More Stand #WithNewt

Fellow blogger John Hawkins at Right Wing News endorsed Newt Gingrich today.

I won’t sit here and tell you that he has no flaws or that he hasn’t gone off the reservation a few times. But, I will also tell you that other than Ronald Reagan himself, Newt Gingrich has actually helped push through more conservative legislation than anybody else in the last 30 years. This is the man behind the Contract with America, welfare reform, and a balanced budget in D.C. He has a lifetime ACU rating of 90. This isn’t a man who governed as a centrist and is now telling us how conservative he’ll be this time around. This isn’t a man who simply said “No” to everything that came down the pike because it wasn’t “conservative enough” for him. This is a man who actually moved the ball forward for conservatives on Capitol Hill. When was the last time we got off defense and actually started moving D.C. to the right? Oh, yes, it was when Newt was the Speaker. So, people can criticize his performance as Speaker all they want, but no Republican in D.C. since Newt left has even come close to filling his shoes. Even the best people we have in D.C. right now are doing nothing more than holding the line. There’s a lot to be said for that, but we’ve got to do more than that if we’re ever going to turn the country around.

Every election, it seems, is dubbed the most important in our lifetime, and frankly, this one is no different. There’s been a lot of damage done to our country by Obama, and we need a true leader with experience reducing government to undo the damage and get this country back on track. Of all the candidates we have, the one I trust the most to get the job done is Newt.

About these ads

70 thoughts on “More Stand #WithNewt

  1. Cluster

    While Obama has done more than his share of damage, the predicament we find ourselves in today is the culmination of republican AND democrat lawmakers growing the size and scope of government. Pandering to special interests and opening the treasury to curry favor and power, and it has to stop. We must reform our tax code in order to become more competitive globally, to broaden the tax base, to end loopholes, and to generate more revenue. We also need to reform our entitlement programs, ensuring that they are there for our children, and put some common sense into a reformed immigration policy, to include streamlining the legal entry process. – and it has to start now. Newt is really the only candidate I believe can get the ball rolling.

  2. patriotdad1

    I really don’t understand the mentality of these “tea party” folks. They hate Romney because they claim he is part of the Washington establishment despite the fact that he has never served in Washington and only served one term as governor. Yet, they clamor for Newt who is the epitome of the Washington establishment and who took money from Fannie and Freddie.

    They hate Romney because they say he is a flip-flopper, yet they are lining up behind Newt – a guy who changes his positions from week to week.

    They hate Romney because he has said in the past that he believes that man made global warming may be a reality, yet they rush to Newt who sat on a couch with Piglosi and said we needed to do something about climate change.

    They hate Romney because claim he is a liberal, yet they support Newt who supports amnesty and who is to the left of Romney on most issues.

    They hate Romney — a man who has worked in the private sector for most of his life and who has been married to the same woman for years — because they claim he has no integrity; yet, they support Newt who does the bidding of whoever pays him the most money and who has been married 3 times, twice to women he cheated on while he was married to the previous spouse.

    1. Cluster

      I know exactly what you’re saying patriot – I don’t understand liberals who rail against wall street, but support Obama who has taken in more wall street cash than anyone. Liberals who rail against the rich not paying their fair share yet support Obama whose cabinet members include tax cheats. Liberals who railed against Bush’s foreign policy, yet support Obama who has accelerated those policies and did a 180 on Gitmo. Also surprising, was liberals support of a less experienced man over the more highly qualified woman in 2008.

      There’s a lot of head scratchers aren’t there? You’re a big boy though, I am sure you’ll figure it out.

    2. Amazona

      What I got from dad’s post was a regurgitation of the Leftist approach to politics, which is one of emotion—we “HATE” Romney, don’t just disagree with his politics and political history.

      1. Canadian Observer

        Amazona @ 11:36 pm
        ———————————————-
        If you would be so kind, Amazona, it would be most helpful if you could address Patriotdad’s list of Newt’s failings and tell us which one you believe is untrue. This is not a request for you to defend you political philosophy or write an essay on how despicable lefties are; a simple answer to the question is all that is asked.

