A great debate so far. You watching? I’m tweeting it here.
24 thoughts on “Newt / Cain Debate”
Comments are closed.
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
A great debate so far. You watching? I’m tweeting it here.
Comments are closed.
Blogs For Victory 
Yes, I am watching it now, and i think you’re you’re going to find two candidates that would be great on the same ticket for 2012! Gingrich for president, Cain VP.
Newt is being impressive. Newt is also a politician that wants something. Does he have what it takes to fight the progressives at all levels. I am not convinced that he does. I could be conviced. Let’s wait and see.
GMN
no he doesnt
but he would be a great VP
Obama will be quietly praying this morning for a Gingrich/Cain ticket.
The only candidate Obama would actually fear is Ron Paul. If he gets nominated, Republicans will vote for anyone BUT Obama, and Paul’s rabid Libertarian base (including the Kochs who lean Libertarian) will turn out full force. If Paul is not nominated, his hardcore followers would never vote for Cain or Gingrich or Romney or Perry in a million years, and would either run Paul as an independent which would split the vote, or just stay home.
Go Newt!!!
I love the obvious and transparent efforts of the RRL dupes to pick our candidate for us, obviously trying to convince us to pick the weakest one possible, as this is clearly Barry’s only shot at a victory.
Interesting to see that clowny believes that Paul supporters are so stupid they would choose four more years of Barry just to poke the GOP in the eye. I think of such comments as nothing more than reflections of the mentality of the average Pseudo-Liberal—that is, of people who vote purely on emotion, who not only have no coherent objective political philosophy but who don’t even care about one or recognize one when they see it.
“I love the obvious and transparent efforts of the RRL dupes to pick our candidate for us, obviously trying to convince us to pick the weakest one possible”…Amazona
It’s hard to know which GOP candidate would be considered the weakest, Amazona, as the whole dang crop of them seems to have been contaminated with the stupidity bug. Not one viable contender for President in the whole sorry lot of them.
The world ridiculed the U.S. for electing GWB twice; just imagine the reaction if any one of these Republican runners were to represent America on the world stage. The respect that President Obama has garnered for y’all during his time in office would evavorate in a puff of smoke.
Surely, there must be someone of consequence within the Conservative family willing to step into the ring and give the President some strong and intelligent competition.
c0
see arguing with idiots pgs 13-69
The respect that President Obama has garnered for y’all during his time in office would evaporate in a puff of smoke. – Canadian Observer
What respect?
Using bozo’s logic then instead of having mr obama run in 2012 the democrat party should go with Ralph Nader or Michael Dukakis. Though listening to how the local chapter of the RRL’s that post here on Blogs for Victory, I believe that Lyndon Larouche is the best choice for them.
The democrat party got Lyndon Larouche and the republican party got Ron Paul. Lose/Lose on both sides.
So. . . .Bozo. . PAul voters have always been as rabid as they are now, so why haven’t they ever done this if they were inclined to?
(Heaven help me, I am defending paulbots)
A Newt/Cain ticket would never happen because they are both from Georgia.
Let’s not pretend that Ron Paul puts any fear into Obama. For one thing, Paul won’t get the nomination. Next, Paul has gone into weird moments of complete incoherence during the debate already. Really, let’s not pretend Ron Paul is even relevant.
Jimmy Carter did a lot of damage for any Georgia resident running for president. Though, with mr obama doing such a wonderful job at running the country a rabid possum would be a better choice than him.
I love this bizarre anti-Paul bias. He wins poll after poll, Illinois by 52%, but the hardcores just can’t swallow his softer stance and poo poo it all as some kind of outlier fringe anomaly. Paul’s supporters won’t vote Obama as Amazoner states, they will just split the vote like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader.
Every Republican I know viscerally HATES Obama and wants him gone, but Paul supporters are independent by definition, and won’t march lock-step with anyone. That Paul stated he won’t necessarily back a Republican if he loses sums it up.
But you’re right. Paul will not get the nomination. Paul was “incoherent” to Republicans, but only because they refuse to even think about the issues he raises, making it sound like gibberish to (R)’s.
I ain’t complainin’ – I am all for pretending RP is irrelevant. But the percentage of the conservative vote gene pool he’ll be draining off won’t be.
WHat makes you think that when they haven’t done so other years that they would this year? Paul won a. . straw poll. That is not an actual vote.
Newt is from GA but lives in Virginia. So, it could happen.
CALLER: Back in the ’90s I remember Ross Perot saying that there was going to be the giant sucking sound of jobs if NAFTA passed. I think it ended up being true, right? And I know you were a big free trader.
GINGRICH: Yeah, well, I don’t think it was true in Mexico. I think the fact is that NAFTA allowed us to build jobs in Canada, the United States, and Mexico, in competition with China. I mean, our big competitor is not Mexico. Our big competitor is China and India. And I’d rather have jobs close to the United States than have jobs overseas in places like China and India. That’s why I was in favor of it. … So in a sense, I’d like our neighborhood to be fairly well off and fairly prosperous.
So Newt is pro-NAFTA, pro-subsidy, is not a social conservative, is not a fiscal conservative,… and the GOP is happy because they get their 5th rated issues like keeping tax cuts. Is that the best fiscal conservatives can hope for in the GOP? The goal is a 1-term obummer followed by retread big spender Newt followed inevitably by big spender Dem ad infinitum.
And I’d rather have jobs close to the United States than have jobs overseas in places like China and India. That’s why I was in favor of it.
any way you slick it Kanada-mehiKo are still FOREIGN countries.
KKKlintoon passed nafda with the help of newt.
Stool,
This is a global economy – isolationism will kill us. We need to make our tax codes attractive so corporations want to do business here, but there will always be a nafta market
Grow up
Clueless
Making the world economies so interdependent means your grand kids have to compete with the slave labor in China. Good luck with that. At least they’ll be more grown up than you’re ever going to be.
Unlike you, I think the US should be independent of foreign energy, independent of foreign monies to support our debt and independent of foreign cheap labor. In fact isolation might be the only thing that can save the US. I’m planning my isolation apocalypse garden even now.
What we need to do is cut the welfare like agriculture subsidies which makes food cost more, does nothing for energy costs and is only in place because Newts are politicians 24/7 and they know Iowa has an early caucus.
I am talking about nafta stool – so maybe mexican slave labor will hurt us, but you’re equating the productivity and quality levels of the low wage labor markets in China with those of the US labor markets, and there is just no comparison. If corporate tax rates were more in line with the rest of the world, many companies will be coming here and will pay a higher labor wage and will still do well.
The respect that President Obama has garnered for y’all during his time in office would evaporate in a puff of smoke. – Canadian Observer
LMAO!! Thanks CO, I needed some humor today.
Every Republican I know viscerally HATES Obama and wants him gone – bozo
Proving once again that liberals are incapable of separating personality from policy. Paul wont win because his foreign policy is that of a 5th grader with self esteem issues.
Clueless
Care to outline a coherent foreign policy which is better than that of Ron Paul?
From what I’ve seen on B4V the mature policy is 1. Protect Europe from a potential Soviet invasion 2. Overthrow foreign leaders who are inconvenient without worrying about long term impacts 3. Nation build afterwards. 4. Support Saudi Arabia/Israel no matter what. 5. Use US diplomats as a corporate sales force 6. Extend NATO all the way to the Russian border to prove a point. 7. Think conflict with China is inevitable but rely on them to support US debt. 8. Spend trillions of taxpayers dollars on wars and invent a Department of Homeland insecurity.
Care to outline a coherent foreign policy which is better than that of Ron Paul?
I am not sure that running home and putting blinders on is a coherent strategy