Newt On The Rise

The other day I broke my tradition of not publicly endorsing a candidate in GOP presidential primary by endorsing Newt Gingrich, today I’m happy to report that polls show that while Newt had a rough start with his campaign, he’s starting to gain traction.

After stumbling badly out of the gate, Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign is showing surprising signs of life — rising in the polls and even attracting rising support from evangelical voters who have long been cool to the former House speaker.

“I definitely think it ends up Newt versus [former Massachusetts Gov.] Mitt Romney at some point after the caucuses and primaries are under way,” said Iowa House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer, a Republican who has endorsed the Georgian in her state’s key January caucuses.

“Newt will become the major challenger to Romney,” said Polk County, Iowa, GOP Chairman Daryl Kearney. “All national polls now have Newt with a solid hold on third place.”

He cited a new North Carolina poll that placed Mr. Gingrich second to Mr. Romney ahead of former businessman Herman Cain.

Coupling a string of strong debate performance with rising doubts among the party faithful about the viability of Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Mr. Cain, Mr. Gingrich could become the race’s new magnet for Republicans looking for an alternative to Mr. Romney.

I admit that I originally wrote off Newt as being “yesterday’s news.” But things changed quickly as his performances in the debates showed me that he was the candidate I wanted to see go head-to-head with Obama.

Support Newt today!

131 thoughts on “Newt On The Rise

  1. thomasg0102 November 11, 2011 / 1:38 pm

    I’d say the ONLY person who has a chance to win the nomination is Romney.

    The establishment GOP is way to powerful to allow a retread like Newt, or a rookie like Cain to get the nomination.

    It’s going to be Romney vs. Obama with Obama getting about 310 electoral votes.

    • neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 2:31 pm

      another leftard chimes in with his blabbering BS
      a “rookie” Bwaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

      • neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 3:41 pm

        Calif. Mayor Chooses Occupy Rally Over Veterans Day Memorial

        Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin shown with a group of Occupy Richmond protesters earlier this month. She will skip a Veterans Day memorial in favor of another Occupy rally. (Photo credit: San Jose Mercury News)

        The mayor of Richmond, Calif. plans to skip her city’s Veterans Day memorial events to attend an Occupy rally, a choice that’s prompting anger and criticism.

        stakes and an anthill comes to mind for fat pigs

      • neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 3:53 pm

        ‘Your Blood Is Our Paint’: Grammy-Nominated Singer’s New Violent Occupy Anthem

        partial lyrics sung by Joseph Arthur

        ” Our canvas is freedom
        Your blood is our paint […]

        Like a pig you consumed
        And like a pig you will roast […]

        And what you won’t share
        Will be ripped from your hands
        Your body destroyed
        The way fire lands
        Burning your homes
        The privilege you snake
        The payback beyond
        Anything you could take
        Naked you’ll be
        And full of regret
        And the way they were treated
        You’ll long to forget”

        NO comment allowed, per the shadow.

      • neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 4:29 pm

        Cain – Newt

      • neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 4:38 pm

        tommyturban

        Bzzzzztt sorry t turban, no hiding, just quoting, dont like it?
        Oh well TS

      • neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 4:41 pm

        t turban

        lets see I am FOR Cain and West!!!

        some “racist” LOL
        coward? Oh PULEEEEASE, AMCA
        meow!!

  2. neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 4:42 pm

    tommygasbagger

    down 300
    up 225

    math 101 and stupidity are enemies.

    • neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 4:53 pm

      tommyturban

      being called dumb by a numbnuts you is like a monkey in the zoo pointing to the audience and laughing at THEM after eating his own poop.

  3. neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 4:45 pm

    t turban

    .ah to be an old fear monger…nothing is easier!

    except being a dumbed down 30 something useful idiot POS.
    you do prove how easy THAT is AMCA

  4. neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 4:56 pm

    tommy

    tough words and false accusations are easy to come by behind a computer AMCA.

    They were spoken in US Central command headquarters by two ranking Generals and a full Col.
    I was present and part of the discussion.
    They HATED powell.
    dont like that? tough SHIITE akbar.

    • neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 5:07 pm

      takbar

      how much money do you have to put up AMCA?

      I was in Cent Com on a weekly basis and in the main WAR room during Shock and Awe.
      again put your money where your AMCA is tough guy.

  5. neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 5:04 pm

    takbar

  6. Green Mountain Boy November 11, 2011 / 5:08 pm

    A serial adaulterer against a serial liar? No wonder the national repubs are in such sorry shape. It’s time for a wholsale replacement. Just say no to the establishment.

    • neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 5:13 pm

      tturban

      they DONT AMCA

    • neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 5:17 pm

      tturban

      Neo is the one who rails against Clinton….but wants to vote for Cain! imagine that!!!

      WHEN Cain has committed adultery, rape, sodomy, perjury, has Ce Gared a 21 yo employee, has been convicted, fined, disbarred, impeached.
      I will bash him also.
      so now back to your KKKlintoon kneepads akbar.

    • neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 5:29 pm

      you’re the definition of a bitter old white man

      ROTFLMAO…..LOL X 10,000

      BUSTED akbar!!

    • tiredoflibbs November 11, 2011 / 8:36 pm

      “he has the moment he committed sexual harassment.”

      Do you have any proof there tommy-boy?

      I remember the incident with Clinton, how you liberal drones defended him and bashed any “bimbo” that came forward.

      …… until you had a stained blue dress as evidence.

      I see you have already convicted Cain, which of course is par for the course for you leftist drones.

      Pathetic.

      • Wallace November 12, 2011 / 2:21 pm
      • neocon1 November 12, 2011 / 3:15 pm

        walleye

        payouts are cheaper than defending against accusations like you pretty simple.
        It is an old donk lib scam well known to anyone in business.

      • watsonredux November 12, 2011 / 5:50 pm

        Try to learn from Wallace’s experience here.

      • tiredoflibbs November 12, 2011 / 6:47 pm

        Watty, I could explain it all over again, but I feel it would be too complicated for you to understand something so simple.

        Read my response to wally’s usual poop flinging post above.

      • watsonredux November 12, 2011 / 9:24 pm
      • tiredoflibbs November 12, 2011 / 11:16 pm

        Awwwww.

        I have hurt poor watty’s feelings with the truth. Sorry watty. Again, I can’t help it that you post what I could read on the dailyKOS, the democraticunderground or any other left wing blog.