      2. Cluster

        it would be most helpful if you could address Patriotdad’s list of Newt’s failings and tell us which one you believe is untrue.- candaian

        Canadian, the list of Newt’s perceived “failings”, as you put it, are easy to address.

        1. Newt was HIRED by Fannie and Freddie as a consultant, so he was PAID by them, he did not TAKE money from them. They may have been one of the better expenses incurred by Fannie and Freddie.

        2. Newt has evolved through some positions, as many politicians do – would like me to list Obama’s?

        3. Conservatives do need to take over the climate change debate and expose liberals.

        4. It takes two people to have a bad marriage, and knowing that Obama has never divorced and is a good family man, may be that isn’t the measure of a good President considering that Obama is the worst president this country has ever had, so maybe it is time for the alternative.

        I also noticed the number of times patriot used the word “hate”, which is really juvenile, but typical of an over emotional liberal. When will liberals elevate their level of political discourse?

      3. Canadian Observer

        Cluster @ 8:40 am
        ———————————————————–
        Thank you very much, Cluster. Well stated and to the point. I doubt if Amazona could have replied as succinctly.

      4. Amazona

        Well, CO, my post was specific to the claim that people who do not feel Romney is the best candidate somehow HATE him, a reflection of the hyper-emotional basis for Leftist allegiance to their candidates.

        I guess that hit a little close to home, so you had to try to deflect by trying to focus on the attacks on Newt. Cluster has, as usual, done an excellent job of addressing the overheated accusations. Let me add one thing:

        I have been moving an entire ranch operation from one state to another, including 70+ horses, cows and yaks, hay, equipment and so on, so I haven’t had the chance to examine Newt’s immigration stance closely. But what I have heard of it is so close to my own I can’t object.

        Remember, anything short of handing out citizenship to illegals has been tagged by you Lefties as “racism” and so on, so it’s funny that a suggestion which does what you all have been bleating we should do—recognize that many illegals are hardworking people with no ties to their native country any more, recognize that they have children here, and so on—–is now the subject of your efforts to turn conservatives against Newt.

        To me, “amnesty” included citizenship, and Newt has taken that off the table. My own idea was to initiate a registration period, and to make being here without proper paperwork after that period and without having registered be a felony, punishable by jail time and deportation and permanent banning from the country. It was to offer a TEMPORARY visa to those who did register, allowing them to continue their lives while being investigated, and to offer lengthy (10-year ?) work visas to those who meet certain criteria of no criminal activity, good work history, etc. The first year of MY plan would demand classes in assimilation into US culture and would depend on a reasonable acquisition of English skills.

        At the end of this work visa, the person could either go home or apply for permanent residency, the criteria for which would be very similar to that now required for citizenship.

        No citizenship, ever.

        As we, as a nation, have a strange system whereby it is illegal to ENTER the country undocumented, but it is only a minor misdemeanor to BE here undocumented, I don’t see how a very substantial penalty can be imposed on those who are here illegally. So, given the laws currently on the books, I would favor a fine.

        And new tougher laws to cover these kinds of things in the future.

        Now if you want to call this “amnesty” go right ahead. I call it compassionate, pragmatic, and practical, while addressing the problem. If it differs substantially from Newt’s ideas, well, one of these days I’ll have to do this comparison.

        But for now, if you call his plan “amnesty” then I have to consider you a liar.

      5. Cory

        “1. Newt was HIRED by Fannie and Freddie as a consultant, so he was PAID by them, he did not TAKE money from them. They may have been one of the better expenses incurred by Fannie and Freddie.

        2. Newt has evolved through some positions, as many politicians do – would like me to list Obama’s?

        3. Conservatives do need to take over the climate change debate and expose liberals.

        4. It takes two people to have a bad marriage, and knowing that Obama has never divorced and is a good family man, may be that isn’t the measure of a good President considering that Obama is the worst president this country has ever had, so maybe it is time for the alternative.”

        1. Excellent job quibbling over word choice and ignoring the point made completely

        2. That also wasn’t the point made. The question is about double standards. Why is it that when a politician anybody likes changes his or her mind, it is “evolving” but when a politician somebody doesn’t like changes stances, it is “being a spineless flip-flopper”?

