login to comment

REALLY, well Thank You and the GOP for the second term for President Obama. the GOP keeps putting up these good old boys and like last time crazy women. get with the program the world has changed since the fifties.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Newt is only in it for the cash. He'll bow out and keep all the money he suckered out of the donors. This guy gives Trump integrity!

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"a nominee strong enough to credibly challenge President Barack Obama"

I hear the Republicans are working feverishly on resurrecting Ronald Reagan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sheer desperation.

I won't say "on the part of conservatives" because it wasn't their decision he launch a bid.

It's sheer desperatio on Newt's part - he can clearly see what the rest of us can - that the GOP has no worthy candidates and because of this, he actually thinks he's in with a clear run.

From that perpective, his bid makes sense.

But - oh dear - how mny marriages has he burnt through?

TWO? Gosh!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Right on the money, Taka! The man is a "professional candidate" - this means he's gotta actually run once in a while or he loses the respect that for some reason some people pay him - along with cash.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Newt almost defines the flat earth side of the GOP and an ardent obstructionist. His generation of GOP leaders represents a time when the GOP would have their eyes and ears in every bedroom and judge your patriotism by the fervor of your religious and hawkish views.

Yet the reality of this man, like many of his temporal peers, is that he exists primarily to fatten his wallet and those of his friends.

Though I would welcome a Palin, Gingrich ticket for the GOP as a means of assuring their utter and complete defeat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tokind2:

" Newt almost defines the flat earth side of the GOP and an ardent obstructionist. "

The political partisan activists from the other side will scream that about whatever candidate the GOP brings up. It really makes no difference. Boring.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB. Not true. I am not a democrat. My political view is something entirely different. What I want to see from the GOP is a viable, intelligent canditate who can actually offer something meaningful the American people. Not just another flat earther, money grubbing opportunist or establishment hack.

Where are the inspiring leaders of tomorrow? Show me one and I will praise him/her. But keep rolling out the recent list of losers and you can expect people to attack their viability. The burden is your's and that of your party mate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama can be beaten by just about any "decent" Republican; Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels, etc. Even the Godfather pizza guy would beat him. Obama has been an abomination as president. Why would the Republicans give the election away by nominating Gingrich? Don't see him having much chance of making it through the Fall. I just think he is pulling a Palin/Trump PR campaign. For what I don't know.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Palen should be his running mate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ihave -

Palen should be his running mate.

The spelling is "Palin".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When will the GOP dump the loser establishment that have run their party for so long?

Gingrich, Romney... neither have a clue nor a chance (and deservedly so).

Boehner, McCain, Graham... dump them the next election.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Somehow I can't see Newt getting the independent vote.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pawlenty is probably your best bet for a Republican president at this point. (Romney has too much baggage.) Too bad no one knows who he is...

...or is that an advantage?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tokind2:

" Not true. I am not a democrat. My political view is something entirely different. What I want to see from the GOP is a viable, intelligent canditate who can actually offer something meaningful the American people. Not just another flat earther, money grubbing opportunist or establishment hack. "

OK. I agree with that. However, my comment is still valid. The democrat party zealots will smear any GOP candidate with the same labels. Merit, or not. It really does not matter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2, williB

I agree with both of you. The GOP needs a candidate that is not from the same, incompetent, backroom club like they always seem to offer. (note - this applies to Dems as well.)

Willi is also right that the tone of politics now is limited to smearing, and the current Dem strategists (and partisan media) are the champions of that technique.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Willi is also right that the tone of politics now is limited to smearing, and the current Dem strategists (and partisan media) are the champions of that technique.

This is utterly laughable. Limited to smearing? It's clear that you've never read a mainstream liberal magazine like The New Republic or been to a mainstream Democratic website like Democratic Strategist. The fact is that there is little if any smearing and lots of analysis.

What's most laughable is no Democrat is anywhere the champion of smearing as Rush Limbaugh and his right-wing echo chamber.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB: "The democrat party zealots will smear any GOP candidate with the same labels. Merit, or not. It really does not matter."

You seem to think this is limited to one party. Pretty much the worst smear tactics used in recent political recent in the US have been with GWB's campaigns and when McCain and the dolt were running. The mud-slinging and advertising from the McCain camp (a 'shadow' creeping over a sleeping baby, or someone parting waves in the sea, etc.) were the most ridiculous in history in particular.