        You are aware that if you keep repeating “you are a hack” will not make it true, don’t you?

        Apparently not. You have yet to prove anything. However, the same cannot be said about us proving you and the rest of the drones the hacks you truly are as in the last post against Cain. A talking point that we could so easily refute.

        Again, it is not our fault that you regurgitate dumbed down talking points. If you don’t like the consequences of doing so, then don’t post them to begin with.

        It’s not rocket science, but then to you breathing might as well be.

      • watsonredux November 12, 2011 / 11:32 pm
      • tiredoflibbs November 13, 2011 / 8:43 am

        Yes watty, your full blown meltdown and being reduced to blubbering over and over “you are a hack”, “you are a hack” easily shows it.

        Now let me see if I get this straight…. Matt does not let me post under my real name?

        The reason I don’t post under my real name is that when I did this before, I was harassed constantly by leftist hacks such as yourself. I don’t need all the little immature emails and property damage that using my real name caused before.

        Your pitiful attempt at insult is another indication of your meltdown. Talk about desperation and grasping at anything for “revenge” shows what a simple minded fool that you are.

        Now go back to breathing, I am sure it takes all the concentration you have. Trying to think of something clever will just bring on asphyxiation (look it up in the dictionary).

        You lose again drone.

      • watsonredux November 13, 2011 / 12:18 pm
      • Wallace November 13, 2011 / 1:46 pm
      • watsonredux November 13, 2011 / 4:01 pm
      • Wallace November 13, 2011 / 4:36 pm
      • tiredoflibbs November 13, 2011 / 5:09 pm

        Again, with the whining eh, wally. Your posts were not deleted for pointing out facts (your definitions of facts are laughable). Your “facts” have been proved to be at best half-truths taken out of context to outright lies.

        Your posts were deleted for actual personal attacks and no substance to the topic at hand.

        But, we would not expect you to acknowledge the fact that your posts contain little to no substance. We would expect you to continue to complain about them and then deny doing so – you are simply dishonest all the way around.

        In short, wally, you and facts are strangers.

      • tiredoflibbs November 13, 2011 / 11:02 pm

        I see wally’s usual mental poop flinging posts were deleted for their content and obvious rule breaking and not for some imagined meltdown of non-liberal drone members.

      • tiredoflibbs November 13, 2011 / 5:06 pm

        Why are you whining to me? I didn’t delete it nor did I “run to the moderator” as wally will claim.

        I have tougher skin than that. I don’t make the rules here.

        But, why is it hard for you mindless drones to follow the rules?

        Oh, that’s right you feel you are above them and are entitled to do anything you want in the name of free speech.

      • Wallace November 14, 2011 / 12:21 pm
      • neocon1 November 14, 2011 / 1:40 pm

        walleye

        live with it drone.

      • tiredoflibbs November 14, 2011 / 1:51 pm

        I see you continue to make $hit up in order to soothe that oh so fragile ego of yours.

        Keep it up, wally, you prove me right with every post.

        Still waiting for that proof that “I ran to the moderator” to get your posts deleted and not because you cannot follow the simple rules of this blog.

      • Wallace November 16, 2011 / 2:36 pm
      • tiredoflibbs November 16, 2011 / 3:42 pm

        “Obviously not, as facts really, really hurt your feelings and you run crying to the moderator with highly predictable regularity.”

        Bwahahahahahaha!

        Still stuck on stupid eh, wally?

        Still waiting for your proof until then this is another one of your typical lies to satisfy your very fragile ego.

        Hysterical!

      • tiredoflibbs November 12, 2011 / 6:45 pm

        Gee wally, a paid settlement is not proof of anything.

        Settling is and was always cheaper than carrying out an investigation and paying legal fees for defense against the accusations. This happens all the time – not that I expect you to know anything outside of your talking points.

        Yeah lets talk plain and simple facts – since that is all you can regurgitate. But your “facts” are always at BEST half truths (as in this case) and outright lies (as in others that have been proven).

        Thanks for playing – you lose again.

      • Wallace November 13, 2011 / 4:09 am
      • tiredoflibbs November 13, 2011 / 8:35 am

        Yes, wally, all you can come up with is plan and SIMPLE facts that are easily refuted and that are taken out of context.

        As we demonstrated, your out-of-context “facts” were easily refuted.

        You deal with “facts” that you can make into something that is not there. And they are easily dealt with and squashed as so many of us here have done to you and show what a simple minded drone you really are.

        Again, you lost, thanks for playing.

      • Wallace November 13, 2011 / 1:46 pm
  7. neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 5:12 pm

    wow what a Raaaaacist

  8. Green Mountain Boy November 11, 2011 / 5:19 pm

    Unfortunately the version of wordpress that B4V uses wont allow an empty comment.

    1. Trutth vs. Accusation.
    2. I have no reason to believe Neo is lying.
    3. Yesterday was the anniversary of the founding on the USMC. Happy 235th to the USMC and all its members.
    4. Today is Veterans Day. I remember and honour all those that served and especially all those that had to dodge bullets, mortar bombs, and artillery shellls on the battlefield. May it be a long time before you see the poppys.

    Thankyou one and all.

    • neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 5:27 pm

      GMB

      Ooh Rah
      just got my FREE dinner from Applebees with six of my buds all fellow vets.

      PS
      we provided fire, security, building automation and US Cent Com was one of my accounts because I had a secret clearance, with past military clearances.
      We had to test the security system weekly, I even met the Bear.

      Oh well off to a Veterans day 11-11-11 party 🙂

      • neocon1 November 11, 2011 / 5:32 pm

        PS

        and NO, Norman was not one of the Generals who made the comment

      • dbschmidt November 11, 2011 / 7:06 pm

        Oh thomasg0102,

        Please explain how you have concluded “Cain is guilty as charged. “

    • dbschmidt November 11, 2011 / 5:47 pm

      Thank you GMB for your wishes to both the Marines and all veterans. Not to be picky but this year makes 236 years of tradition unmarked by progress for the Marines.

      Thanks to all those that have served to make even Tommy’s quaint little stupid remarks possible. As which, I see Tommy is quick on board to take accusations as convictions as usual but what else is new from the flapping monkey brigade. After all, I am assured he was just as quick to judge and convict Clinton on mere anonymous rumors and innuendo. Wondering who paid for Allred as she would not accept a free cup of coffee without being paid first?

