Newton Leroy Gingrich

I saw Newt Gingrich compared in an article this morning to Schrodinger's cat. Schrodinger, a physicist, posited a problem where his cat was placed in a closed room in a lead-sealed cage. In the cage with the cat were a tube of TNT, a tube of hydrocyanic (I think) acid, and a hammer. The crux of the problem was: is the cat dead or alive? I got to wonder how a cat can wield a flippin' hammer...

Newt will have to talk fast about his storied marital history including (but not limited to) serving one of his wives with divorce papers during her recuperation from cancer treatments. Then there's the adultery...

He single-handedly master-minded a Republican majority in Congress after 40 years in the wilderness. He single-handedly botched the ensuing majority. He is a brilliant stategist, historian, and a doer. He is a gaffe-prone clown who at crucial times makes a looney statement.

The questions are many: how quickly will he melt down? Will he last long enough to eviscerate Romney? He is a good debater although not well-tried.

He is a bi-polar candidate who is both good and evil, brilliant and wacky, speaks brilliantly and out-Bidens Biden. How long can he keep making noise that his announcement is imminent? Maybe that's the key to fending off the suicidal statement. I'd like to think he can pull it off but he has lots of baggage.

Mitt Mormony

You can have him, Jim. I simply cannot see myself supporting Newt Gingrich for anything other than perhaps a poster child for political destruction.

ohio county wrote:I'd like to think he can pull it off but he has lots of baggage.

Now Jim, why would you "like to think" that ........ when your post appeared to stress Gingrich's "negatives" ....... far more than his "positives"?

Jim's a realist.

I think he's a smart guy who could accomplish a lot of good things.

I think he lacks impulse control.

And just what the hell does this have to do with one's ability, experience or qualifications for being POTUS?

Newt will have to talk fast about his storied marital history including (but not limited to) serving one of his wives with divorce papers during her recuperation from cancer treatments. Then there's the adultery...

It's no wonder this state and this country is currently F'ed up ....... and .... Going to Hell in a Handbasket ...... really fast like, ....... given the fact that the electorate's priorities are so severely screwed up.

Whata hoot, ....... the electorate is severly screwing themselves because they won't vote for anyone they think has been screwing around, ...... out of fear that their friends n' peers will badmouth them for doing so.

And at the same time ....... most will be professing a belief in and adherence to "Separation of Church and State".

It's funny you should mention impulse control Stephanie. I started to comment on this yesterday but refrained. I think of all the political leaders I've heard speak, Gingrinch is clearly the most qualified Republican candidate and could do the most good but as OC points out, he's got a ton of baggage.

Most of the established candidates have some issues. Romney will never appease the far right so if Democrats and Independents manage to get him the nomination during the primary, neo-cons will simply stay home. I'm suprised that Keli hasn't posted pictures of his pajama's yet.

Huckabee, while he may be the best speaker, is seen by many as a religious version of Clinton and his support of a flat tax will cost him as he's seen different. I also wonder if his stint as a televison host will hurt him but as I've never watched his show, I don't know.

Palin might have had a shot had she retreated to Alaska after the last election with her own Karl Rove to groom her but instead chose to quit her job, move south and cash in. The only difference between her and the other blowhards who like the sound of their own voice (Limbaugh, Beck and and the biggest of all, O'Reilly) is that she has a better rack.

Ron Paul for all of his positives is simply not going to win. He doesn't have the "it" factor. With the exception of Paul (his conscience will steer the conversatin which will be his contribution), I don't believe any of the above should even run, as President or Vice President. All they will do is detract from electing a viable canddiate that can actually beat President Obama.

I think the candidates who could possibly stand a chance of winning are Chris Christie, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio. For me, with all his baggage, if Gingrich were smart he would pick one of the above and instead of trying to be the king settle for being the king maker.

You know, Aaron, I'm going to have to do some serious research on others who decide to become candidates. For example, I really like Jim DeMint for so many reasons. Yesterday I read what he said about homosexuals in the classroom etc. I couldn't care less about what a person does and who they do it with in the privacy of their own home. I can't imagine why a US Senator would. Seriously, don't we have bigger fish to fry?

A friend suggested I take a look at Herman Cain. There's a lot for a libertarian Republican to like. Well, there is until you discover he was chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansans and opposes auditing the Fed.

I need to read a lot more about other potential candidates I have not dismissed. I saw and heard Christie avow he will not run, maybe he's being truthful.

I'm still supporting Ron Paul. I don't think he's perfect. I do know he's intelligent, experienced, honest & fearless. I'm hoping someone will come along who can continue his legacy of moving libertarian principals forward.

I think what we truly need is a viable 3rd party to advance what most Americans want. Liberals have taken control of the Democratic party and Neo-con's have garnered control of the Republican party and both parties make it impossible to win a national election unless they appease the far fringe of their party so we're not getting viable candidates.

The problem is, neither party wants a third party because they lose out. I had high hopes for the TEA Party but then you get a nimrod like Sarah Palin garnering for control and it's basically neutralized any momentum reasonable people made.

I think we're in a slow, downward path where the United States is no longer going to be relevant in world politics. It's really sad.

I don't disagree with anything you said, Aaron. Ron Paul cannot be elected. I'll vote for him. He'll lose. I think Sarah Palin is a lightning rod. I think she'll split the vote and be as unelectable as Ron Paul.