Anyway, seems pretty clear that unless the GOP comes up with a miracle candidate in the next few months the Dems will definitely be in for another term.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

twoind2 - "What I want to see from the GOP is a viable, intelligent canditate who can actually offer something meaningful the American people."

How long have you got? Can you wait until the next ice age? :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pretty much the worst smear tactics used in recent political recent in the US have been with GWB's campaigns and when McCain and the dolt were running. The mud-slinging and advertising from the McCain camp (a 'shadow' creeping over a sleeping baby, or someone parting waves in the sea, etc.) were the most ridiculous in history in particular.

LOL!! I guess you missed practically every one of the Dem ads then.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: No, if the Dems wanted to get really dirty it would have been simple. They could have easily put the name 'McCain' in bold letters with the silhouette of a fight plane crashing down in the background at least twice and saying something like, "You really want him to take us all down with him"? or something to equal some of the crap that was coming from the Republican side, but they were quite mild by comparison. Both ended up trading barbs and slinging mud, as ALL do (which was my point, while WilliB painted it so one-sided like), but again at least in the beginning the Republicans went above and beyond.

And really, how on earth can anyone claim the Dems are as bad or worse when you have people like Rush Limbaugh spewing utter lies and hatred all the time. You guys have spent TWO YEARS harping about the president's birth certificate and smearing his name and then when he pulls it out you try to say, "Why did he waste so much time on that issue?"

Seriously. The GOP needs a miracle, and as SushiSake suggested, it'll take until the next ice age or thereabouts. Ie. The Dems win again in 2012.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gingrich has (and deserves) no shot at winning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama can be beaten by just about any "decent" Republican; Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels, etc.

Keep on dreamin', Wolfpack. Look at the excitement these three have generated already - it's unbelievable! Nah, my guess is that the Republican primaries will chew these men up to such an extent they'll be unrecognizable (already happened to Romney, actually), and the "establishment" will quietly ensure that Jon Huntsman wins - not that he'd have a chance, either, but at least that would put the Republican heir apparent crown until 2016 in the hands of an adult.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's pretty amazing.

This has got to be the election cycle where the GOP/TP can put the nails in the Obama/Democrat coffin and send them packing.

And yet....when they've got many bankable reasons to win, they simply can't front up a serious candidate.

Why not?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithjapan:

" You seem to think this is limited to one party. Pretty much the worst smear tactics used in recent political recent in the US have been with GWB's campaigns and when McCain and the dolt were running. "

I do not think that this is limited to one party, but I have not seen any smear campaign from the GOP that even remotely comes close to the typical and predictable shatstorm of smears that erupts from the Democrats towards any serious opponent. Really, its not even a contest. Plus, the overwhelming part of the media are Democrat sympathizers, so this gets amplified.

And no, I don´t identify with either party and I dont have a vote, so I looking at it from the outside.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits:

" What's most laughable is no Democrat is anywhere the champion of smearing as Rush Limbaugh and his right-wing echo chamber. "

You must be joking. The American forces radio here, in a stroke of genius, puts Rush Limbaugh back to back to Ed Shulz, so you can listen to these clowns in sequence. Try it sometimes.

Really now. Compared to Ed Shulz, Limbaugh comes off as a mild academic. And I don´t even want to mention the "commentators" at MSNBC.

You really have to live in an upside down world to think that the Reps are the worst of the bunch.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It would be true to say this man is a hypocrite. But it would also be something of an understatement. What this guy is a political opportunist with no integrity or values whatsoever. To be a hypocrite would imply one has values. Newt simply doesn't. He plays his conservative followers like a fiddle if they believe he shares any of thier values.

Case 1: The Congressional Page Scandal. This guy was very vocal to get the men involved thrown out of Congress. It could not be done on the grounds of age, because the pages were 16 and above which is legal in D.C. They certainly could not do it on the grounds of gayness. They did it on the grounds that it is beneath a Congressman to have sex with a page. Ten years later, Newt was having sex with a page!

Case 2: He led the charge against Bill Clinton for having an extramarital affair. All the while, he was having an affair himself, with that very same page from case 1!

Look, I don't care that he or any Congressman had sex with a page. I don't care that any politician has an extramarital affair. But it is totally obvious that Newt does not care either. I don't know if he tries to destroy others for the fun of it or for political influence or just to get attention. All I know is that such a man has absolutely no integrity and is completely untrustable and dangerous in any political office.