      • dbschmidt November 11, 2011 / 7:19 pm

        [repost]

        Oh thomasg0102,

        Please explain how you have concluded “Cain is guilty as charged. “

      • tiredoflibbs November 11, 2011 / 8:51 pm

        Wow, tommy-boy, you convict Cain with less evidence than it took to convince you drones that Clintony was guilty.

        Then afterward, you drones dutifully regurgitated that it was not “sex”.

    • Green Mountain Boy November 11, 2011 / 5:50 pm

      Happy 236th!! 🙂 Sorry I was sick for a whole year after I got back from Iraq. You miss so much 😛

      ht/DBSchmidt

  9. Green Mountain Boy November 11, 2011 / 5:34 pm

    Already been to the VFW AmL and a colour guard ceremony today. It was nice to have a full colour guard againg. Not nice the reason we have it. 😦

  10. Green Mountain Boy November 11, 2011 / 5:41 pm

    Didn’t mean to interrupt the flaming. 🙂

    I now return you to your regularly scheduled doldrums!

  11. Sunny November 11, 2011 / 5:45 pm

    when did Obama use that word? Or are you just a serial liar?

    • Eagle Eye November 12, 2011 / 5:58 pm

      Who said Obama used that word? Are you just a serial moron?

  12. dbschmidt November 11, 2011 / 5:58 pm

    I am looking forward to the possibility that we can upset the establishment apple cart with a Gingrich or Cain but not holding my breath–time to get the establishment politician out of Washington.

    Here is just another good reason to strip all 535 of their gained wealth and toss ’em all to the curb. Time to hit the ‘Reset’ button on all of them but I’ll have to ask to other buffoon Clinton how to spell that in Russian first.

    Congress Members Took Part in Insider Trading: Abramoff

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/45249857

    • bardolf November 11, 2011 / 7:01 pm

      “I am looking forward to the possibility that we can upset the establishment apple cart with a Gingrich.”

      His dissertation was entitled “Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945–1960”. … While at West Georgia, Gingrich was instrumental in establishing an inter-disciplinary Environmental Studies program. A college professor, historian, and author, Gingrich twice ran unsuccessfully for the House before winning a seat in the election of November 1978.

      Gingrich is the only Speaker of the House to have been disciplined for ethics violations. On January 21, 1997, the House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, including a $300,000 “cost assessment” to recoup money spent on the investigation.

      Track record — advanced liberal art degree followed by community college job where he added fluff degrees to his college followed by career at a government job ending with disgrace and ethics violations. HOW is that not establishment?

      • dbschmidt November 11, 2011 / 7:15 pm

        Maybe because he has an original thought quite unlike the flapping monkeys here. But then again, you may have “accidentally” found a deficit reduction plan in your answer by charging all of the CongressCritters and Presidential appointees (including the President) “cost assessments” prior to starting their respective jail time (One can only dream) for crimes committed.

        Somehow though they would divert money from the Christmas Tree Tax of which I have heard none of the flapping crowd screaming “Separation of Church & State” from the rafters about. But of course we need a government tax to teach people about the Christmas (formerly Holiday???) trees they already purchase.

        No, you’re right–I see no encroachment of government. Nothing to see here. Move along.

        BTW, what was the Title & subject of your dissertation?

      • Green Mountain Boy November 11, 2011 / 7:37 pm

        Have to differ with you there DB. I have seen no evidence Newt wants to upset the apple cart. He might want to push it a bit slower. I am not even convinced of that.

      • dbschmidt November 11, 2011 / 10:01 pm

        Okay GMB,

        Somewhat establishment, but a little closer to the direction I would like to see them travel than Mittens would take us. At least the ‘Welfare to Work’ was slightly better than Obama’s ‘Welfare as long as you avoid work’ with free extensions. Like I have said before, of the folks currently in the race I would prefer a Cain/Gringrich ticket and let him be the axe-man. Still waiting as it is not the 13th of Nov just yet. 😀

      • Eagle Eye November 12, 2011 / 10:32 am

        During his term as Speaker, eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Newt Gingrich; eighty-three of them were dropped. The remaining charge concerned a 20-hour college course called “Renewing American Civilization” that Gingrich had taught through a tax-deductible foundation, Kennesaw State College Foundation. Allegations of tax improprieties led to two counts “of failure to seek legal advice” and one count of “providing the committee with information which he knew or should have known was inaccurate” concerning the use of a tax exempt college course for political purposes. To avoid a full hearing, Gingrich and the House Ethics Subcommittee negotiated a sanctions agreement. Democrats accused Gingrich of violating the agreement, but it was forwarded to the House for approval. On January 21, 1997, the House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, including a $300,000 “cost assessment” to recoup money spent on the investigation.
        The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated. In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the courses.

      • Eagle Eye November 12, 2011 / 10:34 am

        Gingrich has been married three times. In 1962, he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old and she was 26. In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther. In 1984, Battley told the Washington Post that the divorce was a “complete surprise” to her. According to Battley, in September 1980, Gingrich and their children visited her while she was in the hospital, recovering from surgery, and Gingrich wanted to discuss the terms of their divorce. Gingrich has disputed that account. In 2011, their daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, said that it was her mother who requested the divorce, that it happened prior to the hospital stay (which was for the removal of a benign tumor, not cancer), and that Gingrich’s visit was for the purpose of bringing the couple’s children to see their mother, not to discuss the divorce.

      • Sunny November 12, 2011 / 3:48 pm

        Eagle eye, I would venture to say that the reason Newts wife wanted a divorce was because her husband was having an affair with now wife three. Most women I know tend to file for divorce when they discover they are having an extra-marital affair. That kind of behavior is not conducive to keeping a marriage strong and healthy. So defend Newt all you want – his former wife has written and stated that she was going to cancer treatments when Newt served her with divorce papers – in the hospital. What a swell guy. And this wasn’t his first affair. But he was working so hard and just loved this country so much that he couldn’t help himself. Working hard at trying to impeach Bill Clinton when his behavior was at the very least even worse. Hypocrite – seems to just be a word that describes most Republican males.

      • Eagle Eye November 12, 2011 / 5:52 pm

        What a nasty person you are Sunny. You make up things and then base whole opinions on the nastiness that is in your own head.

        What do you think about a teacher marrying a young man who had been her student? He was 19, she was 26. Sounds like she was the predator here but all of a sudden she is the victim? And she lied about what happened. You don’t seem to care about that either. All you can do is use your own sick imagination to slime all Republican men.