        3. Yeah man, we need to take the climatology debate away from the climatologists!

        4. Yeah, Newt boning other chicks is totally his ex-wives’ faults and not a reflection on his character. Maybe if you talk about how bad Obama is a little more, we’ll forget that you’re supposed to be explaining how Gingrich’s actions don’t bother you.

        “I guess that hit a little close to home, so you had to try to deflect by trying to focus on the attacks on Newt.”

        No, actually, they hit far far away from home, and you were called on it. Because you flee from honest debate, you coward.

    3. watsonredux

      I’m somewhat surprised that none of the conservatives here ever speak up in favor of Jon Huntsman. He’s a bone fide conservative with substance. I guess standing up for science is a no-no.

      Conor Friedersdorf had an amusing column today. In an open letter to “Red America,” he asks:

      “So if any of you felt disrespected by Huntsman for forthrightly saying that he thinks you’re wrong about a couple of things [evolution and climate change], understand that it could be much worse. You could embrace a nominee [Gingrich] who just lies to you when he thinks you won’t like hearing the truth. And who tells such audacious whoppers that part of him has to believe that we’re all stupid.

      “What shows more contempt and disrespect, telling someone you think one of their ideas is wrongheaded? Or lying to them over and over about your record, your character, and your business dealings?”

      1. J. R. Babcock

        I’m somewhat surprised that none of the conservatives here ever speak up in favor of Jon Huntsman.

        It isn’t just the Conservatives here. Huntsman is polling consistently nationally at around 2%. Why do you think that is? And no one here is stopping you from supporting Huntsman, and no one will think less of you if you do.

      2. watsonredux

        Just because a candidate polls poorly doesn’t stop the collected conservative wisdom around here from talking about them. NeoClown still talks about Allen West, as though he’s a significant player in the Republican presidential process.

        But with respect to Huntsman, maybe conservatives simply can’t get past the fact that he served as ambassador to China for two years the Obama administration. That aside, I think it’s because he has run a poor campaign by insulting the conservative base when he talks about evolution and climate change. It’s a sad commentary.

        Presumably you’re a conservative, J.R. Why do you dismiss Huntsman? Do you just think he isn’t electable, therefore to be dismissed? Or do you dismiss anyone who doesn’t dismiss basic science?

      3. J. R. Babcock

        Presumably you’re a conservative, J.R. Why do you dismiss Huntsman? Do you just think he isn’t electable, therefore to be dismissed? Or do you dismiss anyone who doesn’t dismiss basic science?

        Actually, I’m a fiscal Conservative and a Libertarian on social issues. I don’t dismiss Huntsman; he’s just not my first choice. You’re correct in that he’s run a poor campaign, although I don’t think the reasons you cite have much to do with it.

        Or do you dismiss anyone who doesn’t dismiss basic science?

        I’m not sure exactly what you mean by basic science. I tend to dismiss people who don’t question scientific theories as that’s how science advances. I guess I would dismiss someone who questions basic scientific laws such as gravity or thermodynamics.

      4. watsonredux

        I would question a candidate who dismisses evolution. I realize that for conservative Christians, evolution is a touchy subject, but science is science, religion is religion. Obviously our understanding of science changes over time–we used to think the sun revolved around us rather than the other way around–but evolution has stood the test of time. It’s not as though it can easily be dismissed unless you do so based on non-scientific reasons. (I’m not saying that you specifically dismiss it because I don’t know if you do or not.)

        Just curious, who’s your first choice?

      5. neocon1

        JR

        and no one will think less of you if you do.

        we already think of watsonagain as lower than whale dodo

      6. neocon1

        watsonagain

        but evolution has stood the test of time.

        BS
        just like the coming ice age, WAIT global warming, WAIT climate change, WAIT Piltdown Man, a SUCKER is born every minute, would you like cherry?

      7. neocon1

        EVOLUTION?????

        A US court has issued an international warrant against a Saudi student who allegedly sold a desert lizard to an American man for $7 million as an extinct dinosaur species from Arabia, a Saudi daily reported on Thursday.

        watty…is dat you??