As if all that were not bad enough, at a time that everyone with a brain in their head is stepping away from the Catholic church, two years ago, Newt converted! Maybe Newt is just insane? I don't know. But calling him a mere hypocrite is something of a compliment the man does not deserve.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

homerun - no one believes Gingrich. He's deluding himself if he even thinks he has a chance at the GOP nomination.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sure, send in another clown.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You really have to live in an upside down world to think that the Reps are the worst of the bunch.

Republicans like Gingrich are among the worst hypocrites and liars of the bunch. Conservatives can't stand it when progressive commentators like Ed Schultz make a habit of pointing it out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good to see A.P waste so much ink on a guy that polls 6.8 percent of potential Repulican voters for the nomination as the favorite (realclearpolitics.....composite polls). That is already with his name recognition, I think after this announcement he is going to get that number up to 7.2 percent or so. A "real contender" though good to see A.P give him the A list treatment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hmm, Sailwind, former Godfather's Pizza CEO and radio talk show host Herman Cain won a straw poll in Washington State; Rick Santorum won a South Carolina straw poll. In New Hampshire, Romney got more than a third, while Ron Paul was second and Tim Pawlenty third. The problem with the Republican Party is that, with 18 months remaining until the election, none of these candidates have any chance whatsoever of winning. They all might as well be Newt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good to see A.P waste so much ink on a guy that polls...

At this point, it ain't about polls and the intelligent people at AP know that. It's about some other key metrics like fund-raising -- in which Newt leads the Republican pack by a wide margin -- and favorability rating amongst his party. A party largely so pulled in different directions by crazies that Newt almost looks moderate by comparison.

I'm hereby predicting that the Republicans will go way out on a limb and pick former congressman, Virgil Goode, as their nominee for president. He, in turn, will choose Tim Pawlenty as his running mate.

Goode and Pawlenty seems like the perfect novelty pair for a party that's largely becoming a novelty act.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problem with the Republican Party is that, with 18 months remaining until the election, none of these candidates have any chance whatsoever of winning. They all might as well be Newt.

Ummm, Just a really dumb observation. 18 months might as well throw your name at there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - Virgil Goode - isnt he a former wrester?

Oh well, we shouldn't be surprised - the GOP picked a b-ist actor and look where the debt went after that decision...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

18 months might as well throw your name at there.

Typo..mean "out there".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think a Palin-Trump ticket will be great for the GOP and take their party to where they need to go... :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At this point, it ain't about polls and the intelligent people at AP know that.

The ones who are parading Newt as some sort of real candidate?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The ones who are parading Newt as some sort of real candidate?

Who? Media? Don't see a whole lot of Newt rallies being held to really report on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

U.S. election campaigns are way too long, they should do them Japanese-style, with campaigning starting maybe 2 weeks before election day.  

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Newt - but can he yodel?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ummm, Just a really dumb observation. 18 months might as well throw your name at there.

(Sarcasm ahead) Oh, I totally agree! Eighteen months before the election of the leader of the United States of friggen' America is far, far to early to even have some sort of inkling of what candidate one of the major two political parties will be nominating, 'cause it sure doesn't look like any of those straw poll candidates have legs to cross any sort of finish line.. Serrano's right: toss 'em out maybe two weeks before election day. That's a good way to run a democracy, particularly when you don't want the electorate to get a good look at your pony.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Come on Trump! join the race.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The GOP convention to decide who will represent their party doesn't take place until August of 2012, and the general election isn't until the following November. Plenty of time to look at the candidates and decide who should replace Obama.

If Obama was truly such a popular elected representative, he wouldn't need to build a billion dollar warchest in his attempt to retain the Whitehouse.

The "Anyone but Obama" candidate still has a good chance of winning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Perhaps the GOP will be able to create a hybrid Palin-Trump candidate - someone who talks AND builds trash. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Obama was truly such a popular elected representative, he wouldn't need to build a billion dollar warchest in his attempt to retain the Whitehouse.

What utterly goofy logic. You make it sound like it's President Obama's fault that people are donating to his re-election campaign. How is it that a candidate could attract that much in the way of contributions if he wasn't such a popular representative?

The "Anyone but Obama" candidate still has a good chance of winning.