If you think Gingrich is the right candidate you ought to support him, sam. I don't think he can be elected either. Not because he can't keep himself in his pants but because he says loopy things at the wrong time. I think the field is lackluster and Obama will be re-elected. And why not? He's been neutered and made moot by a republican majority in the House... It's the same reason Clinton was re-elected in 1996.

ohio county wrote:If you think Gingrich is the right candidate you ought to support him, sam. I don't think he can be elected either. Not because he can't keep himself in his pants but because he says loopy things at the wrong time. I think the field is lackluster and Obama will be re-elected. And why not? He's been neutered and made moot by a republican majority in the House... It's the same reason Clinton was re-elected in 1996.

Jim, at this point in time there is not one (1) reason in the world for me to be supporting Gingrich or anyone else because I have absolutely no say-so whatsoever as to who will be the next elected POTUS. And neither do you or anyone else in WV.

And it won't surprise me if Obama is re-elected. The liberal leftist media still has "control" over the mindset of the majority of the populace as witnessed by your above comments about Gingrich, to wit: "I don't think he can be elected", ..... "can't keep himself in his pants" ...... and ...... "says loopy things at the wrong time".

Such "seeds of doubt" that are planted by the liberal leftist media are really quite effective at insuring that voters make the "right choice" at election time. Which reminds me of that "Louie, the Bridge Builder" joke.

Anyway, Clinton was elected POTUS in 1992 because none of the other Candidates really wanted to be elected. The US economy was headed for the bottom of the Septic Tank, just like it is again right now, and they knew it was a "Political Death Sentence" for their career iffen they were in the POTUS seat. And thus a Sacrifical Lamb was found in Arkansas and quietly supported by both Parties to "take the fall".

And Clinton was elected POTUS, ....... and he would have fallen and fallen hard, ...... except for the fact that the Dot.Com Explosion caught them all off guard and Tax Revenues came flooding into the Treasury by the truckloads which caused a horrendous Budget Surplus which no one had accounted on or for.

And the Democrats took advantage of it and gave Clinton credit for it and that is the actual, factual reason Clinton was re-elected in 1996.

Neither Clinton or the Democrats did anything
to cause the Dot.Com Explosion .......

and they didn't do anything
to prevent the Dot.Com Implosion ........

but like before, they took advantage of it and gave Bush credit for it .

And Jim, you told me above that ..... "I think the field is lackluster" ........ and I will tell you, ...... "And just who is silly enough to want to be elected POTUS in 2012 ....... and take the fall"?

"And just who is silly enough to want to be elected POTUS in 2012 ....... and take the fall"?

Yes, but... There is a narrow window when a man or woman can be elected POTUS. Anyone who thinks their time is now is delusional. Yet, sometimes lightning strikes. Despite being whipped by Thomas Dewey, Truman won a full term in his own right. Truman was a local haberdasher in favor with the Kansas City Machine. He had no national stature. Lincoln won because of his debates with Douglas for a Senate seat. Also his speeches going into the election at the Cooper Union and other sites captured the public imagination. Lightning can and does strike.

Clinton won a second term because he'd been neutered by the republicans winning both Houses of Congress. There was no reason to deny him the office. Sure, Dole never had an effective campaign so why not give it to Clinton? There was no harm he could do...

Jay refused to run in 92 because Bush I couldn't be beat. He figured he'd wait in 96 and be the leading candidate.

That didn't work out too well for him.

Aaron wrote:Jay refused to run in 92 because Bush I couldn't be beat. He figured he'd wait in 96 and be the leading candidate.

That didn't work out too well for him.

Yada, ...... yada, ..... yada .......

Despite unprecedented popularity from this military and diplomatic triumph, George “Read my lips” Bush was unable to withstand discontent at home from a faltering economy, rising violence in inner cities, and continued high deficit spending. In 1992 he lost his bid for reelection to Democrat William "I did not have sex" Clinton.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/georgehwbush

Interesting, ....... Bush I lost his 2nd Term bid for POTUS ......... for the very same reasons that some are claiming that ....... Obama will win his 2nd Term bid for POTUS.

Clinton won a second term because he'd been neutered by the republicans winning both Houses of Congress.

I wasa wundering why so many WV Democrats voted for Clinton.

SamCogar wrote:

Aaron wrote:Jay refused to run in 92 because Bush I couldn't be beat. He figured he'd wait in 96 and be the leading candidate.

That didn't work out too well for him.

Yada, ...... yada, ..... yada .......

Tell that to Jay Sam because voters weren't focusing on the economy in 91 when candidates were choosing to run. Hell, they weren't even focusing on the economy during the fall primaries.

It wasn't until the summer months that the national media turned the focus to the economy and then Democrats who worked with Bush in providing stability by raising taxes turned on him and started playing the "No new taxes" quotes and the tide truly turned against Bush I.

Sounds familiar, huh. It's not like it 's rocket science. Barrack Obama played the same game. It helped that like Clinton, he is an eloquent speaker and like Clinton, his opponent was an older, out of touch rich man out to protect his own.

It's not rocket science.

The majority of all voters focus on what their preferred media tells them to focus on.

And that is not rocket science, ..... it's a simple fact.