      • bardolf November 12, 2011 / 10:51 pm

        “BTW, what was the Title & subject of your dissertation?”-DB

        Spectral Theory of the Langevin Equation

      • Amazona November 13, 2011 / 9:57 am

        You have to remember that dolf was one of those annoying children who thought because he was naturally gifted in an area that most of them found intimidating, he was better than they, and has always been smug and supercilious.

        He’s never outgrown that snotty assumption of superiority.

        As for “Sunny”, Eagle, you hit that one on the head. Velma is a perennially sour and vicious personality.

        Velma, tell us one company you have started. Or run. Just one. You sit back in a narrowly defined job which clearly demands little in the way of intellect and nothing in the way of initiative or responsibility, and you sneer at the imagined failures of those who are far above you in every way, particularly in character.

      • Sunny November 14, 2011 / 2:12 pm

        Eagle Eye, you find if a person states the truth it makes them nasty? What was nasty was how Newt treated his first two wives. Not me stating the truth of what he did.

      • dbschmidt November 14, 2011 / 2:18 pm

        Based on the Lorentz spectrum, the 1/f spectrum, and/or the power spectrum of 1/f1.53 type?

      • Sunny November 14, 2011 / 4:51 pm

        Eagle Eye, you find if a person states the truth it makes them nasty? What was nasty was how Newt treated his first two wives. Not me stating the truth of what he did.
        Further, I am not trying to be nasty regarding Mr. Newt, but I am telling you how many women across this country will feel about him and it will influence their vote. If you don’t believe me ask your wife, daughter, mother sister – what ever women in your family, and your female co-workers is you have any. I am simply telling you the truth about how women feel about such behavior.
        As to an older woman praying on a younger man, I suspect Newt was quite able to take care of himself, and he was of legal age to decide on such issues as marriage. What did she lie about? I do not know of what you are referring. I have never hear that his first wife did anything illegal or even unethical in marrying Newt. You are making up accusations that have never been verbalized by Newt or anyone else to the best of my knowledge.
        I have not made up any facts about Newt. If he is the GOP candidate, you had better get ready for a lot of discussion about his past. Newt has been his own worst enemy. He comes across as very intelligent, but he is a self-serving man and will take care of himself first – that is just his nature.
        If you want to accuse me of being “nasty” I do hope you call out others on this blog that I do not hold a candle to when it comes to nastiness. We shall see – do you call me a “nasty person” because I wrote the truth about Newt Gingrich or do you really want to be honest about who really has very nasty behavior on this blog?

      • Eagle Eye November 15, 2011 / 5:33 pm

        Jackie Battley said Newt Gingrich came to her hospital bed where she was being treated for cancer to tell her he wanted a divorce. She was not being treated for cancer and she was the one who already told him she wanted a divorce. They did not discuss divorce when he took her daughter to visit her. These were lies. You can suspect all you want but when an adult female teacher gets involved with a young man seven years her junior who is her student IN HIGH SCHOOL I think this shows a predatory older woman taking advantage of a young boy. You don’t know a thing about what went on in that marriage, if she slept around, if she was abusive or a drunk, if she was impossible or a liar or a shoplifter or a bad mother. You invent what makes you happy to believe so you invent hateful horrible things about other people.

  13. Sunny November 11, 2011 / 6:22 pm

    The GOP has some real sorry candidates for the 2012 presidential election. Obama’s flaws are nothing compared to this slate of candidates.

    • Green Mountain Boy November 11, 2011 / 7:35 pm

      Thats because bams has spent a few million dollars keeping those flaws hidden? Where are any of his records? Where is his past? All locked up behind a wall of lawyers and cronys.

      • Sunny November 12, 2011 / 3:14 pm

        Obama has written TWO books about his life. Have you bothered to read them? If you had his life would not be such a mystery to you. Where are the records of all the other presidents who have served? Or, it is necessary to produce records only if you are a Democratic president? His past is pretty visible – if you bother to do a little research. I am at a loss as to what you believe he is hiding. Or maybe his past has nothing to do with your distaste for Obama, but merely he is a Democrat and the President of the United States and you just do not like those facts???

      • neocon1 November 12, 2011 / 5:05 pm

        AYERS,Obama has written TWO books about obomba’a communist drug infested life. Have you bothered to read them? If you had his life would not be such a mystery to you. Where are the records of all the other presidents who have served? Or, it is

      • Eagle Eye November 12, 2011 / 5:54 pm

        Have YOU read them Sunny? If you did you would know that he laid out his radical Leftist ideas and his racism but not a word about how he got into Columbia or Harvard or who paid for any of it or what his grades were, not a word. When did he change his name? When did he renounce his Indonesian Citizenship? Is any of that in the books?

      • Sunny November 14, 2011 / 2:10 pm

        I have read the Eagle Eye – and wasn’t the lease bit frightened by what he wrote. What is it with the right – you are afraid of everything. He simply wrote about his life experiences, and granted, they were much more expansive than yours or mine. But there was nothing radical in his writings. Get over it. Get a spine whimpy.

      • Eagle Eye November 15, 2011 / 5:27 pm

        Afraid? Not afraid. Just educated about his beliefs. What is it about you left types that you have to think people are afraid of you? Obama told us about his racism and leftist views and you seem to think that is OK so you must agree with them

    • tiredoflibbs November 11, 2011 / 8:33 pm

      He has one HUGE and important flaw…..INEXPERIENCE and it shows.

      However, the GOP candidates all have more executive experience than he does.

      obAMATEUR’s inexperience is everything. The reason the economy is in the state it is in is due to his policies having zero to negative effects. It is not due the dumbed down talking point that you drones are programmed to use – Bush.

      All long at there is a “D” next to your candidates name, they are okay with you. If they don’t, they have nothing you want eh, dreggs?

      In short, you want more of the past few years with an inexperienced person at the helm, which is pretty pathetic.

      • watsonredux November 11, 2011 / 9:42 pm

        No, tired, that’s your way of thinking. You’re simply a partisan hack. Actually, you might be that woman we saw in the video the other day who is only capable of regurgitating talking points from the Rush Limbaugh show.

        Conservatives like you will vote for the candidates with a “R” next to their name. Period. DailyKos liberals will vote for the candidates with a “D”. That leaves independents such as myself. And I bet a lot of them are looking at the Republican circus and saying no thanks because they’re clowns.