And the Republicans are desperately seeking that "anyone" and are coming with "Nobodies."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The cynic would say that Obama has a huge war chest because politics is corrupt by nature. But, of course, living in Japan has cured my cynicism. At the same time, I haven't seen a decent Republican candidate yet. That's usually a sign that the good ones feel that the incumbent is unbeatable. Or that there aren't any good ones. (had to throw that in for sushisake, just for fun)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And the Republicans are desperately seeking that "anyone" and are coming with "Nobodies."

Rudy 9iu11iani is even exploring a run. It's like if they add up all their tier-2 and tier-3 level candidates, they can create some sort of super-republican. One thing's for sure, the super-republican would be a white male, with Romney's hair (he's got presidential hair, you gotta give the man that).

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It won't be Gingrich taking the oath of office in Jan 2013; and it won't be Obama either. Eighteen months is a loooong time in US politics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It won't be Gingrich taking the oath of office in Jan 2013; and it won't be Obama either. Eighteen months is a loooong time in US politics.

Right. It's funny the Demos are insulting the GOP because they don't have a top candidate a mere weeks into the running.

Well, Obama was a nobody at this same time in 2007. By that same standard, considering Obama beat the Dem frontrunner Hillary, I guess that means the Dems don't know their heads from their backsides?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taka - you stole Sushi's joke. How about some originality and give some creatice credit to Sushi.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, Obama was a nobody at this same time in 2007. By that same standard, considering Obama beat the Dem frontrunner Hillary, I guess that means...

LOL!! Barack Obama was a highly-respected and charismatic US Senator who a consensus of Democrats agreed was presidential material -- only that 2008 might have been still too early in his career to try for it. In other words, he was far from being a nobody, but one of the brightest lights in the party.

Conversely, it has taken Gingrich an entire career to become insignificant -- a half-watt filament in a giant glass bulb.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits -

you're grasping at straws. Obama was an unknown, no-show Senator who was at the bottom of the polls. Hillary was the heir-apparent, and had the full financial backing of the Chinese military. That Obama won shows that the Dems really had no clue and no agenda. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - You make it sound like it's President Obama's fault that people are donating to his re-election campaign. How is it that a candidate could attract that much in the way of contributions if he wasn't such a popular representative?

Obama HASN'T attracted that much in contributions but his re-election committee CLAIM that they need that much to get him re-elected.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you're grasping at straws. Obama was an unknown, no-show Senator who was at the bottom of the polls.

At this time in 2007, the polls showed Hillary Clinton leading Obama by roughly 20 percentage points 47-28. Edwards was at the bottom of the polls, not Obama. But Obama was hardly "unknown," and the statement is laughable.

Hillary was the heir-apparent, and had the full financial backing of the Chinese military

Chinese military? There's no other word for that than "crazy."

That Obama won showed the Democrats had the plan and the agenda to capture the White House.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama HASN'T attracted that much in contributions but his re-election committee CLAIM that they need that much to get him re-elected.

An untrue statement. Nowhere does President Obama's re-election campaign committee claim that they need a billion dollars to get him re-elected. The fact is that political analysts of all political stripes are predicting that his campaign will likely raise that much in donations after the mass of support shown by donors in his 2008 campaign.

So, a FOX political analyst predicts that the Obama campaign could well attract a billion dollars in donations and arrestpaul twists that into a complete falsehood. This utter detachment from reality explains why a lot of people would vote for Republicans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder what the unemployment rate would have to climb to for Barack Obama to be defeated in 2012 by the Republican or third-party candidate... 18%?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - An untrue statement. Nowhere does President Obama's re-election campaign committee claim that they need a billion dollars to get him re-elected.

HAHAHAHA, it's the Obama campaign that set THEIR GOAL at a billion dollars for Obama to be re-elected.

Obama still HASN'T attracted anywhere near that much in contributions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder what the unemployment rate would have to climb to for Barack Obama to be defeated in 2012

Who can say? But one thing's for certain: Republicans will be cheering for every rise in the rate and the misery caused to thousands upon thousands of Americans. Just so they can think they have a shot at the White House and thus bring even more suffering to the American people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it's the Obama campaign that set THEIR GOAL at a billion dollars for Obama to be re-elected

Not true at all. Funny, back in April, Jim Messina, President Obama's campaign manager told the press that the fundraising goal was $750 million -- which is what they raised in 2008.