      8. Amazona

        Actually, what you are whining about is that Huntsman “stands up for” only the kind of science the AGW lemmings have decided is legitimate.

        As this bogus “science” has been rebutted (and even, I believe, rebuked) so often and so thoroughly, more so all the time, many of us believe that Huntsman’s embrace of it indicates not only a shaky intellect but a predisposition to look too kindly on pseudo-science which is really dedicated to enlarging government and taking away liberties.

        When the AGW fuss began, it did have a certain patina of reasonableness. And what we were told supported the claims of “global warming”. That is a key phrase—- WHAT WE WERE TOLD I have no complaints about those who looked at the information we were given for so long, which was disguised as scientific data, and thought it legitimate.

        But once the truth started to come out, once the true data were released, once there were scientific opinions which contradicted the AGW hype in such detail, clinging to the old, debunked, and disproven claims simply does not make sense.

      9. J. R. Babcock

        Just curious, who’s your first choice?

        Watson, my first choice, early on was Tim Pawlenty. I still don’t see a candidate who brings as much that I agree with and as little that I don’t agree with to the table. One has to wonder if he regrets dropping out. Of the remaining candidates, I don’t yet have a clear-cut favorite. I just know we can’t afford 4 more years of Obama.

        Our primary in Idaho isn’t until May, so it really doesn’t matter who I prefer. Chances are that the nominee will be selected by the time the process gets to us, although this year — who knows?

      10. watsonredux

        J.R., I would have to think that Pawlenty certainly does regret dropping out so early. To me, the Republican field has been begging for someone of substance with conservative bona fides. The “flavor of the month” candidates have such significant flaws that they can’t be anything more than “flavor of the month.” As an independent, I would like to see a Republican candidate who doesn’t pander to the base so overtly, who can stand behind his principles rather than having to renounced what he has stood for in the past. I don’t know enough about Pawlenty to say that he would have been that type of candidate.

      11. Amazona

        Oh, wattle, we can be sure that if Pawlenty were a contender you would be spouting some superficial and hateful gossip about him, too.

        And never once addressing his political philosophy or policies, that being so far removed from what makes you guys tick—that is, the chance to sling some mud.

      12. Cory

        “And never once addressing his political philosophy or policies, that being so far removed from what makes you guys tick—that is, the chance to sling some mud.”

        How is it that every time you post, you manage to simultaneously insult somebody for doing something while doing it yourself? Are you a bag of walking irony?

    4. neocon1

      UNpatriotdaddy

      I really don’t understand the mentality of these “tea party” folks.

      drones never will

      1. neocon1

        Gingrich fires back at Pelosi over threat
        By Justin Sink – 12/05/11 02:50 PM ET

        Newt Gingrich said that a threat from ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to disclose information she learned while serving on an ethics committee investigating him during his time as Speaker of the House would “totally abuse the ethics process” and violate rules of the House of Representatives.

        since when did this matter to these rotten cretins?

      2. neocon1

        Jesse Jackson’s Odd Christmas Comments: ‘Christmas Should Be a Poor People’s Holy Day’

        Jesse Jackson isn’t a stranger to gaining attention for uttering bizarre comments and confusing platitudes.

        The reverend, who has also made two runs for the American presidency, served as President Bill Clinton’s spiritual adviser, and made a name for himself ………

        bill klintoons (get this) “SPIRITUAL ADVISOR”……..
        Bwaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha LOL LOL ROTFLMAO…….

      3. neocon1

        “Is Obama the Most ‘Anti-Israel’ President in History?
        He treats his enemies like his friends and his friend like an enemy…

        gee ya think?

        1.marxist
        2. muslim
        3. usurper Manchurian POtuS

  3. neocon1

    so the FRAUD begins

    NAACP warns Black and Hispanic Americans Could Lose Right To Vote
    Guardian (UK) ^ | December 05, 2011 | Ed Pilkington

    NAACP warns Black and Hispanic Americans Could Lose Right To Vote Civil rights group petitions UN over ‘massive voter suppression’ after apparent effort to disenfranchise black and Hispanic people

    Ed Pilkington 5 December 2011

    The NAACP called the move the ‘most vicious, co-ordinated and sinister attack to narrow participation in our democracy since the early 20th century’.