        We also see this in the polls. You guys cite polls in which Obama loses to a generic Republican. Great. But then when the poll name names, he beats them, because people think the Republican candidates are worse than Obama. Because they are.

      • Green Mountain Boy November 11, 2011 / 10:12 pm

        Tired, welcome to the “partisan hack” club. We need to get together and work on a secret handshake. And maybe an official emblem.

      • dbschmidt November 11, 2011 / 10:12 pm

        Watson,

        I would have to venture that you are too stupid to realize how stupid and/or ill-informed you sound. Talk about a partisan hack. Reread your own post (have someone with better comprehension help you) because you have just done what you accuse Tired of doing while jumping around and waving your arms claiming “independent.”

      • tiredoflibbs November 12, 2011 / 9:04 am

        watty demonstrates the ignorance-of-the-typical-voter counted on by Democrat candidates.

        I, buddy-boy, and many here who you have termed hacks criticize “our own” while drones like you and velma criticize only one side and regurgitate the mindless twaddle the left presents as “facts”.

        For an “independent” such as yourself, you sure have the line down pat and dutifully regurgitate it at every chance. The crap you spew the dailyKos, the democraticunderground, and other left wing sites are the typical left wing echo chamber.

        You are no more “qualified” of being independent as the obAMATEUR is of being pResident based on his vast executive experience, of which he has NONE.

        Go try and sell your crazy somewhere else.

      • Sunny November 12, 2011 / 3:38 pm

        You want to discuss inexperience? Why didn’t you raise this subject when George W. Bush was president? Talk about inexperienced. The man was so inept that he took at least two businesses under and was bailed out thanks to family friends. Had it not been for Cheney running the first four years of his administration (sadly) Bush would have never been elected to a second term.

      • neocon1 November 12, 2011 / 5:06 pm

        scummy

        BDS and BS how typical of you.

      • Eagle Eye November 12, 2011 / 5:55 pm

        Yes, Sunny can be that stupid. And mean, too.

      • tiredoflibbs November 12, 2011 / 6:51 pm

        “You want to discuss inexperience? Why didn’t you raise this subject when George W. Bush was president?”

        Dreggs, you do realize what you are saying. Bush was governor of Texas, which gives him EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE. Again, something obAMATEUR does not have.

        Since you feel Bush was inexperienced then obAMATEUR has even less than Bush.

        But then again, you don’t care about such facts. To you, obAMATEUR is a “sort of god”, “the one”, “a rockstar”, “sends chills up my leg”. You know the usual mindless twaddle that you drones eagerly await to consume.

    • neocon1 November 12, 2011 / 3:25 pm

      scummy

      surely you jest, NO one can be that stupid.

      • neocon1 November 12, 2011 / 3:26 pm

        waspdouche

        I used to be a Republican for years, but I would be embarrassed to be one now.

        BS

  14. RetiredSpook November 11, 2011 / 7:31 pm

    Retired Spook is in Kansas visiting his daughter and her family.

    And my comment was that Italian government 10 year bonds @ 7.44% were an indication that the inevitable collapse was getting closer. As I’ve said repeatedly, I hope I’m wrong.

    • RetiredSpook November 11, 2011 / 7:33 pm

      um idiot.

      it was down 315 on WEDNESDAY, then up 115 on THURSDAY, and now 250 on FRIDAY.

      do the math old-timer. man you’re dumb.

      And the DJIA was actually off 390 on Wednesday, and up a total of 365 Thursday and Friday. Pretty simple math, really.

  15. watsonredux November 11, 2011 / 11:04 pm

    Whatever, db. I’m not jumping around waving my arms. I am an independent, as in registered “no party affiliation.” I used to be a Republican for years, but I would be embarrassed to be one now. Not that the Dems are much better; hence, no party affiliation.

    The point is that virtually all of the conservatives on this blog will vote for the Republican candidate. All of the DailyKos types will vote for Obama, regardless of how much they complain that Obama isn’t liberal enough for their tastes. If stating the obvious makes me a hack too, then whoopee. In event, it leaves independents in play.

    Tell me how the Republican debates–or anything else they are doing–would entice me to vote for them. Let’s run down the list:

    Cain: A woeful ignorance of policy, but apparently thinks that’s something to be proud of. His 9-9-9 plan has been shown to be absurd. His handling of the sexual harassment allegations has been dismal, and only made things worse, but go ahead and blame the MSM and trash the women he harassed. A terrible candidate. Not that that will stop the Republicans.

    Perry: Another terrible candidate. Seems to think he can merely show up at the debates and look pretty. Instead, he comes off as smarmy and thoroughly unprepared. Speaks only in cliches and sound bites. Promises to kill three departments of the federal government, but can’t remember which ones. And worse, can’t give any reasons why he would do so. His tax plan is about as bad as Cain’s–simply a massive tax cut for the rich. Sinking like a rock, and deservedly so.

    Bachmann. Seriously? Tea Partiers like spook might still go for her, but she never had a chance with independents. Not that that will stop Republicans.

    Huntsman. Maybe the only serious candidate of the bunch, but has absolutely no traction. Actually capable of thoughtful, intelligent discussions of policy and world affairs. Which marks him as a loser to the Republican base.

    Romney. Probably the only real competition for Obama at this point. His smartest move has been to avoid speaking to the media except when he has to, like at a debate. Thus, he limits the opportunities to get himself in trouble. But Romney’s flip-flopping is a real issue. His statements over the years about abortion, for example, are diametrically opposed to each other. That leaves me little choice but to conclude that he will say anything to get elected, and that he stands for nothing. Actually, he kind of reminds of McCain in that regard. That isn’t very enticing. Apparently others thinks so, too. The most recent Gallop poll shows him losing by 9 points head-to-head against Obama.

    Gingrich. Has so much baggage and skeletons in his closet that he would be a terrible candidate–not that that would stop Repubs from nominating him. Pickings are slim, aren’t they?

    Trump. Stifle the guffaws, but Repubs actually took him seriously.

    West. NeoClown is still in your corner! But no one else.

    Palin. Sarah who?

    As for the term “hack,” tired is a hack in the sense of a hack writer. Look it up.

    • tiredoflibbs November 12, 2011 / 9:08 am

      wow, watty, for an “independent” you have every dumbed down talking point listed there for each candidate.

      It is good to see a true “independent” with a mind of his own posting careful analysis of each candidate…. NOT!