Perhaps, by erroneously adding 25% on every amount, this is how conservatives plan to "fix the economy." The rest of us just call it fudging the numbers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits yabits -

you really have no knowledge of any major events and news before 2 years ago. The Clinton campaigns were proven in a court of law to have received millions of dollars from the Chinese military, funneled from generals to prominent Chinese-Americans to the Clinton campaigns. People went to jail for this. :-)

The proof of how clueless the Demo are: the 2010 election results.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Clinton campaigns were proven in a court of law to have received millions of dollars from the Chinese military

You'll have to cite the court case and date where this crazy charge was "proven" that Hillary Clinton's 2008 political campaign was receiving "the full financial backing" of the Chinese military.

I see you've dropped your erroneous claim that by this time in the last campaign, Barack Obama was a "nobody" who was last in the polls. A simple fact-check proved that one wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits -

you can't even look it up? People went to prison for this! I'll help you out a little. Hsu.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Politics aside, I'm looking forward to the posters with pictures of newts. They're really cute.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'll help you out a little. Hsu.

A simple fact check reveals that the conviction of Norman Hsu had nothing to do with any money from China's military.

Hsu personally gave around $25,000 to Hillary Clinton's campaign, which she donated to charity after the allegations of Hsu's fraudulent business dealings surfaced. (The fundraisers that Hsu sponsored garnered close to a million dollars, and all those donors had their money returned to them -- without a Chinese general in the bunch.)

The real question is how can readers not laugh at the notion that $25k represents the "full financial backing" of the Chinese military.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another addition to the freak show that is the republican party candidates for president. Trump, that says it all. A washed up 80s blowhard is the front runner.

Newt does not have a chance as no way the christian right will go for him. He is too morally corrupt. His last excuse for cheating on his wife was he worked too hard. The man has no shame and thinks other Americans are idiots. He would be right about anyone who would support him for the run for the white house.

Obama must be so happy to see these loons start to run. Especially this one along with Trump. Cant wait for Palin to announce. Then you have the trifecta going. Beautiful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Newt does not have a chance as no way the christian right will go for him.

I believe the Christian Right would support Satan himself if they convinced themselves he could defeat Obama.

Actually, among the Republicans, Gingrich is one of the few who actually has some thought-out ideas and plans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another addition to the freak show that is the republican party candidates for president. Trump, that says it all. A washed up 80s blowhard is the front runner.

The saddest thing about this, is that every single one of these candidates would make a better President then the idiot we have in there now. However its not really a question of whether or not someone would be better then Obama, there isn't anyone who wouldn't be. The real question is who would make a 'good' president.

While I like some of the things he's saying, I don't think Newt would make a good President. Romney still is my favorite though I really liked what Herman Cain had to say at the recent debate. He impressed me. Will have to see what else he says as the campaign moves forward.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Romney still is my favorite though I really liked what Herman Cain had to say at the recent debate.

"Sausage or pepperoni?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir,

If you took the collective IQs of any three of the current republican candidates it would be less than Obama. Democratic Presidents of late have been near genius level. Bush could not even speak correctly. Palin does not read nor for that matter think. Your comments reflect only your deeply partisan opinion. It is fact free.

Yabits, Newt is the most corrosive candidate of all, he was even rejected by his party for being such a tremendous pain in the backside. USA would never recover if he became President. Obama is doing the best he can right now to recover from the past 8 years of failure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits -

you're wrong again. The money did come from it. As well as the money that came through buddhist temples. As well as the money that came through other chinese-american bundlers. It's all documented dude. sorry to wake you up. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The money did come from it.

Anyone reading the facts of the indictment of the U.S. vs. Hsu (via FindLaw) or of the trial will confirm that nowhere is there any mention of Chinese military. Or of any foreign sources of Hsu's money, since all of the victims of his Ponzi scheme were Americans.

Manfromamerica refers to "documented" evidence but simply can't provide any. This is important to the topic because so many of the devotees of Republican candidates have to resort to such fabrication and distortion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you took the collective IQs of any three of the current republican candidates it would be less than Obama. Democratic Presidents of late have been near genius level. Bush could not even speak correctly. Palin does not read nor for that matter think. Your comments reflect only your deeply partisan opinion. It is fact free.

lol. If you took every single man, woman, and child in America, added their IQs together, then tripled it, it still wouldn't even be half of our current President. The man is a genius. He is so far above us. He definitely knows whats best for each and every one of us. I mean, he is actually smarter then god. Certainly he knows better then god. However this is the problem. His concerns are so lofty and above us, that he is simply not on our plane. This is the problem. Its why when you look at all the Presidents that have come before, there has never been a single one, worse then BHO. It is of course why, even the dumbest Republican candidate, is a million times better then our current President.