    The largest civil rights group in America, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), is petitioning the UN over what it sees as a concerted efforted to disenfranchise black and Latino voters ahead of next year’s presidential election.

    The organisation will this week present evidence to the UN high commissioner on human rights of what it contends is a conscious attempt to “block the vote” on the part of state legislatures across the US. Next March the NAACP will send a delegation of legal experts to Geneva to enlist the support of the UN human rights council.

    The NAACP contends that the America in the throes of a consciously conceived and orchestrated move to strip black and other ethnic minority groups of the right to vote. (snip)

    In its report, Defending Democracy: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America, the NAACP explores the voter supression measures taking place particularly in southern and western states.

    Fourteen states have passed a total of 25 measures that will unfairly restrict the right to vote, among black and Hispanic voters in particular.

    The new measures are focused – not coincidentally, the association insists – in states with the fastest growing black populations (Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina) and Latino populations (South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee). The NAACP sees this as a cynical backlash to a surge in ethnic minority voting evident in 2008.

    1. Amazona

      Do they mention just what these “measures” consist of, or are they the same old tactics of, for example, responding to calls for police assistance on routes that might be taken by prospective voters?

      After all, we all remember how effective THAT was. Just having to drive past police cars on the way to the polling booth seemed to suppress at least some votes.

      Not to mention create mental and emotional trauma that could only be relieved by talking about it on television.

      1. Cluster

        Not to mention create mental and emotional trauma that could only be relieved by talking about it on television.

        LMAO!!

  4. Cluster

    Do you just think he isn’t electable, therefore to be dismissed? Or do you dismiss anyone who doesn’t dismiss basic science? – watson

    Watson, what century did you stop educating yourself? “Basic science” I assume is your juvenile attempt at lashing out at religion and Creation, but a more well informed individual, conservative or liberal, will tell you that Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive concepts. My belief, as many of Faith believe, is that our Creator set in motion the process of evolution. And I will continue to believe that until science can explain the origin of the big bang, which they can’t, can they? So the question is, why do you put such belief in a practice that also doesn’t have all the answers? I will await your response.

    1. watsonredux

      cluster, I didn’t say evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. You believe that the Creator set in motion the process of evolution. Great. But science isn’t based on belief. Nor can science explain everything, nor does it purport to.

      Others, like NeoClown showed above, simply dismiss the science because it threatens them. Whatever.

      1. Cluster

        But science isn’t based on belief.

        No it is not, but it does take a leap of Faith to put all of your eggs in the scientific basket, when that discipline does not have all the answers.

      2. RetiredSpook

        but it does take a leap of Faith to put all of your eggs in the scientific basket, when that discipline does not have all the answers.

        Particularly when the scientists who claim to have the answers get caught repeatedly discussing in emails to each other how to subvert the peer review process, how to avoid FOI requests, how to hide and alter data that contradicts their agenda, how to demonize those who question their methods and conclusions, etc..

      3. watsonredux

        I responded to cluster’s comment about evolution and belief in a creator. Spook and Clown responded with comments about climate change, as though climate change and evolution are one in the same. They are not. Darwin formulated the theory of evolution by natural selection in what, 1850 or so? It has withstood the test of time. To switch subjects and suggest that it is on a par with the young science of climate change is absurd.

        To me, if a presidential candidate cannot understand and accept the science behind of evolution at a basic level, then that person has significant gaps in their intellect and/or knowledge, or worse, intends to intentionally undermine it. I could not vote for such a person. It has nothing to do with putting one’s eggs in one basket. You know, gravity is a theory, too. Better not put all our eggs in that basket either!

        Climate change is a different animal which has unfortunately become very politicized.

      4. RetiredSpook

        I responded to cluster’s comment about evolution and belief in a creator. Spook and Clown responded with comments about climate change, as though climate change and evolution are one in the same.