      Leave drone, we already have enough useful idiots here to regurgitate the leftist party line. We don’t need another one taking up bandwidth echoing the same crap as the others.

      • neocon1 November 12, 2011 / 3:27 pm

        Tired

        agreed

      • tiredoflibbs November 12, 2011 / 6:55 pm

        watty, it is not my fault that you prove everything I observe about you to be true with each and everyone of your posts.

        It is not my fault that you regurgitate the mindless talking points as the other leftist drones do. When you do, you prove that you are what you are – a drone, a hack, etc. etc.

        Making that simple observation does not make me unintelligent or immature – it just reveals you to be the fool that you are.

        It is not my fault that you don’t like yourself – no need for you to project it on others.

  16. Green Mountain Boy November 12, 2011 / 2:22 am

    What a Hacktastic comment!

    • watsonredux November 12, 2011 / 12:14 pm

      Hackilicious.

      But if the shoe fits…

  17. Marc Richter November 12, 2011 / 3:08 am

    The reality is Romney will be the nominee in 2012 whether conservatives want him to be or not. I like Newt, but we all know he’s had one too many wives to be president and has a hard time keeping his mouth shut. Romney will sit back for the next couple of months and let Newt self-destruct like Bachman, Perry, and Cain before him. Furthermore, Romney’s machine is miles ahead of anything Newt can put together before January.

    Obama v. Romney in 2012 and may Romney win!

  18. Cluster November 12, 2011 / 11:04 am

    His handling of the sexual harassment allegations has been dismal, and only made things worse, but go ahead and blame the MSM and trash the women he harassed. – watson

    I like Newt, but we all know he’s had one too many wives to be president and has a hard time keeping his mouth shut. – Marc Richter

    These are the type of brain dead, 20th century type political comments that have become irrelevant, and this type of debate continues to harm the country. Liberals are completely obsessed with personality and superfluous issues that have nothing to do with any actual coherent policy that is needed to resolve our problems. We need to be dialing down into actual policies of each candidate, and debate the merits of those policies based on results. What does it matter how many wives some candidate has had???? The fact is, Newt is offering new, 21st century solutions to our current problems, while liberals continue to toil in failed 20th century solutions, and find character flaws to destroy their opposition, and this tactic will get us no where. But when you have David Axlerod, who is the King of Smear, Obama in the White House, who is the King of Inexperience, and base of OWS protestors – what can we expect?

    • watsonredux November 12, 2011 / 12:07 pm

      cluster, a couple of points.

      1. You claim that liberals are “completely obsessed with personality” and yet you happily participate in the exact same kind of personality obsession when it comes to President Obama. Liberals have NOTHING on you guys. You have all been completely obsessed with President Obama since before he was elected. So look in the mirror.

      2. Cain’s handling of the sexual harassment allegations _is_ relevant. It is relevant because he handled it in such a stunningly poor manner that it makes the non-believers marvel at his poor judgement. Everyday he has had to admit a little bit more, changing his story day by day, to now, when he has apparently decided that he will attack the alleged harassees.

      3. Newt isn’t offer much in the way of new solutions. In the last debate he was asked what he would replace “ObamaCare” with. It was obvious that he had no answer. His first attempt was that we need to return to a doctor-patient relationship. This is the type of new, 21st century thinking you’re talking about? And that’s typical of Republicans. Just get rid of stuff and cut taxes for the rich. They don’t know which agencies to get rid of or why. Just get rid of them. And cut taxes for the rich. I suspect that it isn’t going to play well.

      • Cluster November 12, 2011 / 12:16 pm

        watson,

        1. I am not at all obsessed with Obama’s personality, in fact the guy is likeable. I am outraged by his failure in leadership, and handling of the economy – period.

        2. If Clinton’s dalliances were not an issue, why is Cain’s??????

        3. You really need dig deeper, and have a better understanding of the free market to grasp what Newt was talking about. 80% of health care needs are routine, and performed everyday, yet no one knows how much those services cost, because it is hidden behind layers of insurance and governmental regulations. It is time we rethink every approach to governance, and Newt is doing that, and it is highly more complex than just cutting taxes. I know you’re smarter than this – so keep thinking it through – you’ll eventually get there.

      • watsonredux November 12, 2011 / 12:25 pm

        1. Fair enough, you’re not obsessed with Obama’s personality. But you know as well as I do that much of the right–including many posters here–are in fact obsessed with him. Matt Margolis himself demonstrates this regularly.

        2. Clinton’s dalliances _were_ an issue. Have you forgotten the impeachment trial? I know you desperately want to make it seem a one way street, but it’s not.

        3. I agree that cutting health care costs is and will be a necessity. There’s no way around it. You say I need a better understanding of the free market. Please explain to me how the free market will cover the health care costs of sick and old people. I’ve asked here many times, and no one has provided an answer. The best they have come up with is to point out programs funded at the state government level that ultimately are backed by the federal government. I hope that’s not what you mean by free market.

      • Cluster November 12, 2011 / 12:34 pm

        Alright here goes again –

        1. Whoever is concerned with Obama personally, is in the minority, so let’s stop with the grade school argument

        2. Remember Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, etc?? They all came forward in 1992 before Clinton was elected, but were subsequently attacked, and Hillary said on 60 minutes that it was due to the “vast right wing conspiracy” – that satisfied liberals and he was elected. So tell me again why these “unproven” allegations against Cain matter???

        3. Again, 80% of health care can be administered less costly vis free market. For the other 20%; ie: cancer, open heart surgery, etc. I believe there is a role for the STATE governments to offer catastrophic insurance plans.

      • watsonredux November 12, 2011 / 12:54 pm

        1. I happily concede that you aren’t obsessed, but I guess we’ll have to disagree about the level of obsession regarding Obama. It’s obvious to me that Matt and most others this blog have been and continue to be obsessed. And ironically, Matt is one who in the midst of his obsession, once complained about the hyper-partisan atmosphere we have–one that he helps to create and perpetuate.

        2. Cain’s _handling_ of the revelations matters. You can’t seriously claim that it doesn’t. You can compare all you want, but Clinton isn’t running for president in 2012.

        3. 80% of people don’t incur any health care costs all, so claiming that taxpayers need to pick up the tab for the other 20% isn’t very helpful. You still haven’t explained how the free market can handle this–you’re just shifting the taxpayer-funding from one place to another. You’re also ignoring the fact that Medicare is the most efficient system we have according to various studies.