You brought up Bush as if to say his ability to trip himself up in public speaking, somehow means he isn't intelligent. Guess you forgot where he went to school too eh? Reading your comments, all I can say is, you never let the facts get in the way of your partisan, kool-aid drinking viewpoint. From a certain standpoint, I guess thats something to admire, though of course it does make you a huge hypocrite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits yabits,

you really have no idea. Hsu is just ONE example, there were many more who were caught. Did you read ANY news before 2008??? wow, i'm astounded you even pretend these things didn't happen, even though the record is public and well-known.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"President Newt Gingrich"...

Ain't gonna happen. Unless the Republicans are dumber than I think they are and nominate him, and the unemployment rate goes up to 20%.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you really have no idea. Hsu is just ONE example,

Well, I'm glad you've admitted, through your changing the subject, that you were wrong about Barack Obama being a "nobody...at the bottom of the polls" back in 2007. The record is public and is well-known that he gave an electrifying speech at the 2004 Democratic convention and inspired presidential talk among a great many in the party. And that he was second behind Hillary at this time during the last campaign. (Pretty far from being a "nobody.")

Hsu is actually an example of how you are also wrong about Hillary Clinton's campaign being "proven in a court of law" of having received millions from the Chinese military. The case U.S. vs. Hsu makes no mention of any money from that source. Perhaps you can cite the court case where such a thing was proven, but I'm betting you can't since the case simply doesn't exist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium

I'm with you. Just hearing the names Bush, Palin, and McCain make me realize how messed up the US is...the fact that such people can become nominated for the presidency in the first place is absolutely shocking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and name like Gingrich and Romney don't exactly inspire confidence either. I hope the Democrats stay in power until at least 2020.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium :

"If you took the collective IQs of any three of the current republican candidates it would be less than Obama."

I see the whole cult of personality from 08 is still alive and well. Did you "faint" at one the rallies back then?

Gingrich probably won't last beyond the first few primaries.We are lucky.He would eviscerate Obama in a debate or without the teleprompter. It is no longer 2008. 85 percent of college grads in America move back home upon graduating. Unprecedented. It is Change,yes, but obviously not much "hope" in that equation. Obama has lost the youth vote. I think he will face a challenger from within the party.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm with you. Just hearing the names Bush, Palin, and McCain make me realize how messed up the US is...the fact that such people can become nominated for the presidency in the first place is absolutely shocking.

And the fact that someone as incompetent as Obama actually managed to win, seals the deal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB at smithjapan:

I do not think that this is limited to one party, but I have not seen any smear campaign from the GOP that even remotely comes close to the typical and predictable shatstorm of smears that erupts from the Democrats towards any serious opponent." well the man provided clear cut examples while all you seem to provide is rhetoric and prose. can you back up your statements with even one example based in reality? like we can google it, pull it up on youtube and say "ah, i guess i see where he is coming from" if not, i think you just got your self owned.

@Molenir-"You brought up Bush as if to say his ability to trip himself up in public speaking, somehow means he isn't intelligent. Guess you forgot where he went to school too eh?" we all know you are a GWB groupie from way back and no we didnt forget where he went to school, nor did we forget about the Barbara Bush wing at said establishment that was conveniently donated to pave the way for simple Georgie. it is amazing what millions of dollars can buy even the lowest of characters. manfromamerica "yabits -you're grasping at straws. Obama was an unknown, no-show Senator who was at the bottom of the polls. Hillary was the heir-apparent, and had the full financial backing of the Chinese military" WTH, where did you come up with that little gem. i regularly listen to the most hard core radical right wing nuts just to keep abreast of the current trend in stupidity but i didnt hear anything that tops this. it really takes the cake. when the man pressed you to try to back up this ridiculous claim you threw out the oh so cryptic and mysterious moniker "Hsu" It took all of 60 seconds on google to realize this was completely ludicrous. then when confronted with that you simply said "It's all documented dude. sorry to wake you up. :-);Hsu is just ONE example, there were many more who were caught. even though the record is public and well-known." OK! here is your big chance to prove everyone you are right. it's all a matter of public record and well documented right?! just provide us with a link to even one document or public record that backs up your post. you were already proved wrong not once but twice then you got very vague, didnt drop any more cryptic names and just stated its all documented. prove it. first Bama was at the bottom of the polls, then the cryptic Hsu...fail fail...one more try..three strikes your out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lieberman2012, really? Do I need to respond to anyone with such an alias? No.