        Watson, I was responding to this portion of your post:

        I’m somewhat surprised that none of the conservatives here ever speak up in favor of Jon Huntsman. He’s a bone fide conservative with substance. I guess standing up for science is a no-no. (Huntsman has stood up for both evolution and climate change)

        Conor Friedersdorf had an amusing column today. In an open letter to “Red America,” he asks:

        “So if any of you felt disrespected by Huntsman for forthrightly saying that he thinks you’re wrong about a couple of things [evolution and climate change], understand that it could be much worse.

      5. RetiredSpook

        Watson, some additional thoughts. I don’t think you’ll get much disagreement among Conservatives about micro-evolution. It’s macro-evolution that many of us question. An insofar as gravity is a “theory”, here’s an interesting read for you — short, concise and in layman’s terms.

      6. Cory

        “Watson, some additional thoughts. I don’t think you’ll get much disagreement among Conservatives about micro-evolution. It’s macro-evolution that many of us question. An insofar as gravity is a “theory”, here’s an interesting read for you — short, concise and in layman’s terms.”

        Amusingly, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation that the article talks about is incomplete. It does not, for instance, do a good job of predicting gravity’s effect on light as it passes by stars (relativity does much better). You’ve made the opposite point from the one you intended to make.

    2. Amazona

      Clearly it is time for the RRL to define “evolution” as they seem to lumping what Spook calls micro-evolution with the big bang theory approach based on random evolution from one kind of organism into many.

      1. cory

        You go first. Hint: if you define macro-evolution as requiring speciation, I’m just going to start linking you to all of the cases of speciation we’ve documented in both laboratories and in nature.

        The two things are lumped together because they are not two things, they are one thing.

    3. Cory

      “And I will continue to believe that until science can explain the origin of the big bang, which they can’t, can they?”

      Neat, then I’ll believe in your God as soon as you explain His origin.

  5. js03

    in theory, the desparation to remove obummer flails at the wind…those who seek improvement claim that any candidate is better than none…while the socialist controlled media picks for us…the wisdom of palin has exposed itself…withdraw from this game for sanity…finding a perfect savior who will redeem our lost country is a dream though…nobody is safe from the relentless…nothing is secure from its desparation…when we put ignorance in power…then we must assume that power itself will become the source of ignorance…

    who would have thought that with all thats going on…americans would vote a marxist into office…or did they…are we blinded by self confident illusions of our election system that nobody checked to see if it is possible to forge 5 million votes for communism…after acorn and thier hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registrations that we CAUGHT….are we naive enough that we fooled ourselves and refuse to check the checkers…are we selfishly stupid enough to see that not only was our sitting president NOT QUALIFIED to sit in the Oval Office…but that he and his ilk have literally…stolen the election…

    so far fetched you will say…to imagine such a thing…but then again…who would ever have imagined that our government would EVER ignore the constitution…

      1. js03

        no, you just cant handle the compounding of common sense and reality when they collide…stop making excuses for your own ignorance…stoogebait…

        i havent had coffee for years…i stick to water and juice…

        and im not your “buddy”…have no reason to consider any association with libtards…tx neways

  6. Caveat Emptor

    Supreme Court rules no Nativity scene in DC

    The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a Nativity Scene in the United States’ Capital this Christmas season. This isn’t for any religious reason. They simply have not been able to find Three Wise Men in the Nation’s Capitol.

    A search for a virgin continues.

    There was no problem, however, finding enough asses to fill the stable

    1. neocon1

      CE

      There was no problem, however, finding enough asses to fill the stable

      they could have filled it from the lefty loons on this blog and the WH

    1. neocon1

      unpatriotdaddy

      BS and the donks….
      IF you believe that crap I have some property in sunny Fla for sale cheap.
      now click your pointed loafers together and recite………

      1. neocon1

        ObambaIm so glad to be back in TEXAS….errrr OH WAIT

        I mean the 57 th state, in errrr ahhh Asia,along with stand up joe, and the corrrpppsmen,
        Ok now to quote my best friend, mentor, pastor God DAMN AMERICA
        No no wait….errr ummm reset the promptor will you guys
        Man I need a breathalizer…….

        dumb as a box of rocks.

    2. neocon1

      unpatriot

      is an orthopedic surgeon

      Now THERE is an EXPERT on CLIMATE!!!
      why not ask a plumber about brain surgery…..LOL

      1. James

        Neostupid,

        maybe this will finally convince you that the GOP is in bed with the oil companies??? but then again, you’re to dumb to read….

        Between 1998 and 2010, the oil-and-gas industry gave 75 percent of its $284 million in political contributions to Republicans. But the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed unlimited corporate spending on campaign advertisements, opened up a whole new avenue for interest groups to influence campaigns by flooding the airwaves with ads that support a political candidate or position. In the 2010 elections alone, the top five conservative and pro-industry outside groups and political action committees—including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Karl Rove-backed PAC American Crossroads, which have close ties to fossil-fuel interests—spent a combined $105 million to support GOP candidates (compared with a combined $8 million that the top five environmental groups spent to back Democrats). Both sides could double those numbers in 2012.

      2. neocon1

        james/sasan

        OIL = industry = work = jobs = Baaaaad
        OPM = gooood
        DNC = if it’s free, it’s fo me.

      3. Cluster

        maybe this will finally convince you that the GOP is in bed with the oil companies??? – James

        So what???? Unions are in bed with democrats – so let’s take a look at these two constituencies:

        – Oil companies create well paying jobs, many of them union jobs, pay a lot in taxes, and generates a product that makes America, and the world go.

        – Unions don’t create jobs, and continue to ask for higher wages and more benefits, that ultimately make America less competitive and increase the price of the product to the consumer.

        I know which constituency I would prefer.

    3. Amazona

      I think my favorite part of this silly article is the piercing question asked by the “reporter”—- “Do you believe that climate change is causing the Earth to warm?”

      What an asinine question this is. The truly appropriate answer of course would be “Yes, except when it is causing it to cool.”

      Too funny that this is the kind of thing that impresses dad.

      Even funnier that he calls this “science”.

  7. Kent McCarty

    Newt is by far the best option we have for the GOP Nomination. He’s got the best record for getting things done, and he’s not afraid to do the smart thing even when it isn’t viewed the most favorably. Take for instance his stance on immigration. There’s virtually no way to deport every illegal immigrant in the U.S. You know that, I know that, and Newt knows that. So why entertain the idea? We have to start thinking about the sensible solutions to our problems if we ever want to move forward, and that’s what Newt’s about.

    Kent
    The Dysfunction Junction

  8. Pingback: It’s a Bird.. It’s a Plane.. It’s Newt Gingrich! « The Dysfunction Junction

  9. Cluster

    I would like to know how many of our resident liberals watch MSNBC regularly, and if so which programs. I have been watching quite a bit of it lately, mainly for the comedy, but the level of brain damage on that network could be harmful, so watch with caution. Al Sharpton is literally dumber than bag of hammers, and I am also convinced that Chris Hayes is Rachel Maddow in drag. But aside from those observations, the one incessant theme is for the rich to “pay their fare share” and i want every conservative to remind every liberal, that when Obama and the democrats had their chance to let the tax rate cuts expire in December 2010 – they didn’t do it. And now, they want to blame the GOP – don’t let them get away with it!!

    1. neocon1

      47% pay NO federal tax
      53% pay LESS than 3% of all taxes

      SS DD “fair share” my azz
      alinsky 101

      1. neocon1

        WoW

        Oops? Obama Opens ‘Class Warfare’ Speech By Greeting Texas…But He’s in Kansas

        “It is great to be back in the state of Texas.”

        as is dat you?

    2. Amazona

      Cluster, I LOVED the comment about “Rachel Maddow in drag”. I have to admit, the first time I read it, it went right past me, but then I caught it. Too funny.

    3. Cory

      I never watch it. The closest I get to consuming liberal news sources is listening to various programs on NPR while I’m in my car and sometimes watching The Daily Show.

  10. patriotdad1

    So Romney’s out of the Trump debate – that leaves Newt and Santorum as the only confirmed participants.

      1. Amazona

        You could read wattle’s contributions to the blog. They are always good for a laugh, in spite of the hesitation to laugh at the kids on the short bus.

      2. neocon1

        npatriot

        you could read commie dreams on my “father”?
        you could look for O’s BC
        you could read his accomplishments in life…(a REAL laugh there)

Comments are closed.