        I am reminded of the insurance company CEO who testified before Congress during the health care reform hearings. He proudly proclaimed that his company cancels the policies of only one percent of its policyholders. But what does that mean? By their own statistics, they make a profit on over 90% of their policies; they aren’t going to cancel those. That means that in reality, his company cancels more than one in ten policies of people are sick and actually need health care coverage from their policy. It’s stuff like this that led to reform, like it or not.

    • watsonredux November 12, 2011 / 12:13 pm

      And one more point about Newt. It matters to some people how many wives he has had and how he has treated them because it speaks to his character, values, and judgement. Aren’t conservatives the ones who go on and on about family values, etc., etc.? And yet when it comes to one of your own, you’re more than happy to set aside your own professed values. So tell me, what kind of values does that represent?

      • Cluster November 12, 2011 / 12:19 pm

        Newt has just as strong of family values than you or I. The stories about his past are largely untrue, but that doesn’t stop small minded people from trying to make it an issue – just like you did. It’s tedious, pedestrian and nothing more than playground tactics. I am bored with it.

      • watsonredux November 12, 2011 / 12:27 pm

        Really? You’re willing to hold up Newt Gingrich as an exemplar for family values? I can assure you that he does not have stronger values than I do. But maybe his are stronger than yours.

      • Cluster November 12, 2011 / 12:37 pm

        Newt has been married to Calista for quite some time now and they have grandchildren – so your “opinion” matters not. You are hardly the arbiteur of family values.

        Secondly, Obama is a great family man, and so was GW Bush, but between those two, they have racked up over $9 trillion in debt. So maybe family values is not as important as you think. That being said – I have a game to go to – BOISE STATE!!!!!!!!!

      • watsonredux November 12, 2011 / 12:55 pm

        cluster said, “Secondly, Obama is a great family man, and so was GW Bush, but between those two, they have racked up over $9 trillion in debt. So maybe family values is not as important as you think.”

        Fair enough. Good chatting with you.

    • Sunny November 12, 2011 / 3:34 pm

      Interesting comments by cluster – “20th century type political comments that have become irrelevant”. Are you one of those “constitutionalist” that keeps insisting we MUST return to the written word of our founding fathers? Are you not a Tea-Party supporter who believes character is relevant – and Obama just does not have the right character to be President of this country? And the number of wives do not matter??? Really? Why don’t you ask the average American woman if they agree with that statement? This man was having an affair with the next in line wife before divorcing the current wife. This not only looks bad for him but also for his third wife who knew full well Newt was a married man with children. You seem to forget the number of women in this country who vote. And maybe we should not let things like the man’s character and ethical values influence our votes, but unfortunately for candidates – they do. Like it or not, the way a man treats his family is very indicative as the kind of man he is. And most women in this country will tell you he is slimmy like his name. You only want everyone to forget the character of a candidate when it is YOUR candidate. You sure did not defend Bill Clinton when he committed his acts of infidelity. Do you seriously believe that the far right Christian voters are going to support Newt? You Cluster, are what most people would call a hypocrite. But that is already pretty well known here.

  19. Cluster November 12, 2011 / 11:07 am

    Cluster is at his alma mater looking for victory today – Go Boise State!!!!!!!!!!

    • bardolf November 12, 2011 / 11:14 pm

      I think B4V is a jinx for posters. I was following the Illini 6-0 and pointed it out to GMB. 4 weeks later they are 6-4. Sucks to lose a close one like that to TCU.

      • Cluster November 13, 2011 / 9:34 am

        It does sting a little, but it was one of the best college football games I have seen in a while. And we certainly had our chance to win.

  20. watsonredux November 12, 2011 / 11:17 am

    Hmmm. Must be a technical snafu that my comments of last night no longer appear…

    In response to tired’s claim that liberals will vote for anyone with a “D” behind their name:

    The point is that virtually all of the conservatives on this blog will vote for the Republican candidate. All of the DailyKos types will vote for Obama, regardless of how much they complain that Obama isn’t liberal enough for their tastes. It leaves independents in play. Tell me how the Republican debates–or anything else they are doing–would entice me to vote for them. Let’s run down the list:

    Cain: Woefully ignorant of policy, but apparently thinks that’s something to be proud of. Analysis of his 9-9-9 plan shows that it is absurd and poorly conceived. His handling of the sexual harassment allegations has been dismal and only made things worse, but go ahead and blame the MSM and trash the women he harassed. A terrible candidate. Not that that will stop the Republicans.

    Perry: Another terrible candidate. Seems to think he can merely show up at the debates and look pretty. Instead, he comes off as smarmy and thoroughly unprepared. Speaks only in cliches and sound bites. Promises to kill three departments of the federal government, but can’t remember which ones. And worse, can’t give any reasons why he would do so. His tax plan is about as bad as Cain’s–simply a massive tax cut for the rich. Sinking like a rock, and deservedly so.

    Bachmann. Seriously? Tea Partiers like spook might still go for her, but she never had a chance with independents. Not that that will stop Republicans.

    Huntsman. Maybe the only serious candidate of the bunch, but has absolutely no traction. Actually capable of thoughtful, intelligent discussions of policy and world affairs. Which marks him as a loser to the Republican base.

    Romney. Probably the only real competition for Obama at this point. His smartest move has been to avoid speaking to the media except when he has to, like at a debate. Thus, he limits the opportunities to get himself in trouble. But Romney’s flip-flopping is a real issue. His statements over the years about abortion, for example, are diametrically opposed to each other. That leaves me little choice but to conclude that he will say anything to get elected, and that he stands for nothing. Actually, he kind of reminds of McCain in that regard. That isn’t very enticing. Apparently others thinks so, too. The most recent Gallop poll shows him losing by 9 points head-to-head against Obama.

    Gingrich. Has so much baggage and skeletons in his closet that he would be a terrible candidate–not that that would stop Repubs from nominating him. Pickings are slim, aren’t they?

    Trump. Stifle the guffaws, but Repubs actually took him seriously.

    West. NeoClown is still in your corner! But no one else.

    Palin. Sarah who?

    • Cluster November 12, 2011 / 11:23 am

      watson,

      Your last nights comment is still there – in fact I commented on it.

      • watsonredux November 12, 2011 / 11:59 am

        Thanks, cluster. Odd. Last night I posted it and it showed up at the end. This morning, this page reported fewer comments and mine shows up in the middle. Oh well!

      • Cluster November 12, 2011 / 12:11 pm

        Watson,

        You are probably one of the most sensible liberals on this blog, and I hope that liberals, much like you, will stop and really think about the direction of our country. Progressive liberalism IS NOT working, as evidenced by our $14 trillion dollar debt, and Europe’s current implosion. I also want to try and convince you that conservatives are just as compassionate as liberals, we just see a different path in how to help others. By decentralizing the federal governments authority, and empowering the states to administer education, health care, etc., we will be able to truly help those who need it, at less cost and more efficiency. Conservatives want a smaller, more decentralized, and more effective government, not the absence of government as many progressives believe. There is common ground, let’s just get there instead of worrying about how many wives somebody had.

  21. bagni November 12, 2011 / 2:48 pm

    matt-newtie:
    newt said recently…
    Newt Gingrich said Friday that Herman Cain should not have joked about Anita Hill potentially endorsing him for president, arguing in a radio interview that harassment is “not something to be joked about.” “I think if you look at the concerns we have about issues like sexual harassment, if you look at the tragedy at Penn State, if you look at how people feel in general about this kind of stuff, it’s not something to be joked about.”

    obviously newt shows the ultimate respect for women
    yknow….marry ’em, cheat on ’em and then divorce ’em…and then repeat process as many times as possible…….

    • neocon1 November 12, 2011 / 3:17 pm

      nanu nanu dork

      like gore, edwards, kennedydrunk, barry, bwany, slic etc etc etc?

  22. Cluster November 12, 2011 / 11:14 pm

    Well my team lost today, but alas I am back at the hotel and quite amused by the liberal noise about Gingrich. It’s actually quite amusing. As if never having a divorce qualifies someone as POTUS material. It’s such a juvenile argument, it’s laughable.

    Obama is a great family man with two great children and no divorces, yet he IS the worst president this country has ever had to suffer through. Considering that, I think a philanderer and divorced man just may be the way to go. I just hope Sunny can somehow morally live with that. Lord knows that Sunny is a stickler for morals. LOL.

    Liberals are children – simply nod, smile and move on, and soon they’ll be off on some other tangent. Liberals have the attention span of a 5th grader with ADD.

    • Amazona November 13, 2011 / 10:07 am

      Liberals, the real Liberals, have to focus on superficial things because they know that actually discussing their ideology will lose elections for them faster than anything else.

      Pseudo-Liberals, like the trolls we see here, have to focus on superficialities because, first, their talking heads tell them to, and second, because they don’t know anything more complicated. To them, politics IS just personality, identity, scandal and hysteria.

      • Cluster November 13, 2011 / 10:55 am

        I just saw the video of Newt schooling Scott Pelley on the terrorist question from last nights debate, and I am now 100% in Newt’s camp. He is the smartest, most well versed man in the GOP field and he has a tremendous gift for putting the media in it’s place.

        I implore everyone to Vote for Newt 2012!!!!!

      • tiredoflibbs November 13, 2011 / 10:58 am

        Yes, ama, you nailed it!

        Liberals rarely campaign as liberals. Clinton did not. obAMATEUR did not. Remember he ran as an outsider, a “new kind of politician”, etc. etc.

        Of course, once he took the oath it was business as usual. Liberals always move to the left (from the far left) or move closer to the center and try to appear moderate – running as a liberals gets you into trouble.

        Why do the American people distrust liberals? The answers are the state of the economy, foreign relations, the debt and deficits and no new solutions to solve them just the same tired old reused rhetoric and proposals that has failed before.

  23. dennis November 13, 2011 / 3:10 am

    Neocon: “BUSTED akbar!!”

    Hey, aren’t you supposed to show more respect for your new blog host? Don’t you even THINK before you open your mouth, taking the name of Matt’s new B4V partner in vain?

    Seriously, Neo – get with the program here.

    • neocon1 November 14, 2011 / 1:34 pm

      dennistooge

      Akbar is a name what is your point?
      maybe ill use bwany next time.

  24. dbschmidt November 13, 2011 / 3:33 am

    Let’s take a look at a couple of points about these unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain;

    –Gloria Allred

    –Herman Cain has spent his life living and working all over the country — Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. — but never in Chicago.

    –All the accusers are from Chicago

    –“…Cain’s short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he’s alleged to have been a sexual predator.”

    –So far two off the accusers have direst ties to Axelrod, one other has a direct tie to Obama.

    –Sheila O’Grady, to only one to come forward so far also has a history of claims which have all been proven false.

    –The ‘settlement’ was an HR-related matter–not a payout.

    –Private investigator TJ Ward said presidential hopeful Herman Cain was not lying at a news conference on Tuesday in Phoenix using technology used by over 75 police departments.
    http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16002149/investigator-herman-cain-innocent-of-sexual-advances

    Now, I would have to say that if he did what he has been accused of–he should pay a price; however, at this point it does not appear there is any factual evidence to substantiate these claims. Let everyone put some skin in the game including the often wrong, but always vocal Ms Allred. Let all those that have claims come forward and make those claims and present all of their evidence with defamation as the penalty for falsely accusing. Loss of her law license should be enough to see if the mouthpiece wants to put her credentials where her ever open mouth is now.

    h/t Ann Coulter among others.

    • tiredoflibbs November 13, 2011 / 8:50 am

      db, those facts are too complicated for these simple minded drones.

      All they see is that a “settlement” was paid and that is all the evidence they need of guilt.

      Remember a settlement was paid to Paula Jones (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/pjones.htm) but this by no means was an admission of guilt – the drones would regurgitate.

      Notice that is not how they treat non-liberals.

      Why are you adding to their confusion? You know they will only respond with insult, invective and lies, when they can’t refute your cold hard facts – we have seen this too many times from predictable individuals.

      • dbschmidt November 13, 2011 / 1:27 pm

        Take it for what it is worth, but interesting;

        Report: Cain Accuser Sharon Bialek Fired From NRA For False Accusations Of Sexual Assault

        “In this particular incident she was fired for falsely accusing her boss of sexual harassment, a charge denied by co-workers, as well as being pretty much a pain in the ass to work with.

        “I remember her as a time-waster, and rabble-rouser. If she didn’t get her way she cried about sexual harassment…”

        http://patdollard.com/2011/11/bialek-deconstructed-accustations-quickly-erode-under-scrutiny/

Comments are closed.