Moienir, Ronin already brought you the facts on junior getting into harvard. He never would have made it on his own, nor would he have become president either. He was and always will be a failure, and he knows it. That is why he does not even show up in NYC after Obama did the job he could not do and got OBL. Facts, that is the difference between lost conservatives and real world liberals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Facts, that is the difference between lost conservatives and real world liberals.

I'm going to say that it goes deeper than facts to basic integrity. We have Newt Gingrich, who was leading an attack against a president for having an affair while at the very same time he was messing around on his second of three wives. This is a total lack of integrity that would disqualify just about any Democrat from seeking higher office.

It's a complete lack of integrity that prompts a right-wing poster to parade around misrepresenting himself as a Democrat. While no right-winger has the integrity to call him out on it.

You and Ronin have made some excellent observations. I'd like to add one that hope is up to that level: The liberal site The Daily Howler regularly runs very pointed criticisms of the "pundits" on MS-NBC, and comes down especially hard on Maddow and Schultz. Why? In the interest of improving the liberal argument. I would love to see an example of a conservative site which dishes out daily criticism of the pundits on the right, but I don't believe one exists.

Why? A complete lack of integrity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Moienir, Ronin already brought you the facts on junior getting into harvard. He never would have made it on his own, nor would he have become president either.

Ah, so you're pulling out the idea that GWB couldn't have gotten into the Ivy league school without his daddies money? Could you explain to me, how that is any less despicable then my saying BHO couldn't have gotten in except he is black? Your vile and contemptible assertions aside, both men went to, and graduated from these schools. This is not something you can achieve by leaning solely on daddies money, or depending on racial preferences. That you even pull out the idea says a great deal about you, and your own level of intelligence.

He was and always will be a failure, and he knows it. That is why he does not even show up in NYC after Obama did the job he could not do and got OBL

Your hate blinds you to the truth. I don't particularly like GWB. I don't think he was a good President at all. He betrayed the conservatives who elected him. In fact, he fits the mold of a conservative Dem perfectly. However, the fact that I thought he made a lot of mistakes during his presidency doesn't blind me to who he is, and what he achieved. One thing I admired him for, was his leadership ability, even if I didn't like where he was leading. He was a decisive, strong leader, something that Obama is not. He didn't waffle around, or dither, once he decided something, he followed through. And he has class. He has very deliberately not commented on anything Obama has said or done. Despite the enormous amount of criticism and blame heaped on him by the present administration. This is the way former Presidents always behave. Once their terms are up, they stand aside, and let the new President take the lead. Excepting only Carter, and Clinton during the final 2 years under Bush when his wife was kicking off her campaign, very nearly all the previous presidents have followed this Precedent.

The reason he did not attend, despite being invited, was simply, its Obamas time, not his.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir,

When Obama applied to Harvard he did not indicate his race. Look it up, it is a fact. Regarding legacy kids at Ivy league schools, this is such common knowledge that by disputing it you simply are showing how little you know about the USA. Books have been written about this topic.

Bush did not show up because he would have been booed by New Yorkers. After being warned repeatedly by Clinton people and getting a CIA report on OBL getting ready to attack the USA, Bush did nothing. He let 9-11 happen and most people understand that now. And then he let OBL free for his entire administration. Obama had to start over in the OBL hunt and two years later, he gets him. That is success. Bush was a failure. Facts.

Bush lead nothing in his 8 years except failure. 9-11, Katrina, the failed wars, the economic collapse (he was clueless about this), the crumbling of the environment in the USA, the crumbling of infrastructure, the no kids left behind failure, huge government debt, trying to gut social security and on and on and on. Facts, not politics.

That is the difference between our views. You claim Obama got into Harvard cause he was black when the fact is he didnt indicate race. That by itself illustrates the conservative point of view, wrong and racist to boot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With Mike Huckabee and his Arkansas Chuggabug following Rufus Roughcut (Haley Barbour) in pulling out of the Republicans' Wacky Races, it appears that Newt Dastardly has gained a slight lead over Penelope Pitstain (Palin or Bachmann -- take your pick) and the knuckle-dragging Slag Brothers (Pawlenty and Santorum).

Peter Perfect (Romney) has a good shot at the blow-dry hair lead, followed by Red Max (Trump) in the Crimson Cornballer. All the rest are just the Ant Hill Mob.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd like to become a US citizen so I could vote for Ron Paul.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gingrich. Ugh. The guy was a disaster in the 90's Now we get a second helping? No thanks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush did nothing. He let 9-11 happen and most people understand that now.

If you define 'most people' as the 3 people in your office, forced to work with you, who have grown tired of arguing with you about the subject, then perhaps you are correct. If however you define it the way the rest of us do, as the majority of people, particularly in the US, then let me say, that Truthers make up probably no more then 5% of the country.

That is the difference between our views. You claim Obama got into Harvard cause he was black when the fact is he didnt indicate race. That by itself illustrates the conservative point of view, wrong and racist to boot.

In point of fact, I don't claim that. I say that is despicable, as is this moronic and baseless assertion that GWB only got in because of his daddies money. Both are contemptible accusations and neither has a shred of evidence backing them up.

We have strayed quite far now from Gingrich's presidential ambitions, so I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you any further on this subject. Frankly, I'm one of the 3 people in your office, who has grown tired of arguing with you about it. At some point, you realize, that you are arguing with a nut, and the nut is never going to see or understand reason or rational thought. Therefore theres simply no point in arguing any further. The moment you brought up the idiotic truther idea, was when I reached that point.

With Mike Huckabee and his Arkansas Chuggabug following Rufus Roughcut (Haley Barbour) in pulling out of the Republicans' Wacky Races, it appears that Newt Dastardly has gained a slight lead over Penelope Pitstain (Palin or Bachmann -- take your pick) and the knuckle-dragging Slag Brothers (Pawlenty and Santorum).

lol. knuckle-draggin Slag Brothers. I love it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whoaaaa!! The Crimson Cornballer, driven by Max Red -- aka, Donald Trump -- has just come up with a major excuse and has made geniuses out of the likes of MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnell, who predicted with total precision that Trump would put a much higher priority on the fall TV lineup than on the problems facing the nation, and totally pull out of the race.

Oh, the conservative sub-humanity who actually thought Trump was presidential material.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium at 11:59 AM JST - 16th May. Bush lead nothing in his 8 years except failure.

That is because he was never meant to understand. He was a front man puppet to the bankers that created the mess in the first place. The financial decline was due to the Federal Reserve of Alan Greenspan manipulating interest rates and artificial credit bubbles. The Fed are the ones that rang in loans and decreased the money supply causing the crash and the run on the money markets in 2008. Then the Fed comes in to offer solutions to the problem that they created.

Alan Greenspan once said when asked about the relationship between the Fed chairman and the president, "Nobody has control over the monetary system as the Federal Reserve, so relationships really do not matter." Now we get Bernanke following the same Greenspan plan. These people create the declines and inclines. They have no oversight with our money because they are a privately held institution of dozen family stock holders. Some of those dozen family stock holders are none other than the Rockefellar's, Rothchild's, and Morgan's. Who benefits from these declines and jumps upward in the market? Who manipulates the system? While everyone is arguing left versus right, the private bankers manipulate you and money supply and keep you in this prison without bars.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So now he's in the Republican's Pick Your Poison list, huh? This is gonna be another disaster. Top candidates seem to be more interested in talking a convoluted, nonsensical, whacky conservatism into real issues. Some decent folks (i.e., Scott Brown, Mike Pence) are gone. It may be a wise choice for decent Republican voters to support those who are under the radar (i.e., Mitch Daniels, Gary Johnson).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whoaaaa!! The Crimson Cornballer, driven by Max Red -- aka, Donald Trump

Love it Yabits. Great names.

Back on topic here, Newt just cut his own throat today. Coming out in favor of Obamacare. Something a majority of Americans oppose, and a whopping 85% of Republicans are against. I didn't consider him a serious candidate before, but with this, he's not viable at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Newt just cut his own throat today. Coming out in favor of Obamacare.

but..but...but...Newt is a master at expressing ideas and could eviscerate anyone in a debate, or so claims the guy who's a Roy Cohn Democrat. David Gregory should have been no match.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites